Re: Standardization and Diversity

[Steve Cohen <stevecoh@mcs.com>]

Dan Strychalski wrote:

> Eric Bennett and Mitch Stone exchanged --
>
> >> Yes, that's true.  But Dan's point about which level the diversity is at
> >> is valid too.  Personally, I'd apply both of your arguments to computing
> >> by arguing for many proprietary implementations of open standards.  I
> >> think that's a reasonable mix of useful standardization and diversity.
> >> But that's just me.
> >
> > As a statement of general principles I'd agree entirely, though I'm still
> > not certain how it is carried out in practice.
>
> Easy, Mitch. We use the same machine, the same OS, the same program.
> Visually, the UI can be text-based or graphical, HTMLish, menu-bar-and-
> drop-downs, or whatever. You sit down and do your mouse-and-proprietary-
> key thing, I sit down and do the same work using only keystrokes that
> produce one-byte ASCII codes, almost thirty of which *never print* and
> can be assigned any function the developer or I might like.
>
> These are the keystrokes that, it could be argued, Jobs and Gates, by
> design decisions I have described many times, forfeited the right to use
> in their user interfaces. Keystrokes that, as I understand it, you would
> be happy never to use at all. Keystrokes that make all command functions
> a natural extension of basic typing skills. Are those keystrokes enough
> for everything? If only you could see how I work....
>
> You're going to do a lot of hand-shifting and finger-twisting, and many
> of your actions will be difficult to send over a long-distance connection
> or duplicate on a machine of a different design. You'll also go on
> detesting the keyboard for the rest of your life. Fine; that's your
> choice. My preference is to work with my hands fixed in place as though
> they were held by splints and U-bolts, and to invoke all command
> functions using keystrokes producing single-byte codes transmissible over
> any modern connection and assignable as commands on any modern mini- or
> microcomputer on the planet. I also get the satisfaction of learning to
> enjoy using a tool I and many others won't be able to avoid using any
> time soon.
>
> *If* I could do this on the Mac or in Windows, I would be happy to use
> pointing devices and proprietary keys for functions for which they are
> appropriate. Jobs and Gates have actively sought to make my standards-
> based way of working impossible. I call that tyranny, and I will not bow
> down to it.
>
> Remember: same machine, same OS, same program, same work -- though
> obviously I'll be able to switch environments more easily than you. Some
> people *have* to switch environments a lot. And some, whether they need
> to or not, want always to have that option.
>
> Would that be difficult to implement? It would be child's play. Are the
> techniques I use difficult to learn? I learned them when I didn't know my
> ASCII from my Algol -- and we *are* talking about *working*, and about a
> trivial skill, once a minimum requirement for almost all entry-level
> office jobs, that will stand its possessor in good stead for a lifetime.
>
> Same machine, same OS, same program, same work. Everything you want, and
> everything I want. Child's play -- and all who call themselves "computer-
> literate" would know it, but for one sick, sleazy, double-crossing,
> back-stabbing excuse for a human being.
>
> Dan Strychalski                                dski@cameonet.cameo.com.tw

 Just wondering, Dan.  Do you suppose your way of working is more or less
prone to inducing carpal-tunnel syndrome?  I would suspect it would be less
so.  I myself have never felt comfortable dragging a mouse all over creation
and would imagine that if I were able to accomplish the same thing just using
the keyboard, I might be a little more comfortable.