Linux-Advocacy Digest #870, Volume #30 Thu, 14 Dec 00 06:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Ian Davey)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:46:00 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>> Russ Lyttle writes:
>>>>> For those not inclined to read below I will recap. Tholen claims use of
>>>>> power cords is intuitive.
>>>> Correct; people do not generally need to consult a manual to know what
>>>> to do with a power cord. Do you disagree?
>>> Sometimes, this disregard is at their own peril.
>> Most times, no peril is involved.
> Who cares. There are instances when it is.
Such as?
> By your argumentation strategy, that is sufficient.
How ironic, coming from someone who argumentation strategy consists of
invective, lies (I haven't been posting to USENET for twelve years),
and redundancy.
>>> Tholen...
>>> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
>>> remember to slit lengthwise.
>> Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
>> is, remember to come back here and apologize.
> Tholen...
>
> When you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> remember to slit lengthwise.
Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
is, remember to come back here and apologize.
> Or maybe you can offer yourself to one of the local Hawaiian volcano gods.
Or maybe you can learn to develop a civil tongue. I won't hold my breath.
>>>>> I give several counter examples about power cords behaving in ways
>>>>> people do not expect, and of people doing strange things with power
>>>>> cords.
>>>> None of your so-called "counter examples" prove that people generally do
>>>> not know what to do with a power cord without reading a manual. For those
>>>> inclined to not believe me, read below.
>>>>> Tholen counters that that wasn't fair as the users couldn't have known
>>>>> about that or couldn't see inside the TV set or some such.
>>>> Where did I allegedly say anything about "fair", Russ? I simply stated
>>>> that people generally know what to do with a power cord without consulting
>>>> a manual. What might happen inside a set is quite irrelevant to that issue.
>>>> Whether the circuit is broken by a fuse or an internal socket-plug interface
>>>> is also irrelevant. The issue is whether people generally know what to do
>>>> with a power cord without consulting a manual.
>>>>> This attitude is one think I especially dislike about MS software.
>>>>> Everything is proclaimed to be "intuitive", when in fact, nothing in
>>>>> this universe is "intuitive", not even the simple power cord.
>>>> Really? You need a manual to know what to do with a power cord on some
>>>> new appliance??? Why do you think the word "intuitive" exists?
>>>>> If you don't test your product agains a naif user, expect it to fail in
>>>>> the field, no matter how "intuitive" you thought it was.
>>>> Looks like you're one of those people who thinks "intuitive" is an
>>>> absolute. If it doesn't work for everyone, then it can't be intuitive.
>>>> Sorry, but the word isn't defined that way.
>>>>> Murphy originally said, "If someone can f**k it up, they will." It lost
>>>>> meaning in the translation.
>>>> Doesn't render everything non-intuitive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve Mading writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you citing evidence that destroys your argument, Aaron?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Familiarity (or experience, to use my word for it) does not have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be universal before something can be declared "intuitive".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's a good rule of thumb: if you need to consult the manual,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's not intuitive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone has to "consult the manual" (or a friend, or the on-line
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help) at some point early in their learning process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know some first-time computer users that did not need to consult
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the manual or a friend to know what to do with the power cord, for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have earned a lot of money plugging in power cords for people.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations. I know people who replace water heaters, and they
>>>>>>>>>>>> also plug in the power cord for customers while installing the
>>>>>>>>>>>> replacement appliance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first electronics job I had was making calls to fix TV sets.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not to install them? Televisions that hadn't yet been used don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> usually require fixing.
>>>>>>>>>>> Both. The most common was after the set was at home. Most people, by
>>>>>>>>>>> that time, were trying to install the sets themselves.
>>>>>>>>>> And you're claiming that they didn't know enough to plug it in? Do
>>>>>>>>>> these people use a toaster? A lamp? A microwave oven?
>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>> Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> About half the time the problem was the power cord wasn't plugged in.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But was it because they didn't know that it had to be plugged in, or
>>>>>>>>>>>> had it accidently become unplugged without them knowing it? There's
>>>>>>>>>>>> a big difference there. I've seen it happen to people many times.
>>>>>>>>>>> They didn't know all the subtilities of operating a power cord.
>>>>>>>>>> What "subtleties"?
>>>>>>>>>>> Plug it in all the way.
>>>>>>>>>> What's subtle about that?
>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>> Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>>>>> Unplug it before moving the set.
>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the cord was damaged from strain?
>>>>>>>>> No, I'm saying that your description of how to use a power cord is
>>>>>>>>> missing sum subtilities. Such as : a power cord has *two* ends.
