Xref: utzoo comp.cog-eng:642 comp.software-eng:825 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!whuts!spf From: spf@whuts.UUCP (Steve Frysinger of Blue Feather Farm) Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Re: Re: OPEN LOOK Message-ID: <4786@whuts.UUCP> Date: 19 Sep 88 18:01:25 GMT References: <762@esl.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 56 > Xref: whuts comp.cog-eng:647 comp.software-eng:862 > >>But (for example), a slider >>with only one adjustable parameter isn't "right" in my book, > > Which proves my point. Of *course* a slider should only have one > parameter. There are other "input devices" that can have more > (trackball- or joystick-like; color wheels, etc.) but sliders just > have one. You say "Of *course* ... one" ?? Why? What makes you so sure? What experiments have you run? Why can't you imagine another point of view than your own? Well, the reason I think it should be two is that I think you should be able to adjust both the upper and the lower limits of visibility. Your definition of a slider doesn't meet my needs, and inventing yet-another-widget is not the answer (for me). (I won't even ASK how a trackball or joystick-like widget would help!) >>nor is >>the requirement that horizontal scrollbars be on the bottom of a >>window. > But how about the Open Look definition, which makes it a user > preference where scroll bars should appear? According to "OPEN LOOKtm Graphical User Interface Functional Specification", 7/15/88, "Horizontal scrollbars are always positioned at the bottom of a pane." (pg 7-1, paragraph 4) > I don't want your > application on my system if you decide that everybody else did this > wrong, and you are going to save the world. What are the OPEN LOOK author's trying to do, if not "save the world"? > make > it user adjustable. In addition to being the right approach, this > happens to be the Open Look approach. Not always. See above. > Use your creativity for something that will make a difference! Please remember that I'm not out to bash OPEN LOOK. The world may indeed be ready for a set of user-interface guidelines (though I'm not even sure about this). But no standard should make arbitrary choices. And (so far in my reading of it) the OPEN LOOK seems to include such arbitrary choices. The last time we got a "standard" (this time an operating system) we lost file version numbers for ever. True, standards are voluntary, but the marketeers will likely follow anyone who's willing to lead, no matter WHAT the quality of the product. Steve