I didn't make an analogy.



Utter nonsense. These statements have nothing to do with GUI or CLI.

And this is why you're being accused of trolldom. If I have the wrong impression of what you're talking about, why not help move the conversation in a productive direction by explaining what it is that I don't understand?

Also, if this isn't an analogy, what do you call it?

Bah. Edited to fix quote.

Hyperbole. :tongue:

With a GUI you can intuitively navigate the dialogs and tinker with specific functionality. With a CLI client there is no way to divine the specific sequence of commands to alter the functionality without RTFMing. That, to me, means a greater investment of concentration/brain power.




Please don't hurt me.

Precisely. That is all I was trying to say.

The problem hardcore CLI people have in understanding the argument is that they tend to be (by self-fulfilling prophecies of sorts) very willing to RTFM to answer even relatively simple questions. So it's not surprising that criticizing this model of "user friendliness" generated so much mess.


I don't see why either, yet for some reason you did it anyhow. Incidentally, my statement has not changed a single bit, although you did an excellent job of twisting it and straw-manning it into something it never ways. Actually, I'll qualify that: I have made the statement even stronger by including not only CLI MUD clients but also CLI programs in general. Your only response has been a ludicrous sequence of keystrokes as if that somehow proves that a GUI program is just as arcane. :shrug:

Ah well. Probably no further value to be had here.

Nonsense!

"Intuitively" is in the eye of the beholder. What you really mean is that it's faster to float the mouse pointer around and have it open and close ALL the menus as you aimlessly search for the thing you actually want in the drop-down lists from hell.

GUI menus have done one thing for the software industry, they've eliminated the need to write clear and concise manuals describing how to use the software you purchase. The excuse is that it's all intuitive and you can just use the menus.

Well, it's a lot like self-documenting code. If you choose sensible variables names and code structure, it's easier to understand the code and, if need be, locate the part(s) you're interested in. GUI menus and dialogs have this going for them, because they are self-labeled. At a glance, you can eliminate certain menus and dialogs based on their presumed content.

Given, this is assuming the interface designer wasn't a dunce.

Faster usually means easier, which usually means better. I agree that the word "intuitive" isn't necessarily appropriate here, but certainly the fact that it's faster is worth quite a lot. (Do you typically prefer the method that takes you more or less time, to achieve the same effect?)

Poppycock!

If you took a mushclient virgin and told him to change the font, I'd be willing to bet that he could reason (if not intuit) his way to the output options and change the font. Not just hurr durr whar is mah fontsszzz. Of course, a good GUI is an intuitive GUI (eff you guys for mincing my words, I meant what I said) and the notion that you can't design for it because it is personal is silly.



P.S. POPPYCOCK!

He could draw upon past experiences with other, similar, GUIs to achieve a similar result as the results he has obtained in the past.

The lesson that people who use "intuitive" GUIs learn is that clicking random things (blindly or otherwise) will lead to results.

Consequently, the lesson that CLI users learn is that if you want to know how something works, read the manual, or, alternatively, invoke it with -h, then curse GNU getopts and reinvoke it with –help.

To call either of these approaches "better" is fairly non-objective, it is a question of philosophy and culture.

I think this thread is actually a mud client debate. Not a CLI vs GUI debate. It's largely dependent upon what the program does as to whether or not it is fit for me to use CLI or GUI.

I do think, though, the documentation vs no documentation is a false argument. I've seen CLIs not documented well. I've seen GUIs with extensive documentation. Obviously there's GUIs that run in command line mode.

You guys may think "GUI" more than I do… that's fine.

For me, a command line system is always faster and easier for me to work with ONCE I've learned how it works. Yes, GUI menus are easier to use if you don't know what you're doing… but if you do, it takes me a lot longer to grab the mouse, wade through the menus for the item I want, and then probably type something into a requester if it's not just a simple toggle.

This is part of the reason I still use vim, even though Visual Studio has quite a few features I like. I doubt many people will argue that vim is easier to use until you've used it for years.

I heartily agree with this, actually. I am a fairly hardcore vim user and like it immensely, but it also took me several years to get here.

The difference I see is that we're talking about MUD clients here, where target users are probably neither experts nor willing to become experts just to play some game.

I recommend we close this thread, it no longer has anything at all to do with the OP's question, and hasn't for awhile.

wassamata? hittin too close to home? baby can't take the heat?

I don't know about close, but the first post that had nothing at all to do with the posters question was post #6.
If the mods want to split the thread where DavidHaley…what's the word…ah "trolled" it, that's fine with me.

Edit: strike that. I said I wouldn't use it.
What's another word for making an assinine off-topic post in order to get a reaction?

I called it nonsense, because the statements have little to do with a choice of GUI or CLI interface. I could invert your statements and make observations that are just as true…

CLI: A series of key presses can solve your problem.
GUI: An intensive google search or RTFM session can tell you how to solve it, but chances are there will be little documentation explaining how exactly to do the thing you want.

Which would mean that something else causes your observations.
Here's just the main ones:
1) Lazy programmer.
2) No manual or help.
3) No easy access to either manual or help.
4) No visual/textual cues in the interface.
5) Too long, deep or cumbersome access to features..either with mouse clicks or key presses.
6) Inconsistent interfaces.

I said it was a problem that command-line clients have, not that it's an inherent, unsolvable problem for all eternity, dooming every single command-line program ever. I later added that this tends to be an issue with many CLI programs, because of a culture issue; again I did not ever say that it is an inherent property of every single command-line tool ever made and ever to be seen. Please don't straw-man my arguments, Tyche. That said, I'm not entirely surprised that you're reacting this way, because you are exactly the kind of person who is willing to RTFM and look at technical details. It's worth noting that one can be happy to RTFM while recognizing that others aren't, though; the question here has nothing to do with your or my personal preference with respect to our own usage, but with respect to what newbies will do. (As I have said, I use command-line tools for almost everything, so I also do not mind RTFM'ing to some extent.)

If you think that making statements that you disagree with is "trolling" you, I'm sorry but I suppose you'll just have to live with that. If you have some kind of issue with me I welcome you to talk to me about it, or I suppose you could talk to the mods instead. That said, why you think I was "trolling" but your attitude was completely reasonable is baffling to me.