5250 vs GUI - straw poll
Peter Harris
A nice simple, non-controversial question (I remember what happened when
I asked about M$ using AS/400s!):
Do most users (NOT programmers, NOT text-processors, just simple
end-users in warehouses, offices, order-processors etc) prefer 5250
(green-screen, dumb terminal) interfaces with the AS/400 or Windows
look-alike GUI use-a-mouse-and-click interfaces?
And which is ACTUALLY more productive (rather than sounding busy due to
the amount of clicking)?
I am actually interested in the answer, believe it or not!
Now let me ask the programmers the same question - are you more
productive using 24x80 (or 27x132, if you prefer) on 5250 or
cut-and-paste etc on Windows when editing etc? (As a programmer, I know
what my view is).
No controversy intended for any of the above.... No irony anywhere....
Keep on truckin'
Pete H
nina jones
> A nice simple, non-controversial question (I remember what happened when
> I asked about M$ using AS/400s!):
>
> Do most users (NOT programmers, NOT text-processors, just simple
> end-users in warehouses, offices, order-processors etc) prefer 5250
> (green-screen, dumb terminal) interfaces with the AS/400 or Windows
> look-alike GUI use-a-mouse-and-click interfaces?
>
> And which is ACTUALLY more productive (rather than sounding busy due to
> the amount of clicking)?
>
> I am actually interested in the answer, believe it or not!
>
> Now let me ask the programmers the same question - are you more
> productive using 24x80 (or 27x132, if you prefer) on 5250 or
> cut-and-paste etc on Windows when editing etc? (As a programmer, I know
> what my view is).
hi peter,
i'll be the first to respond! i have interest in this too, (re the seagull question a few
weeks ago!)
for customers, i think the answer is mixed. there is a perception amount some that using
a p/c is easier. point and click, y'know. and there are some places where a p/c is more
suitable. green screens do a lousy job of word processing, and spreadsheets.
but for straight down data entry, green screens may be easier. not prettier mind you, but
easier!
we have some customers in an industry across the US, and there has been a desire to switch
to p/c based stuff. so we thought seagull may be a great solution. when i showed it to
the place here in okc, the reaction was 'what advantage is this?' i was a little
surprised. the manager from phoenix is coming to view the as/400 later this week, so i'll
get their response also. (btw, when i mentioned advanced printer function, there was
great interest, but that's another story)
we did some windows software for their remote customers using asna's rpg. the prior
connection that used a protocol converter was, well dated. that has been well received.
for programming - i need to sit down someday and figure out code/400. i've tried a few
times, but keep getting stuck. (so much for the 'p/c is easier' theory, huh?) some
saturday i need to just sit down and figure it out, i guess... i have enjoyed programming
with asna's visual rpg. so i think i would like it. but right now we use the 27x132
5250.
talk to you later,
nj
boo...@ibm.net
at 12:41 PM, "Peter Harris" <Peter....@SwordSystems.Demon.Co.Uk>
said:
>Do most users (NOT programmers, NOT text-processors, just simple
>end-users in warehouses, offices, order-processors etc) prefer 5250
>(green-screen, dumb terminal) interfaces with the AS/400 or Windows
>look-alike GUI use-a-mouse-and-click interfaces?
The users I see want Windows 98 Pentium II machines, CD-ROM, speakers, a
track ball, and a 17" screen with an accelerated graphics card and a
browser and T1 connection to the internet. They "need" that to
effectively run Client Access. So far as the interface is concerned, my
experience is that they really don't care, or they do care and wish it'd
all be moved over to Word and Excel so they can get their work done; these
restrictions of security are silly and they don't want anyone sharing
their data anyway. That's just my observations, mind you, not facts cast
in concrete.
>And which is ACTUALLY more productive (rather than sounding busy due to
>the amount of clicking)?
I've seen both solutions being more productive, depending on the
individual and on the application.
>I am actually interested in the answer, believe it or not!
>Now let me ask the programmers the same question - are you more
>productive using 24x80 (or 27x132, if you prefer) on 5250 or
>cut-and-paste etc on Windows when editing etc? (As a programmer, I know
>what my view is).
