Re: GUI necessary?

Roger,

I agree that win3.1 was a great steal from the Apple OS, which was copied from
Xerox (gee, windows, a mouse, icons ... from a copier company no less!), but MT?
NOT!

BTW Roger, as I've mentioned on other posts, I'm not picking on you, your post
just happened to be the Nth post that triggered a response.  (And let's face it,
this thread has had a lot of posts!)

Roger Pence wrote:

> However, it was the Mac and  Win
> 3.1 that brought MT to the masses. I remember using Win 3.1 almost
> exclusively as a DOS multi-tasking environment for Clipper programming.

Did you ever notice that when you try to print something or format a disk that
you keyboard is frozen?
A -true- MT OS would not do that.  OS/400 can do many things at once, for many
users, without even degrading your interactive performance. (proper 
configuration
taken into consideration)

With all due respects, windoze is a program loader/desktop interface.  Even NT
does not MT well.

<<snip>>

>
> Like clearly labeled buttons ("Checking" or "Saving").

THIS is what makes a good UI!  Putting up panels (text or graphic) that guide 
the
user. Keeping it simple. Don't clutter the screen with prompts not needed for 
the
transaction at point.

>
> Anyone pondering this graphical stuff should read Alan Cooper's book, About
> Face.

Agreed.  Now this isn't the most high tech way, but we us a mapped LDA to store
the last customer, vendor, item, etc. that the user looked at and when the user
fires up another program the blanks are filled from the contents of the LDA.
Saves a lot of data entry.

>
>
> The whole notion of absolutely positioning character-based version
> pixel-based as green-screen versus graphical should probably be given some
> thought. Back in the old FoxPro days, you could make pretty good
> character-based UIs, that accomplished most of the same things a
> pixel-driven UI could do.

IMO, the big difference between a fixed font text based panel and a variable
pitch "graphical" panel is appearance.  Both still have a program <--> display
buffer for communications.  The buffer may/may not be able to cope with variable
length fields.   The programmer/CPU may have to go through the extra work to
parse the string.  As computers have gotten faster, the inherent efficiency in
the 3x workstation controller can make keystroke dependent GUI's about as
efficient as text based panels have been in the past.  All I know is that a
single user environment ... you and your PC ... is a whole different world than 
a
bunch of people on the phone doing quotes while cross checking a 1M parts
inventory and expecting sub second response time.

The "power" users want results. First.  If you can make it pretty they could 
care
less, just don't slow it down.  Although they will smile politely and say:
"That's nice." Like a condescending aunt.

>
>
> So, for me, it's a matter of not being absolute and selecting what works
> best given the situation and _always_ putting the users needs ahead of
> needing to stop coding by 5.

Oh, I should have quit, but that one hit my rant key! Not a good thing. <G>

There are three types of interfaces for three types of users.
1) Choice based people. Give them choices, advanced logic help text and
prompting.
2) Rule based people. Enforce the rules, provide rule help text and prompting.
Teach them their job.
3) Clueless people.  They don't know how to operate a computer nor do they even
know their job function.  Never put more than one prompt per panel.

 80/20 rule.  You'll spend 80% of your programming effort to help 20% of the
staff.  Unless you are a Darwinist <g>

Program in, like IBM did, assistance levels.  Maybe this does satisfy your need
to "-always-" put the user first.

You think I'm kidding about #3 ...well, the payroll clerk at a company I worked
with didn't even know that there was such a thing as Federal Unemployment until
the company had a swarm of agents show up to audit them for failure to make
payments.  Each quarter the Payroll application would print the supporting
reports but the clerk just threw them away because "it didn't show up on my
paycheck so I didn't think it meant anything."

The users are great people and I love working with them, but they don't sign the
checks I receive.  I don't know about the rest of you but I get mine from a
company.  Users come and go, the companies are what I keep.  Making users happy
with a snazzy UI is not nearly as important to me as making the company happy
about the ROI on software development.  And, yes, user productivity is factored
in the ROI.  Pictures of the super sized fries work well for the illiterate
user.  As Lenin said: "To each based upon their needs."  Darwin said: "Keep up 
or
eat dust."  Well, OK, maybe he didn't <G>

For simple people, keep it simple.  Oh, I was just reminded of a joke:  Do you
know why you can't make a computer system idiot proof?  Answer: Idiots are far
too creative.

To close (thank God) I've watched this thread for some time.  If David is 
keeping
stats on the number of posts it must be in the top three!  Number one has to be
the annual geezer crowing, and this definitely competes with the retirement (off
topic) thread recently which is probably neck-to-neck with CA problems.

But really Roger, and all the rest, let's not turn GUI into a religious war.  
One
size does NOT fit all.  When I'm in a good mood I agree with Lenin, otherwise
Darwin rules. <g>

James W. Kilgore
email@James-W-Kilgore.com

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---