On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 13:56:30 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> I read you, but as I said, I wish not to discuss this any
>> further on this list since it really has nothing to do with TB!. I'm
>> pretty sure the moderators will not jump in and encourage me to do
>> otherwise. :-) A personal reply would have been better.
> It does when TB!, according to the last interview, is heading down
> the path of excessive bloat.
OK then. I hope that I'm not overstepping here. :-)
You wrote:
> What other angle is there? Learn 30 different ways to do the same
> basic 6 things, none of which talk to each other. Learn 6 different
> ways to do 30 different things, all of which talk to one another.
> In short, for people who don't want to learn they sure are forced to
> learn a lot.
To me, you've pretty much setup a strawman argument here. Case in
point. Take TB!'s editor for example. There's a continuous stream of posts
to the effect of "why does the editor do this the x way or why does it do
it the y way, when I'm used to things being done the a and b way"? Why is
it then that *windows* users, who're supposed to be accustomed to the
difficult way of doing things, which is to learn a new way of doing things
with each application or editor in this instance, are now complaining
about TB!'s editor? Many also state, or rather *complain*, that TB!'s
editor does things they have never encountered before, and go even further
to say that the different ways TB!'s editor does things are wrong. Now why
is that? It's simple, most windows editors follow a basic standard of
operations. They may differ in features from a quantitative standpoint but
generally, where the features overlap, they're pretty much the same. So I
certainly DON'T, by any means, buy your argument, because this attempt to
adhere to some level of consistency exists with all application types. :-)
You're also assuming that a computer user wishes to use his
computer in the way that you do. That's an egocentric POV to have. My
sister for instance, uses her computer for e-mailing and Wordprocessing. A
nice monolithic type e-mail application would serve her needs well. She'll
be up and going a lot faster than having to learn 15 apps with separate
interfaces to manage her mail. It's perfectly natural for the user to
desire to do a task via a familiar interface rather than have to purchase
another application and learn how to use it. Yes, these monolithic apps
may not be for everyone, but the market is certainly there for them and
it's not l-stupidos that wish to buy these apps. These are simply
individuals who wish to use a computer with minimal learning effort since
they have other interests or pursuits in life. I'm not saying that one
paradigm should replace the other. I'm simply giving an argument for why
both paradigms exist. I agree with you're paradigm and I'll not defend it
since you're already doing a good job of it. :-)
Now, since I personally dislike monolithic (jack of all trades/
doer of all, master of none) apps, I am indeed against integrating Twain
support in TB!. To me it's a rather overboard request and taking things a
tad too far. But that's just MHO.
--
© Allie
» Using TB! v1.42 Beta/17 »» Win2k Pro
---
** How many of you believe in telekinesis? Raise MY hand!
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