-most productive right now: 27x132, 4 sessions, 19" monitor, tn5250
client (in my case, Win 95 & Hummingbird or OS/2 and PCOM/2)
-coming on fast: Code/400. Just got it a few months ago and so far it is
a big winner.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
boo...@ibm.net
Booth Martin
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Cravitz
let me try to put this issue into perspective. IMHO, a heads down data
entry application or any kind of job involving repetitive input into
the machine is a green-screen style app. It is waste of resource to
try to produce a fancy GUI system for this purpose.
On the other hand, applications involving research where a user might
need to gather multiple sources of information before entering their
data is more appropriate as a GUI application. So I don't think there
is a simple answer to your question.
Mike Cravitz
NEWS/400 Technical Editor
Tim
application whether it be GUI or 5250 based unless it makes their job
easier. We don't have any users (at least none whose opinions are
influential) that have an agenda to put a PC on every desk.
That said. We performed an experiment. We developed a data warehouse on the
AS/400 and built a GUI interface and Green Screen interface to show
statistics. The interfaces were developed as prototype applications to help
us determine which way to go.
The users *HATED* the gui interface, it was too slow (ODBC), too flaky
(NS/router), and too resource intensive(VB). Our Operations people hated
installing and supporting all the pieces. Our programmers hated coding
it(Too much busy work. No version control). The users did like the ability
to cut and paste directly into Excel.
The green screen application went over much better to our users. It was
fast. The bugs that it did have were fixed and available to everyone the
same day. We added download capabiltiy built into the application that
produced a file that Excel could load easily. No one complained that the gui
was easier than the green screen.
In all, we proved that our users prefer what works best and are not overly
swayed by pretty buttons. so we scrapped the GUI and went on to fully
develop our Green Screen Data Warehouse interface. And it has proved to be
one of our success stories.
A note aside: We are in the process of replacing our home developed GUI
applications with Green screen, because of the cost to support them.
We have stepped bravely back into the eighties until something better comes
along.
Peter Harris wrote in message
<904477322.26121.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>Hi guys
>
>A nice simple, non-controversial question (I remember what happened when
>I asked about M$ using AS/400s!):
>
>Do most users (NOT programmers, NOT text-processors, just simple
>end-users in warehouses, offices, order-processors etc) prefer 5250
>(green-screen, dumb terminal) interfaces with the AS/400 or Windows
>look-alike GUI use-a-mouse-and-click interfaces?
>
>And which is ACTUALLY more productive (rather than sounding busy due to
>the amount of clicking)?
>
>I am actually interested in the answer, believe it or not!
>
>Now let me ask the programmers the same question - are you more
>productive using 24x80 (or 27x132, if you prefer) on 5250 or
>cut-and-paste etc on Windows when editing etc? (As a programmer, I know
>what my view is).
>
Douglas Handy
>And which is ACTUALLY more productive (rather than sounding busy due to
>the amount of clicking)?
In my estimation, applications which are designed for repetative
transaction type (heads-down) processing are better served by a
traditional PaTUI (Pathetic Text User Interface). [As I recall PaTUI
was coined by either Mel Beckman or Chuck Lundgreen of News/400.]
The advantages of GUI mainly come into play with stuff like executive
information systems or other cases where you have casual users running
things with myriads of options on an infrequent basis. But even then
a well-designed consistent text interface using pop-up windows with
sub-file selection, etc is perfectly adequate. (IMHO)
>Now let me ask the programmers the same question - are you more
>productive using 24x80 (or 27x132, if you prefer) on 5250 or
>cut-and-paste etc on Windows when editing etc? (As a programmer, I know
>what my view is).
Absolutely *NO* doubt about it. Using either Flex/Edit or CODE/400 is
*vastly* more productive than SEU/400, even with a 27x132 device or
session. Anybody who thinks otherwise has not learned how to use the
editor, and must be treating it as if it was SEU.
