Interfaces

[Beartooth]

	In another thread, Bob Marcan wrote:

>  Seems almost nobody is using the command line.
>  GUI for everything.
>  I like to see how will they solve the repetitive task.  
	Well, what follows seems typical enough to be of possible interest.

	I've been around long enough to know only too well that the CLI is 
preferable when feasible. The problem is remembering the commands, to the 
point where your fingers know them. I began with a prodigious memory, and 
ran it flat out for decades; so now in old age it's way full. 

	But visual spatial memory, fortunately, seems to occupy a 
different register. It's slower and less sharp. To answer what I has 
clicked on, I was not able to rattle off a list, but had to go back and 
reconstruct it -- including recovering a couple times from errors. But I 
got there. The first false fork with the CLI'd've lost me.

-- 
Beartooth Implacable, Double Retiree
Historian of Tongues from Way Back

[Devin Prater]

Many blind people use the command line on Linux, mainly because the GUI isn’t all that
great with a screen reader. Although web services can be hard to use, especially when
TUI’s with “fancy” use of Unicode box drawing characters make things overly verbose and
complex. But there is this thing where the GUI has all these apps: Thunderbird, SeaMonkey,
Pidgin, where things are easy to set up and configure. Meanwhile, Mutt requires you to
know the server info for your mail accounts and so on.

I’d love to use the CLI much more, but it seems to be built for people that already know
how to use it, especially the packages. So I mainly use a Mac, where the GUI is easy to
use, the Mail client is great, and I just use my phone for chatting.

>  On Jun 8, 2020, at 11:58 AM, Beartooth <Beartooth(a)comcast.net&gt;
> wrote:
>  
>  	In another thread, Bob Marcan wrote:
>  
> > Seems almost nobody is using the command line.
> > GUI for everything.
> > I like to see how will they solve the repetitive task. 
>  
>  	Well, what follows seems typical enough to be of possible interest.
>  
>  	I've been around long enough to know only too well that the CLI is 
>  preferable when feasible. The problem is remembering the commands, to the 
>  point where your fingers know them. I began with a prodigious memory, and 
>  ran it flat out for decades; so now in old age it's way full. 
>  
>  	But visual spatial memory, fortunately, seems to occupy a 
>  different register. It's slower and less sharp. To answer what I has 
>  clicked on, I was not able to rattle off a list, but had to go back and 
>  reconstruct it -- including recovering a couple times from errors. But I 
>  got there. The first false fork with the CLI'd've lost me.
>  
>  -- 
>  Beartooth Implacable, Double Retiree
>  Historian of Tongues from Way Back
>  _______________________________________________
>  users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]

[George N. White III]

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:59, Beartooth <Beartooth(a)comcast.net&gt; wrote:

>          In another thread, Bob Marcan wrote:
>
>  > Seems almost nobody is using the command line.
>  > GUI for everything.
>  > I like to see how will they solve the repetitive task.
>
>          Well, what follows seems typical enough to be of possible interest.
>
>          I've been around long enough to know only too well that the CLI is
>  preferable when feasible. The problem is remembering the commands, to the
>  point where your fingers know them. I began with a prodigious memory, and
>  ran it flat out for decades; so now in old age it's way full.
>
>          But visual spatial memory, fortunately, seems to occupy a
>  different register. It's slower and less sharp. To answer what I has
>  clicked on, I was not able to rattle off a list, but had to go back and
>  reconstruct it -- including recovering a couple times from errors. But I
>  got there. The first false fork with the CLI'd've lost me.
>  
As an undergraduate, I could get a timesharing account.  It used
a teletype terminal and you could (with luck) save your code to
paper tape.  In grad school I had access to an IBM mainframe
and a keypunch machine.   With those systems it was really
important to read and understand the manuals and put a lot
of care into every line of code.  You also had to be frugal with
resources, so it was important to understand how memory and
mass storage were configured.

Today, youngsters learn that computers allow you to try things and
nothing really bad happens when you get it wrong, so we have
moved from engineered to experimental workflows.  The latter,
however, seem somehow tangled up with GUI's ("What does that
button do?").   I have found it hard to get students in a
command-line workshop to try experiments like creating a file,
storing it in a tar archive, deleting it, and restoring from the
archive.

How is it that "a picture is worth a thousand words" yet current
GUI's hide important details.   For years we had folders that all
looked the same even when they reside on very different filesystems.
Why do icons for disks often look like trashcans?  At least Gnome
now uses a file cabinet icon for Files app, but it could be animated
to convey some information about the status, such as starting to
bulge when it is over 80% full, falling over when the disk's S.M.A.R.T.
status indicates a failure, etc.

