From: Paul Battley Date: 2005-04-03T06:02:53+09:00 Subject: Re: Respect and Disappointment On Apr 1, 2005 9:14 PM, Stephen Kellett wrote: > Thats a fine work around, but is bad for people with RSI/WRULD as it > introduces a static load on the finger holding for the pause. If you > don't have RSI you won't know why that is an issue. If you do have RSI, > as I do, you will know that its a very real issue. A good UI will reduce > the likelihood of harm to its users. First, I should point out that the extended press is entirely optional: control-clicking provides an alternative than does not impose the RSI issue you raise. Now, maybe IHBT, and I know that the one-button mouse is something of a shibboleth for Mac-haters but, seriously, if RSI is an issue, why on earth would you be using a mouse? They are an ergonomic disaster area. I use a massive (pool-ball sized) four-button Kensington trackball with OS X. When I'm doing graphics, I switch to a graphics tablet. Granted, neither of these are appropriate for FPS gaming, but if you are using a computer for any length of time - and intend to do so into the future - you owe it to your musculoskeletal system to invest in decent input devices. Since I stopped using a mouse, my previous hand/wrist problems have gone away. However, I recognise that both a trackball and a tablet are significantly harder to use for the average, untrained user than a mouse is. As such, a mouse is still the default graphical input device. I would, however, guess that, on the whole, Apple's vastly simplified mouse interface imposes less strain than a complex, multi-button mouse interface would. Most activities in OS X can be accomplished by a simple point-and-click operation. How is that more damaging than differentiating and co-ordinating clicks using different fingers? Surely it is simpler. You could use the standard Mac mouse with your foot if you wanted. Try doing the same with a five-button-plus-scroll wheel mouse in a UI that requires right-clicking. > I would, but that wasn't what I was arguing about. You shouldn't have to > replace a fundamental component the instant you open the box. They could > ship with a two button mouse with the right one disabled. Then it would > be a configuration option. The "there should be a configuration option" argument is alluring, but I am fairly confident that Apple have performed diligent human interface research before deciding on their setup. (Conversely, Windows' "you cannot drag an item onto a window on the taskbar, but if you hold it there for a while, the window will pop up and you can drag it onto that" [paraphrased] error message persuades me that Microsoft have spent less time on human-computer interface research than their budget would allow.) There is a multitude of settings that can be configured in OS X but that are hidden from the surface. It's a different attitude from many FLOSS GUI applications, with every single possible parameter configurable on the screen. If you want a good example of the consequences of configuritis, look at the interface of Gnutella. Besides, having a mouse with a disabled button, or even one that performed differently, would surely confuse people. I know many of these people, and my empirical observations suggest that a non-functional or duplicate button would confuse them. Configuration confuses them. Hell, moving and resizing windows confuses them! They even close one application before opening another. But they are legion. No, they are not programmers. But no commercial computer/OS comes set up out of the box for the programming market. (Linux, to an extent does, which is one of its great barriers to mainstream acceptance. But Linux is just an OS kernel, and doesn't come with any mouse at all.) Speaking for myself and probably most of the others on this list, our requirements are specialised. We use computers for different purposes and for an order of magnitude more hours than the average user. Yes, we might occasionally have to invest in the tools of the trade, be they an extra mouse button, or a second screen for more effective coding. There are configuration options to be set up. Frankly, I'd be suspicious of any professional using a stock configuration, be it a Linux distro, Windows, or OS X. > If it was UI design and two buttons confuse - as some people claim, > disabling one button gets you back to one button - the other button > could be inert or pop up a helpful text bubble telling the beginning > software user not to worry they can learn about this button later. Have you watched the numerous people who are scared of computers? Any message from the computer alarms them. A "helpful bubble" would, I suspect, not be perceived in the manner intended. I am certain that OS X is far better targeted to the average user than Windows because it hides much of the complexity from the user. However, this does not mean that OS X is not a suitable power-user environment. OS X also comes, out of the box, with Ruby, Python, Perl, etc. There is a complete development environment on the supplied CDs. But the beauty is that Apple has managed to satisfy these different markets without alienating either - except, apparently, those who want a two-button mouse in the box. But don't forget that a usable interface pays dividends for us developers too. When I save an hour of messing around because something Just Works under OS X, that's a significant benefit to me as well. Despite this ease of use, though, I still get a usable command line. Remember that Apple is in the business of selling a general-purpose computing device to the general public. As such, their interface is designed around a set of guidelines that aim to make the interface as straightforward and, more importantly, as consistent as possible. (Compare the Windows task tray: some icons need a left click, others a right click; some respond to both, but to each differently.) The interface of OS X really can be used with one button. Even Xcode can be used with one button. There really is no need for a second mouse button. Finally, I can remember when *nix users looked down on the two-button Windows mouse. I wonder how many free desktop users today get by happily without ever using the middle button now that Gnome and KDE work so well with just right and left clicks. I suspect it's more than a few, and it's all down to the software design. If the software doesn't need a right click, then the mouse doesn't need a right button.