On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Craig Dickson wrote: > Brian Nelson wrote: > > > > ... but I don't think I could get our users to go over to a non-GUI > > > program. > > > > Why is that? Because they've bought into the marketing pitch that > > pretty graphics == better software? That's bullshit. There's no good > > reason any user couldn't become more proficient with a text-mode client. > > What I've found in trying to get GUI-dependent people to use mutt is > that they resist having to memorize a bunch of keystroke commands (no > matter how easy, and despite the fact that the most common ones are > listed at the top of the screen!). They'd rather point and click; they > know how to do that already, and they don't see why they should go to > the (minimal) bother of learning a keyboard-based UI. This isn't an > intelligence problem, either; some of these people are quite bright, but > they don't see learning mutt as worth their bother when good GUI > alternatives exist. And Sylpheed is actually pretty good; if I didn't > need a text-based interface (for accessing my mail in an ssh session > across the internet, on a slow enough connection that X forwarding is > out of the question), I might use it myself. But since I need a > text-mode MUA, I use mutt.
agreed. pretty graphics have nothing to do with better software. same thing with text-based interfaces - neither is a clencher in the argument, the underlying design is. that being said, there are people that *gasp* don't want to learn anything new in order to use a computer. some people don't delve nearly as far into it as we do, and use a computer merely as a tool. same can be said with me, and tax forms vs. an accountant. -lev
