[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-dat

From: Michael Toomim
Subject: Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:00:00 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020412 Debian/0.9.9-6

Brady Montz wrote:
Yes, can't have clippy. I much prefer a passive approach where
everything is unobtrusively at your fingertips over clippy's obtrusive
sticking fingers in your eyeball.

I just want to point out that the "software agent" approach (which is the HCI research term for what clippy is an instantiation of) is already quite ubiquitous in the XEmacs interface.

For instance, if I type M-x some-command-with-a-keybinding, XEmacs will say "Hey, you could do that faster by just using C-x M-foo S-bar C-M-S-xfoobar". This is just the same as the way clippy tells you shortcuts for doing repetitive tasks, and it's really very useful.

Software agents are a great idea... clippy is just a little too obtrusive and has way too much personality (nobody like's a microsoft personality).

I say, don't stray away from UI ideas because they are "like clippy". You can have UI features that are remarkably similar to clippy, and remain great features.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]