I find that many younger biologists who delve into remote sensing
or GIS, both often stretch the capabilities of the average PC,
are vague on the difference between RAM and mass storage,
so after seeing a device full error will ask if they can have the
RAM upgraded.  My Prius can display a simple diagram showing
when energy is flowing into the battery, etc.  Why don't GUI's have
similar diagrams for CPU load, storage space, and RAM usage?

-- 
George N. White III

[Devin Prater]

You know, the fact about needing to remember how you get somewhere is interesting to me. I
could “see” that as a mouse user, having to remember visual interfaces and where to click
when could get confusing. Perhaps we blind people have our own little command line, even
in visual interfaces. We use the keyboard only, so we tab around interfaces, or do
keyboard commands to activate something quickly. Although, yes, if an interface is big and
clunky, we do have to tab around a lot to get to where we need to go. But usually, it’s
not that bad; we can usually use a keyboard command to do much of anything on interfaces,
making a new message, opening a window, saving a file, renaming a file, all that.

>  On Jun 8, 2020, at 2:13 PM, George N. White III
> <gnwiii(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>  On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:59, Beartooth <Beartooth(a)comcast.net
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>          In another thread, Bob Marcan wrote:
>  
>  > Seems almost nobody is using the command line.
>  > GUI for everything.
>  > I like to see how will they solve the repetitive task. 
>  
>          Well, what follows seems typical enough to be of possible interest.
>  
>          I've been around long enough to know only too well that the CLI is 
>  preferable when feasible. The problem is remembering the commands, to the 
>  point where your fingers know them. I began with a prodigious memory, and 
>  ran it flat out for decades; so now in old age it's way full. 
>  
>          But visual spatial memory, fortunately, seems to occupy a 
>  different register. It's slower and less sharp. To answer what I has 
>  clicked on, I was not able to rattle off a list, but had to go back and 
>  reconstruct it -- including recovering a couple times from errors. But I 
>  got there. The first false fork with the CLI'd've lost me.
>  
>  As an undergraduate, I could get a timesharing account.  It used 
>  a teletype terminal and you could (with luck) save your code to 
>  paper tape.  In grad school I had access to an IBM mainframe 
>  and a keypunch machine.   With those systems it was really 
>  important to read and understand the manuals and put a lot 
>  of care into every line of code.  You also had to be frugal with 
>  resources, so it was important to understand how memory and 
>  mass storage were configured.
>  
>  Today, youngsters learn that computers allow you to try things and
>  nothing really bad happens when you get it wrong, so we have 
>  moved from engineered to experimental workflows.  The latter, 
>  however, seem somehow tangled up with GUI's ("What does that 
>  button do?").   I have found it hard to get students in a 
>  command-line workshop to try experiments like creating a file,
>  storing it in a tar archive, deleting it, and restoring from the 
>  archive.
>  
>  How is it that "a picture is worth a thousand words" yet current 
>  GUI's hide important details.   For years we had folders that all 
>  looked the same even when they reside on very different filesystems.  
>  Why do icons for disks often look like trashcans?  At least Gnome 
>  now uses a file cabinet icon for Files app, but it could be animated 
>  to convey some information about the status, such as starting to
>  bulge when it is over 80% full, falling over when the disk's S.M.A.R.T.
>  status indicates a failure, etc.
>  
>  I find that many younger biologists who delve into remote sensing 
>  or GIS, both often stretch the capabilities of the average PC, 
>  are vague on the difference between RAM and mass storage, 
>  so after seeing a device full error will ask if they can have the 
>  RAM upgraded.  My Prius can display a simple diagram showing 
>  when energy is flowing into the battery, etc.  Why don't GUI's have 
>  similar diagrams for CPU load, storage space, and RAM usage?
>  
>  -- 
>  George N. White III
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]

[Tim]

On Mon, 2020-06-08 at 16:13 -0300, George N. White III wrote:
>  How is it that "a picture is worth a thousand words" yet
> current 
>  GUI's hide important details.   For years we had folders that all 
>  looked the same even when they reside on very different
>  filesystems.  Why do icons for disks often look like trashcans?  At
>  least Gnome now uses a file cabinet icon for Files app, but it could
>  be animated to convey some information about the status, such as
>  starting to bulge when it is over 80% full, falling over when the
>  disk's S.M.A.R.T. status indicates a failure, etc. 
The ancient Macs used animated trashcans that did change shape.  But
more and more people are designing away the indicators on hardware and
software.  They think you don't need to know that the hard drive is
working, or the network is transferring, or that the computer is
booting and not stuck on something.

