command line vs gui
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: micro solution backpack cd-writer hell
Next: "...error while loading shared libraries: libg2c.so.0"
From: Lee Sau Dan on 8 Dec 2005 12:14 >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Breuer <ptb(a)oboe.it.uc3m.es> writes: >> Well, you seem to me to be proposing a GUI that only allows >> entering expressions in conjunctive normal form. How do you >> propose that users enter expressions that are not in CNF? Peter> They do not know or care. The question was "how", not "whether". >> If your answer is "all expressions can be converted to CNF" >> .... Who/what is doing the converting? Peter> Nobody - they can't write anything else (it's not CNF, but Peter> something that covers cnf, but still). They simply click Peter> and try a search and if they don't like the result they Peter> click again to modify the search - no thinking (about cnf Peter> or otherwise) is required any more than you need to know Peter> SQL when putting items into a google search (yes, it Peter> understands AND and stuff). Show us your design, or shut up. -- Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´° ~{@nJX6X~} E-mail: danlee(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
From: Peter T. Breuer on 8 Dec 2005 12:13 In comp.os.linux.misc Lee Sau Dan <danlee(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote: >>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Breuer <ptb(a)oboe.it.uc3m.es> writes: > >> Read the above dialog one more time. I say "four panels for > >> A&B&C&D", and you reply "panels? checkboxes". > Peter> They are CHECKBOXES! Not "panels". > So, you build that GUI and let us see what it is like. Didn't you say > it's "trivial"? Dunno! > Peter> They are CHECKBOXES. Depending on how you wish to combine > Peter> them, they will be on the SAME or DIFFERENT panels. ALL > Peter> the options are present on EACH panel. I read your A & B & > Peter> C & D as written shorthand without any formal meaning. > To let us communicate better, you should build the GUI now, instead of > wasting any more time arguing here. Come back when you're finished, > and let us evaluate your GUI demo. That is being silly. > Peter> Please stop making absurd arguments! Nobody is requiring > Peter> everyone to speak english, I merely pointed out that is > Peter> "easy". You know it is! > No, English isn't easy. Yes it is. For human beings, at any rate. Are we talking about humans? > Peter> Billions of people can do it to a greater or lesser degree, > That doesn't mean it's easy. Yes it does. > Peter> just as a billion or so can read and write chinese. > But many people find that difficult, too! No - they all find it very easy. I studied a little chinese from a book, and I can tell you it was easy. The classic symbols had nice visual meanings that I could easily understand without the inconvenience of having to translate to sounds, and listen to the result in my head. For example, the word for "trouble" is a picture of two women under one roof. The word for "love" is a picture of a woman and a child. "child "looks like a swaddled baby. "Sun" is a stylised circle (a square). "Moon" is a stylised circle with a dot in it (square with bar). "Bright" is sun and moon together. "Big" is a man with his arms stretched wide. "Man" looks like a pair of legs and a trunk. All very easy. I leave you to intuit the meaning of the symbol consisting of a man next to an open doorway. Peter
From: Lee Sau Dan on 8 Dec 2005 12:19 >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Breuer <ptb(a)oboe.it.uc3m.es> writes: >> How do I enter something that gives the functionality of "(A >> and B) or C"? Peter> Chose A, C checkboxes. Click "again". Chose B, C Peter> checkboxes. Click "finish" ("search", whatever). So, you've done the conversion to CNF in your brain, haven't you? And what should you do when C is not an atomic predicate, but a more complicated Boolean expression? You need to click tons of checkboxes twice (once before "again" and once after it)? That's REALLY user-friendly! >> For that matter, how do I combine checkboxes to get the >> equivalent of this command?: >> find . -name "*.bak" -o -mtime -1 Peter> Click two of them. And it doesn't mean: find . -name "*.bak" -a -mtime -1 instead? Can you GUI magically read your mind to find that out? Peter> To do an OR, you have to do two searches, and concat the Peter> resluts. Concat? That means duplicates are not removed? That's even worse than having to do a manual CNF conversion! Come on. You've been failing to convince us how your "trivially-buildable" GUI is better. Perhaps, you should build it and let us try it. Do it now, instead of wasting time here. -- Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´° ~{@nJX6X~} E-mail: danlee(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
From: Peter T. Breuer on 8 Dec 2005 12:17 In comp.os.linux.misc Lee Sau Dan <danlee(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote: > Peter should really go to build the GUI and let us see it, instead of > just talking here. No he shouldn't. This is called "design". > Accord to him, such a GUI is "trivial" to build. Oh? Quote please. > Up till now, Peter's arguments are still unconvincing. He isn't even > clear whether his checkboxes are to be ANDed or ORed together, or Why should I be clear! (although I am perfectly clear!) It is not my job to flesh out my intuition for you! > XORed? or NORed? He has no clear idea of the semantics of his GUI I have a perfectly clear idea, thank you, abslutely suitable for my purposes. Would you please go speak for yourself. Thanks. Peter (in case you hadn't noticed - argument via "go build it then" does not work as an argument technqiue)
From: Peter T. Breuer on 8 Dec 2005 12:18
In comp.os.linux.misc Lee Sau Dan <danlee(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote: >>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Breuer <ptb(a)oboe.it.uc3m.es> writes: > Peter> Of course not. I wish you would stop "arguing" in > Peter> non-sequiturs! No "computation" takes place in the human, > Peter> simply selection from a check-list. > Show me your GUI that allows me to express: > (A and B and C and D) Chose A. Choose Again. Unclick A, click B. Choose Again. ... > and later extend the query to > (A and B and C and D) or E Repeat the construction. This time also check E in every panel. > Show me your GUI, which you claimed was "trivial" to develop. Idiot. Peter |