From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <421B3E8C.6060409@aprote.ee>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:15:40 +0200
From: Tiit Lankots <t.lankots@aprote.ee>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Evolving rio / GUI development
References: <50f22001212dc7ae033228973851dc17@proxima.alt.za><a6179e7049542d166747def0fcde7c46@crn.mteege.de>	<1114846546.20050222155244@mail.ru>	<01fd01c518e6$d4981ad0$10597d50@kilgore>
	<30a9b092a03f85f9234ab0cf6bdcd521@davidashen.net>
In-Reply-To: <30a9b092a03f85f9234ab0cf6bdcd521@davidashen.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 13910bcc-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>> tool-tips are definitive proof of the failure of a user interface design.
>
> man is like a tool-tip. It explains what a command does when it is not
> obvious for a casual user from the command's name. Just less convenient
> to reach.

You've just proven Boyd's point. If an explanation requires an
explanation, don't you think that the orginial explanation is a failure?
"What we seem to have here is a failure to communicate."