Re: Nautilus 2.6 - We're going all spatial

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> In the usual sense, "object oriented" refers to a programming
> paradigm that provides some combination of encapsulation, bundling of
> data structures and the operations on them, inheritance and
> polymorphism. None of these concepts have any relevance in the HI
> realm, nor are they an appropriate basis for a user model.

The connection between both kinds of 'Object Oriented', as I see it, is
that in both cases you're dealing with objects plus the operations on them
(in the UI case made visible by right-clicking the object). I also think
that because of this, an OO programming style will feel more "natural" for
the creation of OO^H^H spatial UI's.

> I am not sure who first decided the spatial approach to a file manager
> should be called "object oriented", but they should be gently
> corrected and then shot.

I have a suspect for you: (from [1]) 'As early as October 1990, press
clippings were hinting at IBM's plans for an object-oriented user
interface for OS/2 2.0.  An article in PC Week (Pallato, 1990) was
entitled "IBM to Jazz Up OS/2 PM With Task-Oriented Icons." Cliff Reeves
of the IBM Common User Access Intrerface group in Cary, North Carolina was
quoted as saying, "During 1991, we are going to move to a more
object-oriented style of dealing with the operating system. CUA 3[2] is
sort of a generic term that we have applied to the next generation of the
user interface model." '

[1]: Mandel, Theo "The Elements Of User Interface Design", Wiley, 1997,

[2] For those who don't know, CUA stands for Common User Access,
guidelines that IBM and MS based their Windows 3.x/Presentation Manager
interfaces on.


Reinout van Schouwen			Artificial Intelligence student
email: reinout cs vu nl			mobile phone: lost / kwijt! :-(

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]