Re: The target user and consequences

[JR Tipton <nails maybe net>]

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Soren Harward wrote:
> Ooh, I think we may have a good analogy here:
> 
> At first, did your girlfriend know exactly where everything in the kitchen
> is?  Did she expect it to be exactly the same as hers?  I don't think so.
> As long as you arrange everything logically (which I trust you did) once
> she found where one knife was, she knew the rest of the knives were there.
> Then, after spending a little time in your kitchen, she gradually learned
> where everything was.

This *is* a good analogy, but I think you're reading it slightly
differently than I intended it.

What I am saying is this: she walks in, finds the bowls (because she knows
the recipe, knows the process, and just needs the tools) etc, and then
starts doing what she knows best.  The point of the analogy is that my
kitchen did not dictate to her how to make a cake but instead had
different locations for the tools (and I think it was a logical layout).

The recipe stayed the same, the process stayed the same.  The interface is
what changed.

The computer should do none other than provide the tools.  Accounts
already know how to "account", graphic artists already know how to draw.
The computer should not dictate to them how they do it but instead leave
self-explanatory (and documented as well) tools lying about for the person
to use.

Yes, it is that simple.

> transition doesn't NEED to be seamless, it just needs to be logical and
> consistent.  So what if Windows decides to put its "quit" in the "file"
> menu and Windows users expect it to be there?  We don't have to do it
> because it's OUR interface.  WE are designing it.  Please, guys, remember
> this whenever you are tempted to say "Well, it's been done this way
> before" (which yes, I have on occasion said).

I did not intend to say, "Let's do it the Windows way!" or anything of the
sort... I'm not sure if you're implying that I did, but I just wanted to
set the record straight.

william r. tipton