Re: CLI versus GUI [was "Re: The great software speech server hunt"]

[Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

So everyone knows, the term Natural User Interface was originated by 
Apple to describe the iphone and the similar hardware that was to 
follow.  It wasn't anything I originated myself.

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012, Tim Cross wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> the CLI versus GUI approaches are an interesting topic. Often, it is
> difficult to step outside our on personal preferences and experiences
> and understand the complexity of the vast scope of differing
> requirements. I am very cautious when reading any claim that X is
> inaccessible or Y is more accessible because they often fail to
> clearly identify the type of user under consideration.
> 
> I use both interfaces. However, until a few months back, when I was
> lucky enough to get an operation which restored some sight, I was
> often frustrated by the GUI interface because it was difficult to
> follow the 'model' the interface used. There were insufficient
> non-visual clues or hints. Sometimes, in an attempt to either address
> weaknesses in existing approaches or to push the boundaries of GUI
> interface design, developers will use GUI interfaces techniques in a
> different manner. This creates a more unfamiliar interface that can be
> different enough to be very confusing for those without sight.
> Existing mental pictures of how it all hangs together break down and
> without additional clues, it can be very difficult to work out what
> the new model is.
> 
> I've done considerable work as a sys admin and know that no matter
> what the environment is, all sys admins need to operate at the CLI
> level from time to time. They cannot just survive with a GUI
> interface. On the other hand, I watch my partner and the kids struggle
> with the CLI interface. They can survive with the GUI, but get
> frustrated and lost with the CLI. At the same time, the sort of things
> they want to do are easily catered for by existing GUI interfaces.
> When they need to step outside their comfort zone, they are frequently
> confused and frustrated because the ability of the GUI begins to
> degrade once you move off well defined and catered for requirements.
> 
> My biggest frustration with the GUI interface is the common 'dumbing
> down' of GUI based tools. Often, this is done to enable a cleaner and
> easier to use and maintain GUI. It works well while what you need to
> do fits within the preconceived functionality of the designers.
> However, as soon as you need to step outside the defined boundaries,
> things spiral down very fast.
> 
> For me, the main limitation of accessibility frameworks for GUIs has
> been due to the limited interpretation of what is required. Many seem
> to believe that all that is necessary is for GUI objects to have a
> text label or representation which can be spoken by some type of
> screen reader. Those of use who have struggled with such systems know
> this is insufficient. As Jude points out, without a good mental model,
> often obtained from memory of a time when the individual had sight,
> simply providing a text label for GUI objects is not sufficient.
> 
> One of the reasons I continue to use emacspeak is due primarily
> because it is one of the few systems which attempt to augment the
> interfac experience with other non-visual clues. Providing variations
> in pitch, voice type, auditory icons etc to provide additional
> information which helps enrich the interface experience for blind and
> VI users. I am frequently amazed other companies have been so slow in
> adopting the use of things like auditory icons or voice changes etc to
> help provide additional non-visual clues for the user.
> 
> Another reason I continue to use emacspeak is because of how easily it
> allows me to try out new approaches or techniques and its powerful
> ability to create a very personalised abstraction interface, which
> although not rich in power or functionality, provides exactly what I
> need. Using emacspeak to create a very personal and customized
> interface has also shown me how difficult it is to develop new
> interface techniques and to learn valuable lessons, such as less can
> sometimes be better etc.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how interface design develops as mobile
> devices become more common. For example, using vibration in hand held
> devices to convey additional clues.
> 
> To what extent CLI and GUI are better or worse for accessibility
> depends on many factors. You must consider the user in any assessment.
> The 'typical' user is harder to define than many realize. I know many
> users who would find existing accessibility for GUI based applications
> meet the majority of their requirements and others who find it a
> constant frustration. I find the same thing with sighted users.
> 
> just my 2 cents worth!
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> On 30 January 2012 05:11, Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > No, the other devices you site are neither G.u.I. nor C.L.I. Those new
> > devices are all N.U.I. natural user interface.  There's lots of blocked
> > paths for development for people with no memory of vision under that
> > interface type too, but there is one wide open path.  The newer paths
> > are no good, but interface builder is done with the command line
> > interface.
> >
> > On Sun, 29 Jan 2012, Christopher Chaltain wrote:
> >
> >> I agree it's not a matter of one versus the other, but I don't think
> >> it's true that GUI presupposes CLI or that mouse presupposes keyboards.
