3 ms·
No one is said vim is an intuitive UI, or whatever. It's simply the conditional like A => B, where A is "you know what c, a and w" mean, and then B is regarding
by nikki93 10y ago
No one is said vim is an intuitive UI, or whatever. It's simply the conditional like A => B, where A is "you know what c, a and w" mean, and then B is regarding another feature that becomes intuitive once A is true. Pick anything that you think is intuitive and I'll show you a prerequisite for it, and some times that prerequisite is sort of "bootstrap human knowledge" like "touching things that move."
For a moment, try stepping away from the semantics of what 'intuitive UI' means as a holistic thing, and think of it this way: when you read an angry letter from someone, you are immediately flustered, or something. This happens intuitively. But it only happens if you already know how to read the words and what they mean. It isn't intuitive if you don't know the language. Intuition is perspectivized and based on prior context, etc. The human using the tool is defined by their history, stuff like that. The commenter is just saying, the way I see it, given X in the history of the user, where X is "understands what each character means" (this is now assumed as part of the user's identity), that some other aspects of the entire vim-as-a-text-editor process becomes intuitive.
Yet another example is, an app meant for musicians, like Ableton, where some things are intuitive because they have rhythm and/or melody knowledge or know what filters are, but isn't intuitive if they don't. It's a spectrum. The most interesting questions are often about such nuance. Vim is interesting, and it has stuck around.
I don't know, but I personally care less about semantics than about the human-processes that actually result from the way programs are. Call it 'intuitive' or not, what do you see actually happening? What I see is people making really quick edits (I often see this in myself) that I can't do in other editors that I am able to do as an extension of myself sort of the same way I feel about playing percussion in a band.
- gnaritas 10y ago> No one is said vim is an intuitive UI, or whatever. Yes actually he did say vim is intuitive; don't tell me no one said X when they very well did say X. You're failing to understand that I perfectly well understand what he's saying and I'm objecting to the use of the word intuitive; yes, that's semantics which I care about. I don't need to take a step back or look at it another way because I'm not confused by his message, I'm objecting to his vocabulary. If that doesn't interest you, that's fine, move along. But it interests me because I'm pedantic and I enjoy discussing how a message is conveyed as well as just what's being conveyed. Just because you don't care about semantics doesn't mean others don't. Semantics matter if words are to convey meaning and every reply to a post doesn't have to share what you value about the post. If I want to debate the semantics of a word with the OP then I damn well will and it's not your place to come along and tell me I shouldn't, nor tell me I need to see it another way. reply to OP below: As you admit the point is debatable, then you can't question my debating it. I understood your intent as well, so what, I wasn't questioning your intent, I'm questioning your choice of words to convey that intent. So no, I don't.
- kartD 10y agoActually, you do, when I said " vim is intuitive ( -ish?)", the -ish? is meant to convey the point is debatable and not an objective statement (user joemi and nikki93 understood my intent). I think I was right in saying that, seeing the number of replies to my comment. Edit: funnily enough I added it (the -ish?) 30s after posting because I imagined this scenario, guess I could have been more clear.
- kartD 10y agoIf we're being so precise about everything, I'd like to point out that unless there is research that can objectively define and measure what intuitive is (we could still argue even after that) there isn't much of a point in debating the contents of my statement, especially when it acknowledges subjectivity.
- nikki93 10y agoNo they said "vim is intuitive, once X." Which is a different statement. It means "X => vim is intuitive," which can also be true when the antecedent (X) is false if going down the material implication route. Here X is "once you understand the characters." I think what's happening is that even if we agree on definitions of intuitive, what I'm trying to add is the context around the "vim is intuitive" statement that it is scoped in. It is scoped by the "... once ..." qualifying fragment after it. Also I'm not really saying what you should or shouldn't do. I'm saying try, because it could be fun; I want to see what happens when you take it there, sort of as a "hmm hey can we try this?" situation. It isn't as much a convincing as a "hey here's how I understand what he said--what do you think of that?" situation. More about going away with things to think about than "cool, I think I'm the person that won this argument." You're welcome to not try this, and I'll walk away, it's totally fine. FWIW I agree that the unqualified "vim is intuitive" wouldn't be reasonable to say. I'm just trying to explore the nuance.