command line vs gui
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: micro solution backpack cd-writer hell
Next: "...error while loading shared libraries: libg2c.so.0"
From: Jacob Sparre Andersen on 4 Dec 2005 04:21 Lee Sau Dan wrote: > But the question is: is a GUI that presents all possible options > _easy_ or _convenient_ to use? Both and neither. ;-) Seriously: I suspect I don't put the same into the words "easy" and "convenient". When it comes to HCIs they're practically synonyms. But I think it makes sense to put easy to explore up against convenient to use. What we (I) typically think of, when talking about GUIs are easily explored mouse-based HCIs, but some programs have so many options that it is hard to make an easily explored interface for them. Going back to the GNU/Unix `find` command; I think it is hard to make a good, easily explorable interface for it. I have been toying with the idea of using the command completion concept for an explorable interface, but it would have to be able to work cleverly with more synonyms for the names of the options to work, and I'm not sure it is really a practical solution. - No matter what, the basic concept of a command line seems to be so foreign for many computer users, that it might be necessary to camuflage it as a mouse-based interface. Greetings, Jacob -- Would you also prefer not to have had to read Victor Hugo? Vote for EU software patents! http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,12449,1510566,00.html
From: Jacob Sparre Andersen on 5 Dec 2005 05:00 Peter T. Breuer wrote: > Because it's NOT infinite. Boolean forms have a "normal form" to > which all may be reduced: Do you really, honestly consider it user friendly to require the user to reduce his/her search criteria to their normal form before giving them to the program? Jacob -- ?Saving keystrokes is the job of the text editor, not the programming language.? -- Preben Randhol
From: Peter T. Breuer on 5 Dec 2005 06:37 In comp.os.linux.misc Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre(a)nbi.dk> wrote: > Peter T. Breuer wrote: >> Because it's NOT infinite. Boolean forms have a "normal form" to >> which all may be reduced: > Do you really, honestly consider it user friendly to require the user > to reduce his/her search criteria to their normal form before giving > them to the program? Please don't draw up strawmen! I did not suggest reducing to normal form - I merely noted that normal form is SUFFICIENT, and since I proposed a method that covers normal form, THAT METHOD is therefore sufficient too. You get to judge whether you like the form I proposed on its own merits or demerits - I suggested a GUI to tick the boxes in for each one of the atomic propositions (i.e. one window, with boxes to tick in it), and a check box asking "finished?". Why is $orld full of people who cannot argue properly? Peter
From: Lee Sau Dan on 6 Dec 2005 00:35 >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Breuer <ptb(a)oboe.it.uc3m.es> writes: >> Here's an example of something that doesn't seem to me to be >> expressible that way: Peter> They all are - boolean normal form. If you REQUIRE you user to transform his intuitive Boolean expression into a normal form before they can use your GUI, then your GUI is really "convenient" and "easy"!!! >> find somedir ( -name "foo*" -a -mtime -1 ) -o ( -name "bar*" -a >> -mtime -2 ) Peter> Boolean normal form. You have written (A & B) | (C & Peter> D). That is the negation of (~A | ~B) & (~C | ~D), which Peter> expands to So, instead of having the computer (via a CLI) solve that normalization problem for the user, you demand that the user solve that problem for the computer (to please the GUI). You're one of the designers who think it is better for human beings to serve the computers, rather than having computers server human beings. You're one of those idiots who think it is a good idea to turn human beings into slaves of computers, rather than building computer systems that sever their masters -- human beings. Peter> ~A & ~C | ~A & ~D | ~B & ~C | ~B & ~D Peter> which is the negation of Peter> (A | B) & (A | D) & (B | C) & (B | D) Peter> (as claimed! See textbooks for the backup hail mary). Why isn't the computer supposed to do that calculation for me? -- Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´° ~{@nJX6X~} E-mail: danlee(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
From: Lee Sau Dan on 6 Dec 2005 00:42
>>>>> "blmblm" == blmblm <blmblm(a)myrealbox.com> writes: blmblm> But for complex search criteria, I question whether this blmblm> will be more effective than the CLI, because it seems to blmblm> me that to use the GUI you're talking about, you must be blmblm> able to express your search criteria in the canonical blmblm> form, and while that is certainly mathematically possible, blmblm> I'm not sure it's something most people will be willing blmblm> and able to do, even ones who are willing and able to blmblm> think in terms of Boolean expressions. Many idiots think that as long as a program has a GUI that allows you to point and click, it is "easy", "intuitive" and "convenient". Even if you have to click 100 buttons and drag 50 times to perform a (simple) operation (which may be doing by typing only 100 characters in a CLI), it's still "easy" and "intuitive" because it's a GUI. As long as the GUI turns the user into a clicking slave, it's "productive". That's their mindset. blmblm> Very possibly there's still something I'm not getting! I remember someone here (or in another newsgroup) saying that he has the impression that computers nowadays are not driven by electricity from the power plants, but from the users pumping the mouse. GUIs are really more productive than the CLI -- in terms of the generation of the noise from the clicking and the heat from the friction between the mouse and the desk or mouse pad. -- Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´° ~{@nJX6X~} E-mail: danlee(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee |