Re: Wolfram User Interface Research?

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg88204] Re: Wolfram User Interface Research?*From*: AES <siegman at stanford.edu>*Date*: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:39:13 -0400 (EDT)*Organization*: Stanford University*References*: <fuhfdc$ihb$1@smc.vnet.net> <fuhrka$s88$1@smc.vnet.net> <200804211836.OAA09742@smc.vnet.net> <fukeo8$s2j$1@smc.vnet.net> <200804230807.EAA28845@smc.vnet.net> <fupm08$s2t$1@smc.vnet.net> <200804250927.FAA08078@smc.vnet.net> <fv1mdf$ona$1@smc.vnet.net>

In article <fv1mdf$ona$1 at smc.vnet.net>, Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl> wrote: > You seem to have completely missed my point. You complained about > "abstruse" Mathematica symbols such as @, /@, @@ etc. You seem to be > oblivious to the fact that > > 1. You never need to use them yourself. Each of them can be replaced > by a much more "readable form". > 2. TeX uses special forms such as {,$, &, %,\ and plenty of even more > "abstruse" instructions. A typical fragment of TeX code looks like this: > Not sure I complained about these. In fact I routinely use a number of them --- but also find others in fact mysterious or arcane, for me anyway. What I did ask for --- would still ask for --- was, first of all the proper technical name for this class of non-alphabetical symbols or commands or operators in Mathematica? -- what they're called as a group, to distinguish them from alphabetical symbol names? --- so I could ask about them properly. Second and more important, I asked where, if anywhere, I could find (in a single place) a short list (like perhaps a half-dozen page or less) summarizing _all_ of these non-alphabetical operators, with a brief statement of what each of them does, or what it's good for --- so that I could identify ones I'd missed and decide which of these I might want to learn more about. I'd still be happy to have an answer to this query. And thirdly, I frankly think it would be an interesting exercise in interface research --- and a _useful_ one for Wolfram's interface designers --- to have some systematic data on which of these non-alphabetical operators are heavily used and which are seldom used, by different categories of Mathematica users. I'd at least have an interest in that, out of pure curiosity.

**References**:**Re: Wolfram User Interface Research?***From:*AES <siegman@stanford.edu>

**Re: Wolfram User Interface Research?***From:*AES <siegman@stanford.edu>

**Re: Wolfram User Interface Research?***From:*AES <siegman@stanford.edu>