Jeff Raskin: Bitter much?

outsider

http://macuser.pcpro.co.uk/macsurfer/front_html.php



Highlights:



-There is nothing special about Apple anymore.



-Subverted Apple in creating his dream machine.



-MacOS X interface sucks. Users have to be UNIX gurus to get things done.



-Steve Jobs, blah blah blah.



Now if you get past the bitterness of the tone of the interview he does have some good points. Well a few. Well one.

Quote:

MU: Have you ever been to Bill Gates' house?



JR: I beg your pardon?

hmurchison

How Raskin still gets interviews is beyond me. I tend to think genius manifests itself in everything you do provided you are a genius. Raskin just seems to have a problem with attitude that has held a once promising career back. Now he exists to generate "bulletin board" material against Apple. He's a journalists puppet. Quite sad really.

guartho

Quote:

Jobs insisted on a mouse (an idea Raskin disliked)

Unless Raskin was planning on some other insanely easy to use pointing device, I don't think he gets to claim so much credit for the success of the Macintosh.

buonrotto

I think there's validity in the things he says in an academic sense. Reality throws in a bunch of factors he chooses to ignore in order to discuss an ideal that is good to keep in mind but arguably unattainable. How many promises have been made for a totally different OS and UI that cost billions for those companies that developed them and never got off the ground? You have an entrenched, and familiar paradigm for the GUI that in many respects pervades nearly all electronics -- not a desktop per se, but folders, menus-driven, iconic, even folders and hierarchical directory structure.



Funny thing is, I don't get the sense he uses computers for what other people use them for. Actually, I get the sense he doesn't use computers as much as many others do anyway, though that's not to say he's ignorant. What I mean is that his ideas tend to be heavily text-dependent, and I get a certain vibe that he doesn't think in terms of graphics, not to mention audio and video, as much more than visual aids for textual info -- as content itself.



The one thing I think that is really good about Raskin's talk in most general terms is his emphasis on direct contact with your stuff, not icons or previews, dialogs or wizards. However, the only proof of concept he's come up with was a terminal type of environment.



Also, he seems to avoid what I think not only makes the desktop metaphor a stretch today but also affects his UI critiques in ways I'm not sure he's really thought through: the network.

outsider

If he would hint at a GUI that replaces the desktop metaphor with a better metaphor or not metaphor at all, a more direct approach to computing, I would give him more credence. He rarely has anything constructive to say; it's usually something negative about whats out there already, either MacOS or Windows. Show us the money Raskin! Mock up what YOU think is the superior way of using a modern computer. Text based (CLI) OS's are not going to cut it any more. Apple has presented it vision of a modern GUI in not only the modern MacOS, but in the 90's, the Newton. I think the Newton OS had the ability to transend from handheld to desktop and they were in the process of doing that with the eMate. I can only imagine the Newton's evolution as a universal operating system that would span from PDA to portable to desktop. MS has shown us that this can't flow the other way however. Shoehorning a desktop OS into a PDA isn't optimal and created an inferior operating environment that just doesn't feel right. I'm hoping for a huge paradigm shift in how we interact with our computers, not just our 'files', but the tool we know as the Macintosh. I have high hopes that Tiger is a right step in that direction.

buonrotto

stepping out a bit, we should realize two things with regard to UIs:



1. one size doesn't fit all, and



2. hardware drives software



It's fun to consider a different approach to a computer UI, but with computers becoming more divergent and specialized -- TVs, PDAs, iPods, TiVOs, cell phones, DVD players, ovens, cars, etc. -- each requires a UI to fit its purpose first, and as Raskin points out in his writing, also try to be familiar or have some common denominator so they're easy to learn. (The common denominator tends to be a menu-driven UI, and is usually strictly hierarchical or else completely flat if the device is simple enough.) The problem with Raskin's critique isn't just that market forces run against his ideas to some extent, but that technology moves so fast that, perhaps ironically, rather than taking advantage of the chance to start from scratch, manufacturers often look to present new technology in a familiar way in order to aid adoption, and then build from there. Also, the mouse has had a bigger impact on the UI than the desktop metaphor per se. Likewise, remotes and scroll wheels control the UI model a lot for their respective devices.



When some of us argue about tablets needing some different UI elements to take take advantage of pen/touch technology, we're getting into Raskin's argument, but usually with the assumption that learning the UI is a priority. Raskin's one proof of concept seems really hard to figure out, actually, but supposedly once you do, you're really efficient. That seems to be a fundamental difference on Raskin's outlook versus the status quo.

outsider

So Raskin is about a higher learning curve, but a more efficient UI, while computers generally have a medium learning curve (depending on the application as well) with a somehwat less efficiant way of getting around. Seems to me that there has to be a happy medium in there somewhere. If you think about it, only the finder and a handful of other apps use the desktop metaphor (like Mail, etc.) but in general applications use there own UIs and the OS itself will be relegated to grunt work. Photoshop has it's own file viewer adapted to it's specific use. Many CAD programs totally immerse you into their GUI. Even the iApps handle their content in their own way. All we really need is a set of common GUI elements and widgets and a way to go from one app to another. System files are irrelevant. WHo cares about them but IT? I don't need to have a file structure, all my apps should handle their specific documents in their own way. The finder plays MP3s but why? iTunes does that and handles the files much more efficiently. The Finder will preview text in a word or textedit document but why not use the creator app for this? If this is what Raskin is leading to then awesome, I'm all for it.

outsider

www.folklore.org

Quote:

Jef did not want to incorporate what became the two most definitive aspects of Macintosh technology - the Motorola 68000 microprocessor and the mouse pointing device. Jef preferred the 6809, a cheaper but weaker processor which only had 16 bits of address space and would have been obsolete in just a year or two, since it couldn't address more than 64Kbytes. He was dead set against the mouse as well, preferring dedicated meta-keys called "leap keys" to do the pointing. He became increasingly alienated from the team, eventually leaving entirely in the summer of 1981, when we were still just getting started, and the final product utilitized very few of the ideas in the Book of Macintosh. In fact, if the name of the project had changed after Steve took over in January 1981, and it almost did (see Bicycle)_, there wouldn't be much reason to correlate it with his ideas at all.

buonrotto

People learn by association and context. I tend to think that people overrate consistency across platforms and even across apps to some extent. So long as the thing has some familiar interaction to get the user started, an app or UI that is consistent with its idea (trope, metaphor, purpose, function, whatever) can be easy to learn, and this allows the UI to be tailored for a more efficient workflow. I think that's at the heart of what Raskin is complaining about.



Also, having several ways to get something done, so long as these ways are different modes and/or in different places in the UI, is good so that the user can find what they're most comfortable with. I'm not an expert at all, but I think some people behind development of UIs consider these issues too mechanically and some try to apply these lessons universally.

rok

well, raskin does have some good points, but you have to break out the shovel and a miners hat to find them. for instance, how many apps on your computer right now that you know 100% of its functions and how to use them. note i'm not asking WHETHER you use them, just whether you know HOW to use 100% of them. if not, then something is wrong. his point is if it takes 1000 pages to explain something, you've done something wrong in the user interface.



but this is a chronic issue with all interface designers. look at good ol' jakob neilsen. one wonders what the hell the internet would look like when he was done with it. you CAN overanalyze something to death, and have something very usable that no one WANTS to use in the end.

vox barbara

Quote:

Originally posted by Outsider

...

Now if you get past the bitterness of the tone of the interview he does have some good points. Well a few. Well one.

He didn't change his attitude for a while.



http://mxmora.best.vwh.net/JefRaskin.html#moreFacts

http://www.asktog.com/papers/raskinintuit.html