From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Peter Flynn Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: WYSIWYG and usability (was: Re: Rapidly navigating buffers using search Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 23:11:56 +0100 Organization: Usenet Labs Bozon Detector Facility Message-ID: <89n0pcFte4U1@mid.individual.net> References: <20100707064305.GF31621@groll.co.za> <20100707080139.GA18906@groll.co.za> <9dc07ed9-f6f1-4ac5-949a-5b97368cc32a@n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <87mxu22rbc.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <189683ce-87e4-40ba-ab73-03a223a98f64@y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1291844997 14287 80.91.229.12 (8 Dec 2010 21:49:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 21:49:57 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 08 22:49:53 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PQRtT-0004uP-S2 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 22:49:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:32803 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQRtT-0002Z9-4T for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:49:47 -0500 Original-Path: usenet.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help,comp.emacs,comp.text.tex Original-Followup-To: comp.text.tex Original-Lines: 75 Original-X-Trace: individual.net VunpF/XPdL8E75Q/uj92MwjAZtm6uHT6uy3k0QmDjEd4ZHr7J5 Cancel-Lock: sha1:3nc/Ce+mSrrAHCLyAvns6czzSM8= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411) In-Reply-To: <189683ce-87e4-40ba-ab73-03a223a98f64@y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com> Original-Xref: usenet.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:179637 comp.emacs:100165 comp.text.tex:404535 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:76078 Archived-At: bolega wrote: > On Jul 8, 3:36�am, David Kastrup wrote: > >> In a way, it is a losing battle. �People expect software to just work >> without reading manuals. �95% of all Word users, for example, create >> their documents by mostly visual manipulation of their text without >> having a clue about underlying structures like references, style sheets >> and so on. �The result is unmaintainable crap, but they would not know >> better. �Word tries keeping up in this battle of computer illiteracy by >> doing things like enumerations, styles and so on "automagically", >> second-guessing the user, and the user tries second-guessing Word in >> order to get around that. >> >> It is an escalation of mutual cluelessness. �The more userfriendly a >> piece of software becomes, the more this becomes a problem for >> _competent_ people willing to learn about their tool. �At least Emacs is >> at its heart and in most of its modes a WYSIWYG system with regard to >> the actual file contents: regardless of the crap people do, what ends up >> on disk is that what they see on their screen. >> > > Rare pearls of wisdom ... from DK. Actually, DK posts a lot of wisdom, but not all is as quotable as the above :-) > The new interface of office 2007 with tabs instead of pull-down menu > is a lot better in terms of visual throughput. I'm not familiar with that term. The ribbon is an experiment in interface usability (for doing which, Microsoft is to be congratulated, regardless of the outcome, and regardless of whether you think the ribbon better or worse than the old-style menus). Unfortunately it is based on the tyranny of the majority: it's fine for the unthinking user that David describes above; it is almost certainly suboptimal for his "competent user". > A wysiwig editor with a good markup or definition language can go a > long way to educate the user about the underlying features while at > the same time providing user-friendly convenience. The majority of users don't want to be educated about underlying features, or indeed about anything outside their field. They just want the system to produce what *they* *believe* to be right, whether it actually is right or not. As far as they are concerned, if it looks pretty, it's right. The fact that it may be unusable, obsolete within days, unreadable, or whatever, remains forever beyond them (oddly, even when they have to pay to have it put right afterwards). Fortunately, most of the material concerned is transient, ephemeral, or simply unimportant. However, in the middle (between those users and the "competent user") there will be users willing to learn how to do it right and avoid mistakes and unnecessary expense. But my own research is showing that these users do still insist on a synchronous typographical interface (what they call WYSIWYG, even when it's not, quite). What I am attempting to measure is how far you can go towards retaining the visual manipulation of the text before the interaction descends below the bar of mutual second-guessing that David describes. > Things are certainly progressing in this direction. Yes, slowly. > I have not used LyX but I have heard that it is wysiwig with the > option of viewing code in various representations. It's near-WYSIWYG. They describe it as WYSIWYM (Mean; implying conscious intent). For users in my middle group above, who require Instant Textual Gratification [tm :-], it's a valuable tool in that it has made it clearer where some of the boundaries lie. ///Peter -- (Followups set to c.t.t)