My personal preference is for Flex/Edit. Now that CODE/400 is
available on Win95/NT, it is a viable contender also. But I have used
Flex/Edit since its inception in 1991 or so and can heartily recommend
it. If you aren't *vastly* more productive, you aren't taking
advantage of its features.
I run Win95 with two 17" monitors and a 15" monitor with Flex on at
least one (sometimes both) 17" monitor and multiple sessions on the
remaining monitors. Some at 24x80 and others as 27x132 (depending on
what I use that session for). I like the multiple monitor support
because I can see multiple sessions at once and hot-key or mouse
between them.
But if your question is just 5250 vs emulation sessions, then
emulation session(s) are still way better. Keystrokes can let you
move by "word" (eg Ctrl Left/Right), jump to the end of the line, etc
and you can still have a key to toggle ruler line(s) on or off for
checking column alignment.
I'd take a PC-based editor (especially Flex/Edit) over SEU any day.
Doug
Darryl Johns
take the description "Personal" Computer very seriously and usually
see its usage for personal applications as an undocumented fringe
benefit.
For heads-down data entry the best device is a terminal, network
station or simple 5250 emulator. For applications requiring
navigation, expanded key-think time, or multiple rules, a GUI
interface is best. There are some studies that speak to productivity
gains associated with GUI vs. text interfaces...for certain
applications. Microsoft commissioned such a study some years ago.
However, I've yet to see a study that defined ANY productivity gains
to be had by moving from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 or from Windows 95
to Windows 98. I would be very interested if those EVEN EXISTED!
Regards,
Darryl Johns
IBM e-business Specialist
On Sun, 30 Aug 1998 12:41:21 +0100, "Peter Harris"
<Peter....@SwordSystems.Demon.Co.Uk> wrote:
>Hi guys
>
>A nice simple, non-controversial question (I remember what happened when
>I asked about M$ using AS/400s!):
>
>Do most users (NOT programmers, NOT text-processors, just simple
>end-users in warehouses, offices, order-processors etc) prefer 5250
>(green-screen, dumb terminal) interfaces with the AS/400 or Windows
>look-alike GUI use-a-mouse-and-click interfaces?
>
>And which is ACTUALLY more productive (rather than sounding busy due to
>the amount of clicking)?
>
>I am actually interested in the answer, believe it or not!
>
>Now let me ask the programmers the same question - are you more
>productive using 24x80 (or 27x132, if you prefer) on 5250 or
>cut-and-paste etc on Windows when editing etc? (As a programmer, I know
>what my view is).
>
>No controversy intended for any of the above.... No irony anywhere....
>
>Keep on truckin'
>
>Pete H
>
>
Darryl Johns
IBM AS/400 e-business Specialist
(opinions expressed are mine, not necessarily those of IBM)
nina jones
> track ball, and a 17" screen with an accelerated graphics card and a
> browser and T1 connection to the internet. They "need" that to
what?? no joystick??
nj
Richard Daniels
> Do most users ... prefer 5250
> (green-screen, dumb terminal) interfaces with the AS/400 or Windows
> look-alike GUI use-a-mouse-and-click interfaces?
>
> And which is ACTUALLY more productive (rather than sounding busy due to
> the amount of clicking)?
A result of a very casual, limited survey suggests that MOST users in my part of
the world prefer to get their paychecks on time and not get hassled by
management. When pressed on the '5250 vs anything else' question, the response
indicates that the games are much more fun in GUI. ;-]
Peter, I think that user preference to this can not be asked, only deduced from
evidence of productivity and maybe other indicators like accuracy or morale.
But I also believe that GUI can present some unexpected but significant cost and
other support issues as well. I say this coming from a shop (my role was tech
support / consultant) where a well-known AS/400 manufacturing package was
implemented with GUI.
This user community had no previous knowledge of green-screen - this being an
upgrade from an NT application. Processor speed and Memory usage on PC's,
Graphics resolution, individual customization of desktops, GUI desktop
licensing, and other issues frustrated not only the IS support staff (also new
to the 400), but also the user community as they began to lose confidence in the
system and its support.
My observation is that, generally, non-typists prefer GUI but cannot be
especially productive when keyboarding is required by the app. Typists seem to
make more mistakes - maybe because their hands cannot find a comfortable home.
