Comment by PaulDavisThe1st
15 hours ago
> Let me make a typical error. I want to move the cursor to the word good, so I should press the left Leap key and type “good.” I'll press the right Leap key and type. It found it anyway. The system does one thing that all systems should have done from day 1: If you tell it to search one way for something and it doesn’t find it, it searches the other way in case you made a mistake. Most systems didn’t do this because if you did find it then you’ve lost your place. In this system if you want to go back, you just bang on the keyboard. (Raskin slams both hands on the keyboard, and the cursor returns to the point in the document at which his search began.)
We're supposed to idolize this as some sort of hyper-enlightened version of interface design? Hell no.
I get that this design worked for Raskin. It worked for him the same way that my hacked version of GNU Emacs' next-line function does for me when the cursor is at the end of the buffer, or how I needed a version of its delete-horizontal-space but that would work only after the cursor.
I get that Raskin's "oh, you probably made a mistake, let me do something else that I suspect is what you really meant" might even have worked for a bunch of other people too. But the idea that somehow Raskin had some sort of deep insight with stuff like this, rather than just a set of personal preferences that are like those of anyone else, is just completely wrong, I think.
You're making the error of judging Raskin's approach with the knowledge of user interfaces that a person in 2025 has. It's been 40 years since that interview. Many people today weren't even born yet.
In that 40 years, many UI conventions have sprung up, and we've internalized them to the point that they're so familiar we actually say they're intuitive.
But if you go back to the state of computing in 1986, or even earlier, when Raskin was developing his UX principles for the Canon Cat and the SwyftCard, he was considering computer interfaces that were almost exclusively command-line interfaces.
You're not supposed to "idolize" any designer or engineer. But I would highly encourage you to read The Humane Interface, learn about the underlying principles of usability and interface design, and consider how you'd apply them to a UI today, 40 years later. The execution you'd come up with would be different. But the principles he started from are foundational and very useful.
Emacs and a couple of key plugins can get you pretty darned close to the Cat interface. But here's the thing, Emacs is still behind the Open Genera interface which I believe, predates the Cat. And the extensability of the Lisp Machine/Emacs is superior to that of the Cat.
You're making the mistake of thinking I wasn't using computers in 1986 :)
I used GNU Emacs as an example for precisely this reason.
Raskin was a fan of "zoomable interfaces" as I recall. Remember reading about a huge canvas which you navigate and can zoom in and out of.
Today we have Miro and it works like that. I hate it.
I have a geographical memory, that worked well with paper and books, but I haven't printed more than two pages in the last 7 years and none of my work uses books anymore (I did buy a book for academic study last year).
Zooming, from a building, to a room, to a bookshelf, to a book/folder/boxfile, to the content and the location within the content worked with my brain. With digital files it just seems like a swamp I have to wade through. Microsoft are so antagonistic to my 'location' based thinking because Windows conceals where files really are.
Completely agree. An infinite canvas sounds great until you need to find anything, then you end up with having to create a structure to it, and you rapidly end up grouping stuff into "pages" - Miro's "frames".
Further, I have read several sections of The Humane Interface, and I think it does contain some real insight, some of which we have unfortunately lost.
But I do not think that Raskin was channelling some remarkable stream of insight into these matters. And yes, "idolize" was more poking fun at people who use superlatives to describe him, in my opinion without much justification.