Forums | MacLife

boomer? 'zat another name for old fart? Get it? Boom? Fart?

Now git off my lawn.

I double clicked the link to your thread, just to be an smurf. 

jkahless wrote:

I double clicked the link to your thread, just to be an smurf. 

I would think it would only bother anyone if they actually saw you doing it. Telling someone after the fact that you did it just doesn't have the same oomph.

elpato84 wrote:

A good friend of mine does this, then when he sees me single clicking links, thinks I'M crazy.

Why would he think that was crazy when it's opening the links?

zoees wrote:

Open Photoshop to look at a JPEG- close Photoshop.

Repeat this twenty more times.

I swear if I saw that splash screen one more time. . .

This is why I hate apps that quit when you close the last doc. Even though it doesn't show a splash page, it still takes more time to launch.

Most people at my work do this.  It makes me crazy.  But no one will listen to anything you tell them when it comes to making their computer life simpler or easier.  By god, they've always done it that way, and screw anyone who says it's wrong.  Even if it is wrong.  Nothing pisses me off more than when someone justifies doing something incorrectly by saying, "But I've always done it this way!"

justine wrote:

elpato84 wrote:

A good friend of mine does this, then when he sees me single clicking links, thinks I'M crazy.

Why would he think that was crazy when it's opening the links?

Well, to be fair, his roommate decided to make everything in the Windows single-click, like files and folders, so it's not really him being weird.

What do you propose as a solution?

I'll take the extra double clicks over the Windows setting that lets you open applications as if they were links - one click for everything under the sun.

there was a girl that i worked with. She came to me one day and said "my word wont start?" i asked what does it do? she said "when i click on it it doesnt open???" so i went into her office and checked it out. she sat down clicked like 3-4 times on the icon and it didnt do anything.. lol  i double clicked and it opened.  i guess she always clicked on her stuff like 3-4 times in rapid succession. i told her just click twice, and she did and it opened. she had a real slow computer so i guess all those clicks kind of lagged it out or confused the os.??

Except that the web isn't a GUI.

I guess what you are trying to say is that people are morons. And you're right. Half the people have a below average IQ!

,xtG
.tsooJ

beaverfever wrote:

Alien wrote:

Except that the web isn't a GUI.

Yes it is. Every web page is a user interface. It can be easlily argued that text is a graphic...

I cut your sentence off there for a reason--you seem to think the graphical representation makes something a GUI, whereas I would argue the mode of interaction with that graphical representation is the dividing line.  That said...

By your logic, DOS is a GUI.  And it's not a far stretch to say that punch cards were a GUI.  And an abacus, too. 

When logic is stretched too far it breaks.  And, in my opinion, it breaks not at the point of the last straw, but at the point where the stretching began, in this case where you say every web page is, in practice, a GUI.

Last edited by VegasACF (2006-08-30 6:30 pm)

beaverfever wrote:

Insofar that clicking on a word results in a computer executing code, then you could say that DOS is a crude GUI, much as a crude HTML page is.

So, then, an end user would not need to know the mechanics (or the importance, or lack, thereof) for something to qualify as a GUI.

beaverfever wrote:

Punch cards wouldn't be a GUI. The operator of the punch-card machine must know the computer code and data which is being entered onto the cards. The punch cards are simply a means of getting data from the keyboard to the computer processor.

And the mouse is merely a means of getting data from the user to the computer processor.  I see no difference other than the medium. 

beaverfever wrote:

An abacus isn't an interface because an abacus doesn't interact with the user. An abacus is not a machine, mechanical or electronic. Moving a bead elicits no response from the abacus. There is little difference from counting with stones on the ground, only an abacus is more tidy and portable.

A bead moves, keeps track of something for the user, shows a graphical representation of that thing being kept track of.  Sounds like a GUI to me.

In the GUI category I will now, at your insistence, include stones on the ground.  It doesn't get more portable than the Earth.  It goes everywhere I go.  So far, at least.