Home
About
Apple
Career
Experiences
General
Graphics
Hardware
History
Humor
Interface
Networking
OS
Opinion
Politics
Programming
Quotes
Reviews
Security
Software
Sound
Thought
Web
Cheap International
Airfare Online
Wachovia online banking
Get Free Coupons Online
Finding the perfect
discount hot tub
Payday Loans
Stock Trading Online
Stuffed Animals
Smart Investing Online
|
|
Two Button Mice?
The only constant is change
By: David K. Every
|
Kind:
Created:
Size: |
Article
September 17,2003
7 KB |
|
|
 |
 n 1984 people most people had never seen a computer mouse. Just teaching them what one was, or using the term, could be humorous. An early Star-Trek movie had Scotty talking into one like it was a microphone because the idea of wiggling something to move the cursor seems at first pretty ludicrous.
Of course I realize that movie example only shows how ludicrous Hollywood can be when it comes to really thinking about technology. If a culture is so advanced that they've never seen a pointing device, then what are the chances they've seen a microphone that looks like a little box with a cord, especially when they work on a spaceship that has microphones embedded in every wall, hallway, bathroom and so on? And don't get me started on the whole R2D2 thing with speech recognition being easier to do than speech synthesis, especially when the 'droid already has the ability to make beeps, clicks, chirps, farts and other noises. But I digress.
The point is that people didn't know how to point, or click. So Apple took a concept that had been developed by Douglas Engelbart long before Xerox PARC. Many often miscredit the creation of the mouse to Xerox. But we really have Apple to thank for making it a viable commercial product because of their innovation and for making it a product.
For an excellent article on the subject, read http://www.inventionandtechnology.com/2002/03/mouse.shtml.
       
One of Apple's innovations was the elimination of buttons. The first mice were often three or more buttons. Apple pretty much invented or modernized the concepts of the double-click, and click and drag, and other behaviors that are intuitive now; but had to be thought up by someone. While people had done a few of these actions in individual test programs, Apple made a language out of them. You would click-hold-and-drag icons (and menus). You could double-click others to really do something. Hysteresis (slop), auto-hiding, and other concepts were all pioneering User Interface concepts. It could be used for menus and actions, there was actions like pick that (temporarily), select that (but forget about it when I release), do something, and so on; it was a language of actions. Good stuff. There was a method to this madness; simplification.
The idea of adding some of these behaviors, or overloading what a single mouse button could do. But it also meant that you could both make a mouse easier and cheaper than before, that was more reliable; fewer moving parts, and all that. It was also easier to teach and use. This wasn't the video-game generation that knew how to evade attackers on the virtual screen, while firing and changing weapons to vaporize the enemy; these people didn't even know what this little buttoned dingle-berry on a string was used for. The more buttons it had, the more intimidated they were, and the more confused they got when they pushed the wrong button. The single button mouse and Apple's behaviors were easier. Move, and click; that's it. If they dropped something (letup on the mouse button too soon) it was obvious, and they learned to hold it down. It takes only a few minutes to teach.
 
Now when Microsoft came along and started ripping off Apple (and the rest of the industry), they couldn't copy the single button mouse because of patents. Others had 3 button mice, so Microsoft decided on the two button mouse for that, and other reasons. There was little use for the mouse other than to be different (and increase errors, confuse users, and so on). It was "inferior" because it was more complex to get the same work done, and worked worse for most things people were doing.
But that was in 1985. By 1995 Microsoft had started stealing another concept that had been innovated elsewhere; the contextual menu. At first these weren't consistent or very well implemented, but they matured. Now contextual menus are used a lot. This is proof that given enough time with something you don't need (like a second button), and you will eventually find a good use for it. And contextual menus are used enough that they justify the existence of the second button.
Of course Microsoft's implementation was poor; the left/right alignment of the buttons with them being equal size increases errors and confusion. The front/back (with one large button in front and a smaller one behind it), it more useful for either right or left handed people, is easier to use, and introduces less errors. But the point is that by the late 90's, two buttons were definitely becoming better than one. And Apple stayed back in the 80's with the single button mouse.
Sure, on Macs you had other behaviors; like special key modifiers that empowered more options and features on the mouse. Or contextual menus could be done with a slight delay (by just waiting a fraction of a second, and overloading the single button even further, and so on). But the point is that the user base had become more sophisticated, the costs of the mice had plummeted, the reliability gone up - and Apple had failed to expand on the mechanical language that was the mouse or capitalize on the trends of adding functionality to it. The end results are something that is as complex to explain as the alternative, but users are left with the impression that they are getting less; not more simplicity.
    
Now if two buttons is good, then more is better. Right? Not necessarily. Three button mice actions were used poorly (the way the functions were divided up, and their placement). They really only introduced more errors and confusion.
Microsoft decided again to rip-off what others were doing; and they added a wheel. The wheel would allow you to scroll up and down, and also be a button that did 10 other things that no one knows how to use, and so on. While improving scrolling was a good idea; once again, Microsoft's implementation was second rate. I have a whole diatribe on wheel-mouse and a better way to do the same thing; but suffice it to say for this article, that they did a little good, and a lot bad - but at least they added functionality. And as mediocre as wheel mice are, they are probably still better than a single button mouse for most users.
  
It is 20 years since Apple successfully brought the mouse to the rest of us. Thank you; you really did dent the universe and the way we think and operate our computers.
But the other side is that it's been 20 years guys, time to think about growth don't you think? Most users get mice, and feel gypped when going from PC's multi-buttons or wheels, to Apple's little single button things; wireless or not. Apple came out with the wireless keyboard and mouse the other day, and once again missed an opportunity to come forward into the 90's; let alone the new millennium.
Apple was right not to jump on the 2-button mice when they first came out, or before they were useful; but they can be useful now. Add functionality and versatility, your audience is savvy enough to keep up, and that will add value. So all the excuses for why Apple shouldn't come forward in mouse technology have evaporated; and now the single button mouse, instead of reflecting a pioneering spirit, is just reflecting an anachronistic one. 
 Format for Printing  Mail
|
|
|
|