Yes, I do need to know if data has stopped flowing to the drive,
because there's a delay after the computer has told me it's safe to
remove a drive before it actually is safe to remove it.  I want to know
whether something is not working because my network isn't working, or
the problem is external.  When the computer is taking longer to boot, I
need to know why to do something about it, and I don't want to fire up
an indepth analysis to do so.  If I can see that a "waiting for
something" message is sitting there for prolonged time, I can deal with
it much quicker.

Icon choices really annoy me, so many of them are just so completely
arbitrary that they convey no meaning.  You eventually get used to
clicking on the third icon across by habit.  And too many of them are
too similar.  On Evolution, the printer icon sits next to the trash
icon, the printer icon looks like a paper shredder sitting on top of a
rubbish bin.  Never mind systems that just shovel masses of completely
uncategorised random icons together so I've got to read through lots to
find what I need.
 
-- 
 
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1127.10.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Jun 3 14:28:03 UTC 2020 x86_64
 
Boilerplate:  All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Tue, 2020-06-09 at 10:39 +0930, Tim via users wrote:
>  Icon choices really annoy me, so many of them are just so completely
>  
>  arbitrary that they convey no meaning.  You eventually get used to
>  
>  clicking on the third icon across by habit.  And too many of them are
>  
>  too similar.  On Evolution, the printer icon sits next to the trash
>  
>  icon, the printer icon looks like a paper shredder sitting on top of a
>  
>  rubbish bin. 
If you think the layout is problematic, I'd suggest discussing it on
the Evo mailing list and eventually filing an RFE.

The icons are determined by the current style dictated by Gnome, not by
Evolution itself. The same applies to fonts.

poc

[Tim]

On Tue, 2020-06-09 at 11:40 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>  If you think the layout is problematic, I'd suggest discussing it
> on
>  the Evo mailing list and eventually filing an RFE.
>  
>  The icons are determined by the current style dictated by Gnome, not
>  by Evolution itself. The same applies to fonts. 
I suspected that's the case, so it'd be pointless complaining to
Evolution about the icons drawn by someone else.

I usually delete by hitting the delete key on the keyboard, anyway. 
But I mention it as an example of an unclear icon.  Here's another: 
I've got an app on the phone for controlling smart lights, it lets you
pick provided icons for your presets, but the images all have no
meaning, and you can't create your own images.  Or the controllers on
video games that I never play, there's nothing sensible about why a
game uses the square button, or the green button, etc., it's all
arbitrary.  They do nothing to contribute to ease of use.

Bye,
Tim.
 
-- 
 
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1127.10.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Jun 3 14:28:03 UTC 2020 x86_64
 
Boilerplate:  All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Wed, 2020-06-10 at 00:25 +0930, Tim via users wrote:
>  On Tue, 2020-06-09 at 11:40 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>  > If you think the layout is problematic, I'd suggest discussing it on
>  > the Evo mailing list and eventually filing an RFE.
>  > 
>  > The icons are determined by the current style dictated by Gnome, not
>  > by Evolution itself. The same applies to fonts.
>  
>  I suspected that's the case, so it'd be pointless complaining to
>  Evolution about the icons drawn by someone else. 
You could however make suggestions about the layout, i.,e. the order of
icons on the top row. That's determined by Evo.

poc

[Matti Pulkkinen]

Tim via users kirjoitti 9.6.2020 klo 17.55:
>  the controllers on video games that I never play, there's
> nothing
>  sensible about why a game uses the square button, or the green
>  button, etc., it's all arbitrary.  They do nothing to contribute to
>  ease of use. 
I don't know about you, but I can't think of an icon or symbol
that 
would convey useful semantic meaning for a button which you sometimes 
use to jump, sometimes to activate a contextual action, sometimes to 
select a menu item, sometimes to shoot, sometimes to either crouch or go 
prone depending on how long you hold the button down, sometimes to apply 
gas in a car, sometimes to pass a ball to another player player, or 
whatever else. There are a limited number of buttons you can fit on a 
controller of reasonable size, and an unlimited number of potential 
in-game actions players may be able to take with said controller. I 
would argue that a four-button controller – perhaps labelled with 
arbitrary geometric shapes – contributes to ease of use much better than 
a controller with who knows how many buttons labeled with their precise 
in-game action. Since learning to play with a regular controller as a 
child, I've never actually had any difficulty in learning the controls 
to any game using such a controller. Playing with a controller becomes 
second nature, even if it contains arbitrary elements, because you just 
get used to it.

As for application and toolbar icons, usually after a while of looking 
at them, most will lose the metaphoric link between representation and 
reality, at least in my mind. In fact it didn't even register with me 
that the Files icon in Gnome is actually a filing cabinet until someone 
mentioned it earlier. It was just the symbol for the Files application.