I really don't know that a single solution is needed or desirable. Consider:
One might bring into the same discussion the role of RF terminals or bar-code
scanners. What about time-clock interfaces or production line sensors /
robotics?...
I subscribe to the notion of the 'right tool for the job', and that KISS is
usually an appropriate starting point.
Dick Daniels
http://www.wynth.com/
Worley Barry
"Peter Harris" <Peter....@SwordSystems.Demon.Co.Uk> wrote:
[SNIP]
> 5250 (green-screen, dumb terminal) interfaces with the AS/400
[SNIP]
>Keep on truckin'
>
>Pete H
>
Ah, Pete how readily you accept the disparaging names for buffered
terminals used by people whose agenda is to sell you a whole bunch of
equipment that's not required to get the job done.
I have G70 17 inch color monitor with a 3489 terminal that twinax
attaches to my AS/400, by no stretch of the imagination is it a green
screen dumb terminal. It's smart enough to do it's job right out of the
box with no additional expense. Compare that with a dumb windows PC that
usually requires additional hardware and software before it's smart enough
to connect.
The 3489 supports 4 sessions (on the same address), a printer port
and a mouse. It has a calculator I can call with a hot key. I can put two
session on the screen at the same time, either side by side or over and
under and cut and paste between them. I can adjust foreground and
background colors and with the enhanced display file attributes it's easy
to write an application with the best of both worlds.
It's difficult to write state of the art AS/400 program products
because there are still a lot of old workstation controllers and terminals
in use that don't support the enhanced display file attributes and they
are underwhelming when displaying them.
So, even if people prefer PCs over 10 year old AS/400 hardware does
that mean they'd prefer them over a state of the art AS/400 application?
I suspect people could save a lot the time, trouble and money, if they
look at the state of the art for AS/400 terminal before spending a lot of
money on GUI client server applications.
--
Regards, Worley Barry
Anton Gombkötö
in this thread you have much more success than in the last!
First of all, i'm a programmer. So i cannot tell you what a user *really*
thinks. But in my 14 years i came in touch with approximately 300 users or
more in different companies.
There are different classes of users.
Sure, there are these guys and girls that have to present their work in
color and the latest technology to their bosses; that's inevitable in almost
every company.
But the majority has to do a simpler job. Some of them have to write
documents; this is surely better done with a PC word processor, although
there are some companies that still swear on OV/400 and one cannot easily
tell which one is produced on a PC.
The rest is surely more productive with a green screen.
I remember a data typist in 1984. She was typing in a lot of records into a
tandem station with 8" diskettes format 1.
She then had to restore the records to the S/34 and ran a check program.
With the list produced, she returned with her diskette to her station and
corrected her typos.
I had to write a program to enable her to enter her data on the S/34. She
had tested DFU already and didn't like it very much. So i tried hard to take
the goodies out of all, the program checked the records when she entered
them, she had the DUP key, i tried to make it as well performing as
possible.
I was lucky, she liked the program, but, as she told me some weeks later,
she had returned to her station as she was simply much faster with it. There
was no keyboard buffer on the S/34, and she needed it badly. So, she wasn't
more productive by using "new" technology.
But this was only one point of the story. More important is the IT manager
and his ability to argue with the highest bosses and all users and his
understanding of his job and the user's jobs.
Of course, it would be best to supply every user with the tools that make
him/her as productive as possible, but that isn't possible. There will
always be compromises.
So, that's it for the users.
As a programmer, i used terminals for years. Now i'm using PC's for years.
I have as much sessions as i want.
These sessions must not be on the same machine.
I can easily copy and paste.
I use IBM's library reader whenever i need it, Info seeker is a torture for
me.
This newsgroup increases my productivity, too. And there still are things
that last some time, e.g. updating programs when i change a service program.
I can use screenshots in a word processing program to document.
I can use Lotus Notes to work in a project with many others.
I use ICQ to communicate with persons in my current project and others.
Yes, i take the disadvantage to be down for some time, just because i use a
PC. This happened almost never with a terminal, but it did.
