Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 21:47:41 -0600 From: Mike Meyer <mwm-dated-1016768862.7cc059@mired.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Chip Morton <tech_info@threespace.com> Cc: FreeBSD Chat <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: The Great Gui Debate. Message-ID: <15508.4573.933029.886085@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <3C93B514.9AB4BB7E@mindspring.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020316112644.01b11558@threespace.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020316100234.01b21638@threespace.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020315181331.01b26160@threespace.com> <20020314204235.L152-100000@pogo.caustic.org> <15505.28725.937368.158235@guru.mired.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20020315190230.01b2a4f8@threespace.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020316131434.01b22178@threespace.com> <3C93B514.9AB4BB7E@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In <3C93B514.9AB4BB7E@mindspring.com>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> typed: > Chip Morton wrote: > Second, his design philosophy is that you build the interface, > and the build the underlying system to support it. In this > philosophy, it's impossible to glue a UI on an existing system > and meet the design goal, unless you design the UI, and then > go looking for a system that matches it and can be forced into > supporting it, and/or build a new system from scratch. He wants to replace the entire paradigm of how people use computers. Trying to glue the GUI he designed for the Cannon Cat on top of a "normal" system - or vice versa - would be painfull. > You seem upset that someone else might be able to dictate > your UI. The answer is that it's not dictation, it's a > consensus. The government you live under right now is > consensual; not everyone can install the "society manager" > of their choice, or an entirely different "society system", > if the current one doesn't suit them. Basically, you are > arguing that anarchy pleases you. 8-). I'm upset about having the "society manager" dictated to me as well, but that's a different thread. I disagree with Jef on this issue. Computers should adopt to people, not vice versa. Forcing someone to do things your way is not inhumane, exactly the opposite of what Jef was aiming for. > > I really think that the shortcomings in Raskin's arguments become apparent > > when he mentions the ridiculous prospect of using a wallpaper that looks > > like open windows. Who the hell would do something that stupid? Besides > > him, I guess. > Someone who likes to screw with people would do it. Someone > who doesn't want someone else to be able to casually look at > their screen and see what's really going on there. Someone > with poor taste in backgrounds. Someone who doesn't have a > copy of that picture of your girlfriend. THere are a lot of > bad background choices; the argument is called a "reductio ad > absurdum". I've actually been bitten by this one. It was a randomly selected screensaver that left something looking like normal windows on the screen. I tried to use it, and it didn't work very well. > Even if you agree with none of his other premises, you have > to agree that an interface that permits converting the > product from its intended use to a doorstop is a poorly > designed interface. That depends on whether or not you need a doorstop :-). You should know the quote about Unix that's relevant - preventing people from doing stupid things is a bad idea, because it also prevents people from doing clever things. In <4.3.2.7.2.20020316131434.01b22178@threespace.com>, Chip Morton <tech_info@threespace.com> typed: > At 12:35 PM 3/16/2002, Mike Meyer wrote: > >In <4.3.2.7.2.20020316112644.01b11558@threespace.com>, Chip Morton > ><tech_info@threespace.com> typed: > > > Look, if you or Lambert or Raskin or anybody else think that you have a > > > better idea, then have at it. If you build a mousetrap that is truly > > > better than the one we use now, then I'm sure the world will quickly > > beat a > > > path to your doorstep. > >Mine's plpwm. It's part of the plwm port. > And I can respect that you decided to take things into your own hands and > make improvements to your own workstation. But you haven't gone so far as > to claim, "I'm right, and you're all wrong and stupid for using your > inferior window managers." I'll probably check out plpwm one of these > days, but if I decide to stick with KDE, I would hope that you wouldn't be > calling me a moron who had relegated himself to sub-optimal productivity > for the rest of his life. Nope, I wouldn't. How can you possibly call something a personal computer if you can't personalize it? > >The people I know who were serious about real-time recording moved to > >either DAT or mini-disks a long time ago. Then again, most of them > >have since give those up, and do real-time capture to disk, edit and > >mix on the computer, then burn the CD. > I use MDs for my real-time recording, but I still usually have to move the > results to CD if I want to share the results with anybody or be able to > truly play it anywhere. These extra steps don't improve the product, they > just allow much wider distribution. If the music industry hadn't decided > to fight recordable digital formats (as they continue to do even with > widely available CD-R technology), that might not be necessary. Um - why don't you just let them use their MD player? They don't have one, so you have to convert it to something that they have. How's that different from doing it on CD, other than that CD players are a lot more common than MD players? And trying to blame Jef Raskin for the recording industries stupidity is really pushing things. > >Why are you assuming that you'd hate Raskin - or my - way of doing > >things? Personally, I hate the MS/Apple GUI way of doing things. > I'm not saying that I would hate it. What I hate is his peering down his > nose at the rest of the computing world and telling us what morons we are > for continuing to use these obviously inferior GUIs. In my view, it's a > matter of personal preference and opinion, not an issue of right or > wrong. And if efficiency isn't your holy grail, Raskin's ideas quickly > lose clout. I missed that quote. Could you provide a relatively exact reference? Like, down to a paragraph level? > > > > The actual look of a window manager (or car, or woman, or anything else) > > > > only matters very early up front. You may be wowed by the look of the > > > > windows and widgets early on, but after that it really doesn't matter to > > > > you while you're working. > > >Actually, it does matter. If you notice them, then you're not > > >working. That's why the look matters. Being wow'ed early on is usually > > >a bad sign, not a good one. > > Again I disagree. Over a long period of time, people will get used to > > whatever shiny baubles they were impressed with early on. My candy-colored > > scrollbars don't make me any more/less efficient than if I had a simple > > two-color scrollbar. I don't pay them any attention any more until I have > > to scroll something. > >In this case, we just have to agree to disagree. I remember to many > >people being *very* happy when the Amiga lost it's "halloween" color > >scheme as the default. > I was happy too, but not because I became any more efficient. I was happy > because the Halloween scheme was kinda ugly. :-) Ah, so the actual look of the window manager *does* matter. > >In fact, one of the things that sucks about the common > >interfaces is that all they let you change are the trivial things like > >the looks, but not any of the important things that would actually > >make them more efficient, not just glitzier. > I agree with you about being able to do significant configurations rather > than simple cosmetic ones. But again, if Raskin believes that a standard > interface is essential for maintaining productivity levels across different > computers used for similar tasks, then it stands to reason that giving you > an interface that allowed you to move your widgets wherever you please > would run counter to that goal. You can't have it both ways. Yes, you can. What you need is a standardized - and unchangeable - way to put the intervace back to the standard. I.e. - Control-Alt-Backspace, or some such. Problem solved. > Now I do agree that for an organization it is probably beneficial to > enforce some of these standards. These computers aren't the property of > the individuals; they belong to the organization. But some of us actually > use our computers because we *enjoy* it, not because we have any > particularly pressing task to accomplish. And I don't think my opinion is > any less significant because I like my windows rendered in 24-bit color. Hopefully, an organization out to make a profit would realize that letting people adapt the computer to their work habits rather than vice versa is a good thing. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15508.4573.933029.886085>