Slashdot Mirror
The Humane Environment
rael9real writes "Jeff Raskin, developer of the MacOS and author of The Humane Interface [ed.: which was reviewed last year], has been hard at work with several others coding The Humane Environment. They have a developers edition out for Christmas. It runs on Mac OS 9/X. Reading the manual, it is basically a text editor/Python IDE, but it does seem to incorporate some neat ideas in the field. I can't wait to get home and try it out!"
Important observation: You cannot make an interface better without making it different (that's obvious).
Herein lies the problem: an interface that requires relearning can, at least in a sense, be said to be flawed. Time that has to be spent up front learning a new interface is widely perceived as wasted time. In order to be accepted, interfaces generally have to be incremental improvements on an existing paradigm. Radically new interfaces, no matter how much they improve on existing UIs, are almost certainly doomed to failure.
There are obvious exceptions. GUIS were such an improvement over CLIs (at least for the masses) that they were readily accepted. I guess the same could really be said for the ascendancy of the CLI over batch jobs.
Maybe a direct neural interface...
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
I'm a visual being - what does it look like? Some screenshots with a bit of explanation would be nice. If I had a mac, I'd download and look for myself, but since I don't...
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
After having browsed through the manual, I can say that I've seen Ideas like this before that I use every day: It's called VIM.
His name is spelled "Jef Raskin", one "f" - and yes that is ironically an unintuitive, constantly botched way to spell the name...
I hate Grammar Nazi's
a steering wheel and gas pedal installed on my motorcycle.
Having to learn a new interface was just wasted time.
Next I'm going to have them installed on my VCR so I can set the clock without having to learn another interface. If we'd just standardize on a one interface for everything than life would be a lot easier, everyone would know how to work everything and we wouldn't have to waste time learning new shit all the time.
As a matter of fact I'm still kinda pissed at all that time I spent learning how to read ( and as you can tell I've simply refused to learn how to spell). We should be able to do it by direct neural interface.
With a steering wheel and gas pedal.
KFG
Dear Jef:
/.
You have just re-invented vi -- perhaps vim! Except that your approach takes more keystrokes, and isn't quite as fast.
Shift-space: The shift and space are NOT next to each other on most keyboards, but are on others. Also, the Shift space sequence tends to be a TWO hand operation (I've asked people to try it -- for righties, its left pinky shift, right thumb space -- if they were touch typists; there are other variants).
Now, the ESC key is nasty in vi -- generally, uppermost left key, but it also creeps on the keyboard. I have to think about mapping it somewhere else! Still -- LEAP in vi is:
/ return
with, of course, an added leading ESC if I were typing. Back leaps use ? instead of
Repeat the leap? / return. Repeat an editing operation? . return. Etc.
No menus, no GUI, no muss, no fuss.
Graft on your extensions into VI or EMACS please. [ps. I can't use EMACS - it makes my hands hurt. Really.]. Good old home row visual editing. Stick some smarts in there, and shoot for the stars.
But... this isn't new. Not even that interesting. I expected more, Jef.
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
I'll tell ya a Jef Raskin story.
Sometime in the 1980's - West Coast Computer Faire...
Jef is on a panel, and the talk is about UI, or the
future of computing, or some such.
Jef states that he doesn't see the need for User Groups.
He doesn't like the idea that people that own computers
get together to help each other out.
He said "You don't see Washing Machine User Groups". He may have mentioned the toaster as well.
To this day, I felt he misses a fundamental point:
You don't do your taxes on a washing machine.
You don't write books with your toaster.
A lot of what we do with computers (some of us,
anyways...) is inherently cerebral, and social.
OF COURSE we are going to get together to
talk about them, in person or online.
You can dumb down a UI as much as you want,
hide as many details as possible, in an attempt
to spoon feed the masses of the Blinking Twelve.
But the fact remains: if there's some thinking
involved with the task at hand, users will want to
get together to share experiences.
So Jef, take back the example about the Washing Machine
>> ...build on small things that already exist right now. Maybe change some major things, but keep the tried and true methods.
This is one big reason why the software industry is so innately conservative, all the media hype about the pace of change notwithstanding.
Developers, especially open source developers who are free of the need to sell familiar products into an established pool of customers, ought to avoid underestimating the abilities of users to comprehend and absorb change. After all, somone had to be the first to try one of those "tried and true methods".
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
... that some of his keystroke series in THE are significantly more awkward on a dvorak keyboard... ... which *is* significantly faster, trust me, if you have the time to learn it... ... which is about what he claims that THE is...