And so on and so on.
Hope this 2 cents help you and/or are not completely uninteresting for you!
Anton Gombkötö
AS Software
Vienna, Austria, Europe
Peter Harris schrieb in Nachricht
<904477322.26121.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>Hi guys
>
>A nice simple, non-controversial question (I remember what happened when
>I asked about M$ using AS/400s!):
>
>Do most users (NOT programmers, NOT text-processors, just simple
>end-users in warehouses, offices, order-processors etc) prefer 5250
>(green-screen, dumb terminal) interfaces with the AS/400 or Windows
>look-alike GUI use-a-mouse-and-click interfaces?
>
>And which is ACTUALLY more productive (rather than sounding busy due to
>the amount of clicking)?
>
>I am actually interested in the answer, believe it or not!
>
>Now let me ask the programmers the same question - are you more
>productive using 24x80 (or 27x132, if you prefer) on 5250 or
>cut-and-paste etc on Windows when editing etc? (As a programmer, I know
>what my view is).
>
>No controversy intended for any of the above.... No irony anywhere....
>
Bob Gilsdorf
for them. In many cases, 5250 green screen is enough. If a PC is in place,
it's a split on green vs GUI. Many semi-tech types like the looks of GUI,
but these users are usually the type wowed by the goodies they can put on
their PCs. Most like 5250 as long as the keys are easy.
It is more productive on a PC vs a dumb terminal. The multiple sessions and
the downloads make it much easier to get more done.
Peter Harris wrote in message
<904477322.26121.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>Hi guys
>
Mary Jo Whitcomb
along with 3 terminals. In the past year, the IS dept must have spent a
total of a month of man hours straightening out the people with the PC's.
Maybe an hour; if that; with the green screens. To say nothing of the fact
that when the network was down the terminals were still available and
working.
In Finance, that;s a different story. They love bringing information into
their spreadsheets. They really use the PC side of things. To say nothing
of the fact that when they do have a problem, it's during working hours and
not in the middle of the night.
Mary Jo Whitcomb
Valley Regional Healthcare
Claremont, NH
Paul Nicolay
Usually it's not a user issue... no matter if they like GUI or PaTUI (nice
one), the upper management is quickly brainwashed that they NEED GUI,
Windows, ... This is even not limited to users, but as well to IT people.
A good technical based decision based on being easy to use, good to
maintain and distribute, ... are all ignored in favor of good Microsoft
marketing.
As far as the question is concerned, I'm currently supporting a laptop
application running on a DOS system (about 5000 laptops is total) which is
slowly being replaced by a Windows version. The first comlaint of the
users is that it is difficult to use, slow, confusing, doesn't show the
information on one screen (it's scattered aroung over different windows),
..
A second story is about a customer that was looking for an accountance
package... and the one that answered best there needs was a 5250
green-screen. Finally, their management was pushed by the vendor to
believe that a Windows based solution was much better... and they ignored
all user tests !
Personally I think a combination of both, GUI for Word, Excell, ..and 5250
for AS/400 based applications is the best way to go. I still need to
find the first user that enters data more quickly via a GUI.
Kind regards,
Paul
________________________
Peter Harris <Peter....@SwordSystems.Demon.Co.Uk> wrote in article
<904477322.26121.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> Hi guys
>
> A nice simple, non-controversial question (I remember what happened when
> I asked about M$ using AS/400s!):
>
> Do most users (NOT programmers, NOT text-processors, just simple
> end-users in warehouses, offices, order-processors etc) prefer 5250
> (green-screen, dumb terminal) interfaces with the AS/400 or Windows
> look-alike GUI use-a-mouse-and-click interfaces?
>
> And which is ACTUALLY more productive (rather than sounding busy due to
> the amount of clicking)?
>
> I am actually interested in the answer, believe it or not!
>
> Now let me ask the programmers the same question - are you more
> productive using 24x80 (or 27x132, if you prefer) on 5250 or
> cut-and-paste etc on Windows when editing etc? (As a programmer, I know
> what my view is).
