Linux-Advocacy Digest #872, Volume #30 Thu, 14 Dec 00 07:13:02 EST
Contents:
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 11:13:08 GMT
Les Mikesell writes:
>>>>>> You don't use hjkl.
>>>>> You do if you want to move the screen a line one way or the other
>>>>> after finding the match.
>>>> You can do that with control-U (for up) and control-D (for down), which
>>>> actually have mnemonics.
>>> What's mnemonic about control?
>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say there is anything mnemonic about
>> control. Try comprehending what I actually wrote.
> You have to write something logical before I can do that.
You're erroneously presupposing that I haven't already written something
logical.
>>> If something were really intuitive, you wouldn't need a mnemonic anyway.
>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say they were intuitive.
> Why did you bring them up,
Because you brought up the matter of moving the screen, claiming that
you use hjkl to do that. Yet those move the cursor, not necessarily
the screen. The keys I mentioned do move the screen, unless at one
extreme, of course (which also applies to hjkl).
> if not to oppose them against jk which you earlier said were not
> intuitive.
I said they were not intuitive for cursor movement. Get it right.
>>> Besides, those don't do the same thing.
>> They let you see the surrounding text, if not already visible. Note
>> that your "move the screen a line one way or the other" in incorrect
>> for at least one direction, possibly both. The hjkl keys move the
>> cursor, which won't necessarily move the screen.
> Did you forget already that they take an optional 'count' prefix? You
> should have learned the form first, then the content as you need it.
Wonderful; now you're talking three keystrokes instead of one. (Yes,
I am presupposing more than 9 lines of movement, because screens tend
to be more than that.) So much for the touted speed.
>>> I read it. Giving commands to a document viewer is exactly the
>>> same as giving commands to an editor.
>> Irrelevant, given that what was brought up was the viewing of a
>> document, not the giving of commands to a document viewer.
> Can you repeat that a little slower?
I r r e l e v a n t , g i v e n t h a t w h a t w a s
b r o u g h t u p w a s t h e v i e w i n g o f a
d o c u m e n t , n o t t h e g i v i n g o f
c o m m a n d s t o a d o c u m e n t v i e w e r .
> I don't understand why you think the control of an action is
> unrelated to the action, or why it would be irrelevant in the
> context of a discussion about controlling commands.
I don't understand why you think the viewing of a document is the
same as editing a document.
>>> That's pretty funny in the context of you trying to tell everyone
>>> else what is intuitive.
>> What's allegedly funny about it? And where have I tried to tell
>> "everyone else" what is intuitive?
> What is intuitive depends on prior experience,
With comparable things, not the same thing. Brushing your teeth in
the morning is no longer intuitive, if it ever was.
> and you keep telling me that people haven't had any of the relevant
> experiences.
And I keep asking you how many other editors use hjkl for cursor
movement. If you answer "zero", then there wouldn't be previous
experience with those keys for cursor movement in an editor. If
you don't answer "zero", give me the name of the editor. So far,
nobody has done that.
>>> The features you need when viewing a document are very much
>>> the same as when you edit a document unless you never look
>>> at what you are doing.
>> Incorrect; when editing a document, you need to insert and remove
>> text, whereas you don't need those when viewing a document, thus
>> the features are not the same.
> An editor may or may not make modifications to a document.
If you don't need to make modifications, you don't need to use an
editor.
> Thus it is incorrect to say that those features are always needed
> or used.
They are needed to do editing. Nothing incorrect about that.
>>> That is the point and the reason it was
>>> brought up, and if the commands to execute those features are
>>> identical, then one of the programs will be intuitive to use.
>> They are not identical, as I just pointed out. If two programs
>> have identical commands and identical performance in response to
>> those commands, then you have identical programs, and therefore
>> no need for both of them.
> There are other differences beyond the control keystrokes. For example
> you can run vi in 'read only' mode by invoking it as 'vi -r' file or using
> the name 'view'.
Thus not "very much the same".