-- 
Terveisin / Regards,
Matti Pulkkinen

[Beartooth]

On Tue, 09 Jun 2020 11:40:15 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:

>  If you think the layout is problematic, I'd suggest discussing it
> on the
>  Evo mailing list and eventually filing an RFE.
>  
>  The icons are determined by the current style dictated by Gnome, not by
>  Evolution itself. The same applies to fonts. 
	Years ago, I think about the time OSX first appeared, there were 
reports of an eminent industrial psychologist (whose name I've forgotten) 
who had said that all modern GUIs were downright wrong-headed. Does 
anybody remember? And was that insight ever followed up on? (I believe 
the guy died not long after writing that.)
-- 
Beartooth Staffwright, Not Quite Clueless Power User
Remember I know little (precious little!) of where up is.

[Jerry James]

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:33 AM Beartooth <beartooth(a)comcast.net&gt; wrote:
>          Years ago, I think about the time OSX first appeared, there
> were
>  reports of an eminent industrial psychologist (whose name I've forgotten)
>  who had said that all modern GUIs were downright wrong-headed. Does
>  anybody remember? And was that insight ever followed up on? (I believe
>  the guy died not long after writing that.) 
I don't recall that one, but I remember this little gem from Doug Gwyn in 1991:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.unix.wizards/EMpOm6PVQYo/zOBTPgoDpWMJ

I liked his first sentence so much that it went into my quotes file. :-)
-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/

[Tom Horsley]

I don't know about GUIs in general, but I do know that
only one icon means anything to anyone :-). They invented
the envelope icon to mean mail, and everyone recognized it,
so they set off the dynamite in the icon factory and
exploded cryptic icons all over everything, and not
one of them can be recognized (other than mail).

[Doug McGarrett]

On 6/9/20 12:01 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
>  I don't know about GUIs in general, but I do know that
>  only one icon means anything to anyone :-). They invented
>  the envelope icon to mean mail, and everyone recognized it,
>  so they set off the dynamite in the icon factory and
>  exploded cryptic icons all over everything, and not
>  one of them can be recognized (other than mail).
>  
You have a point, altho not completely correct. Among the icons on my 
KDE screen,
the Package Manager looks like a wrapped parcel, two CD icons (K3b and 
Brasero)
sort of look like CDs, KCalc looks like a pocket calculator, sort of, 
KPatience card
games looks like playing cards. And Thunderbird, while showing a letter, 
has it
wrapped in a wig that covers where ears would be. Is that supposed to be 
feathers?
Anyway, one gets used to the image associated with a given app--much better
than have every app look like a manila folder--thanx to Microsoft for 
that! Even they
realized their error rather quickly.
--doug

[Samuel Sieb]

On 6/9/20 10:09 AM, Doug McGarrett wrote:
>  games looks like playing cards. And Thunderbird, while showing a
> letter, 
>  has it
>  wrapped in a wig that covers where ears would be. Is that supposed to be 
>  feathers? 
If you look closer, you'll see that it's a bird with its wings wrapping 
around the envelope.

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Tue, 2020-06-09 at 09:52 -0600, Jerry James wrote:
>  On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:33 AM Beartooth
> <beartooth(a)comcast.net&gt; wrote:
>  >         Years ago, I think about the time OSX first appeared, there were
>  > reports of an eminent industrial psychologist (whose name I've forgotten)
>  > who had said that all modern GUIs were downright wrong-headed. Does
>  > anybody remember? And was that insight ever followed up on? (I believe
>  > the guy died not long after writing that.)
>  
>  I don't recall that one, but I remember this little gem from Doug Gwyn in 1991:
>  
>  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.unix.wizards/EMpOm6PVQYo/zOBTPgoDpWMJ
>  
>  I liked his first sentence so much that it went into my quotes file. :-) 
Brian Kernighan's version of that (which I think is earlier) is "What
You See is All You Get".

poc

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Tue, 2020-06-09 at 15:32 +0000, Beartooth wrote:
>  On Tue, 09 Jun 2020 11:40:15 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>  
>  > If you think the layout is problematic, I'd suggest discussing it on the
>  > Evo mailing list and eventually filing an RFE.
>  > 
>  > The icons are determined by the current style dictated by Gnome, not by
>  > Evolution itself. The same applies to fonts.
>  
>  	Years ago, I think about the time OSX first appeared, there were 
>  reports of an eminent industrial psychologist (whose name I've forgotten) 
>  who had said that all modern GUIs were downright wrong-headed. Does 
>  anybody remember? And was that insight ever followed up on? (I believe 
>  the guy died not long after writing that.) 
Don Norman? He did have a lot of influence on HCI design (or at least
he was cited a good deal). This is probably his best-known book:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Design-Everyday-Things-Revised-Expanded/dp/04650...

poc