This essay describes the surprising results of a brief trial with a group of new computer users about the relative ease of the command line interface versus the GUIs now omnipresent in computer interfaces. It comes from practical experience I have of teaching computing to complete beginners or newbies as computer power-users often term them.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
In the beginning there was CLI and no other options for the general computer user. Each application provided its own secret usage of key strokes and very seldom did they match anyone elses special key strokes. Thus, with each application you had to mentally reassign key strokes to new functions (or replace old ones). This was very confusing and made learning new applications more time consuming (called a learning curve).
Then, along came the GUI. The company insisted that all developers use similar "actions" to trigger specific end results (eg., Command-Z, -X, -C, -V on a Mac OS and Control-Z, -X, -C, -V in MS OS). Suddenly the end user did not have to relearn new keystrokes for similar functions. Studies backed this up by showing that users of a GUI used, on a regular basis, more applications than those with the CLI. Please note that this was in reference to people who did not want to become computer gurus. They just wanted to get their work done.
The advantage of some consistancy in the user interface along with familiar icons to represent things is what really spread the use of computers to non-computer buffs.
The situation is now reaching the point where the software is doing so much more than the original applications with a resulting increased complexity in the interface. For the general user the GUI is still the preferred interface. MicroSoft did not develop one because they thought that the GUI was downgrading the user experience. They did it because they knew it would sell and make them lots of money. The same is true of Apple.
I can learn a new application using a GUI much faster than with a CLI which means that I am productive with less effort and less time. That is not to imply that a CLI is bad or has no further use. Obviously there are things which are very suitable for a CLI such a programming, file manipulation, etc. However, most of these are in the realm of "professional" computer folks and the masses are not interested.
I love driving my car but I have no interest in having to maintain it as a mechanic or electronics repairman. I jut want to go from point A to point B in an enjoyable trip (if traffic will allow that). I also want automatic shift even though there are advantages to a stick shift. And guess what. That is the consensus of the driving public.
Yes, the GUI needs some real work done on it. It is getting cluttered with obvious flaws such as inconsistant actions across applications. Personally, I am very comfortable with a CLI but I do not recommend that we go backwards for the general public. For the computer buffs - LONG LIVE THE CLI.
In the beginning there was CLI and no other options for the general computer user. Each application provided its own secret usage of key strokes and very seldom did they match anyone elses special key strokes. Thus, with each application you had to mentally reassign key strokes to new functions (or replace old ones). This was very confusing and made learning new applications more time consuming (called a learning curve).
Then, along came the GUI. The company insisted that all developers use similar "actions" to trigger specific end results (eg., Command-Z, -X, -C, -V on a Mac OS and Control-Z, -X, -C, -V in MS OS). Suddenly the end user did not have to relearn new keystrokes for similar functions. Studies backed this up by showing that users of a GUI used, on a regular basis, more applications than those with the CLI. Please note that this was in reference to people who did not want to become computer gurus. They just wanted to get their work done.
The advantage of some consistancy in the user interface along with familiar icons to represent things is what really spread the use of computers to non-computer buffs.
The situation is now reaching the point where the software is doing so much more than the original applications with a resulting increased complexity in the interface. For the general user the GUI is still the preferred interface. MicroSoft did not develop one because they thought that the GUI was downgrading the user experience. They did it because they knew it would sell and make them lots of money. The same is true of Apple.
I can learn a new application using a GUI much faster than with a CLI which means that I am productive with less effort and less time. That is not to imply that a CLI is bad or has no further use. Obviously there are things which are very suitable for a CLI such a programming, file manipulation, etc. However, most of these are in the realm of "professional" computer folks and the masses are not interested.
I love driving my car but I have no interest in having to maintain it as a mechanic or electronics repairman. I jut want to go from point A to point B in an enjoyable trip (if traffic will allow that). I also want automatic shift even though there are advantages to a stick shift. And guess what. That is the consensus of the driving public.
Yes, the GUI needs some real work done on it. It is getting cluttered with obvious flaws such as inconsistant actions across applications. Personally, I am very comfortable with a CLI but I do not recommend that we go backwards for the general public. For the computer buffs - LONG LIVE THE CLI.