> However, it will still copy the original into a working copy before
> you start and is thus a less efficient thing to do than running
> 'more' or 'less' especially on a large file. Also, vi does not work
> to view the contents from a pipe.
I've had vi croak on sufficiently large files. I've also had it
croak on files with sufficiently long lines.
>>>>> Being able to do it the same way in the viewer as in an editor
>>>>> makes the one you learned second intuitive.
>>>> Only if you know beforehand that the two operate the same way.
>>> That would be a good reason for chosing it, wouldn't it?
>> That would be a good reason for not calling it "intuitive".
> Wrong.
If I own an Acme 1000, learn how to operate it, and then encounter
an Acme 1000 in some other setting, say a hotel room, for example,
knowing how to operate that Acme 1000 in the hotel room does not
come from intuition.
> If you re-use something previously encountered it is intuitive.
And I keep asking you how many other editors use hjkl for cursor
movement. If you answer "zero", then there wouldn't be previous
experience with those keys for cursor movement in an editor. If
you don't answer "zero", give me the name of the editor. So far,
nobody has done that.
>>>> I suggest you learn the definition of intuition. Knowing how to
>>>> brush your teeth in the morning because you've been doing it for
>>>> years doesn't mean it's now intuitive.
>>> The common usage means 'without reasoning', but there is nothing
>>> about it that rules out remembering something already learned.
>> I suggest you consult a more complete dictionary. Or do you wish
>> to argue that brushing your teeth is intuitive?
> Repeating the same task doesn't require intuition, but if your teeth all
> fell out and you grew a new set it would be intuitive to brush those
> instead.
Wrong, given that it's repeating the same task.
> Some dictionaries have an alternate meaning as a synonym
> to 'instinctive', but people don't really have instinctive behaviour
> (although today I'd like to fly south for the winter).
In some instances, the synonym might apply. Brushing teeth isn't one
of them.
>>>>> How can someone that doesn't know anything at all use a computer?
>>>> By reading the manual. That doesn't involve intuition; it involves
>>>> learning.
>>> So you agree that nothing about a computer is intuitive until you
>>> have learned something?
>> Nonsense; I never said that you need to read the manual for everything
>> about a computer.
> Is that the only way you can learn?
Consulting a reference, whether it be a written manual, a web site, a
summary card, or a system administrator, makes the task non intuitive.
>>>>> Being able to re-use the same thing you already know in
>>>>> another context makes the subsequent one intuitive.
>>>> How many previous editors use hjkl for cursor movement like vi?
>>> It may have been the first - it was most likely the first screen editor
>>> designed to be used on a variety of terminals with no dedicated
>>> cursor motion keys in common, and many not having them at all.
>> So, does that strengthen or weaken the argument that they are not
>> intuitive?
> There is no such argument.
Then exactly what have you been arguing about, if not that?
> Any choice of keys is an arbitrary thing.
Using the 'h' key to enter an 'h' into a document doesn't seem all
that arbitrary to me, though in principal you could redefine the
keyboard to do pretty much anything, if you like.
> The part that is intuitive is that you only need to learn the form
> of: {optional count} {command} {range/motion} once and you can
> repeat the pattern in many subsequent ways.
Do you not sense an inconsistency here? "The part that is intuitive
is...to learn"?
>>>>> Vi lets you re-use almost everything you learn in many different
>>>>> ways.
>>>> I learned to use Alt-C to mark a block column; vi doesn't let me
>>>> re-use that. I learned to use Alt-W to write a buffer to disk;
>>>> vi doesn't let me re-use that. I learned to use Alt-X to exit
>>>> the editor; vi doesn't let me re-use that.
>>> Alt? What's an Alt?
>> It's something I learned that vi doesn't let me re-use, contrary
>> to your claim.
> If you want to use it, map it.
Something else to learn, and it presupposes that it's possible to do.
> But vi was around first and is hardly responsible for your choices.
Fortunately, I had more choices when I first needed to use an editor.
>>> What was an Alt in 1976?
