From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] architectures
From: forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20010712084649.299C9199C0@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:42:22 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c6e96996-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

>>i'm particularly fond of the acme interface, and i really
>>like the chording (okay, maybe it's not for everyone, but _i_
>>really like it). i'm asking about non-techie folks. for them,
>>wouldn't a single-button interface be simpler to understand?

not necessarily, since the functionality of the extra buttons
must be provided somehow, whether by menus, pop-up menus,
key-mouse combinations, keys alone, or some other way.  much might
depend on the choice of conventions for using more than one button.
that in acme all three buttons select text is a big simplification.
i usually introduce it as follows: ``button 1 selects text, button 2
selects text, and button 3 ...'' and during the following pause
nearly everyone says ``selects text?''.  i then explain
that `of course' each button does different things with
the text selected.  that seems fine.  the chording for cut/paste/copy
takes a little practice, but since it has a `feel' much like grabbing
text from the screen, that also seems fine.   outside acme,
the Blit convention (perhaps adopted from Smalltalk, i don't know)
was something like: button 1 generally selected things, button 2 provided local
operations (usually on the thing selected), and button 3 provided global operations
for the application, with a few exceptions such as paint programs.
most menus were kept fairly small.

i know at least one non- technical user of acme who sends and receives
mail, plumbing photos and other things, and editing quite happily.
other non-technical people i've shown it to wanted to use acme on
their machines for document preparation and email because the
organisation into columns and frames and the use of the buttons was
just so much more effective than their `desktop' or a clutter of
windows.  (they also like the soft use of colour.)
contrary to Tog's advice on this point: with care i suspect
you can make abstractions simple and effective enough without insisting on
drawing a tenuous likeness to something in the `real world'.