>
> No controversy intended for any of the above.... No irony anywhere....
>
> Keep on truckin'
>
> Pete H
>
>
>
The contents of this message express only the sender's opinion.
This message does not necessarily reflect the policy or views of
my employer, Merck & Co., Inc. All responsibility for the statements
made in this Usenet posting resides solely and completely with the
sender.
Peter Harris
Worley Barry wrote ...
> Ah, Pete how readily you accept the disparaging names for
buffered
>terminals used by people whose agenda is to sell you a whole bunch of
>equipment that's not required to get the job done.
>
Er, no.
I only gave those further definitions so that people knew precisely what
I was differentiating between. Under the classification of 5250 (dumb
terminal etc) I also include 5250 emulation on a pc, etc. The other camp
includes anything that looks like W3.1 or W95 or W98.
As the director of a software house, I am repeatedly being pushed to buy
pcs ('for the extra functionality' and other assorted reasons). However,
in my personal experience (covering over a quarter of a century and
millions of lines of code) I will always use 5250 (usually
multi-sessioned on a pc or 3477), using SEU and our internal program
generator, over any other development medium any day of the week, partly
because it is more familiar but mainly because I loathe the concept of
the pc (mouse-and-click-and-drag) for anything other than (1) writing
letters and papers, (2) manipulating pictures and diagrams or (3)
playing Civ2 and other games (oops, what a giveaway).
To save pre-judging the straw poll, I did not declare my own personal
view at the time. I have found the responses interesting and
informative.
Pete H
Rick Childers
> I asked about M$ using AS/400s!):
>
> Do most users (NOT programmers, NOT text-processors, just simple
> end-users in warehouses, offices, order-processors etc) prefer 5250
> (green-screen, dumb terminal) interfaces with the AS/400 or Windows
> look-alike GUI use-a-mouse-and-click interfaces?
Out of the 100+ users that my company is supporting, only one user uses the
GUI interface. All the users have it installed on their PC's, but prefer
the green screens ease of use. The 1 user that actually insists on using
the GUI interface is more trouble than all the rest combined. (I think she
would be trouble no matter what interface she was using.)
>
> And which is ACTUALLY more productive (rather than sounding busy due to
> the amount of clicking)?
>
Non-GUI is more productive for the jobs you described above. You can keep
your hands on the keyboard and just type away.
>
> Now let me ask the programmers the same question - are you more
> productive using 24x80 (or 27x132, if you prefer) on 5250 or
> cut-and-paste etc on Windows when editing etc? (As a programmer, I know
> what my view is).
>
I am most productive with 27x132 on 5250 emmulated screen with the ability
to cut-and-paste to desktop. Cut and paste really come in handy.
R. Childers
Richard Knechtel
>
> Hi guys
>
> A nice simple, non-controversial question (I remember what happened when
> I asked about M$ using AS/400s!):
>
> end-users in warehouses, offices, order-processors etc) prefer 5250
> (green-screen, dumb terminal) interfaces with the AS/400 or Windows
> look-alike GUI use-a-mouse-and-click interfaces?
>
> the amount of clicking)?
>
From my experience, most users seem to think "they need a GUI", and of
course quite a few in management that are brow beaten by M$ think they
need them too. I still think (having come from an operations and systems
background) that green-screen is much more productive!.
From a programming point. Green-screen is easier and more reliable and
has better performance. A customer we have thought they had to have a
GUI application to replace their green-screen. Well the person that
handels the account wrote them a GUI application. But the mangement now
complains about the response time. HELLO! when you use ODBC your
performance goes to S***! When programming in GUI's you start adding all
kinds of API and DLL calls on the PC side and then ODBC calls to the
AS/400. Tell me is all the hassel of using M$'s garbage OS to put out a
GUI better then a tried and true AS/400 green-screen app? If accounting
departments and such want AS/400 data in their spreadsheets that can be
done without writting a cumbersome GUI. But I after talking to Bob Dubke
at Export-Ventures about his GUI product I think the GUI solution is
changing. He has a product basically they ported XWindows to the AS/400.
