My point exactly!
This reminds me of a clever quote:
"The only intuitive interface is a nipple.
After that, it's all learned."
Whoever wrote that is a genius :-)
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 13:17, etharp wrote:
> 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
--
Sridhar Dhanapalan.
"There are two major products that come from Berkeley:
LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
-- Jeremy S. Anderson
