NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/sys/amiga/programmer/7118

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 6.5 KB

Path: nic.wi.leidenuniv.nl!jvermeul
From: [e-mail] (J.T.Vermeulen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: Say *perhaps* to fat binaries (was: what the new amiga-os *must* have)
Date: 9 Apr 1996 19:57:06 GMT
Organization: Mathematics & Computer Science, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands
Message-ID: <4kefei$[e-mail]>
References: <4k934i$[e-mail]> <4k9gt2$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ind206ab.wi.leidenuniv.nl

In article <4k9gt2$[e-mail]>,
Cmarschn <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Im Artikel <4k934i$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]

>1) I was talking about the inconsistency at the behaviour of different
>gadgets, like cycle gadgets, radio buttons etc. The OK->close issue is
>another problem.

<sigh> My point precisely.  The discussion was about keyboard shortcuts,
and how you perceived Windows to be better in that respect, as I recall.
Hence my statement that you miss the point when you shift over to some
other aspect that is besides the debate and more or less declare victory.


>2) This problem is solved by the leading User Interface, Windows, and many
>other interfaces, like OS/2, in the following way: A default button is
>surrounded by a thick rectangle, showing that if you press return, it will
>react as if this button was pressed, with the result that the window is
>closed.

Yes, and the example we were discussing is whether or not this was the
appropriate choice when editing in string buttons.  But IMHO the choice
to make the string gadget *not* handle <return> but pass it on to the
window, which then passes it back down to the default gadget is more
harmful than convenient.

Since you have failed to deliver any kind of substantial argument for
Windows' approach here, your claim gives the impression of a hit-and-run
job if you refuse to either support it, discuss it further, or admit that
it is a matter of personal taste at best (whichever you think is right).

That is why I said you missed the point in your previous post.

As for the business with other gadgets:  Yes, it would be nice to be able
to control them from the keyboard.  *As I said*, the point where I disagree
is how "dangerous" the choice of keys should be.  You don't need to repeat
all that, as I explicitly stated that I wasn't contradicting you there.


>7) I formatted my hard drive two or three times in the last 6 years,
>forced by unrepairable errors. During that operation, no other
>applications were reachable, because they were just on the way to be
>deleted.
>
>8) Conclusion: The amount of actions that are irreversible tend to be 0.
>The ordinary user is *not* doing network setups. Irreversible actions are
>not done in the background.

What you say here shows remarkable contempt for the user.  If you insist
on this attitude, you might as well stay on the Microsoft side altogether
instead of hovering between the two.

I am a user.  If I am not an "ordinary" user, too bad for you.  I own and
use Amigas for MY work and MY pleasure and it goes beyond your, and anybody
else's, responsibility to restrict that, to impair that, or even to judge
that.  No company can afford the hubris to assume that they can do the
thinking for their customers.  The Edsel died because of that; Video 2000
died largely for that reason; and had John van Hoeke not been murdered
just prior to the release of Windows 95, even Microsoft could have died
by the same cause.

Now let's look from the other perspective:  A complete novice.  For an
accustomed user it may be hard to imagine, but many novice users see the
keyboard, at least the letter keys etc, as a built-in typewriter. The
very concept of a computer may be new to him (we've all been like that),
and you just can't judge what he's thinking.  So he presses some keys,
perhaps the cat just walked over the keyboard too, and to all probability
some requester is going to pop up on the assumption that the user
consciously initiated some action.  In fact the requester may not even tell
him what kind of action he's supposed to have initiated.

The requester is real big and authoritative-looking and speaks on an urgent
tone about C:\ being erased (or whatever).  How often will users decide
that "well, if that's what the computer wants to do we'll have to humour it"?


>9) It's much slower to move the hand to the mouse, press a button and go
>back than to press Return.

>10) It's much slower and unhandier to press RAmiga-O instead of Return or
>at least Tab-Tab-Tab-Return.
>
>11) The option to deactivate the keyboard can be upheld at tasks that may
>destroy anything.
>
>12) Conclusion: There is no reason why the system should not support the
>keyboard for the User Interface control as the most popular OSes do.

Yesyesyes, we *know* that and nobody has contradicted you on that point.
Perhaps that is why you feel the need to repeat it instead of facing the
problem with the solution you advocate, ie. mimicking Windows.

Note that point 10, although partly untrue and self-contradictory, comes
slightly closer to the real problem:  Which is the safer choice?

Unfortunately you seem to have used the opportunity to sneer at the Amiga
solution (which *I* still prefer by a large margin) instead of making a
real point.  As it didn't support your intended conclusion anyway (and
indeed weakened it, strictly speaking), you might as well have omitted it.

Perhaps it shows us something of your deeper intentions?

>13) While I was writing this message on a PC, I (again) haven't lost any
>information by a careless misuse of the return key.

Excuse me, but if you feel the need to parade triumphantly with the fact
that your favoured approach didn't cause any accidents "again", then in
my opinion it makes you look far more idiotic than admitting that you're
wrong.  With regard to other users, your reversal of logic makes you look
stupid in addition.

Much worse, the continued assumption that you can judge other users'
situations and needs better than they can makes you look arrogant.
Please stop it.


>----///-------------------------------------------------------
>\\\///  Clemens Marschner           [e-mail] (Germany)
>-\///---------------------------------------------------------


--
============================================================================
#  Jeroen T. Vermeulen   \"How are we doing kid?"/   Yes, we use Amigas.   #
#---  [e-mail]    ---\"Oh, same as always."/--         ...          --#
#[e-mail] \ "That bad, huh?"  /  Got a problem with that? #