my reading of this would mean that to be truly "intuitive" something would
then be also "instinctive". by your reasoning nothing involving either a
keyboard or a mice could be considered intuitive. in fact about the only
thing i can think of that would fit your definition would be the intuitive
way a person strives to keep their head above water when drowning. not quite
the same as instinctive way one breathes.
I wonder if you considered that your post was kinda windows pro for a linux
list, do you think? I believe in this use he was referring to the way someone
never sitting before a computer will pick up and learn the methods and
terminology for the OS. I personally find the command line of linux so
intuitive that is scares me. ever tried to record (rec), config sound
(sndconfig) now letsee to install a sound driver in winders... damn if it can
be found where to open a text consol...that (to ME) is "counter" intuitive.
On Saturday 28 July 2001 18:48, Judith Miner wrote:
> Sridhar wrote:
> >> You mean it isn't "intuitive" for a Windos user? Then you are
>
> correct. For people who have been using *nix for a while this can be
> very intuitive. <<
>
> Whoa! "Intuitive" has nothing to do with what OS someone knows how to
> use. "Intuitive" means "known or perceived through intuition." Intuition
> is "the act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational
> processes." Intuitive does not mean "easy, once you learn how." Command
> lines can never be intuitive because you have to *learn* the commands
> first. Dragging a file onto a printer icon in order to print is
> intuitive. You don't have to read anything to figure out that dragging a
> file onto a picture of a printer will probably result in its being
> printed. Writing "copy /b thisfile.doc lpt1" at a DOS prompt is not
> intuitive, though it is easy, once you know how. I don't have a clue
> what you'd write at a Unix prompt because, gee, it isn't intuitive.<g>
>
> >> First time computer users can generally learn an OS like GNU/Linux
>
> much faster than a Windos user, since they don't expect everything to be
> like Windos. <<
>
> Do you have evidence to support this, other than wishful thinking and
> some anecdotes? Evidence would require gathering large, diverse groups
> of users, some of them new to computing, others experienced with
> Windows, giving them tasks to do in GNU/Linux, and observing what they
> go through and how long it takes for them to complete the tasks. You
> would also gather their impressions of how hard or easy it was to
> accomplish the tasks.
>
> >> I taught myself MS-DOS when I was three years old. Since I had no
>
> previous conceptions on what an OS should be like, I learned rather
> easily. <<
>
> Surely you must realize that you were a very unusual three-year-old. For
> one thing, you must have known how to read and spell, as well as how to
> use a keyboard. Most three-year-olds can't read and spell at all, or if
> at all, not well enough to use a text-based operating system like
> MS-DOS. And then, once you start it, what do you do with it? Most
> three-year-olds aren't interested in playing with commands at a command
> prompt.<g> They want to run Jumpstart Preschool or Reader Rabbit or
> Sesame Street. They want to do it the way my granddaughter does: start
> the computer; after Windows starts, put the CD into the CD-ROM drive;
> the program autostarts; click your way through it; click on whatever
> ends it when you're done--the voices tell you what to do. Want to run
> something else? Put that CD into the drive and repeat the above.
> Computers in 1985, which is probably about when you started, were a lot
> different than they are today, and so are operating systems.
>
> >> When I tried MacOS, a very user-friendly OS, I couldn't understand
>
> it, simply because it wasn't anything like what I had tried before. <<
>
> And how about after you had used Mac OS for an hour? It goes beyond
> first impressions to how long it takes a person to become a competent
> user.
>
> >> I kept an open mind, and now I find that I can't understand the
>
> "logic" (if there is any) in Windos, my previous OS of choice. <<
>
> Doesn't sound like the mind is too open with regard to Windows.<g> Did
> you ever feel you understood how Windows works? If so, what happened to
> change that? This seems contradictory to the advice to take each system
> as it stands, without making invidious comparisons to what you already
> know.
>
> >> When it comes to troubleshooting problems, often you will _have_ to
>
> use the command line. <<
>
> In Linux. Now. Hopefully not forever. Hopefully not in two years. Better
> yet, not in one year.
>
> >> In Windos, if something goes wrong, the user has no way of finding
>
> out what it is. This is because things are 100% graphical. <<
>
> I disagree. I think there are many ways of finding out what's wrong. You
> just have to learn how to do it--just like Linux!
>
> >> As a result, often the solution is to reinstall, and even this can't
>
> fix everything. <<
>
> A reinstall is seldom needed. The reason people use it so often is that
> they don't know what else to try. Users at this level wouldn't have a
> clue what to try in Linux, either. Also, new users are told by tech
> support of various computer manufacturers to use their recovery disk
> (which wipes everything and restores the system to what it was when they
> got it) because it's a lot less expensive (to the manufacturer) to get
> them back to square one than to try to figure out what may be wrong and
> simply fix that. Unfortunately, if the cause of the problem is a bad
> driver or a buggy program, the problem will be back as soon as they put
> it back on the system.
>
> If I may add a personal anecdote, I've been using Windows starting with
> 3.0 in 1991. In ten years, I've *never* had to reinstall any version of
> Windows because my system was messed up beyond my ability to figure it
> out. I also do not crash five times a day. I would not put up with
> frequent crashes. I'm not saying those who do have a lot of crashes are
> doing something wrong, just pointing out that crashes are not
> necessarily a part of the "Windows experience." I am most certainly not
> the only user I know whose Windows system runs reliably.
>
> >> The Windos ctrl-x, ctrl-c and ctrl-v will also work in many apps. <<
>
> Those are actually Mac commands that Windows adopted.
>
> >> kdesu is a graphical version of su. <<
>
> This is confusing. When I typed "kdesu" at the Run line in an Alt-F2
> window, nothing happened. If it were a graphical version of anything, a
> program would have started. When I typed "kdesu" at a prompt in a
> terminal window, I got a message I didn't understand calling for more
> parameters, I guess. It told me to try "kdesu help" (if I remember),
> which brought up more stuff I couldn't comprehend. Finally, I examined
> the command line for SuperUser File Manager in the Menu List I got by
> right-clicking on the K button, and there it was--"kdesu <kprogram>"! I
> finally understood how to use kdesu. Had I not been favored with that
> divine inspiration, I still wouldn't have a clue about using the
> "graphical version" of su.
>
> I'm not setting up any Windows vs. Linux comparisons or claiming Windows
> is the be-all and end-all of operating systems or the Windows way is the
> way it should be. What got me started was a statement that implied
> "intuitive" had some relationship to what you already know how to do. I
> read your sentences on "intuitive to a Windows and a *nix user" to my
> husband, who rarely uses a computer and doesn't know operating systems
> from a hole in the ground, and he immediately caught the strange use of
> "intuitive" without my coaxing. He's not good at computers but he is
> good at word usage.
> --Judy Miner