>>>>>>>> What has that got to do with unplugging before moving the set?
>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>> Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>>> On a toster one end is usually fixed to the toster.
>>>>>>>> On many televisions, one end is usually fixed to the television.
>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>> Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>>> On TV sets and computers neither end is fixed.
>>>>>>>> Not always. My television does not have a detachable power cord.
>>>>>>> It does if the set is in the US.
>>>>>> The set is in the US, and the power cord cannot be removed from the
>>>>>> rear of the unit.
>>>>> Bet if you open the box the power cord will stay with the case and
>>>>> unplug from the chassis.
>>>> Irrelevant, given that the case you brought up was moving the set,
>>>> not taking it apart.
>>>>> Or did you think they had 6 feet of power cord
>>>>> curled up inside the case?
>>>> Also irrelevant to the case of moving the set that you brought up.
>>>>>>> If you open the case the power cord comes unplugged from the set.
>>>>>> When people move a set around, they don't usually open the case
>>>>>> first. You were talking about moving a set around, not opening
>>>>>> a case. Do try to be consistent.
>>>>> No but they yank on the power cord.
>>>> Not necessarily. Some of us were taught to grasp the plug, not yank
>>>> on the cord.
>>>>> On older sets it was pretty obvious.
>>>> That they yanked on the power cord?
>>>>> I can understand people not grasping that fact on the newer sets.
>>>> The fact that they yanked on the power cord?
>>>>>>> You have to use a "cheater" cord to power
>>>>>>> up the set once it has been opened.
>>>>>> But you weren't talking about opening a set. You were talking about
>>>>>> moving a set around, which doesn't require that it be opened up.
>>>>> Sure. Move the set. Forget to unplug it first or step on the cord. The
>>>>> resulting strain unplugs the cord at the set end.
>>>> Isn't that what I first asked about?
>>>> RL] Unplug it before moving the set.
>>>> DT] Are you saying that the cord was damaged from strain?
>>>>> Intuitive, right?
>>>> Irrelevant, right?
>>>>>>> Sometimes the set end comes loose,
>>>>>>> especially if someone doesn't unplug before moving the set.
>>>>>> If you're talking about some internal connection that can't be seen
>>>>>> by the user, then that doesn't serve as an argument against my claim
>>>>>> that the power cord is intuitive.
>>>>> Its a power cord. It should be intuitive.
>>>> And it is. They plug the appliance in and expect it to be powered.
>>>> You claimed that it's not intuitive, and tried to prove it by pointing
>>>> to service calls that you made, but you have yet to describe a single
>>>> case involving someone who didn't know enough to plug it in. Instead
>>>> you've talked about an internal connection coming undone, bent prongs,
>>>> and such, none of which illustrates a case in which the user didn't
>>>> know enough to plug the cord into a wall outlet without consulting a
>>>> manual.
>>>>>>> It can often be reinserted by simply pushing on the back of the set
>>>>>>> near the power cord.
>>>>>> Does that somehow make the power cord not intuitive?
>>>>> Was it intuitive that you should push on the back of the set to
>>>>> reconnect the power cord?
>>>> I wasn't talking about that end of the cord. What is intuitive is the
>>>> end that people plug into a wall socket.
>>>>>>>>> You need to make sure *both* ends are plugged in.
>>>>>>>> Same situation applies. Usually people know how to do that, but were
>>>>>>>> simply unaware that one end had come unplugged.
>>>>>> Note: no response. It's very easy to be unaware of an internal
>>>>>> connection coming loose.
>>>>> Lets see. You say a power cord is intuitive.
>>>> Correct; people do not generally need to consult a manual to know what
>>>> to do with a power cord. Do you disagree?
>>>>> I point out some non intuitive things about power cords.
>>>> You point out some thing that has nothing to do with the end that
>>>> people generally know goes into a wall socket (strain that causes an
>>>> internal connection to become lost, which says nothing about the
>>>> user's intuition regarding what to do with the other end of the power
>>>> cord).
>>>>> You say they weren't intuitive because the user didn't know about them.
>>>> On the contrary, I said "It's very easy to be unaware of an internal
>>>> connection coming loose." That has nothing to do with knowing what
>>>> to do with the other end of the cord.
>>>>> My Websters defines intuitive as "capable of being know by intuition.
>>>>> And it defines intuition as "direct perception of fact independent of
>>>>> any reasoning process".
>>>> And experience with other electrical appliances means that people
>>>> generally do not need to apply any reasoning process to know what to
>>>> do with the power cord of a new appliance.
