Subject: Re: FYI: Your dialog isn't Modeless
From: sam th (sam@bur-jud-118-039.rh.uchicago.edu)
Date: Mon May 29 2000 - 18:08:26 CDT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 27 May 2000 JefRaskin@aol.com wrote:
> You know, what amazes me is that the gung-ho world of Linux, with its
> once-radical ideas of open source and distributed, voluntary development
> (great stuff), and its simpler, smarter approach to software, is so backward
> with respect to UI. The UI is in as much or more need of fundamental revision
> than the operating system. But the Linux world seems to be in abject slavery
> to Microsoft's incredibly crude designs.
>
> It isn't that scroll bars are too small, it's that they are plain wrong. You
> say, "this is a property we inherit from the window manager". That is no
> excuse. The window manager is wrong from a UI perspective, so why use it?
What you are advocating here is totally doing away with the idea of user
interface consistency. Even if I were to grant that a totally new system
would be an improvement, we don't have that system available. So we are
forced to code for the systems that currently exist. And they use scroll
bars.
>
> You say that you are not sure if you like the Mac menu bar at the edge of the
> display, well, whether you like it or not, it has an over 2:1 speed advantage
> (for the same user effort) to the unix/windows style. When a simple change,
> to a piece of hardware or software, doubles the speed without losing any
> other properties, then it is worth doing.
>
When the top of the window is against the top of the screen, this is true.
What I don't like about the mac is how the currently active application
monopolizes the menu bar. I reguarly run 5 or 6 windows in the same
screen, and I like being able to see all the menu bars, and in the correct
place. Putting them all at the top would be a hassle. Additonally, for 6
of my 9 virtual desktops, moving to the top just moves to another desktop,
so the property of infinite height is still lost.
> Of course, menu bars are wrong in the first place.
>
See my reply about scroll bars.
> Icons, as I explain in detail in my book, are another UI mistake. You ask if
> some of these icons are less than optimal: they all are.
>
> If you really want to make a word processor as user-friendly as possible,
> find a way to take a look at a Canon Cat, or at least read about it (I hate
> to mention my book, but a lot of this stuff is in there)
Well, I guess I will look at your book, but you seem to be advocating
abandoning consistency, which is, IMHO, what makes AbiWord easy to use for
someone who has used a word processor before (or even another
application). I don't think that would be a net gain.
sam th
sam@uchicago.edu
http://sam.rh.uchicago.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE5Mvhrt+kM0Mq9M/wRAppBAJ9+8Ck5GsWJ4PJbFrjq52P3Ndl9tACfQnWc
rwfMSPxAejfGN10LjFtfd6s=
=vUlK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon May 29 2000 - 18:08:40 CDT