Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 24th Jun 2007 13:44 UTC
Federkiel writes: "People working with Apple computers are used to a very consistent user experience. For a large part this stems from the fact that the Lisa type of GUI does not have the fight between MDI and SDI. The question simply never arises, because the Lisa type of GUI does not offer the choice to create either of both; it's something different all along. I usually think of it as 'MDI on steroids unified with a window manager'. It virtually includes all benefits of a SDI and and the benefits of an MDI." Read on for how I feel about this age-old discussion.
Permalink for comment 250692
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-08-23
A good detailed reply!
Yes, our visual /field/ is wider than it is tall; I certainly wouldn't deny that. But then again, my monitors are side-by-side, not stacked. I have actually tried it, when pushed for space, and whereas it's better than nothing, it's not ideal.
You seem to be contending that horizontal toolbars and so forth are somehow more ergonomic than vertical ones, and frankly, I doubt that.
/Currently/, yes, L-R (and a few R-L) writing systems significantly predominate over T-B or B-T, but that's cultural, it's not an emergent phenomenon of the human visual system. Go back 1Ky or 2Ky, I think you might find things were very different. If you want an efficient ergonomic writing system, you need boustrephodon! (But it has other drawbacks).
Multiple screens over one are helpful if you use >1 app at once; you can have 1 app maximised per screen with no manual window positioning at all. Multiple real desktops beats multiple virtual desktops and they are very widely used. I think the ideal might be 3 portrait displays, but I am not willing to pay that much.