Re: User interfaces (was: XGS/32 v1.4b Released!)

[phoenyx <quazar@dcnet2000.com>]

Pim Blokland wrote:

> I disagree. Why would you call that a "strength"? Isn't it easier, even
> for a non-technical user, to be able to distinguish between the operating
> system and the applications more clearly?

To those of us who like to tinker/hack/etc... our computers as opposed to
using them with real life applications, it is not a strength. That was part
of
my earlier points. However for the day to day user who needs to get their
job done with a minimum of fuss, it is one of it's best strengths. Sadly,
most
computer users need the security of loading an application and being
familiar
with the interface even if they have never used it before.

I like to be able to tell the difference. I also like to have the most
control
possible of the computer I use. Yet, according to Microsoft, Apple and
a few others who have run surveys on the subject. The average user will
benefit if they cannot tell where the OS ends and the application begins.
This is part of the logic used by MS when they incorporated their browser
into the new Windows OS. The browser became the standard file viewer,
utility, etc... and interface for many of the common applications. The ones
which can't fit in this category tend to follow the MS Office interface. New

programs which don't follow these standards have a harder time of being
accepted. This is evidenced by the fact that Microsoft's OS and Office
programs tend to dominate the business world even though there are better
applications for many of the tasks they perform. I agree with at least one
of
their reasons. If the user does not have to think about the 'tool' they are
using, they can be more productive. An example would be an author. If he
had to spend half of his time concentrating on the word processor he was
using, he will be spending less time on actually writing, which is the main
reason for using the word processor in the first place.

I can't vouch for the Mac as I'm not a Mac user, but it's been one of the
biggest selling points for the MS OS's since Windows began and also one
of the major complaints for MS-Dos users everywhere. The average DOS
user with only office oriented skills generally had problems with new
software
until they learned the program. And of course businesses did not like to
spend money retraining people on new software. So individuality suffers.

If you remember the days of the Apple II era, you'll remember that many
of us disliked the use of a standard interface. We liked our software to be
unique. There were several IIgs publishers who went against Apple's
recommended suggestions for the 'Human Interface'. Of course these
publishers were slighted by Apple Inc. and APDA. Some to the point of
not being able to sell their software through APDA and even losing sales
due to the negative responses. Some really great music programs come to
mind, as well as the Diversified products.

> [lots of stuff snipped with which I agree]
>
> > millennium, but I expect other readers are going to complain
> > about this PC thread.
>
> Naah... if you focus on user interface, Mac OS and (to a lesser degree)
> Windows share a lot of features with GS/OS. So just throw the word GS/OS
> in, once in a while, and no one will notice that it's really about
> X-Windows.
>

Ok, I'll try and keep that in mind. :-)

Part of the reason I didn't jump on the IIgs and the GS/OS band wagon
was Apple's requirements for meeting their 'Human Interface' minimum
standards. In order to make this possible, they loaded the GS with tons of
toolbox calls which in many ways degraded the performance of applications.
No, not all applications. There are many which benefit from the common
interface, but not all.

Now before you guys complain, I understand why Apple and the others
want these standards. Easier software makes for easier usage which makes
for higher sales. With the Mac this was necessary since the machine is
strictly graphical and designed to follow a strict set of rules concerning
user interface. But Apple and it's software and hardware publishers had
to go to great lengths on occasion to meet this criteria.

I think that the graphical interface should allow for more creativity in
the interface. It should be up to the developer to ensure the interface is
easily usable within the context of the application. At this point I will
admit that the Windows 98 series have made great improvements in this
area but in many instances it has taken some fairly powerful hardware
to make this possible. If I could have put half of the hardware power in
my wife's 686 Windows 98 powered box into my Apple I would have a
dream machine.

Then again, a common interface makes it easier for the programmer to
use canned routines. This in turn allows for application development
programs such as Visual Basic and the MS Office series which rely on
the Visual Basic engine for a majority of it's functionality. Which in turn
allows the software developers to pump out programs much quicker and
with a higher profit margin. Of course MS doesn't have a monopoly on
this method of development, Linux and X-windows use it also. I expect
this is true for the Mac and every other computer system ever built. As a
programmer, it is in your best interest to create re-usable code. This has
other benefits besides the interface. Primarily code quality. By re-using
tested code, you can create better programs with fewer bugs.

Once again, I apologize for the soapbox attitude. I tend to get carried
away.
But I think we can be grateful that we have different OS's to choose from.
Just think how boring computers would be if we all had to use the same
hardware, software and methodologies. I think I would quit using them if
that were the case.

Phoenyx