Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!cmcl2!esquire!yost
From: yost@esquire.UUCP (David A. Yost)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Window Managers and Client Menus
Message-ID: <1452@esquire.UUCP>
Date: 28 Sep 89 15:01:04 GMT
References: <663@thor.wright.EDU> <654@thor.wright.EDU> <1839@bacchus.dec.com> <671@thor.wright.EDU> <296@auto-trol.UUCP>
Reply-To: yost@esquire.UUCP (David A. Yost)
Organization: DP&W, New York, NY
Lines: 50

In article <296@auto-trol.UUCP> ncar!ico!auto-trol!marbru (Martin Brunecky) writes:
>       But we are at the beginning of the user interface
>	evolution, which, in my opinion, will result in commonly
>       accepted "feel" - such as a standard typewriter keyboard.

The bitmap screen/mouse "user interface evolution" has
been going on for many years before X.  X, by providing
tools for implementing user interfaces, while
refraining from imposing any specific user interface
policy, has brought user interface tinkering to the
masses, as well as to a new group of competing large
forces (OFS, AT&T-Sun, DEC, HP, ...)

This will lead to a commonly accepted "feel"?
Is there a commonly accepted "feel" in the giant,
anarchic, PC market?  (What a great straight line
for jokes!)

The standard typewriter keyboard is an interesting
example.  The standard was set by the first vendor.
It remained for a mob of computer terminal manufacturers
to experiment endlessly with the position of return,
backspace, caps lock, control, ESC, and other keys,
much to the delight of fascinated computer users.

A standard is generally set by a single well-promoted
initial offering in a new area.  Standard, not in the
sense of a well-defined specification, but in the sense
of de facto standard, the dominant way of doing things.
Think of all the standards have been imprinted by an
initial offering:  CP/M on most 8080s, DOS (originally
named the Q and D Operating System before Microsoft
bought it) on most 8086s, C on all UNIXes, TCP/IP,
NFS, etc.

I think the lesson is that the ideal kind of
standardization results from a well-promoted initial
offering which is also well-thought-out and complete
enough that workarounds for errors and omissions are
not rampant, and which preferably is supported,
controlled, and improved on a timely, regular basis
by the originators thereafter so as to forestall the
acceptance of diverging non-standard extensions and
workarounds by others.  The Mac comes very close to
being a really good example of this form of
standardization, and DOS a nearly perfect nonexample.

Standard user interfaces on X?  Let's see how it turns out.

 --dave yost