Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!ccicpg!felix!john
From: john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hypercard,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: MacUser Hypercard coverage (now Hypercard user interface)
Message-ID: <14541@felix.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Nov-87 19:06:25 EST
Article-I.D.: felix.14541
Posted: Wed Nov 25 19:06:25 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Nov-87 14:02:52 EST
References: <34557@sun.uucp> <7469@eddie.MIT.EDU> <34647@sun.uucp>
Sender: daemon@felix.UUCP
Reply-To: john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert)
Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, CA
Lines: 71
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.mac.hypercard:173 comp.sys.mac:10323

In article <34647@sun.uucp> cramer@sun.UUCP (Sam Cramer) writes:
>Chuq and Zigurd write defending Hypercard against attack on inconsistent
>user interface grounds.  I beg to differ.
>
>I find the non-standard user interface of Hypercard most distressing.  The
>strongest point of the Macintosh is its simple and consistent user interface.
>I feel comfortable recommending the Mac to people who have not used computers
>before because I know it will take them very little time to learn the basics
>of almost every application available.  Hypercard changes all that.  How
>many people who first fired up Hypercard tried to double-click on a button?
>A bit confusing, no?

Maybe at first.  Remember that in the standard Mac interface, you always
single-click buttons.  You double-click ICONS, to open them.  Hypercard
introduces buttons that can have icons built in.  You just need to realize
you are not in a finder-substitute - those things are BUTTONS.  It may
sometimes be a drawback that the Mac interface allows you to stop thinking
about what you do.

>The non-standard interface of Hypercard is a giant step backward.  Hypercard
>is a great application, with a lousy user interface - lousy because it is
>not consistent with the vast majority of Mac applications.  I'm amazed
>that it made it out in its current form.  While the MacUser criticism is
>overstated, the basic point is valid: Hypercard does not conform to the
>Mac user interface.

The interface in HyperCard is not substantially different.  It is limited,
and will probably improve.  But this whole argument seems sort of off track.
You can't blame the program.  You might want to blame the tools, but really,
you should blame the developers who chose to use the tools in a non-standard
way.  It is possible to create some very Mac-like interfaces in HyperCard.

It is also very possible to create some non-Mac-like interfaces using the
toolbox.  There are developer guidelines to follow for BOTH the toolbox
and now for HyperCard as well.  Things will settle appropriately after
we all can experience the best ways to use the HyperCard tools, and after
the tools support has had a chance to mature.  I think at this point
the term "lousy" is definately extreme and premature.

This does not mean I think HyperCard is perfect.  There are many things I
would like to see change.  The most obnoxious thing I can think of, which
has previously been addressed, is the "helpfulness" of the interpreter in
trying to second guess that I just "forgot" the quotes.  As the developer
of a different language, I learned quickly that the people using it,
if they are really interested in pursuing it, will want consistancy.
If I "forgot" some quotes, then I can handle being told about it, but don't
go forward trying to second guess me and in the end yielding incorrect
results.  Give me the chance to fix it.

It also suffers from some strange attitudes, such as the one expressed by the
following quote from the Goodman book (p. 76) :

   "While HyperCard should not be confused with reporting databases..."

Why not?  Only reason I can think of is that reporting features are weak.
This comment seems like an attempt to rationalize that fact.
If you got a bunch of information that is important, then you will need to
produce reports.  I give the benefit of the doubt that this attitude
will vanish with time and work to enhance the reporting features.

The script editor should be more like other editors.  It still can be.

This is a young product.  I think it deserves some time to develop.
It certainly holds a great deal of potential, and is worth giving
a chance to mature.


John G.
--
John Gilbert
!trwrb!felix!john