In article <4hid6k$rc2 at gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, pburch at bcm.tmc.edu (Paula
Burch) wrote:
>
> Instead of just saying that WPI is ghastly, why not say *why* and
> *for whom* it's ghastly? That would be useful. Just saying it's an
> abomination, without any explanation of what about the package makes
> you think this, is less than useful. The program might actually be
> just the thing for the original poster, even if it doesn't suit you
> at all.
>
WPI is ghastly because (in its initial incarnation; things may have
changed) it is not the slightest bit intuitive. The point of a graphical
interface is that it should make things easier to do, not harder. I spent
three-quarters of an hour one lunchtime trying to add multiple sequences
to a work-list before finally sussing it out and I am not
computer-illiterate.
The original poster was asking about Macintosh X emulators. His users are
therefore conditioned to the Macintosh's comfortable GUI. Putting Mac
users into WPI will not be a good experience for the users, and especially
for the support staff who will have to field their frustrated questions.
And since your last paragraph appears to hold the tiniest hint of a flame,
I _have_ passed my comments on through the necessary channels about what I
think of WPI. I hope that some of my suggestions can be incorporated in
future releases and that WPI can eventually offer some kind og usable
interface to the most excellent GCG program suite.
Andy Law
------------------
( Andy.Law at bbsrc.ac.uk )
( Big Nose in Edinburgh )
