Aucbvax.2426
fa.works
utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!works
Fri Jul 24 00:06:07 1981
Collected responses on useable systems
>From JMTURN@MIT-AI Fri Jul 24 00:03:46 1981
------------------------------
Date: 23 July 1981 16:29-EDT
From: Steven H. Gutfreund <SHG AT MIT-AI>
Subject: mundane
To: Joe.Newcomer at CMU-10A
Joe Newcomer raises a very good point in his letter of July-22:
I find that I have less and less time to worry about,
say, how to make CR in EMACS behave like LF and how to stop
LF from behaving differently if the previous line started at
the left margin. I know what effect I want; I don't want to
know about 37 different variables, TECO FS-flags, and other
crap to get a simple change in behavior. This is a lot of
what is involved in getting really good personal workstations;
if I have to remember dozens of incantations to, say, set up
defaults when I boot, I'm not going to be very happy.
joe
=-=-=-=-=
Peter Keene (sp?) of MIT Sloan School has a nice way of describing
the sort of system behavior Joe is looking for: mundane.
If I am not a car wizard I want my car's behavior to be mundane.
I want my car to be boring, I don't want it doing interesing things
like losing wheels. Many car drivers also don't want to learn all
the exciting things that you can do with manual transmission, boring
old automatic transmissions are good enough to get where you are
going.
If I am not a phone wizard I want my phone to be mundane. I am
not particularly interested in the intimate details of the phone
billing system when I am complaining about a $7,000 phone bill,
I really wanted the phone company to do the boring old thing and
bill me my normal ammount.
I believe that most people will want their workstations to be
mundane. They probably won't want a 3 week training course to
learn all sorts of wizzy neat features. If it behaves mostly
like those boring old office equipment (typewriters, phones,
etc.) it will probably be enough. After all, most people will
be using the workstation as a tool to get their work (what they
find interesting enough to be paid for) done.
- Steven Gutfreund
------------------------------
Date: 23 July 1981 04:17-EDT
From: James M. Turner <JMTURN AT MIT-AI>
Subject: Various subspecies
To: Joe.Newcomer at CMU-10A
Shade and Sweet water,
But designing systems who's most inexperienced user is it's
lowest common denominator severely limits what can be built in
to the language.
As an example, I am currently involved in moving Scribe
to the Lisp Machine (albeit, in a greatly changed appearence).
A decision that was made very early was that although the
DOCUMENT (the Scribe input file) requires no specialized
knowledge to write, extensions to the system itself require a
working understanding of Lisp, and the way Scribe works in this
version. The idea behind this was that if we tried to create
a "secretary extensible" environment, we would be sacrificing
efficiency (important in a package which is already dangerously
slow due to LISPM <-> PDP-10 I/O speed) and clarity of code for
the benefit of people who would probably not wish to change the
code anyway.
Besides, the typical supervisor doesn't want "low level"
personnel fooling with the code anyway. A friend who is
currently doing DE for DEC related the story to me of how her
supervisor had flamed when she had poked around the OS trying
to find out how to logout (it seems SOP was to hang up, which
she could not accept).
James
------------------------------
End of collected responses on useable systems
*********************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------------
gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <
[email protected]>
of
http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/
This Usenet Oldnews Archive
article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:
1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.
2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:
The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996
Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.
