4 ms·

I don't know what the ideal number of mouse buttons, but agree that it is more than one. The odd thing is it's appearance in the Macintosh: a computer where the

by II2II 2y ago

I don't know what the ideal number of mouse buttons, but agree that it is more than one. The odd thing is it's appearance in the Macintosh: a computer where the user was supposed to orient most of their actions around the mouse. That said, I'm pretty sure the double click came about because certain operations were costly. There is no particular reason why would couldn't use a single click to launch and application or load a document, except an accidental click would force the user to wait for the process to complete (and it could take an unreasonably long period of time on older systems). Assigning that function to a secondary button would potentially make the problem worse since the user would have to keep the functions straight while learning the system, while accidentally clicking the wrong button would be more frequent than accidentally clicking a button.

bluGill 2y ago
Apple wanted to advertise you couldn't press the wrong button, which meant they couldn't have more than one button.
- layer8 2y ago
  You could still press it at the wrong time. ;)
  - bluGill 2y ago
    At the wrong time, for the wrong amount of time, in the wrong place... Lots of ways to go wrong, but they can all be hidden in advertising.
- DemocracyFTW2 2y ago
  In the case the right thing to do would be a mouse with no buttons, wouldn't it? No buttons, no pain I say.
chongli 2y ago
I used a (OS 7/8/9) Mac for years with a one button mouse. I was very productive with it! I remember seeing Windows 95 with its right-click context menus but I wasn’t very interested at the time. I was happy using keyboard shortcuts and the like. I believe Steve Jobs was pretty adamant about keeping the one button mouse on the Mac for years and it was absolutely the right call. The Mac was way easier to use back then!
- bluGill 2y ago
  I am not doubting you were productive with it. However that does not make it better, it just makes it what you know. User experience experts have studied this for a long time, and they all conclude that you need more than one button. (there isn't agreement on the best number as there are some trade offs, but one is clearly not enough) The world has a real problem with people arguing what they know is best without any basis in reality. Even if there is a clear reason one choice is better, most arguments for the better choice end up being because they know it better not the clear reasons it is better (see most metric/imperial arguments)
  - sleepybrett 2y ago
    I don't think it was about him saying 'one button is optimal for all time always' I think a lot of it was 'this is a whole new paradigm for people who only know the typewriter, let's make it simple for them, down the road when people have adjusted to the simple case, we can make it more elaborate' Hell at the time when this happened most computer joysticks had only one button, or in the case of one of the popular joysticks at the time, three buttons that were all just wired to one input.
  - chongli 2y ago
    I have some older relatives who were actually able to use a computer back then, thanks to the simplicity and brilliant design of Classic Mac OS. Now they are essentially shut out of computing for the rest of their lives. They can just barely use their cell phones to make calls and send the odd text. They do all their banking over the phone. There are tons of people like this. Apple used to be the absolute market leader at making computing accessible for everyone. At some point they got big enough and powerful enough that they could ignore all that and just let their dev teams do whatever they want. They gave up on trying to make real computing accessible to the masses and just pushed all these users to the iPad.
    - II2II 2y ago
      While Apple's ability to create "simple and brilliant" designs in the past can be attributed to the motivation and talent of their staff, I don't think you can say their current failure to do so implies the opposite. We live in a very different world. Computers are expected to do more and, regardless of how much Apple despises it, computers are expected to interact with other systems. Just think of Hypercard. Many people here will talk about how great it was, and it was great. Yet the most talented developers and designers in the world couldn't recreate it in a form that is both simple and reflects the needs of the modern world. It would always end up lacking essential features or be burdened by an overabundance of functionality.

by II2II 2y ago

bluGill 2y ago

Apple wanted to advertise you couldn't press the wrong button, which meant they couldn't have more than one button.

layer8 2y ago
You could still press it at the wrong time. ;)
- bluGill 2y ago
  At the wrong time, for the wrong amount of time, in the wrong place... Lots of ways to go wrong, but they can all be hidden in advertising.
DemocracyFTW2 2y ago
In the case the right thing to do would be a mouse with no buttons, wouldn't it? No buttons, no pain I say.

chongli 2y ago

I used a (OS 7/8/9) Mac for years with a one button mouse. I was very productive with it! I remember seeing Windows 95 with its right-click context menus but I wasn’t very interested at the time. I was happy using keyboard shortcuts and the like. I believe Steve Jobs was pretty adamant about keeping the one button mouse on the Mac for years and it was absolutely the right call. The Mac was way easier to use back then!

bluGill 2y ago
I am not doubting you were productive with it. However that does not make it better, it just makes it what you know. User experience experts have studied this for a long time, and they all conclude that you need more than one button. (there isn't agreement on the best number as there are some trade offs, but one is clearly not enough) The world has a real problem with people arguing what they know is best without any basis in reality. Even if there is a clear reason one choice is better, most arguments for the better choice end up being because they know it better not the clear reasons it is better (see most metric/imperial arguments)
- sleepybrett 2y ago
  I don't think it was about him saying 'one button is optimal for all time always' I think a lot of it was 'this is a whole new paradigm for people who only know the typewriter, let's make it simple for them, down the road when people have adjusted to the simple case, we can make it more elaborate' Hell at the time when this happened most computer joysticks had only one button, or in the case of one of the popular joysticks at the time, three buttons that were all just wired to one input.
- chongli 2y ago
  I have some older relatives who were actually able to use a computer back then, thanks to the simplicity and brilliant design of Classic Mac OS. Now they are essentially shut out of computing for the rest of their lives. They can just barely use their cell phones to make calls and send the odd text. They do all their banking over the phone. There are tons of people like this. Apple used to be the absolute market leader at making computing accessible for everyone. At some point they got big enough and powerful enough that they could ignore all that and just let their dev teams do whatever they want. They gave up on trying to make real computing accessible to the masses and just pushed all these users to the iPad.
  - II2II 2y ago
    While Apple's ability to create "simple and brilliant" designs in the past can be attributed to the motivation and talent of their staff, I don't think you can say their current failure to do so implies the opposite. We live in a very different world. Computers are expected to do more and, regardless of how much Apple despises it, computers are expected to interact with other systems. Just think of Hypercard. Many people here will talk about how great it was, and it was great. Yet the most talented developers and designers in the world couldn't recreate it in a form that is both simple and reflects the needs of the modern world. It would always end up lacking essential features or be burdened by an overabundance of functionality.