I think I'll just stick with my odd blend of CLI and GUI (called MacOS X) and my dvorak keyboard. At least I can customize the bindings in emacs.
( \begin{rant}[parenthetical]
Why doesn't everyone use these? At least the dvorak keyboard? If computers came with them instead of QWERTY at least as a standard option, kids would be able to learn to type this way and wouldn't even have to relearn. Seems like it would offer a greater improvement in speed than THE could.
\end{rant} )
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Here is my rant (diatribe?) about the subject.
An interface should be designed around the task. The nature of the task will dictate the various priorities inherent in a good interface for that particular task.
Interfaces do not replace education or training for the most part. Maybe some 'new user' features can help get one started, or perhaps remember what is almost forgotten, but that is it. Any continuing reliance on these features will cripple the interface for those who simply want to complete the task, and know how.
Most of the opinion I read has a lot to do with specific interface attributes and how well they address a particular task. Maybe the information content is good, or it does not take many keystrokes compared to another interface, or perhaps it might be easier to use or more intuitive than another interface.
The big question is about the value the interface brings in terms of workflow. Is there real value? Are choices clearly presented? Do those choices make sense? Is there any busy work? eg. "Operation successful, press ok to continue..."
Each of us have developed our own interface needs that are a direct function of the work we do. Since we are more different than we realize, a good interface will allow for this. A great one will encourage this while continuing to perform its basic function which is again, performing the task at hand in the most effective manner.
Because of these things, ease of use has little to do with the quality of the interface. In fact, ease of use will often simply mean not powerful or maybe limiting to those who clearly understand the task at hand and are simply interested in performing it.
This is not about the fewest mouse clicks or the least button presses or any other simple metric. It is about understanding the nature of the task being designed for and presenting viable choices to those performing the task in a way that adds value to the execution of the task.
That's really it. Everything else is just fluff once you get past new user issues.
Coupla examples:
The seemingly simple task of editing text.
I have used vi, emacs (a little), joe, edlin, notepad, textpad, nedit and many others on different platforms. Each of these applications have their own different interface. Does that mean we simply don't yet know how to best edit text, or is it that we know all about editing text, but prefer to do it in specific ways depending on the overall goal of the text editing session.
I suspect the former will never happen and the latter does because...
On slow text only connections, vi is fantastic. You can clearly delinate between command and data. Given latency issues and large text datasets, this seperation allows one to make best use of the connection they have. You can do powerful things with a few keystrokes. To someone on a lan who does not understand vi very well at all, this is cryptic for no reason. For someone on a slow connecion it is golden --and worth learning if you value your time.
Casual writing is best done in something like Open Office, or something similar. This type of interface scales to a degree also. Want to step up from a simple essay? There are features present that do not get in the way until you start looking for them. Got a slow connection? Forget it.
I happen to enjoy editing code in nedit or text pad. I am also not an expert coder. If that changes for me, I understand I will likely outgrow these two because they do not address more advanced coding tasks as well as some other programs do.
Since the various tasks surrounding the editing of text are very different, the best interfaces are going to be different even though all we are really doing is editing text.
This means there is never ever going to be the one best text editor. (Sorry vi -vs- emacs folks!)
What does this mean for those of us who want to edit some text?
It means that people who are serious about editing text are best served by learning about the different interfaces and how they relate to the task at hand if they want to make the best use of their time.
Casual text editor or writer? Great! Get one of the bloated hold your hand programs and make good use of it. That is what it is there for.
What does this mean for those who produce text editing tools?
It means there is a clear tradeoff between the number of tasks you address well and the value your interface provides to those who are interested in performing those tasks. Try and do too much? You get Word, or Open Office. Do too little and you get Notepad or Joe. Nail one task perfectly and you get Textpad or vi or emacs.
This also means that in order to create a good interface for a given task, you better damn well understand that particular task inside and out. If you don't, then you cannot add any value and your interface will suffer like it or not.
Are any of these editors really better than the others?
It depends on the nature of the task you use them for. The only one out of the bunch I could never understand is edlin. It does not do anything well at all. Mistake, glad to be rid of it. The other ones though all have their merits depending on what one is doing --more importantly why.
Dumbing down a program to attract new users because it is easier to use is simply trading one thing for another. In the end, what could make your program great is lost.
This is just as bad as an interface that assumes too much because it makes those that use it work harder than the need to in order to get the task done. Spartan is ok --given the task at hand would benefit from that.
People who design interfaces need to pay particular attention to their users and the nature of the task they are performing. It is about focus. Too narrow or too broad, or just right for what people really are going to be doing.
Anything else is a waste of time.
Blogging because I can...