Good stuff. Every time we communicate I learn more!

Alan Connor <***@xxx.yyy> wrote in message news:<E9VSc.19257$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
[...]
flwm looks very cool. Thanks! The world needs more "GUIs are
oversold!" people like you... if you gave a lecture/demonstration just
showing your workspace and how you use it, I'd consider it a gift to
see. I remember seeing someone use Vi for the first time (it was only
five years ago). It looked like magic! And it was.

[...]
I wholeheartedly agree! Being online can be quite a distraction, too.
I'll start doing this. Seems like it would feel more like taking a
book off the shelf and reading it outside under a tree, sucking in
knowledge and focusing on one topic. I so often jump from task to task
when using GUIs.

Ok, after this point I start ranting and raving a bit about GUIs,
giving a lot of justification for GUIs that probably isn't necessary
seeing as we're not arguing GUI vs. non-GUI (as far as I can tell).
But I included my digression because I learned and I want to stand on
my soapbox and shout, because I can, because I'm justifying my own use
of GUIs, and because I want to look back someday and say, "I was like
that? WTF? Why didn't I go outside instead of writing that stupid
USENET post?". Because it's 1am, that's why, and I'd rather stay on
the computer for another 15 minutes than get enough sleep. Yikes.
Nope, you can't click on anything with a mouse in a vanilla GNU screen
session. You have to use a different cut and paste method than other
programs. I'd want to be able to click on the name of the GNU screen
window to be able to select it. Also, a GUI could add stuff like
dropdown menus (File, Edit, View, Tools, Help, etc.) that let you
easily see what commands are available, and have icons that make it
easy to visually remember what does what CTRL-A ? works, as does 'info
screen', but so do dropdown graphical menus. And they're EASIER.
Scissors on the Edit->Cut command, for instance, are a pretty obvious
visual cue as to what the command will do. GUIs also help beginners
learn a new application for some of the same reasons the visual cues
can help an advanced user. A clickable pretty graphic interface
definitely has its place.

I wrote my (admittedly unimpressive) Web site by hand, but I like
firing up Quanta Plus on it, for instance, to learn more about HTML
and CSS. Quanta Plus can tell me what attributes are allowed in what
elements, and I don't even need to read through some reference, I just
start typing and it does some kind of cool intellisense (or something)
to give me keyword completion on what possible values I can use (vim
has basic keyword completion, but it's no 'intellisense').
Intellisense is basically on-the-fly keyword completion, like an
interactive search in vim, bash, or emacs. Learning by doing just got
easy in a new way for me. I'm not suggesting this is a replacement for
the reference, but it's cool!

If you stopped using GNU screen for 10 years, would you still remember
every CTRL-A (or CTRL-SPACE, in your case) commmand? Maybe it would be
helpful to have a dropdown menu that visually lays out the program's
functionality, in a way that's similar to other programs you (don't)
use (ie: consistent menus, look/feel, and icons). Maybe CTRL-A ? is
enough, but hey, I think GUIs can be handy.

What I'm describing is something like what GVim adds to Vim. The GVim
GUI is not strictly necessary, but it *does* add stuff the text-based
UI does not have: clickable menus, helpful icons. Cut and paste in a
way that works with Firefox, and other X Windows-based applications.
Yeah, I know you can cut and paste between GNU screen windows, but I
doubt it's faster than using a mouse... well, ok, maybe you're quick.

Let me just add the the GUI is *not better or worse* than the
text-based interface. To me, both are necessary and compliment
eachother; they have different strengths and weaknesses. I will *not*
argue GUI vs. non-GUI because I think the argument is a waste of time:
both are useful in their own way!

This is kind of interesting:
"The idea of direct manipulation of objects on a screen is integral to
the concept of a graphic interface. In fact, the idea of a GUI derives
from cognitive psychology, the study of how the brain deals with
communication. The idea is that the brain works much more efficiently
with graphical icons and displays rather than with words -- words add
an extra layer of interpretation to the communication process. Imagine
if all the road signs you saw were uniform white rectangles, with only
the words themselves to differentiate the different commands,
warnings, and informational displays. When the "Stop" signs hardly
look different from the "Resume Highway Speed" signs, the processing
of the signs' messages becomes a slower and more difficult process,
and you'd have even more wrecks than you have now."

It's from here ==> http://www.sitepoint.com/print/511

But I'd bet that some people are better with plain text than others,
not needing the colors and shapes (and possibly hindered by them).
Those people would be the ones yelling, "Why didn't you just read the
sign!!!"

If it's a big red octagon that says STOP, ALTO, PARE, etc., it's a
little harder to miss. I'd wager with regard to traffic signs, we're
looking for the lowest common denominator here... what everyone can
process effectively. More what the brain naturally tunes in to. Or
does it?
It *is* a graphical! Notice the names 'bash', 'talon', 'durin',
'admin', etc. in the bottom left corner of the graphic. Those (I'm
assuming) are names of GNU screen "windows". The yellow one, 'talon',
looks like the current window, and the blue one, 'admin', is probably
the previous session.
You said "Why do you want to 'improve' a program you don't even know?"
and I said (well, just look at what I said). Even though I don't
currently know the innerworkings of screen, I can learn it because
it's free software.

[...]

--
Adam Monsen <***@wazamatta.com>
http://adammonsen.com/