[Gllug] On Linux desktops...

[David Damerell]

On Wednesday, 17 Oct 2001, Alex Hudson wrote:
>On Wednesday 17 October 2001 5:40 pm, you wrote:
>>>See that power button on the front of your compter? That's a user
>>>interface. The knobs on your cooker are the user interface. 'Graphical'
>>>denotes the use of graphs to represent the interface. Ergo....
>>You mean 'graphics'.
>Really? I could have sworn I meant dots connected by lines.. but you 
>obviously know better than I :)

I do, yes, know what the generally used meaning of 'GUI' is. If you're
using some private meaning, perhaps you should include a
Hudson-English dictionary in your mail messages.

>>No. I would call pico a screen-mode text-based tool. Xemacs, well, it
>>depends if you're running under X.
>Okay, let's make it a more obvious example for you. We're running lynx (in an 
>X terminal or not; doesn't matter). I can move the mouse and obtain a 
>pointer. Does it matter that the pointer is a text cursor or mouse
>cursor?

If we mean 'is it a GUI', yes. Obviously the distinction between GUI
and not-GUI is pretty marginal and not very interesting here, but
that doesn't mean it isn't there.

>>Unfortunately, the difference you're expressing - that between a
>>line-mode and a screen-mode tool - isn't the difference between a GUI
>>and a non-GUI.
>In your opinion it's not. I've not heard any argument from you to the 
>contrary; except for the fact that the interface is drawn using text.

Which is sufficient. Text, not graphics, hence not graphical.

>Perhaps the general point should have been taken then, rather than pedantry 
>on the details :) If you wish to have a better example, take icons. They 
>perform far better than textual 'buttons' (in terms of ease of use),

Yes, I really enjoy guessing what all those little pictures do. It's
so much more fun than the boring experience of having words in a
language I speak and knowing what they are.

>>That depends on the information, really. Text is pretty dense; which
>>is why so many X displays are just tools for accessing big windows
>>full of text.
>Text isn't information-rich. Text contains what data is there; to add extra 
>content (such as grouping, relationship, importance, etc.) is more costly in 
>terms of screen real-estate that with graphics.

IYO, anyway. Me, I would say it varies depending on the information
being represented; which is why I have mostly text windows with
graphical boxes around them...

-- 
David Damerell <damerell at chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug