Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!arisia!sgi!shinobu!odin!odin.corp.sgi.com!portuesi
From: portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga 1.4 Wish List
Message-ID: 
Date: 11 Aug 89 09:36:24 GMT
References: <8908110338.AA15004@jade.berkeley.edu>
Sender: news@odin.SGI.COM
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 92
In-reply-to: SANTAROS@UWF.BITNET's message of 11 Aug 89 03:06:53 GMT

In article <8908110338.AA15004@jade.berkeley.edu> SANTAROS@UWF.BITNET writes:

   >One of the biggest problems with the Amiga is that most of the developers
   >I know have absolutly NO artistic talent.  The AMiga TOPAZ font and the
   >"insert workbench" hand....what most people see is the incredibley cheezy-
   >looking workbench with its c64-looking icons.  When they compare this with
   >with the sleek, professional-looking Mac....no wonder Amiga's penetration
   >into the business market is near nill.

   Whoa Vic, are we comparing the Amiga's workbench to the Mac's?


Why not?  The Workbench and the Finder are two very similar programs
that pretty much try to do the same thing.


   And as far as the Business World, how come the PC's CHEEZE LOOKING UI is not
   on you *hit list? Nor is MicroSofts, nor SUN's nor X nor anything but Amy's!

First of all, the PC doesn't *have* a standard user interface.  Aside
from that, Microsoft Windows is very conservative-looking (exactly
what you need for a business environment), but it is far from ugly.
By far, X is the ugliest windowing system I have ever seen.  That
largely stems from its "policy-free" philosophy which doesn't dictate
how people should make X applications look and behave, combined with
the complete lack of graphic design talent on the part of X
developers.  Hey, people can't do everything.  Anyway, because this is
the Amiga group, I would expect complaints about the look of the Amiga
UI to be filed here, not complaints about the MS Windows, SunView, or
X.

   There is form and function and then there is cute and constraining.  When the
   Mac first came out it was considered cute because the art in its GUI was
   considered nonfunctional and thus a waste of CPU horses.

A visually appealing, well designed user interface makes it easier for
the user to figure out what is going on, and reduces mental fatigue.
There are a lot of people who fail to fail to realize that in many
respects, the medium is the message.  Apple realizes this -- that's
why they have spent lots of money and hired graphic designers to make
their interface clear and visually appealing.  It's a major reason
they've become the standard of comparison for GUI's, despite the flaws
in their system software or their user interface.

Designing a good-looking user interface is a matter of graphic design,
not CPU cycles.  Back at Carnegie Mellon, when the Andrew Window
Manager was being developed, they brought in a consultant from the
University's Design department to study the window manager they had
recently developed and suggest ways to make it visually more
appealing.  This person spent several weeks studying the workstation
display, watching people use the machine, and taking notes.  After
this time, they asked him for suggestions to improve the appearance of
the window manager.  He offered only one suggestion: increase the
number of pixels in the borders between the windows.  Amazingly
enough, that one little change resulted in a much nicer, less tiring
display.  The point of this story is that a lot of trivial factors
contribute to making an interface visually appealing.  Most software
developers don't have enough artistic or design talent to appreciate
these factors, myself included.

   As far as flexability
   I consider the MAC to be far from that.  I can use ResEdit to change Icon pics
   but the program is soooo buggy that in the hands of a novice (if he can get it)
   is like using sweating dynamite! (pun on the MAC BOMB!)

IconEd isn't hot stuff either.  I've never had it guru the machine,
but it's not exactly Dpaint (though I am not trying to say it should
be).

   OTHER STUFF
   1) CBM may have been rushed to get the first Amigas to market.

True.  And they were (and still are) definitely understaffed.

   2) If workbench had started life too cute then Apple may have sued CBM

Not true.  If Workbench had started life as a clone of the Finder then
Apple may have sued CBM.  It is possible to design a good looking GUI
without cloning the Mac.  See the NeXT machine for just one example.
The windowing system on my Personal Iris is very pretty, and it is far
from a clone of the Mac.

   3) Time's a wastin', things a' changin', quit complain' and do somthin'
   constructive rather than GRIPE!  ;-)

I understand that CBM is giving Workbench a drastic overhaul for 1.4.
One can only hope they'll give it a facelift as well.

				--M
--
Michael Portuesi	Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc.
			portuesi@SGI.COM