Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Sharky K. · Jul 18, 2003, 05:13 PM

Some weeks ago I was at a lecture on our University of project leader of UI/GUI design of MS Office and MS Windows.

He said he would like to see the OS and Software get smarter. I am against this because this takes away the visual structure people have from functions in the OS/Software.

A good example is clipy and the "smart formatting" of word.
What do you guys think?

(Oh I got some nice stories about that lecture

if you want to read that I could post those later)

sniffer · Jul 18, 2003, 06:02 PM

Nice point. I get the feeling MS is trying very hard to make the OS smarter and convenience. Not really sure if that's the best pat, but time will show. Anyway, I voted visual structure. My XP box seems to live its own life sometimes, that's how smart it is.

Gavin · Jul 20, 2003, 01:48 AM

My problem with 'smarter' is that it's never quite smart enough. When Microsoft's stuff tries to gues what I want to do it mostly gets it wrong, then tries to force me to do it that way.

An example is the type-ahead 'feature' in win IE's location field. Also the auto select in word.

They don't anticipate you so much as train you to do it thier way. Instead of smarter or more structured you get dumber and more restictive.

DeathMan · Jul 20, 2003, 01:54 AM

Since we know MS is going to try and make its OS easier or smarter in some way, I think it would be better, and totally possible, rather than train the user to work the way the OS wants to work, why not train the OS to watch for things that the user does consistently, and make those tasks more automated, or smarter.

I don't have a huge problem with MS's desire to make the OS smarter. What I would like, however, is not to be treated like an idiot when I'm using a computer. I don't like clippy, cause clippy assumes you're a moron. Why not progam word to watch for a while, and figure out if it things you don't know what you're doing? How difficult can this be. THEN have clippy come up and help you out, if you're obviously having a difficult time.

dru · Jul 20, 2003, 02:01 AM

No way in hell do I want a "smarter" system if it's the "only" way to do things. Better structured is the way to go!

Cipher13 · Jul 20, 2003, 05:09 AM

It's better for a user to learn how to use the system, than for the system to attempt to learn how the user works.

The system is far less capable.

Sharky K. · Jul 20, 2003, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
It's better for a user to learn how to use the system, than for the system to attempt to learn how the user works.

The system is far less capable.

I agree. and why is it a bad thing the users get used to an OS? by making better functional structures the user won't have to learn much.

sniffer · Jul 20, 2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by DeathMan:
..why not train the OS to watch for things that the user does consistently, and make those tasks more automated, or smarter.

I am very uncertain how this would be possible without loosing WYSIWYG and taking the control out hands from the user. There is the danger of getting to much abstraction I am afraid. Structure first and smart tweaks later is my opinion. I think Apple is doing a decent job making it happen.

davecom · Jul 20, 2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Sharky K.:
Some weeks ago I was at a lecture on our University of project leader of UI/GUI design of MS Office and MS Windows.

He said he would like to see the OS and Software get smarter. I am against this because this takes away the visual structure people have from functions in the OS/Software.

A good example is clipy and the "smart formatting" of word.
What do you guys think?

(Oh I got some nice stories about that lecture :D if you want to read that I could post those later)

I think if the lecture was by someone from Apple you would be praising how much Apple is making their OS smarter!

Orion27 · Jul 20, 2003, 02:08 PM

My biggest frustration with most things MS is the feeling of loss of control. I detest products which insist on taking the process away from my control. Though keychain is a very small
example, it is in the background and I don't have the feeling of someone trying take control. The Apple interface is much more open.

Sharky K. · 05:16 PM

Originally posted by davecom:
I think if the lecture was by someone from Apple you would be praising how much Apple is making their OS smarter!

You don't even know me so shut the

up

sorry for that. Couldn't resist not to say anything.

Millennium · Jul 21, 2003, 10:18 AM

A long time ago, there was a product called OpenSesame for OS9 which did something similar to what DeathMan has suggested. Don't quote me on this, but that same product might have existed for NeXTStep as well (I've seen shots of a program called that, though it could be something entirely different). It came, as I understand it, with no pre-made scripts; it simply watched what you did, and when you'd done it enough times to be noticed, it would ask you if you wanted to automate the task.

I don't like over-automation, myself. Automation is a Very Good Thing at times -I've been using scripts in various languages to automate many of my common tasks at work- but at other times it can be more of a hindrance than a help. Microsoft seems to have forgotten the most important thing, though: before you can automate a task, you need to be sure that you want automation in the first place.

benb · Jul 21, 2003, 10:28 AM

"It seems you are writing a letter. Why don't you tell me the name of the person you are writing to, and I will generate a letter for you."