>> Irrelevant, given that the issue is your claim that vi lets you
>> re-use almost everything you learn in different ways.
> It is not irrelevant in a discussion of the vi command set.
Feel free to explain the relevance of an Alt in 1976 in a discussion
of the vi command set.
> The set could not contain futuristic magic keys unknown at the time.
You mean like Control? Imagine that, a "futuristic magic key".
>>> There is a notion of time that relates to the ability to re-use
>>> something.
>> You didn't indicate any notion of time. Or do you now wish to
>> qualify your statement?
> No, my concept of logic is hopelessly tied to the idea of a
> cause preceeding the effect.
And what caused me to learn an editor that used Alt keys, the
effect being that the operation of vi was not intuitive?
>>>> I learned to use the Home key to go to the top of the screen;
>>>> vi doesn't let me re-use that. Need I go on?
>>> Home? What terminal had a home key? What did that mean?
>> It means I learned something that vi doesn't let me re-use, contrary
>> to your claim.
> Map it.
Something else to learn, and it presupposes that it's possible to do.
> Most vendors would supply vi with any obvious keys on their
> specific keyboard already mapped to the appropriate thing.
Tell me, what did DEC do with their "Compose Character" key in vi?
>>>>>> You mean the $ never means the dollar sign?
What happened to the text that use to be here?
>>> No, it is consistent with the context where it is used and
>>> never ambiguous.
>> And that makes it intuitive?
> The intuitive part is that it defines a motion and may be used
> in that position like any other motion. The command part
> is arbitrary.
Is that your notion of intuition? If I learn that the form of a
Fortran DO loop ends with start, stop, and step values, and if my
first use involves a step value of 1, does that mean a subsequent
usage where the step value is 2 was "intuitive"? No! The *form*
of the statement has been *learned*.
>> The problem is knowing what to use. Just because someone learns
>> what symbol to use for "end of line" doesn't mean they will
>> automatically know what to use for "end of file".
> I don't see the problem here.
Reread what I wrote.
> Are you suggesting that they would know if some other symbol had
> arbitrarily been chosen for one or the other?
I'm suggesting that they would not necessarily know that the same
symbol had been overloaded.
> If not, what is your point?
See above.
>>> You need to remember the meaning in any case, 1 symbol or 2, but
>>> with 2 symbols you also have to remember the other symbol.
>> Oh, then why don't we have just one symbol for everything. Then
>> we won't need to remember a bunch of different symbols and can
>> restrict our attention to remembering different meanings. Every
>> key on the keyboard can be labeled "$". It's just that they have
>> different meanings depending on where they are located. Gee, you
>> wouldn't even have to label the keys; to do so would be redundant.
> Isn't that exactly the reasoning behind the Mac's 1-button mouse?
> Some people manage to work with it.
And it wasn't intuitive. Why do you think two- and three-button mice
became so popular? Why didn't others follow the Mac's lead, if that
design was so intuitive?
>>>>> What point? It re-uses the same information you learned for
>>>>> every other vi command.
>>>> The key words here are "you learned".
>>> Yes, you don't have to reason or look it up. You re-use the previous
>>> learning, making the process intuitive.
>> Are you trying to suggest that learning doesn't involve any reasoning?
> Yes, they are different things. You can learn facts without doing
> any reasoning.
That's memorization. Not what I call learning. When I expect my
students to learn something, I do not expect them to simply memorize
some facts.
> The reverse would be more difficult but I wouldn't
> go so far as to speculate that it is impossible.
Reasoning is often used to determine facts. Galileo observed the
phases of Venus and reasoned that it had to orbit the Sun.
>>>>> Backslash is the 'high level' escape actually seen by application
>>>>> level input and a backslash preceding the end-of-line typically
>>>>> means the app should ignore the line end and consider the next
>>>>> line a continuation.
>>>> That there might be different levels of escape is also not intuitive.
>>> It was to me,
>> Why?
> As always, similar prior experience.
Similar prior experience with what?