> >> There are multiple devices out there now, tablets and cell phones for
> >> example, which have a GUI and a touch pad but no keyboard and maybe no
> >> CLI either. If the GUI had absolutely no advantage over a CLI then why
> >> is it so popular? Maybe we're talking about just software development,
> >> but GUI development environments, like Eclipse, are also very popular,
> >> and I can't imagine this would be the case if they had nothing to offer.
> >> IMHO, I think both the CLI and the GUI have their place, for blind and
> >> sighted computer users alike. I'd also like to see the parameters of
> >> this study, but as I said earlier, I am dubious that the blind are
> >> somehow disadvantaged when using a GUI other than regarding issues of
> >> accessibility.
> >>
> >> On 29/01/12 11:38, Jude DaShiell wrote:
> >> > It's not even a matter of versus.  G.U.I. cannot exist without C.L.I.
> >> > Neither can mouse live without keyboard.  Use of C.L.I. and keyboard
> >> > even in xp helps technicians repair problems they either cannot repair
> >> > with G.U.I. or the problems would take too long to repair with G.U.I.
> >> > When doing G.U.I. programming accessibility isn't all that's needed.
> >> > Mmeory of vision and the more of it is better than less is what's also
> >> > needed.  I've ben using windows at work from 1995 to the present and
> >> > started out with windows 3.11 and I've come to the conclusion which
> >> > other former dos users who are my colleagues also agree with that
> >> > nothing more is being accomplished with G.U.I. than was being
> >> > accomplished by dos in the years past.  That includes inacessibility,
> >> > Microsoft word for dos and a flowchart program by patent software and
> >> > xtalk otherwise known as crosstalk were three examples some were using
> >> > before windows came into our workplace.  I use windows at home as little
> >> > as possible and suppose I'll be able to do development with it with the
> >> > linux clones rather than anything Microsoft produced.  I don't consider
> >> > any activity done with any part of any version of Microsoft Office as
> >> > development either.  Ruby on the other hand would classify as
> >> > development as would python and java.  I was able to do some development
> >> > with the visualbasic interface of dot net, but that was console-based
> >> > only.  I tried G.U.I. and found it way more complex than console-based
> >> > programming just to get the simplest projects done.  I didn't get into
> >> > anything more complex because shortly after I finished the first of the
> >> > simplest G.U.I. projects I read the email about that study.
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, 29 Jan 2012, Christopher Chaltain wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I'd be curious to take a look at this study myself, although I'm a bit
> >> >> dubious. I've been using the GUI since 1991 when Screen Reader/2 came
> >> >> out for OS/2, and given the proper accessibility, I think the blind can
> >> >> get the same advantages from the GUI that the sighted get. I'm also
> >> >> curious if this article implies that the blind are somehow disadvantaged
> >> >> when using the GUI. IMHO, the CLI and the GUI each have there advantages
> >> >> and disadvantages, and whether you prefer one over the other depends on
> >> >> who you are, how you use your computer and what you'll be using it for.
> >> >> This is true for the blind and the sighted alike.
> >> >>
> >> >> On 28/01/12 23:03, Jude DaShiell wrote:
> >> >>> Not in my files any longer.  I think I was so shocked when I read that
> >> >>> message I forgot to save it but did forward it to another person who is
> >> >>> very interested in accessibility and ways it is and isn't accomplished.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012, Jason White wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>>>> I have been fully blind from birth and that's why I do better with
> >> >>>>> C.L.I. than G.U.I. too acording to a study released a few years ago from
> >> >>>>> R.N.I.B.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Do you have a reference to the study mentioned above?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>>> To unsubscribe from the emacspeak list or change your address on the
> >> >>>> emacspeak list send mail to "emacspeak-request@xxxxxxxxxxx" with a
> >> >>>> subject of "unsubscribe" or "help".
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>> Jude <jdashiel-at-shellworld-dot-net>
> >> >>> <http://www.shellworld.net/~jdashiel/nj.html>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>> To unsubscribe from the emacspeak list or change your address on the
> >> >>> emacspeak list send mail to "emacspeak-request@xxxxxxxxxxx" with a
> >> >>> subject of "unsubscribe" or "help".
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > Jude <jdashiel-at-shellworld-dot-net>
> >> > <http://www.shellworld.net/~jdashiel/nj.html>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Jude <jdashiel-at-shellworld-dot-net>
> > <http://www.shellworld.net/~jdashiel/nj.html>
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the emacspeak list or change your address on the
> > emacspeak list send mail to "emacspeak-request@xxxxxxxxxxx" with a
> > subject of "unsubscribe" or "help".
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 

----------------------------------------------------------------
Jude <jdashiel-at-shellworld-dot-net>
<http://www.shellworld.net/~jdashiel/nj.html>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the emacspeak list or change your address on the
emacspeak list send mail to "emacspeak-request@xxxxxxxxxxx" with a
subject of "unsubscribe" or "help".