command line vs gui
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: micro solution backpack cd-writer hell
Next: "...error while loading shared libraries: libg2c.so.0"
From: Tobias Brox on 7 Dec 2005 00:30 [Lee Sau Dan] > it's still inefficient, counter-productive, counter-intuitive, > user-unfriendly. You're simply reinforcing the claim that a decent > GUI can't be made for 'find'. Still easier than to RTFM, if one is to use the tool only once a month. -- This signature has been virus scanned, and is probably safe to read Tobias Brox, 69?42'N, 18?57'E
From: blmblm on 7 Dec 2005 06:48 In article <ahvg63-aqb.ln1(a)news.it.uc3m.es>, Peter T. Breuer <ptb(a)oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote: >In comp.os.linux.misc blmblm(a)myrealbox.com wrote: >> Well, you have said: > >>>>>I was imagining that checking many checkboxes give you an OR. > >> and also > >>>>>> As I understand it, your GUI represents A & B & C & D with four >>>>>> panels, >>> >>>>>Panels? checkboxes. One panel for all. > >> To me this second comment seems to indicate that you have checkboxes >> representing things (filters) to be AND'd together. > >No it doesn't. I don't know why you think so! Read the above dialog one more time. I say "four panels for A&B&C&D", and you reply "panels? checkboxes". If you truly don't understand why this might make me think you mean to represent A, B, C, and D as checkboxes within a single panel, then we probably should stop trying to communicate, because it's not clear it's a good use of anyone's time. Unless .... >All the checkboxes >appear on one panel, and checking multiple boxes means OR. You get AND >by piping filters together (i.e., clicking "again"). Maybe we don't mean the same thing by "panel". I'm not sure how to give a precise definition of what I mean, but something like "an instance of your basic GUI frame with its set of checkboxes", such that you get one of them at first, and clicking on "more" brings up another one. I think there may be a one-to-one correspondence between the "filters" of your conceptual model and the "panels" of the GUI I'm trying to imagine based on your description. [ snip ] >>>You just choose "again". > >> So now we *might* be back to representing either expressions in the >> equivalent of CNF, or the equivalent of DNF, or possibly one or the >> other. > >I don't know what you mean. One does no "representing"! I think the >problem is what I fingered below ... I think it's more likely, with regard to the above interchange, that we don't mean the same thing by "representing". I'm using it in a fairly inclusive sense (not text only, i.e.), such that the state of your GUI (which checkboxes are checked, what text is typed into any textboxes, etc.) is a representation of the selection criteria for the search. Why didn't I say that? well, I suppose I hoped that when I said "equivalent of CNF" you would interpret that to mean some, um, "representation" that could be mapped one-to-one onto CNF expressions involving the basic "find" search terms (-mtime, -name, etc.). I don't know how else to say what I mean here, but your comment "one does no 'representing'!" suggests to me that we're not in the same mental universe. [snip] >>>I don't see the difficulty. What you say is required is not required. >>>Your argument seems to boil down to "english is difficult for most >>>people to speak because one has to translate from the chinese into >>>english and most people can't do that". No - english is not difficult. >>>One just "thinks in english", not in chinese. > >> If one is a native Chinese speaker who is attempting, as an adult, to >> learn English, English is difficult. > >Then stop doing that - people don't have any problem speaking english, >or in clicking checkboxes. That you want to first express your problem >in chinese (arbitrarily nested symbolic logic) and then translate into >english (clicking) doesn't make the objective difficult - it just means >you should "stop doing it that way" and think in english ("clicking") >instead. This is just silly. "People don't have any problem speaking English" indeed. This is patently false, so much so that I can't imagine why anyone would say it other than as flame bait or some such. Since it's not really germane to the argument here, I won't provide counterexamples, but I think you could find them in any major city in the world. As for the claim that someone who understands Boolean algebra and is accustomed to thinking of search criteria in those terms should "stop doing it that way" and point and click .... Them's fightin' words. I suppose one could make a case for the idea that everyone should speak English, and everyone should communicate with computers using a GUI, but I don't think you'd get universal acceptance of this "one size fits all" approach, nor am I at all convinced that you should. > >> "So what?" Well, I would claim that if one is fluent with the CLI for >> find, or with Boolean expressions in general, it will be difficult to >> express one's meaning with the GUI .... > >No language is any different to any other in terms of difficulty. You >should stop making an issue out of translation and instead concentrate >on whether or not it is easy to use, and such. > Easy to use for whom? I claim we are not all alike. For some people, "easy to use" means "makes it easy to do simple things", period. For others, it means "doesn't make it impossible to do complicated things". I put myself in the latter category. But perhaps in comp.human-factors the theory is that we *are* all alike, and one size *does* fit all. We may be past the point of diminishing returns here. [ snip ] -- | B. L. Massingill | ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