>>> It is irrelevant anyway - there will be one first time for every case.
>> The first time I plugged in a microwave oven, I didn't need to consult
>> the manual. The power cord was intuitive.
> Because it was similar to power cords in your prior experience.
So, you agree with me that a power cord can be intuitive. Great. Go
argue with Aaron, if you can tolerate his invective.
> I recall inserting a knife into a power outlet at an early age. It
> wasn't at all intuitive what the holes were for.
And if somebody showed you a plug and a socket, then called them male
and female without telling you which is which, would you find that an
intuitive used of terminology? Perhaps not "at an early age". Once
again, intuition is not an absolute.
>>>>> The control-V is normally the 'lnext' character in the tty input
>>>>> subsystem below application level.
>>>> The average user isn't going to know about tty input subsystems.
>>> I did. It is no more obscure than knowing the name of msconfig.
>> Are you arguing that msconfig is intuitive?
> No, I am arguing that people have prior experience with slightly
> obscure things, often making them candidates for intuitive reuse.
Do some of those "obscure things" involve a computer?
>>>> The average user isn't going to know about signals at the OS level.
>>> Unix users do,
>> On what basis do you make that claim?
> All of them I know do.
What fraction of the userbase do you know?
> Since so many programs read standard input if not given some filenames
> on the command line, most people would still be waiting for cat or grep
> to complete if they didn't know about ^D or ^C.
That presupposes some knowledge of a connection between ^D and signals.
Some people know what to do without knowing the jargon involved.
>>> because it is a practical thing to know about.
>> That's your basis? They know it because it's practical to know it?
>> Does that mean every Windows user knows everything practical there
>> is to know about Windows? Does that mean every Mac user knows
>> everything practical there is to know about Macs?
> Yes, believe it or not, people learn what helps them do something
> better/faster/easier.
That doesn't prove they know everything practical.
> I don't recall suggesting that anyone knows everything though.
Which means they might not know something practical, despite it
being a practical thing to know about.
>>> For example using control-Z for job control to put things in the
>>> background and yank them back for keyboard control without needing
>>> extra windows is very handy.
>> And every UNIX user knows that? That makes it intuitive? And
>> control-Z won't yank them back. You need "fg" for that.
> But earlier you said people wouldn't know that...
I don't expect someone to know something that isn't the case.
> The intuitive part here is when you reuse the pattern of escaping the
> special character for the times you need to use it as a normal character.
On the contrary, tell that to the novice (the "escaping the special
character" part), and see how many press the Esc key first.
>>> Or, that it will be the first time you encounter the concept and hence
>>> you should learn the thing that will make the next encounter intuitive.
>> Subsequent encounters of the same thing are not intuitive.
> I don't share that opinion.
On what basis do you call it an opinion? If I own an Acme 1000, learn
how to operate it, and then encounter an Acme 1000 in some other setting,
say a hotel room, for example, knowing how to operate that Acme 1000 in
the hotel room does not come from intuition. That's not an opinion.
>>>> Intuition doesn't apply to people who already have experience.
>>> On the contrary - it applies to re-using experience without having
>>> to reason.
>> So, you *are* going to argue that brushing your teeth is intuitive,
>> right?
> If it is your second set of teeth, yes.
"Repeating the same task doesn't require intuition"
--Les Mikesell
------------------------------
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 11:19:10 GMT
Les Mikesell writes:
>>>>> Or they might have used ksh with the vi edit mode, or less (an
>>>>> enhanced more that uses vi-like keystrokes to browse through
>>>>> files).
>>>> UNIX users are in the minority.
>>> How many MS-windows users were there in 1976 when the vi commands
>>> were chosen?
>> Irrelevant to the issue.
> How so?
Because the issue is whether something about computers can be intuitive.
>>> The price of the dedicated WP machines was what killed them when
>>> PC clones running DOS Wordperfect 4.2 came around with equivalent
>>> functionality at less than half the price and network capability. There
>>> was nothing intuitive about WP's keystrokes but people used it anyway.
