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