Thats a fine work around, but is bad for people with RSI/WRULD as it
introduces a static load on the finger holding for the pause. If you
don't have RSI you won't know why that is an issue. If you do have RSI,
as I do, you will know that its a very real issue. A good UI will reduce
the likelihood of harm to its users.
First, I should point out that the extended press is entirely
optional: control-clicking provides an alternative than does not
impose the RSI issue you raise.
Now, maybe IHBT, and I know that the one-button mouse is something of
a shibboleth for Mac-haters but, seriously, if RSI is an issue, why on
earth would you be using a mouse? They are an ergonomic disaster
area. I use a massive (pool-ball sized) four-button Kensington
trackball with OS X. When I'm doing graphics, I switch to a graphics
tablet. Granted, neither of these are appropriate for FPS gaming, but
if you are using a computer for any length of time - and intend to do
so into the future - you owe it to your musculoskeletal system to
invest in decent input devices. Since I stopped using a mouse, my
previous hand/wrist problems have gone away.
However, I recognise that both a trackball and a tablet are
significantly harder to use for the average, untrained user than a
mouse is. As such, a mouse is still the default graphical input
device. I would, however, guess that, on the whole, Apple's vastly
simplified mouse interface imposes less strain than a complex,
multi-button mouse interface would. Most activities in OS X can be
accomplished by a simple point-and-click operation. How is that more
damaging than differentiating and co-ordinating clicks using different
fingers? Surely it is simpler. You could use the standard Mac mouse
with your foot if you wanted. Try doing the same with a
five-button-plus-scroll wheel mouse in a UI that requires
right-clicking.
I would, but that wasn't what I was arguing about. You shouldn't have to
replace a fundamental component the instant you open the box. They could
ship with a two button mouse with the right one disabled. Then it would
be a configuration option.
The "there should be a configuration option" argument is alluring, but
I am fairly confident that Apple have performed diligent human
interface research before deciding on their setup. (Conversely,
Windows' "you cannot drag an item onto a window on the taskbar, but if
you hold it there for a while, the window will pop up and you can drag
it onto that" [paraphrased] error message persuades me that Microsoft
have spent less time on human-computer interface research than their
budget would allow.) There is a multitude of settings that can be
configured in OS X but that are hidden from the surface. It's a
different attitude from many FLOSS GUI applications, with every single
possible parameter configurable on the screen. If you want a good
example of the consequences of configuritis, look at the interface of
Gnutella.
Besides, having a mouse with a disabled button, or even one that
performed differently, would surely confuse people. I know many of
these people, and my empirical observations suggest that a
non-functional or duplicate button would confuse them. Configuration
confuses them. Hell, moving and resizing windows confuses them! They
even close one application before opening another. But they are
legion. No, they are not programmers. But no commercial computer/OS
comes set up out of the box for the programming market. (Linux, to an
extent does, which is one of its great barriers to mainstream
acceptance. But Linux is just an OS kernel, and doesn't come with any
mouse at all.)
Speaking for myself and probably most of the others on this list, our
requirements are specialised. We use computers for different purposes
and for an order of magnitude more hours than the average user. Yes,
we might occasionally have to invest in the tools of the trade, be
they an extra mouse button, or a second screen for more effective
coding. There are configuration options to be set up. Frankly, I'd
be suspicious of any professional using a stock configuration, be it a
Linux distro, Windows, or OS X.
If it was UI design and two buttons confuse - as some people claim,
disabling one button gets you back to one button - the other button
could be inert or pop up a helpful text bubble telling the beginning
software user not to worry they can learn about this button later.
Have you watched the numerous people who are scared of computers? Any
message from the computer alarms them. A "helpful bubble" would, I
suspect, not be perceived in the manner intended. I am certain that
OS X is far better targeted to the average user than Windows because
it hides much of the complexity from the user.
However, this does not mean that OS X is not a suitable power-user
environment. OS X also comes, out of the box, with Ruby, Python,
Perl, etc. There is a complete development environment on the
supplied CDs. But the beauty is that Apple has managed to satisfy
these different markets without alienating either - except,
apparently, those who want a two-button mouse in the box. But don't
forget that a usable interface pays dividends for us developers too.
When I save an hour of messing around because something Just Works
under OS X, that's a significant benefit to me as well. Despite this
ease of use, though, I still get a usable command line.
Remember that Apple is in the business of selling a general-purpose
computing device to the general public. As such, their interface is
designed around a set of guidelines that aim to make the interface as
straightforward and, more importantly, as consistent as possible.
(Compare the Windows task tray: some icons need a left click, others a
right click; some respond to both, but to each differently.) The
interface of OS X really can be used with one button. Even Xcode can
be used with one button. There really is no need for a second mouse
button.
Finally, I can remember when *nix users looked down on the two-button
Windows mouse. I wonder how many free desktop users today get by
happily without ever using the middle button now that Gnome and KDE
work so well with just right and left clicks. I suspect it's more
than a few, and it's all down to the software design. If the software
doesn't need a right click, then the mouse doesn't need a right
button.
···
On Apr 1, 2005 9:14 PM, Stephen Kellett <snail@objmedia.demon.co.uk> wrote:
