Hi, Karl!

I'm not an Aussie (I'm a Michigander, actually) but I certainly understand
your point about having "to think about some of the most mundane things in
order to get on with what I wanted to do . . . "  I face that daily, whether
I'm dealing with door handles, drinking fountains or ball-point pens,
automobiles, checkbooks or thousands of other everyday items designed to
conform with a particular paradigm I happen not to share.

Like many others in my situation, I consider it generally a wonderful thing
(when I happen to consider it at all) exactly *because* it leads me to think
about those things others overlook.

That doesn't translate precisely to the Squeak GUI concerns you expressed,
but I believe there is at least a superficial correspondence in that (1) the
Squeak GUI helps reinforce the paradigm shift that Squeak itself
represents -- the user isn't lulled into "thinking in [name another language
here]" and simply translating to Squeak and (2) the Squeak GUI challenges
the assumption that the evolution of the GUI itself from ST76 to Mac '84 to
Win 1-2-3-9x (with various evolutionary sideroads) truly resulted in the
ultimate user interface.

There is a story from your general part of the world which describes
indigent populations on small islands receiving assistance packages dropped
by parachute in the closing months of the Second World War.  As outsiders
were later able to visit these people in person, they occasionally found
crude representations of airplanes on the beaches, being worshipped (or at
least highly honored) as the source of the life-saving food and other items
that had fallen from the sky.  Called "cargo cults," these people had
mistakenly confused the interface -- the airplane -- with the benefit it had
conveyed.

Squeak remains true to the fundamental principles which underlie the Mac/Win
GUI (see Larry Tesler's "The Smalltalk Environment" in the August '81 BYTE)
but happens to extend them in a few directions others may have overlooked.
This does not *limit* the user, but extends his or her grasp in ways no less
intuitive than the commercial GUIs.  The "learning curve" is an issue only
for those of us who have to be pushed back down it; kids seem to pick up the
Squeak view without difficulty.

And that brings us around again to the beginning -- what's "different" about
Squeak's GUI is not in that it strays from what epistomologically *should*
be, but from what pragmatically *happens* to be.  That is not necessarily a
bad thing, though it does tend to spook us old horses from time to time.
<G>

Gary




----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Goiser" <kgoiser at bigpond.net.au>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: Killer Application (was: Squeak Foundation)


> Hi Gary,
>
> I don't have any argument with you about the relative quality of
> various GUI's.  My problem with Squeak is that its is _different_ and
> there are some very well established user interface principles about
> similarity, predictability and learning that means that switching
> between <insert your os here> and Squeak just won't do.
>
> (I was recently in the USA for Apple's WWDC.  I am an Aussie, so I
> had to think about some of the most mundane things in order to get on
> with what I wanted to do because so many things were the opposite to
> what I was used to: light switches were 'upside down', sink taps
> turned the 'wrong way' - and I had to be so careful when crossing
> streets because cars drove on the 'wrong side of road'.)
>
> I don't have an argument with the Squeak user interface - I think it
> is really good to have something like this where research can be done
> - I just wish there were something just like Squeak that used <insert
> your os here> as well.
>
> Look at it from a newcomer's point of view: Squeak has a wonderful
> language, a great library (viewable in source too) and an unsurpassed
> development environment, but how are they going to find out about
> those things if they can't get past the idiosyncratically unique user
> interface?
>
> In my opinion, you get more users to Squeak by showing them a better
> way to achieve their goals, not another planet to live on.  (Ok, some
> users will want to live on another planet, and that is fine too).
>
> Karl
>
> >To say that Squeak cannot succeed unless it becomes practically
> >indistinguishable from that which it should replace is reminiscent of the
> >argument that automobiles could not succeed unless they looked like
> >carriages.
> >
> >Squeak is not just another medium in which to build Windows or Mac
> >applications; that's far too limited a viewpoint.  That's why your second
> >statement, "On the other hand, when you think about it, isn't Squeak
itself
> >the 'killer app'?" is so much closer to the mark (and, coincidentally,
> >exactly what I was going to say. :-)  The trick, then, is to get the word
> >out.  IMHO, at this point Squeak needs evangelists more than developers.
>
> --
> ----
> Klaatu barada nikto    (http://www.wattle.net/klaatu.wav)
>