[Wolves] E-mail

[sparkes]

The artist formally known as Peter Cannon was heard to say...
> On Thursday 24 Jun 2004 09:05, sparkes wrote:
>
>> now who's got the shoe fetish, cobblers indeed.  The apple professional
>> mouse is a thing of beauty, it also fits in almost every bodies hand due
>> to it's nice size, and (with a single button interface) it is very
>> servicable.  The MacOS is a single button application and so are almost
>> all the apps that run on it so this mouse is perfect in almost everyway
>> for that system.
>
> I rest my case! This so called beautiful mouse is only good for MAC so
> actually it is useless because it has no ability to migrate to other
> systems.

But as a product designed for the mac, the majority of which use osX, then
it is a perfect product.  It's not designed for anyone else but it's
target market and it reaches them perfectly.

>
> If I read the original post correctly what was being said was why cant we
> have
> FUNCTIONALITY (You know something thats works! I know thats a
> controversial
> idea) you don't have to piss around with it, it does what its supposed to
> do,
> plus it LOOKS GOOD.

I think that's what we are all saying it's just that when the form is more
important then the function you have a paperweight.  Products need to work
before they need to look good.

>
> This is what everyone wants, good looks & will clean your pipes out!
> Nobody cares about those who say "I don't mind what it looks like so long
> as
> it works" those types generally turn out to be list police who have
> nothing
> better to do than sit in the wings waiting to swoop on any infraction just
> to
> prove what clever git's they are.

I think you have missed to point here somewhat.  The 'list police' are the
usability police here.  Function is more important than form in most
engineering design problems.  Things need to work first, it they can work
to the best of their abilities and look good then I buy them ;-)

>
>> It's bollocks under linux so you have to have an ugly
>> and possibly less comfortable mouse for linux.
>
> Wrong again I'm sure someone with your wealth of knowledge could write
> some
> drivers for it?
>

No, it's bollocks because it only has one mouse button and unix window
managers prefer three but are workable with two.  One button means you
spend more time on keyboard pressing meta keys so you might as well not
bother with the mouse and use keyboard focus controls.

It doesn't need drivers written for it as a standard usb product you can
plug it in a go with modern linux systems.  In an older style distro
(assuming you have usb and human interface stuff in the kernel) it's just
a case of telling X where to find the pointing device information.

Writing drivers won't add a couple of mouse buttons ;-)

>
> So to finish off the answer is YES we do want functionality combined with
> good
> looks anything else is just a load of old shoe menders ;-)
>

if you would choose form over function there is no saving you ;-)

sparkes