>> Earlier than that. We had word processors on CP/M. Take Magic Wand,
>> for example.
> Those did not displace the dedicated machines.
They did where I was.
> WP did, and 4.2 was the first really usable version.
According to whom? You? WordStar was the market leader earlier than
WordPerfect.
>>>> But do you or do you not agree with him?
>>> I'm not sure what he meant, but there is nothing that would make any
>>> sense without relating to some prior knowledge.
>> What's unclear about the claim that "nothing about a computer is
>> intuitive"?
> Both computers and people span a wide range of attributes. A given
> computer may or may not be innovative to the extent that it bears
> no relationship to a particular person's prior experience.
That doesn't really indicate whether you agree or disagree with Aaron.
>>> Young people are often more open to new things than older people
>>> in general - after all, if you are young enough everything is new.
>>> However in this case I would say it has more to do with the millions
>>> MS and Apple have spent trying to brainwash you, errr.. promote their
>>> products.
>> You would say lots of things that don't answer the original question.
> The question is overly general - the examples all apply.
On what basis do you call the question "overly general"?
>>>> My statement wasn't applied to "at the time". I'm talking about now.
>>> How can it apply to any time other than when the choice was made?
>> Simple: there are new users all the time.
> Are they aware of history or not?
Usually not.
>>> And anytime afterwards prior experience would make it intuitive when
>>> encountered in ksh, more, and an assortment of other programs that
>>> copied the scheme to some extent.
>> And if you don't know the extent, then you might wind up using something
>> that doesn't work.
> You say that as though you think there is an alternative - something where
> the user would never make a mistake.
Where did I suggest anything close to that?
> Is there?
You're erroneously presupposing that I said that as though the user would
never make a mistake.
------------------------------
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 11:24:33 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>> Very good, Steve. Now, if your reading comprehension were are good
>> as you claim, you wouldn't have needed to invert anything.
>>> (This is the negation of "nothing about a computer is intuitive.)
>> Funny how you previously translated that into "nothing is intuitive",
>> or erroneously atrributed someone else's statement about that to Aaron.
> Note: already replied elsewhere. Shut up about it already.
Too embarrassed?
>>> The problem with this statement is that natural languages like English
>>> often lead to anbiguous statements,
>> What is "natural" about English?
> A "natural language" is one that evolved on its own rather than being
> deliberately artificially designed at the outset. (Typically it refers
> to 'normal' languages like English, as opposed to designed ones like
> Pascal, C, Lisp, or Esperanto.) I didn't make up the term "natural
> language". It's been around for a while.
Not an "intuitive" term. Furthermore, those programming languages have
evolved. Spoken languages have evolved. Unfortunately, we don't have
historical knowledge of the development of spoken language, so information
on just how much design went into them isn't available.
>>> especially when the qualifiers "some" or "all" are left off - because
>>> both are often equally valid ways to interpet the statement, depending
>>> on the situation. There are two ways, both equally valid, of interpeting
>>> the statement "Some things about a computer are intuitive":
>>>
>>> A) Some things about a computer are intiutive to all people.
>>> B) Some things about a computer are intiutive to some people.
>> And if you understood context, namely the statements I've made that
>> intuition isn't an absolute, you'd already know which case applies here.
Note: no response.
>>> If your statement is (B), I agree with you.
>> You mean you're unsure?
> Yes, because you say it's relative, then turn around and make
> statements that are incompatable with that stance.
Which statements have I made that are incompatible with that stance?
>>> But I think Aaron is assuming you are meaning (A),
>> Illogical, given that intuition isn't an absolute, which is something
>> else I've made perfectly clear to him.
> Ahem - I wasn't trying to defend his interpetation, just stating
> that this is what it looks like it is to me.
So it looks to you like Aaron is being illogical?
>>> since that is often what it means when someone leaves a qualifier
>>> off on a statement like that.
>> Evidence, please.
> 28 years of context as a speaker of English.
Is that all?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
