3 ms·
That's not to mention that it's not "obvious" to me that a mouse is a better way to control a computer. If I had to construct a "find" query using a point-and-c
by BrandonM 18y ago
That's not to mention that it's not "obvious" to me that a mouse is a better way to control a computer. If I had to construct a "find" query using a point-and-click interface, I would be highly annoyed. I use keyboard macros on GMail so that I can do everything without touching the mouse, and I get really annoyed when the page loses focus and I have to click inside it to restore it.
So not only does acceptance take time and require good timing, but it may also be that something that is "obviously" better may just seem obviously better to you.
- thwarted 18y agoOr obviously better in retrospect. I'm with you on the keyboard. It's substantially easier to process large amounts of data with a UNIX pipeline or an SQL query than it is with many GUI tools. Many people don't realize that.
- parenthesis 18y agoA good (standardised, consistent) mouse-driven interface means one can use an unfamiliar program without reading any documentation first. This, I think, explains the popularity of the mouse (along with its low cost relative to touch-screens and other similar input devices). But giving a program input in this way can be very slow. The experienced user can't get much faster than the novice. A mouse, of course, is a good input method when it makes sense for gestures in 2 dimensions to control something. (Hmm, that is rather tautologous.) E.g. drawing (but then a graphics tablet is probably better for this, but more expensive). With a text-based interface, one must read and learn before one can use an unfamiliar program. But giving the program input can then typically be much faster, and the program can be easily scriptable.