[MUD-Dev] Clients

[Shawn Halpenny]

On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:

[ Some reformatting done --Shawn ]

> Sometime at or around 07:27 AM 1/14/98 +0000, I personally witnessed
> Shawn Halpenny jumping up to shout:
> >
> >There's a learning curve whenever
> >you change the interface [...] Sure, it's probably documented 
> >somewhere, but if I fire up that client and discover off the 
> >bat that all my vi knowledge just magically works, I don't even 
> >need to bother reading the dox.
> 
> Well... to play devil's advocate for a moment... what about those
> of us like me, who absolutely detest vi, want nothing whatsoever to
> do with it, and when given a client that works just like vi are
> inspired to make the sign against the evil eye and immediately
> delete the software?  

You don't toggle the vi editing feature on.  I think I'd just mentioned
that I wanted it toggleable (if not..."I want it toggleable").  I'd like to
think that I'm a good enough designer to not force people to use an
interface that many of them would detest.  On the other hand, I would
implement it because I think many people would appreciate it being there
(at least, were I writing it, I would appreciate it being there).  So if
they don't want to use it, fine.  I couldn't care less.  The bottom line is
(rather than let this become an editor war) that there is always some
feature someone wants that another will have no use for.  If, however,
there is enough of a desire to have that feature, put it in as an option.

> I mean, vi is *not* something most people enjoy using or learning. 
> It's widely considered a tremendous pain in the ass. So why, for
> the sake of programmers and systems professionals like us, should
> we perpetuate this archaic lowest-common-denominator interface from
> an operating system that the vast majority of people don't
> understand?

One questions whether the amount of work involved to implement it is
outweighed by the number of users who would welcome the feature.  If so, in
it goes as an option.

>             What about the positively huge number of people out
> there who would be hopelessly confused by the vi command syntax,
> and scratch their heads for hours over the dual-mode command line?

They don't toggle it on.  They use whatever other editing options are
given.

> Which mode is it in? Which mode is it supposed to be in? Is the j
> key up or down? (I can never remember that, I always have to try it
> and see.) Am I in insert mode or overstrike mode? Did I make a typo
> on the command line and put the editor into some weirdo alternative
> configuration that does something heinously wrong to my text? How
> do I undo it without typing q! and starting over?  
> Bluntly, I don't think the majority of MUD players think vi is a
> desirable interface for anything. Not even vi. 

You're probably quite right.  That doesn't mean _I_ wouldn't like a vi
CLI to a MUD, nor probably would a number of people who spend all day on a
vi-mode shell CLI or in vi itself.  I write code upon code upon code.  The
less I have to jog my brain into the mode required for whatever other
application, the better.  I think there's something to be said for
familiarity of interface.  I mean, I'm not controlling a moon launch with
this interface--I'm just communicating lines of text to the MUD...just like
I communicate lines of text to my shell or to my editor.  True, you have to
put an appropriate interface on whatever it is you are controlling, but you
probably don't have to make it only work in one fashion.  To me, since I
edit lines of text constantly, it seems a natural carryover to use the same
knowledge when MUDding.  Were I actually controlling a moon lauch, of
course I wouldn't use vi.

> As always: I Could Be Wrong. I can just see hundreds of people mailing
> the list and extolling the virtues of vi as the interface of the
> future. 
> 
> >But what of the people who _do_ know precisely what they want? Are
> >you going to force them to throw out their old interface knowledge
> >and make them learn the new one?  
> 
> If you wanted me to build a client just for you, I would completely
> concur with your desires and nod vigorously at every suggestion you
> made that was even remotely feasible. If you were asking me to build a
> client for your entire department, and you insisted on some interface
> decision like this -- then yes, I *would* force you to throw out your
> interface knowledge, unless you could show to my satisfaction that the
> rest of your department agreed with your idea and had a similar level
> of knowledge. If I was building a program for general distribution to
> the world at large and you sent me a suggestion like this, I'd laugh
> hysterically and delete it. 

What if you got that same request from another 1000 people of the same
world?  That is what I was referring to.

> It all depends on context. I don't expect Windows notepad or Microsoft
> Word to support regular expression searches, and if they did I'd find
> it less than useful. I *do* expect the source code editor in any
> programmer's IDE to support them. You have to consider the audience.

Of course.  I've said nothing but.  I offered my two cents since Matt
wanted to know what we would look for in a MUD client interface, while
recognizing that what I want is certainly not identical (nor even
necessarily close) to what you'd want or JCL, or whomever.  We all know you
can't please all of the people all of the time.  But if you have two
equally large groups of people desiring two different features to
accomplish roughly the same thing, do you just pick one and implement it,
rather than doing both?  Perhaps so.  What if both groups know _exactly_
what they want?

> >That's what _I_ want.  That's probably not what some newbie
> >player to that MUD wants.
> 
> Is it what *anyone* could be reasonably expected to want? I mean,
> it strikes me as being very specific, esoteric, and unusual. I'm
> wondering when I look at this suggestion exactly what sort of
> client we're talking about here. Who's expected to use this client?
> What context is it in? I mean, if this is a client intended
> specifically and exclusively for the MUD admins and builders --
> people who have traditionally (on many classic MUD architectures)
> been expected to spend a lot of time in UNIX shells working in vi
> or some similar editor for extended periods -- then I'd take this
> suggestion a lot more seriously than if we're talking about a
> client for all the MUD's players.  

Certainly it's very specific, esoteric and unusual.  Am I the _only_ one
who would appreciate such a thing?  Probably not.  Again the above question
of whether the amount of work to do it is worth the gain in user
appreciation.  Can this be foretold beforehand?  Probably to a point.  All
in all, within a non-commercial setting, the person who writes the client
would probably throw in vi-like editting if he uses vi for all of his text
editting.  If not, you'd never see it in there.

> >If I don't have to do a mental context
> >switch when I decide to MUD, all the better.
> 
> I always thought mental context switches were what MUDs were all about
> in the first place.

I was referring only to the switch of CLI.

--
Shawn Halpenny