From: blmblm on 7 Dec 2005 07:07 In article <4k0h63-ele.ln1(a)news.it.uc3m.es>, Peter T. Breuer <ptb(a)oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote: >In comp.os.linux.misc blmblm(a)myrealbox.com wrote: >> All right, let me try in English, no Boolean algebra allowed: > >> Suppose I want to find all the .bak files (criterion A) modified in >> the last 24 hours (criterion B), plus all the .tmp files (criterion C). > >> I think what you're telling me is that I need to first click "name >> matches .bak" (checkbox A) and "name matches .tmp" (checkbox C), >> then "again", then "modified in the last 24 hours" (checkbox B) and >> "name matches .tmp" (checkbox C), then "finish". > >> I cannot imagine how that would be obvious to anyone not able to >> write and transform the Boolean expression. > >:-). reading the descriptin, it sounds perfectly natural to me! We are in different mental universes. It doesn't to me. But perhaps someone unfamiliar with Boolean expressions would also find it perfectly natural. <shrug> >One mistake is in thinking that somebody not familiar with Boole >would even know what "OR" means (exclusive? Why can't you get it OR >grok it?). So, you're saying that someone unfamiliar with Boolean expressions is unable to imagine searching for something that meets one or more of some given criteria? No, that can't be it, since your basic set of checkboxes is meant to capture that idea. People unfamiliar with Boolean algebra probably don't have a precise notion of what "OR" means in the context of Boolean algebra. The English word is somewhat ambiguous, sometimes meaning "exclusive or" and sometimes not. But to claim that they don't even know what OR means seems a bit .... exaggerated, or disingenuous, or something. And I'm very skeptical that one has to have a precise notion of what OR means in the context of Boolean algebra to make sense of my example. >> My point is that Google's interface restricts what you can search for. >> Yes, I can do two searches, but how do I combine the results? > >You use something other than google. What is the point of this >argument? Where is it going? It's an example of an interface that restricts what you can do, where a different interface to the same underlying system might not. I *think* you're the one who brought up Google, saying "it understands AND and stuff." Perhaps I misinterpreted "and stuff" to mean "and other/all Boolean expressions", and we were off on another argument whose point, if any, got lost along the way. [ snip ] >Shrug. Seconded! though this has been interesting, if sometimes frustrating. -- | B. L. Massingill | ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
From: blmblm on 7 Dec 2005 07:09 In article <211h63-1mg.ln1(a)news.it.uc3m.es>, Peter T. Breuer <ptb(a)oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote: >In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <ptb(a)oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.misc blmblm(a)myrealbox.com wrote: >>> All right, let me try in English, no Boolean algebra allowed: > >>> Suppose I want to find all the .bak files (criterion A) modified in >>> the last 24 hours (criterion B), plus all the .tmp files (criterion C). > >>> I think what you're telling me is that I need to first click "name >>> matches .bak" (checkbox A) and "name matches .tmp" (checkbox C), >>> then "again", then "modified in the last 24 hours" (checkbox B) and >>> "name matches .tmp" (checkbox C), then "finish". > >>> I cannot imagine how that would be obvious to anyone not able to >>> write and transform the Boolean expression. > >> :-). reading the descriptin, it sounds perfectly natural to me! > >I misread your description. There is no "again". You click the two >checkboxes, then run the search. "again" brings up a new filter to pipe >into (configured the same as the last to start with), which you don't >need. Which two checkboxes? There seem to be three involved/needed. -- | B. L. Massingill | ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
From: Peter T. Breuer on 7 Dec 2005 07:34
In comp.os.linux.misc blmblm(a)myrealbox.com wrote: > In article <211h63-1mg.ln1(a)news.it.uc3m.es>, > Peter T. Breuer <ptb(a)oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote: >>In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <ptb(a)oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote: >>> In comp.os.linux.misc blmblm(a)myrealbox.com wrote: >>>> All right, let me try in English, no Boolean algebra allowed: >> >>>> Suppose I want to find all the .bak files (criterion A) modified in >>>> the last 24 hours (criterion B), plus all the .tmp files (criterion C). >> >>>> I think what you're telling me is that I need to first click "name >>>> matches .bak" (checkbox A) and "name matches .tmp" (checkbox C), >>>> then "again", then "modified in the last 24 hours" (checkbox B) and >>>> "name matches .tmp" (checkbox C), then "finish". >> >>>> I cannot imagine how that would be obvious to anyone not able to >>>> write and transform the Boolean expression. >> >>> :-). reading the descriptin, it sounds perfectly natural to me! >> >>I misread your description. There is no "again". You click the two >>checkboxes, then run the search. "again" brings up a new filter to pipe >>into (configured the same as the last to start with), which you don't >>need. > Which two checkboxes? There seem to be three involved/needed. OK, ok - check A and C on the first panel, then "again", then unclick A and check B instead (maintaining C checked) on the new panel. Then click "finish/search". Peter |