>>>>> But you argue that my examples of non intuitive facts about power cords
>>>>> are invalid because they are not intuitive.
>>>> On the contrary, I said "It's very easy to be unaware of an internal
>>>> connection coming loose." That has nothing to do with knowing what
>>>> to do with the other end of the cord.
>>>>>>>>> Also power cords are polarized. Try to plug them in the wrong way and
>>>>>>>>> they don't fit properly.
>>>>>>>> The polarized plugs that I've used won't fit at all if you try to do
>>>>>>>> it the wrong way. My television has a three-prong plug, however. Only
>>>>>>>> goes one way.
>>>>>>> I'll send you the next three pronged plug I get that has had the third
>>>>>>> prong bent or broken by the user. I kept one for years that someone had
>>>>>>> managed to plug the third prong into the hot side of the socket. They
>>>>>>> didn't understand why their GFI tripped every time they turned on the
>>>>>>> set.
>>>>>> Was it bent or broken intentionally so that the set could be plugged
>>>>>> into a outlet that hadn't been upgraded with three-prong outlets? I
>>>>>> can't think of any other reason why someone would do that.
>>>>> It was intuitive.
>>>> "nothing in this universe is 'intuitive'"
>>>> --Russ Lyttle
>>>>
>>>> Do make up your mind.
>>>>> You only need two prongs to get electricity, so if you break off the
>>>>> third prong, you will use less electricity and your bill will be
>>>>> cheaper.
>>>> Which is the unneeded third prong?
>>>>>>> The classic case for this is an event in Idaho where a technician
>>>>>>> plugged a multi-pronged cord in backwards and killed himself when the
>>>>>>> research reactor he was working on "pulsed". No one living could
>>>>>>> understand why he went to the trouble to bend those pins to make it fit.
>>>>>> Does that make the power cord non-intuitive?
>>>>> It is a good example of how relying on things being "intuitive" is
>>>>> dangerous.
>>>> Oh really? Was it intuitive to intentionally modify the prongs to
>>>> permit plugging the cord in backward?
>>>>>>>>>>> If the light doesn't come on check the power cord. That sort of thing.
>>>>>>>>>> What's subtle about that?
>>>>>>>>> People don't do it. For computers it is worse. The light on the computer
>>>>>>>>> can come on, but not the monitor, or vice versa.
>>>>>>>> Same situation applies. Usually people know how to do that, but were
>>>>>>>> simply unaware that one of the two was unplugged.
>>>>>>> If the power cord was that intuitive, they would have checked, now
>>>>>>> wouldn't they?
>>>>>> Did they succeed in plugging both in, in the first place? When something
>>>>>> stops working that was previously working, they tend to think of what
>>>>>> might have changed. If there is no reason for the power cord to have
>>>>>> become unplugged, then it makes sense to consider the possibility that
>>>>>> there is a problem with the unit itself and not the power cord.
>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>>> They wouldn't bend prongs to get it plugged in. They
>>>>>>> would unplug it before trying to work on the set. In this industry, you
>>>>>>> cannot assume that anything is intuitive for a sufficient percentage of
>>>>>>> your customer base.
>>>>>> And just what percentage of the people do you need to plug power cords
>>>>>> in for them?
>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I learned very quickly not to just plug in the cord and send a bill
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $50. I would futz around a while, take the back off, look intent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then put the back on and plug it in.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're admitting to what some people would consider a "dishonest"
>>>>>>>>>>>> service call?
>>>>>>>>>>> No. They got charged the same, the fee for one hour service call.
>>>>>>>>>> Even if it took one minute?
>>>>>>>>> Yes. The minimum charge is one hour. Same as auto repair shops and other
>>>>>>>>> such services.
>>>>>>>> Why? Travel time for an on-site visit can be justified, but why a
>>>>>>>> minimum? Would you like to pay for an hour long-distance telephone
>>>>>>>> call, even if it lasted only a minute?
>>>>>>> Never had your own service business have you? Overhead, book keeping,
>>>>>>> accounting, taxes, etc. all mean that a charge less than a minimum is a
>>>>>>> loss. The service charge for one hour is that minimum in this case.
>>>>>> It takes you an hour to do all the book keeping, accounting, and so on
>>>>>> for a one-minute service call?
>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>>>>>>> I just decided not to upset them by pointing out that they didn't know
>>>>>>>>>>> how to operate a power cord.