YOU build a GUI on a Sun workstation and upload it to the AS/400 and
compile on the 400. Then you are using a real GUI FROM the AS/400
without the need for writing a VB or Delphi or Powerbuilder applicataion
that has to run on the PC using API,DLL calls. They also have a X5250
emulator that runs ON the AS/400. They will also have TCL/TKL soon. Now
that's what the AS/400 world needed! You could use TCL/TKL to write GUI
interfaces for the AS/400's menus and screens that would run native on
the 400. Then you could use PC's or network stations. I think this
technology is fantastic for the AS/400 world!
(Disclaimer I am in no way associated with Export-Ventures).
Just my .03 worth (inflation you know).
--
Richard Knechtel
email(richard dot knechtel at centrobe dot com)
Centrobe
(Systems Engineer/System Administrator)
(Aspiring AS/400 GURU)
(Aspiring Linux GURU)
(Aspiring Visual Basic Programmer)
Peter Harris
Rick Childers wrote in message <01bdd506$3ae13640$0b00000a@ronnie>...
>> A nice simple, non-controversial question (I remember what happened
when
>> I asked about M$ using AS/400s!):
>>
I meant that I hoped it wouldn't cause apoplexy among some of our
members. I believe the question itself is valid and the answers given so
far have shown that there is a diversity of opinion.
Pete H
nina jones
this thread has been, uh, most educational!
i think some of the responses have hit the nail on the head! a lot of the gui desire is
there because people are told that they need it.
we have a package that we have gotten some criticism on because it is not p/c based. and
this is not from the users, but management!
a few years ago, another company contracted our user base to rewrite it, using a case tool
that generates all kinds of code. green screen, client server, etc.
i just haven't been able to see the advantage here. it seems like an exercise in
complexity. it seemed to me to change a program, you have to change it in the case tool,
regenerate both the client and server code, transfer it, recompile, and then redistribute
to the p/c's. also, in many cases, i couldn't see how going to a gui format would be an
improvement! i was beginning to wonder if i was just old fashioned and not a progressive
thinker, y'know... but some of the answers echoed my thoughts and were based on
experience!
thanks everyone!
nj
Rocky Marquiss
The answer is: IT DEPENDS
If you're wanting heads down data entry. Nothing beasts green screen -
nothing. If the application is sparadic, but reliability is an issue,
then GUI can be the best. The answer to this has totally to do with
the application, who and how it will be used.
As a programmer, I'm a little stuck in the good ol' days. I'm much
more productive in green screen, but do like new challenges.
I'm not opposed to GUI, there's a place for it. But not all things
work best in GUI. The rush to GUI'ize everything reminds me of
something that happened not too long ago. Someone decided it'd be
great to modernize the jet fighters in the USAF. They put digital
instruments in rather than the dials. Pilot efficiency and safety went
way down. They couldn't respond to enemy attacks as quick, etc.. Why?
Because now they had to read the instruments whereas before they just
had to see where the dial was sitting. It took longer to know what was
going on, hence wasn't as efficient as the old tried and true. That is
the way of many of our applications today. In an effort to make things
pretty - efficiency is quite often sacrificed.
On Sun, 30 Aug 1998 12:41:21 +0100, "Peter Harris"
<Peter....@SwordSystems.Demon.Co.Uk> wrote:
>Hi guys
>
>A nice simple, non-controversial question (I remember what happened when
>I asked about M$ using AS/400s!):
>
>Do most users (NOT programmers, NOT text-processors, just simple
>end-users in warehouses, offices, order-processors etc) prefer 5250
>(green-screen, dumb terminal) interfaces with the AS/400 or Windows
>look-alike GUI use-a-mouse-and-click interfaces?
>
>And which is ACTUALLY more productive (rather than sounding busy due to
>the amount of clicking)?
>
>I am actually interested in the answer, believe it or not!
>
>Now let me ask the programmers the same question - are you more
>productive using 24x80 (or 27x132, if you prefer) on 5250 or
>cut-and-paste etc on Windows when editing etc? (As a programmer, I know
>what my view is).
