[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Re: Wolfram User Interface Research?
Let's remember that Mathematica 1.0 was released in 1988ish. At that time my desktop NEC PC was 2 feet wide and 9 inches high, and I weighed 145lbs. The functionality was presumably limited by the ASCII character set. We have of course all gotten used to thinking of /@ as Map and /. as replace. I agree though that there are more intuitive symbols, but how would you represent them in a Package ".m" file? If Wolfram are to consider changing the Notebook Interface then I would like to see more flexibility in how the pages are laid out - by way of example, Excel for Windows vs. Numbers on a Mac. For that matter, I would like to see a spreadsheet control in Mathematica that allows you to create lists by typing into a 'Grid' -like control. I know you can do this using Grid and Dynamic, but its cumbersome. AES <siegman at stanford.edu> wrote: My understanding is that at least some vendors of larger software apps do a substantial amount of research into how users interact with their products -- e.g., they set up experiments in test rooms where they observe, record, and/or videotape how "ordinary users" perform various typical tasks using their products -- how they approach them, what mistakes they frequently make -- and try to interpret from these observations what mental constructs these users seem to be working under, why they make the mistakes they make and so on. A curiosity based question along this line for Wolfram: If one examined a bunch of notebooks generated by some representative set of users, I particularly wonder what would be the relative frequency of use for all of the numerous non-alphabetic operators in Mathematica? -- that is, all the innumerable codings like \. \\. \@ -> & @ @@ @@@ \* << % and on. Which of these are frequently used, which are very seldom used, by different classes of users? (And which are most frequently misused or lead to errors when used?) One might of course ask the same thing about many of the alphabetically named computational and display commands in Mathematica (There are more than 1000 of these, is that not so?) Seems like data like this could not only "improve the product" but provide some really useful guidance for what to focus on in the development of manuals, tutorials, and other documentation for new or less experienced users (assuming, of course, that Wolfram will ever again have any interest in providing this kind of documentation) (sorry, couldn't resist that jab). Robert Prince-Wright Houston TX, 77006 USA