Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on March 02, 2004 01:27 AM
Did you even read the portion of the article after the proposed logic built into cups interface? ESR specifically (I paraphrase) states that "give average users fewer choices to make them happy, but do still reward extra knowledge with the option of seeing more."
Your proposed solution to differentiate the task-oriented interface from the configuration one is also faulty. Is configuration not a task to be ocmpleted? Is the task of configuration not to be helped along by automated systems when they are practical, provided options to override them are available to whose who seek them out? You also mention that computers are supposed to augment humans. How is the machine augmenting the human if it makes the human do everything for it? If something can be practically and effectively automated, there is no excuse not to. That automation provides a better augmentation to the human than requiring them to become an expert of every aspect of the configuration of their system.
Your argument here illustrates that you missed the point of this article entirely. This article's proposed solutions are obviously and admittedly broad strokes, designed to influence the way we think about ui design, not to be a proposal for exactly how cups ui should work. ESR left out most details here because here the details are not the point. You couch your entire argument on the details, and in this context, it makes you look reactionary and foolish.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:CUPS/RH: Please don't!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 02, 2004 01:27 AMYour proposed solution to differentiate the task-oriented interface from the configuration one is also faulty. Is configuration not a task to be ocmpleted? Is the task of configuration not to be helped along by automated systems when they are practical, provided options to override them are available to whose who seek them out? You also mention that computers are supposed to augment humans. How is the machine augmenting the human if it makes the human do everything for it? If something can be practically and effectively automated, there is no excuse not to. That automation provides a better augmentation to the human than requiring them to become an expert of every aspect of the configuration of their system.
Your argument here illustrates that you missed the point of this article entirely. This article's proposed solutions are obviously and admittedly broad strokes, designed to influence the way we think about ui design, not to be a proposal for exactly how cups ui should work. ESR left out most details here because here the details are not the point. You couch your entire argument on the details, and in this context, it makes you look reactionary and foolish.
#