[Gllug] On Linux desktops...

[Alex Hudson]

On Thursday 18 October 2001 11:14 am, you wrote:
>>>>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.

Go look up the old Boing systems, and anything that used a vector display 
(particularly CAD systems). GUIs were around before Parc, you know.

> >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.

So, if I have a cursor for a mouse pointer, it's not a GUI, whereas if I do 
it is... you still don't see the differenceb etween interface and paradigms. 
You define for me the difference between GUI and "text-mode", then, and I'll 
find the example which blows the hole in your argument. Is that a deal or 
what?

> >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.

So, when I run the command line on a text-mode display, it's text mode. When 
I run it under a framebuffer, it's a GUI. Right.

> Yes, I really enjoy guessing what all those little pictures do. 

If you're talking about effective GUI design principles, I'm inclined to 
agree with you. However, if you're trying to suggest that icons are a poor 
interaction paradigm, I can point you to a number of studies which say you're 
wrong. We're wandering into interaction design here, not user interface 
design.

> >Text isn't information-rich. Text contains what data is there; to add
>
> 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...

If you're manipulating text, then of course you're right - making it 
graphical achieves nothing extra. Text generally doesn't display information 
though, it displays data. Basic information is available (the colouring of 
stocks on a listing, for example), but more information can be achieved 
graphically (bar chart comparing performance of stocks over a year period, 
for example) than in a text data equivilent. 

Cheers,
					Alex.

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