4 ms·

I am wondering if the unix shell is the no UI approach to the first problem. The unix shell doesn't provide a discoverable, nice interface. On the other hand, i

by tetha 14y ago

I am wondering if the unix shell is the no UI approach to the first problem. The unix shell doesn't provide a discoverable, nice interface. On the other hand, it is a minimalist interface which caters the task "Manipulate files in a multitude of ways" very well.

ricardobeat 14y ago
A CLI is not graphical, but still a user interface - and a very opaque one, you can't use it at all without any prior knowledge. It's the complete opposite of the ideal interface in this context.
- spc476 14y ago
  I've found the CLI on Cisco routers (and some other, non-Cisco routers) to be very discoverable. At any point, you can type a '?' (even on a half-typed command) and get a list of commands/options with descriptions. Okay, it's a summary, and it helps to have some context, but it's not opaque as a Unix command line. Then there was Lotus, which (at the time it was written) driven by a text-based command line. Type '/', and the cursor would drop to the penultimate line; a list of valid commands/options would appear on the bottom line. You could either type the command/option, or use the arrow/tab keys to select it. And as you typed, the bottom line would change to always list valid options (or a description of what to type next, like "(type a number)"). Heck, even VMS had an extensive help system available at the command line (type 'help'---it was interactive). Please don't judge all CLIs by Unix and MS-DOS. Don't judge all CLIs by Unix or MS-DOS.
- DanBC 14y ago
  But isn't that the point? Being presented with a blue screen in WordPerfect is a minimal interface, but to do anything you have to learn how to use it. You have to learn how to get the menus up and etc. And while good design is important, and tends to reduce interface clutter, it's also important to let users have easy access to the stuff they need. Reducing the interface to what users need is a tricky skill, and risks angering power users. (Google dropping + to force inclusion is a notable example.)

by tetha 14y ago

ricardobeat 14y ago

A CLI is not graphical, but still a user interface - and a very opaque one, you can't use it at all without any prior knowledge. It's the complete opposite of the ideal interface in this context.

spc476 14y ago
I've found the CLI on Cisco routers (and some other, non-Cisco routers) to be very discoverable. At any point, you can type a '?' (even on a half-typed command) and get a list of commands/options with descriptions. Okay, it's a summary, and it helps to have some context, but it's not opaque as a Unix command line. Then there was Lotus, which (at the time it was written) driven by a text-based command line. Type '/', and the cursor would drop to the penultimate line; a list of valid commands/options would appear on the bottom line. You could either type the command/option, or use the arrow/tab keys to select it. And as you typed, the bottom line would change to always list valid options (or a description of what to type next, like "(type a number)"). Heck, even VMS had an extensive help system available at the command line (type 'help'---it was interactive). Please don't judge all CLIs by Unix and MS-DOS. Don't judge all CLIs by Unix or MS-DOS.
DanBC 14y ago
But isn't that the point? Being presented with a blue screen in WordPerfect is a minimal interface, but to do anything you have to learn how to use it. You have to learn how to get the menus up and etc. And while good design is important, and tends to reduce interface clutter, it's also important to let users have easy access to the stuff they need. Reducing the interface to what users need is a tricky skill, and risks angering power users. (Google dropping + to force inclusion is a notable example.)