>>>>>>>>>> Which would have been rather presumptuous of you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When PCs came out, there were more power cords not to be plugged in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus more business.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people prefer to have experts install new gizmos for them.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't mean that they don't have the intuition to plug it in for
>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>> But that doesn't mean the power cord is all that "intutive" either.
>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't mean it isn't "intutive" [sic] either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SNIP<<
> Tholen...
>
> When you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> remember to slit lengthwise.
Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
is, remember to come back here and apologize.
> Or maybe you can offer yourself to one of the local Hawaiian volcano gods.
Or maybe you can learn to develop a civil tongue. I won't hold my breath.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:47:08 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>> Repeating it again is pointless.
>> Especially without any supporting evidence.
> I already gave it.
Pontificating about one particular keyboard is hardly supporting
evidence.
> You discount it.
I have experience with multiple keybaords.
> Repeating it is pointless.
Especially without any supporting evidence.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:47:59 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>> Forgetting to type it doesn't change the fact that you thought Aaron
>> wrote something that he didn't write, Steve. That's an example of a
>> reading comprehension problem.
> Uhm - yes it does change it. The omission was on the output side,
> not the input side. (I read it correctly, but failed to write
> it back out correctly.)
Either way, it's your problem, not mine.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:31:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ian Davey wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Per mile driven, Electric cars take MORE energy to run, due to
>> >transmission losses between the power company and the car, and
>> >in charging up the batteries.
>>
>> Who said you need a power company to charge the batteries? Use a solar panel
>> and you get open source energy right from the sun :-)
>
>
>Do you have any fucking idea of how much energy it takes to produce
>a photo-voltaic cell?
Duh, these things already exist. You can already get electric cars, and
already charge the batteries using solar power.
>> Why rely on big
>> companies to provide your energy? That's like relying on Microsoft to supply
>> your operating systems.
>
>You are an idiot. With solar panels, you pay a HUGE energy cost
>up front (remember, the first step of making a solar cell is MELTING SAND!),
>which may or may not be recouped (depending on how soon it is before the
>pitifully fragile thing is broken.).
You can get a big solar panel for £160, which will plug straight into your
mains and reduce your reliance on electricity from the supplier. In fact I
know someone over here who has one and gets paid by the electricity company
for the surplus energy it puts back onto the grid. Not much, it more than paid
for itself over one winter.
I won't bother even reading the rest of your rant, as you clearly have your
head up your arse.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:56:00 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>>> Maybe, just maybe you can get one pinkie up to the Esc key, but
>>>> that is insufficient to operate the key painlessly.
>>> False.
>> Independent of keybaord?
> Yes, unless your keyboard is weird,
Ah, so your defense is that any keyboard that doesn't mean your
standards is "weird". Any keyboard that I can produce to support
my case is by your definition "weird".
> and for whatever dishonest reason you are not telling us this.
You're erroneously presupposing a dishonest reason on my part, Steve.
>>>>> The escape key is all by itself, one key, easy to 'whack' without
>>>>> needing much accuracy (if you get all 'butterfingers' and slap the
>>>>> key on the edge, that's good enough).
>>>> With other editors, I don't need to do that.
>>> Yeah I know - more precision is needed.
>> How would more precision be needed to NOT strike a key (because it is
>> unnecesary)?
> If I hit half-off the escape key, I don't end up hitting
> another key next to it and getting the two-keypress problem.
If I don't need to hit a key at all, no precision at all is needed.
How can that be more precision?
> If I hit half-off the arrow keys, I typically get another
> arrow keypress in there too - which is why it is insufficient
> to merely whack at them with the pinkie - they require that
> I actually remove my hand entirely from the vacinity of the
> home row, and move it over to the arrows.
Non sequitur, given that the Esc key doesn't move the cursor around.
Esc is used to get out of insert mode, something that isn't necessary
with other editors.
Just another example of your bizarre argument.
>>>>> The cursor keys require accuracy,
>>>> Incorrect; it's easy to undo an incorrect motion operation, and
>>>> I have fewer of those than with hjkl.
>>> Okay, they only require accuracy if you don't want to waste your
>>> time.
>> Waste your time? You mean like changing modes?
> This is part of what is under debate - whether or not this is
> really a waste of time or not. I say no.
I say yes, from first-hand experience. It takes me less time to
not hit a key than it does to hit a key. How about you?
>>>>> and they require the hand to remain there for a while while
>>>>> you hit them several times,
>>>> Incorrect; my keyboard has autorepeat. I just hold the key down.
