Re: Info sucks?
Okay here my rant
I'll agree most Unix editor are not intutive, most are not easy-to-use.
But several are efficent to use. vi is very effecent I opened the
Did the commands as I read about them and learned all the basic commands
in and hour of doing. Emacs has an editor, I don't like it as well
because many commands are long and time commusing though some are simple
and the menu isn't too hard use once you learn one thing from the manual
and that's how open it. Pico, is by far an very simplistic editor, and
I used it extensively for a long time. Info if you use info is not
bad. 6 or 7 commands and you can navigate it just fine, though
somepeople like pictures... I said it one and will say it again. If
you want them that badly. add a @IMG to info lanugage you do have
source available. And then a GUI frontend could display pictures. And
the nodes aren't a prob if you specify a long name. HTML depends on the
broswer just like info.
> Again I apologize for the subject of this thread... I didn't choose it and
> it's grown into something else. To reiterate, info isn't the only thing
> that I think sucks :)
Don't Apoligize. Though it has grown into something else. You are
handling yourself well. I commend you, though I may not ever completely
agree nor disagree with you.
> - there's a *context sensitive* status bar at the bottom of the
> screen, offering useful and relevant keystrokes for whatever you're
Oh people we have to concede this only status bars are useful even to
On vim i find --INSERT-- very useful. And it few other enhance ments.
> - all menu bars are accessible with the mouse, ALT-keys (CUA standard, and
> a very good idea) and F10+arrows (not so intuitive but sometimes
> useful). Often-used menu bar options tell you hotkeys to launch them:
> learn as you go, *without* going out of your way to read manuals.
Menus are fine but a command line like in vi, still beats the pants off
a menu, though both aren't mutually exclusive. I do think it good for
people to read a manual, or read somme of it. Or at least a tutorial
while working with the program
God bless VT's oops guess they have to read a manual to figure those out
> - context-sensitive online help. If you have a problem, press F1 (CUA
> standard key) and it tells you information that's *relevant* to your
> current situation. Press F1 again and it tells you how to use the help
Only if I can disable it and read manuals and use my commandline
> emacs is the most powerful Unix editor, but it also lacks friendliness --
> how quickly can you navigate the menu bar with the keyboard in emacs? I
> don't even know *how*. Yet with every CUA program, I instantly know how to
> use the menu bar.
I'm not going into the vi emacs rant. That just what we need..
> There are a lot of important user interface considerations that many, many
> Unix programs simply ignore, and that CUA takes into account. I won't use
> the word "intuitive" to describe this because, as many people pointed out,
> there's no such thing as a completely "intuitive" interface.
That probably a good move. if people want a good info/man/editor use
it is very easy to use and is similar to CUA for those who want to use
I still think vi is more effeicent than any editor I've used. Wish it
had higlight though. Darn evlis does doesn't it. ;)
> But there are good and bad interfaces, and I take that as an absolute fact.
Stating the obivous
> Good interfaces take advantage of human observational characteristics (eg.
> when things change, they are more obvious), spacial memory, incremental
> learning, and skill with metaphors. You can start simple and learn without
> trying very hard all at once.
I always liked the idea of staying hard, though add a few features to
give a crutch to those that aren't as quick to learn. And again VT's
are great things. I learned sockets while programing and using info at
the same time on different vt's
> Bad user interfaces choose arbitrary keys (yes, of COURSE it's C-X C-C or :q
> to quit!), do not provide hints (menu bar? what menu bar?), ignore common
> user assumptions (old versions of info didn't use the arrow keys) and
> require extensive explanations of seemingly simple operations (cut and paste
> in wordstar, navigation versus insert mode in vi).
command and insert mode is not hard to explain, though vim helps when
you see --INSERT--, --REPLACE-- or nothing at all.
insert you type text, command you enter commands, replace you overwrite
> The first time you start vi or emacs, you have to _fight_ with the darn
> things to get out again. Same with info reader, and lots of other Unix user
> interfaces. I don't care how much you're used to emacs and vi -- that's all
> it is. They aren't, and will never be, examples of good user interface
That's because you didn't do man info. Read the five basic command
you'll ever need or at q from quit. with vi you didn't start vi with
the supplied tutorial, and emacs comes up with a basic help screen that
tells you how to exit. And kill isn't fighting is just asserting
> It bothers me that so many advanced programmers -- and I consider myself,
> and many of the Debian developers, members of that group -- live in their
> own little bubble, assuming that what's easy for them is easy for everybody.
> That's not true at all; in particular, many, many people do not retain much
> information when they read high-density stuff like emacs documentation.
> Most people don't learn as fast as we do.
Just do the tutorial then, I do think tutorial are important things.
> It is possible (really!) to design an interface that's easy and powerful for
> everyone *including* us. Don't duplicate a bad UI just because you're used
> to it -- design it well, and your program will be better for everyone.
but never as completely efficent. the windows 9x start menu is the
closest a ui has ever come. ON my win9x partition the enter startmenu
is access by ctrl-esc and three letters.
Oops time fro war craft
PENQUIN-LOVER-CODER ALERT: email@example.com
All windows user please exvacuate the building
(So I can install a better OS on the comps)
Pass on the GAS get NASM instead.