[...]
> Overall, I don't think we should cater too strongly to people who insist
> on things looking familiar.

This is the kind of attitude that Cooper describes in "The Inmates Are
Running the Asylum"

<http://www.amazon.com:80/exec/obidos/ASIN/0672316498/qid=981825117/105-5734
386-9444751>

> Squeak *isn't* the same old thing, and we
> shouldn't be falling over ourselves to make it *look* like the same old
> thing.  Anyone who can't accept a little bit of change, really is not
> ready for Squeak.

The double whammy of a "weird" user interface and a "weird" programming
language.... can't we soften the blow a bit?

> Let's pick reasonable settings for basic manipulation, and then let
> eager users change them later on.  If inboard scrollbars make *that* big
> of a difference, then let's just use inboard scrollbars.

Apple did LOTS of user testing in designing the Lisa and Mac user
interfaces... the developers at Apple had seen Smalltalk-80's flap-out
scrollbars, but they instead went with inboard scrollbars... maybe that was
a result of user testing?

I'm sure Don Norman would say that flap-out scrollbars, when not visible,
have "no affordances". I certainly hate the way they flap out on top of
other panes in browsers, making resizing the panes almost impossible.

Perhaps a search of the literature would also find a comparison of flap-out
and inboard scrollbars. Try <http://www.acm.org/sigchi/publications/>

> But, they
> don't seem that important.  This isn't like right-handed scissors being
> forced on lefties.  This is more like picking a knob for a door instead
> of a latch -- everybody has a preference, but either solution is
> reasonable for everyone.
>
> (How's that for religious?)
>
>
> Here's a solution I think everyone will be happy: make a desktop
> configuration Play With Me.  It would include scroll bar settings along
> with many other things like how to set up a background image.
[...]

----

C. Keith Ray
<http://homepage.mac.com/keithray/resume.html>