Re: Flexibility and Application Programming (Re: irc summary)



> >  Consistancy is the goal, but only no each
> >     individual's desktop.
>
>Hmmmm.... Hrrmmmm.... There is much to be said here. If things are too
>configurable, could you ever hope to use someone else's machine? What
>if you screw up your own beyond repair?  Still, we do like to
>customize, don't we? :-)


Just wanted to post that again. I've been worrying about that "use someone
else's machine" bit...I guess my way of dealing with it is only experts are
gonna REALLY modify things beyond the wrong, and these are the folks who
would understand default configs.

>Also, my experience is that emacs, for example, is in fact so
>hopelessly configurable that nobody does. Configure it, that
>is. [Nobody referring to most regularish users I know that use
>emacs.]


Not even minimal reconfigs?

>Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because you don't
>like what they did overall, doesn't mean there isn't something to be
>learned. My point in all of this is that the Macintosh certainly did
>one thing right: rigid human interface guidlines. Certain things must
>be present in certain places with certain names. This gives users
>comfort and eases the learning curve.


That's something I've been thinking about...it's one thing to have
minimize/maximize/close look different, it's another thing for them to BE
different, in new and strange locations every time...





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