home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!rdg.dec.com!edieng.enet.dec.com!goodwin
- From: goodwin@edieng.enet.dec.com (Pete Goodwin)
- Subject: Re: OS differences and improvements
- Message-ID: <1992Sep7.074509.14319@rdg.dec.com>
- Sender: news@rdg.dec.com (Mr News)
- Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
- Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 07:43:17 GMT
- Lines: 20
-
-
- In article <Bu5u02.3n6@ibmpcug.co.uk>, gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes...
-
- >Exactly. They are *icons* - after sufficient use your brain plugs
- >them directly from concept to keyboard while bypassing the semantics
- >of the command name itself. Just like visual icons on windows systems -
- >if you have to work out what they do from the picture, you take *ages*
- >to do anything. It's only after repeated use that the _icon_ comes to
- >represent the concept. Actually, text icons are better than visual
- >ones because the brain has to do more conscious processing to coordinate
- >a move to an icon as opposed to the use of 'muscle memory' in typing runes.
-
- What bothers me about commands like 'ls', 'grep' (or GROPE on Archimedes!) is
- that if they are 'icons' representing some concept, I think they're pretty
- awful icons. It reduces the command line to 'magic incantations' in order to
- get what you want. I'd like to see a CLI that is reasonably easy to understand
- at first glance, rather than one with magic words.
-
- Pete Goodwin
- goodwin@system.enet.dec.com
-