Text 2080, 149 rader
Skriven 2006-06-07 23:27:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2526.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Gregory Weston to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <uce-6BDAEA.17363907062006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>
@REPLY: <oO6dnfNuDIXNEhzZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com>
In article <602e82l0kjmcjj1onrvk4stpsl8077h4if@4ax.com>,
 Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> There just aren't enough ways to do things in a Mac. In the PC, you
> >> can do everything from the keyboard and the interface is feature rich.
> >> For example, only fairly recently did the Mac acquire context menus,
> >
> >False. The Mac OS had contextual menus in 1987. No stock component of 
> >the system used them, but that's a _very_ different statement
> 
> Doesn't seem so to me. A capability ain't a capability if it ain't
> used.

A) That's a false statement.
B) I didn't say it wasn't used. I said it wasn't used by any stock 
components of the system. Those are different notions.

> >and it was 
> >a conscious decision based on a fair amount of usability testing. (The 
> >Finder in the very earliest test builds of System 7.0 did have context 
> >menus.)
> 
> Just goes to show that usability testing can be a crock.

Um. Reproducible empirical data don't agree with your fetish, so the 
reproducible empirical data are flawed?

> >> and only very recently were they right-clickable.
> >
> >Again, false. Unless you have a strange notion of "very recently."
> 
> Dude, they didn't even have more than one button on the mouse until
> what, a year ago?

On the stock mouse, yes. So?

> You could of course buy a third party mouse, but the
> bottom line is that there were lots of Macs out there without usable,
> accessible, right clickable context menus long after people were using
> them on PC's.

Again, so? Anyone who wanted a multi-button mouse on the Mac in the last 
15 years had one. Admittedly notebook users were in a bit of a spot (and 
I'm frankly surprised that they've not done the same thing with the 
trackpad button that they did with their current mouse to support 
multiple click zones) but I can't take seriously anyone who objects to a 
desktop Mac based on the number of buttons in the included pointing 
device.

> >> But any PC user who
> >> had used them could tell you that they save a /lot/ of time.
> >
> >And for PC users, they _do_ save a lot of time. But there are some 
> >fundamental differences in the UI of the Mac from that of Windows that 
> >mean that benefit doesn't, in the general case, survive.
> 
> Such as?

In context? The comparison between screen-hosted, window-hosted and 
contextual menus. Contextual menus are a _huge_ win over window-hosted 
menu bars. But they're generally a significant loss in effeciveness 
and/or efficiency compared to the screen-rooted menu structure of the 
Mac.

> >> >> Combine that with Jobs's stubborn insistence on removing power and
> >> >> expandability from his machines -- the tiny built-in monochrome
> >> >> monitor on the original Mac, yada
> >> >
> >> >You might want to think back to the context in which the Mac existed 
> >> >when it was designed and the market for whom it was intended. You seem 
> >> >to have lost some context in the intervening 22 years.
> >> 
> >> I mentioned that because we were addressing reputations, which in this
> >> case were for the most part formed many years ago.
> >
> >Yes, but when the Mac was introduced, that display was eminently 
> >suitable for the market for which it was introduced. You saw "tiny 
> >built-in monochrome monitor" as a bad thing. But physically the CRT 
> >wasn't significantly smaller than most other displays in use in 1984
> 
> Actually, it was, ...

Actually, it wasn't. (Your turn.) 9- and 10-inch CRTs were quite common 
when the Mac was introduced.

> and that made more of a difference given that
> monitors back then were so small.

And oddly you're the first person I've ever heard suggest that the Mac's 
screen was a turn-off to any significant number of people. Most people 
never seemed to get past the fact that there was no compatibility with 
any legacy software even for Apple's prior machines.


> >> I don't believe that, never have. I don't like systems that are geeky
> >> or aren't friendly, and there's plenty of that. But I don't like
> >> systems that are cutesy and talk down, either, or that substitute
> >> visual orientation for ergonometrics, or that reduce the power user to
> >> the least common denominator.
> >
> >I think we've probably left any sort of common ground for discussion 
> >right there. I don't, and have never, understood the term "power user." 
> >It's meaningless to me, and seems to generally be thrown out as a 
> >prelude to an elitist dismissal.
> 
> I confess you've mystified me here.

I'm not sure how. I don't understand the term power user. That's fairly 
straightforward. I don't understand it because it doesn't actually have 
anything resembling an agreed-upon meaning. You followed up with two 
paragraphs describing traits of those you do and don't consider power 
users but how would anyone know that's what _you_ meant just from those 
two little words? Maybe for someone else a power user doesn't dig into 
the innards of their system but does use their machine in such a way 
that the resources are routinely taxed. And, as I said, typically when I 
run into the phrase it's the ramp for a rant about how one persons' 
needs trump every other concern.


> By way of contrast, I've noticed that that smiling face and simplicity
> hold a powerful attraction for people who are scared of computers. And
> I've met more than a few Mac users, including some very smart ones,
> who were convinced that PC's were hard to set up and use long after
> they'd become for all intents and purposes as easy to use as a Mac.

There are a lot of non-novice people who don't agree with that last 
statement. Half of the network services department in my company have 
switched to Macs as their primary home machines in the last 3 years 
precisely because they're tired of maintaining Windows boxes and don't 
want to have to do it in their free time as well. And while I'm a 
Windows programmer by profession, I won't go near Windows without being 
paid. It's not worth it to me.

G

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.
                                                                               
                                     
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)