>>> Notice the plural in the phrase "hit them several times". Note I
>>> did not say, "hit it several times". Autorepeat doesn't help much
>>> when you hit something like "up/up/left/left"
>> It can; it can cut the number of keystrokes in half.
> Only if you have superhuman timing, of your key-repeat rate
> is amazingly slow. Getting exactly two keypresses and no more
> by using the key repeat is hard. Slowing the repeat down to the
> point where this is possible leads to other annoyances (taking
> a long time to type something like /*---------------------*/).
Not nearly as annoying as your argument. Do you really think that
autorepeat is used for two instances? Yet that's the example you
tried to use. (Note that your example came AFTER my reference to
"autorepeat", which followed your reference to "several times".
Is "two" your idea of "several"?)
>>>>> so hitting them with a twisted wrist, using your stretched
>>>>> pinkie, doesn't work.
>>>> Works just as well as for the Esc key.
>>> I will never agree to that premise without a demonstration. It
>>> doesn't seem possible if you are a human being using a standard
>>> keyboard.
>> Yet you expect me to agree to your premise without a demonstration.
> Here's my demonstration: measure the distance between 'a' and 'esc',
> compare to the distance between 'j' and 'left-arrow'.
You don't want to believe my measurement, or you dismiss my keyboard
as "weird". How convenient for you.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:59:02 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>> Yes, *And* you have made statements like "hjkl is not intuitive",
>>> which CANNOT be made bare like that if intuitiveness is not absolute.
>> I have *not* made any statement like "hjkl is not intuitive".
> This is a lie.
On your part, Steve.
> Now, I know you'll just deny it again, or chalk it
> up to my alleged reading comprehension problems,
With good reason.
> so I invite any onlookers to just look upward in this thread at other
> posts by tholen.
And they'll see me talking about the use of those keys for cursor
movement, the qualifier that you conveniently left out. You seem
to be in this habit of leaving things out. Like when you accused
Aaron of claiming that "nothing is intuitive".
> [Rest snipped in an attempt to trim my time wasted in this.
You can do better than that.
> Once someone shows themselves willing to lie like this there's no hope
> of concluding the argument.]
I guess I'll be at it with you for a very long time, then, considering
your willingness to lie like that.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:00:39 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>>>> Admitedly, those presumptions could have been wrong.
>>>> As well as your presumption that the Esc key is closer than the
>>>> cursor keys.
>>> A. Measure the distance from 'a' to escape. (left pinkie)
>>> B. Measure the distance from 'j' to left-arrow, or 'k' to up
>>> and down arrows, or 'l' to right arrow. (right-hand's three
>>> fingers that operate the arrows).
>> On whose keyboard? Yours? That's not available to me.
> On any standard 104-key or 101-key keyboard.
My keyboard is quite standard, Steve.
> If yours is different, then say it or shut up.
Practice what you preach, Steve.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:03:28 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>> There isn't a concrete cutoff line, since everything in natural
>>> languages is at least slightly relative. I put "intuitive" way
>>> out there as much more realative than words like "twist" or
>>> "stretch", which describe specific types of motion.
>> But not amounts of motion. Is 5 millimeters a stretch? Or does it
>> need to be 10? Maybe 20? Is 10 degrees of rotation a twist? Or
>> does it need to be 20? Maybe 30?
> The distance is irrelevant to the term.
The distance is quite relevant to your usage of the term.
> All of those could be "stretches", assuming they are lengthwise
> lengthenings.
All of those are movements that you said weren't necessary to hit the
Esc key.
> The direction is what matters for the term, not the size.
Then you're being inconsistent, considering your claim about what you
didn't need to do to hit the Esc key.
>>> Yes, I do see it as vague and fuzzy as words like "nice". This is
>>> the main point of the article Aaron was citing way back at the start
>>> of this - the word isn't as concrete as people have tricked themselves
>>> into thinking it is, and as such, things that have been labelled as
>>> "intuitive" interfaces are much less so than we thought.
>> And that is supposed to make a power switch non-intuitive?
> Non sequitor.
Incorrect, and also misspelled.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:04:30 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>>> My statement wasn't applied to "at the time". I'm talking about now.
>>> You didn't say so.
>> I shouldn't need to say so for those who understand context.
>>> (See I can be a pendantic pain too. Your game is fun.)
>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing a game, Steve.
> Sorry, I was giving you too much benefit of the doubt again.
Where was the alleged benefit of the doubt?
> I guess this deceptiveness is about something serious and important
> to you then, which actually makes it worse than a game.
What alleged deceptiveness, Steve? Yours?
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
