Forums | MacLife

VegasACF wrote:

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.

huh?

beaverfever wrote:

The punch cards are simply a means of getting data from the keyboard to the computer processor.

VegasACF wrote:

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.

Well, no. Punch cards would be more akin to a CD containing data, or the cord on your mouse which transfers the data of the button to the computer, but not the mouse itself. Punch cards are simply data transfer and storage device. A mouse would be more like the machine used to punch the cards.

But even if I give you the benefit of assuming you're including the punch machine and card reading machine in your mouse analogy, it seems you're getting the physical data entry device confused with the means of interacting with the computer through simplified computer commands represented by graphical elements.

So yes, punch card data entry is somewhat similar to using a mouse, but a mouse alone is not a GUI, and punch cards are not a GUI. Clicking the mouse itself does not automatically result in a computer executing code or performing a task. You do not interact with the mouse. The mouse, a keyboard, the trackpad or stylus, touchscreen, or my mobile phone rocker button are simply the input devices used to send a signal to the computer to select and activate the appropriate graphical element so the computer will run the appropriate code and execute a function.

The input device doesn't make the GUI. It is the system of graphical elements with pre-assigned computer commands that I can select which make the GUI. The nature of the input device is irrelevant.

VegasACF wrote:

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.

A bead does not move, a bead is moved and does nothing once it has been moved. The "I" in GUI stands for "interface". You do not interact with an abacus, just as you do not interact with a piece of paper when you use a pencil. An abacus does not respond to your input. Paper does not react to what you write upon it. An abacus is simply a crude recording device, like punch cards.

Alien wrote:

The web is content. It isn't an interface.

Your computer is full of content too. You use the interface to navigate the directory and access that content.

A website contains an interface for navigating (or browsing) the directory of a different computer (the server). If you come to a page with no links, no means of navigating to any other web page, then you could say that is strictly content, and then you would likely use the interface of your web browser (hitting the back button, for example).

There are many interface designers making important contributions to web site design.

VegasACF wrote:

It keeps track of computations, just as any other computing device does, and it does so in a graphical (which means "of, or relating to, something visual") manner.  The only difference is the OS that it runs.  An abacus runs an arithmetical OS that is stored in the user's memory, not the abacus'.  An icon runs an arithmetical OS that is stored in the computer's memory.

I'm sorry, but your perception is simply wrong. You are mixing up memory and data storage with actual computation.

You pointed out yourself that an abacus is a recording device. That has been my point all along. A hard drive is not a computer, it is a storage device a computer uses. An abacus is like a hard drive for your brain to use to store information.

A computer, as explained in its name, computes. Keeping a record of computations is not the same as doing computations. When using an abacus. the computations are done in the person's brain. Writing numbers or even tick marks on a piece of paper do not make paper a computer.

Scratching ticks on a piece of paper when doing math is the same as moving beads on an abacus when doing math. When you want the total number of accumulated ticks or beads, you still have to count them (compute the total) yourself - the piece of paper or the abacus do not compute this number for you, they have passively stored a number of ticks or beads for you to count.

An icon itself is not a GUI. An icon is a part of a GUI. If you click an icon, the icon doesn't move, but it elicits a response from the computer. The computer responds to the actions of the user with its own actions - this is interaction. Saying that this "matters little" is missing the point entirely. The fact this happens is what makes an interface an interface - the event of interaction.

VegasACF wrote:

A GUI is not a computer.  It is a graphical means of interface.

Who ever said that? A GUI is an interface for interacting with a computer. A computer does something, a GUI provides a means of giving instructions to the computer.

VegasACF wrote:

it is nonetheless true, an abacus is a GUI.  It is graphical.  It has a user.  It is an interface.  Ergo, it is a GUI.

You are completely wrong. It is not an interface, because there is no interaction with anything. You are not instructing the abacus to do anything. An abacus doesn't do anything. Scratching ticks on paper is not interacting with paper. You said yourself an abacus stores information. That is all it does.

ukimalefu wrote:

People who double-click hyperlinks! People who double-click hyperlinks! People who double-click hyperlinks!

It's because people learn that behaviour using their OS GUI, which requires a double-click to elicit a response from the computer. Blame the developers for designing inconsistent interface requirements.

i personally don't think you could categorize an abacus as gui either.

guis are used basically as an abstraction layer for the average user so they can simply point and click, read and push, etc., in order to accomplish tasks without understanding exactly what they're doing.  an abacus requires direct understanding and knowledge of all the parts in order to operate it correctly.

computer operating systems are the best example of guis because there are very few people that know all the parts inside the computer and how they interact with each other, but anyone that has a computer and uses it only a daily basis knows what they're doing with it.

VegasACF wrote:

So then DOS is a GUI?  If DOS can be made to fit into the apparently (though only conveniently, when it fits the definition beaverfever wishes to give) flexible mold of a GUI, then so, I contend, can an abacus.  Personally, I would say an abacus is more indicative thereof than DOS is, as all the abacus does is represent calculations that are going on "behind the scenes", in a manner not unlike the icons in the GUI of the Mac OS, whereas DOS requires a knowledge of command line syntax, something much more involved than "point and click" in the case of the modern computer interface or "select and slide" in the case of an abacus.

unfortunately, dos is not a gui.  the only reason that dos is not a gui is because it does not meet the explicit definition that includes that it must be 'graphical'.

dos has the elements of a gui by abstracting the features by utilizing keywords that a user can take advantage of in order to accomplish certain things, but since these attributes are 'graphical', you can't categorize dos as a gui.

yankees4life wrote:

dos has the elements of a gui by abstracting the features by utilizing keywords that a user can take advantage of in order to accomplish certain things, but since these attributes are 'graphical', you can't categorize dos as a gui.

beaverfever wrote:

...you could say that DOS is a crude GUI...

You could say DOS is a crude GUI in that it can be argued that a word is a graphic made up of letters (an argument based on the understanding of how people read - we don't see letters, we see words, much like how we see a house, not a pile of individual bricks.) You left that part out.

I have forgotten if DOS required double-clicking or a single click.