>
Michael J. Bonvissuto Jr.
is also a huge cost factor that has to be looked at. In our situation, our
end users do not need the expensive hardware needed for GUI applications (we
have 3196 screens that have been in use for over 10 years, and were used in
the old S36 days. Not too many PC's last that long.
From a programming standpoint, my personal preference is green screen
emulation (such as Client Access). This allows me the speed and familiarity
of the green screen, but also allows me the convenience of cut & paste and
other functions of GUI.
Like most people, I do not beleive that there is one answer. You have to
look at the entire operation before deciding which is right.
Meg
pendulum was swinging away from the SAP's of the world and back to good
old green screen applications. SAP's were viewed as a real money pit,
both implementation and hardware-wise. If all you want to do is type in
a shipment and spit out an invoice, why kill yourself implementing GUI?
Remember the old saying - no one ever _finished_ an SAP installation.
Save the GUI gizmos for getting at all that transaction data that was so
easily captured with the green screen software.
Several vendors (Andersen Consulting with MACPAC, SSA with BPCS, maybe
others) tried to port to c/s and failed miserably. Andersen got out of
the software authoring business and SSA seems to be pulling back to
green screen, according to what I hear on the street (I don't know how
true it is). Andersen sold MACPAC to another company and they are
picking up the ball and running with it. This is a good thing - it's a
strong product. I ran it for 6 years in a multinational manufacturing
company, and after all that time, the data still added up.. assets
_still_ equaled liabilities plus owner's equity - and I make that claim
based on adding up all the detail records in the GL module. A
statistical miracle, if you ask me.
One flaw with GUI is, if you give them a mouse, they'll use it. Very
unproductive. It's much faster to navigate with the keyboard, but if
you don't force (bad choice of words, perhaps) the user the learn how to
use the keyboard, they'll be doomed forever to slow mouse-ing around.
How many people at your sites use the mouse to put move from the user
name field to the password field in their Novell or NT log in
screens??? TAB is sooooo much faster.
Green screen software is mature and feature rich (or some would say
polluted and suffering from 20 years of entropy and iterative
development), and it's much cheaper to implement than c/s.
Just my opinion....
Dave Shea
+++++++++++++
Purge and Archive Without Programming with ARCTOOLS (tm)
http://www.arctools.com
mailto:in...@arctools.com
+++++++++++++
David Bye
> snip......
> For heads-down data entry the best device is a terminal, network
> station or simple 5250 emulator.
Actually this is where 5250 is not too good. Generally A heads down data
entry operator expects two things:
(a) The system to allow them to key as fast as possible.
(b) Provide response on error fields as they key.
So in this context a PC based (non GUI) front end that will validate input
and send the transactions asynchronously to the AS/400 is a far better fit.
(Not to mention it can handle off-line processing !)
A number of responses appear to have associated GUI with ODBC and slow
response times. GUI does not imply you use ODBC, in our case we use IBMs MQ
(message queuing). This enables us to have some fairly thin application
clients and good response time.
At the current site we have minimal 5250 for production users (probably about
20 whilst we have over 1200 "delivery devices"). As the majority of our users
are the general public - 5250 is not an option. We categorise our user
interfaces into 3 classes:
(1) Walk up and use
(2) Able to use with online help support
(3) Require formal education.
As for development our AS/400 developers (server application code) use
terminal emulation with PCs. The developers could not survive with dumb
terminals - that's because to be effective part of the organisation they need
access to a number of other resources such as e-mail, development methodology
templates, Knowledge management system etc.....
Rob Dixon
As you may have seen, I was sympathetic to you over the mauling you got
for your
"Does Microsoft run on AS/400's?" question which I thought was totally
undeserved..
But your latest question is another matter.
Surely you know that everybody now uses GUI's so they must be good – in
fact they are the only thing, they are intuitive, and everyone knows
immediately how to use them. And they allow you to do all sorts of
things in your 64mb 3gb PII 266 Pc that you couldn't possibly do on
your little old 64k 40mb 286. They keep you really busy - it takes a
lot of clicks and mouse movements to get the simplest thing done, but
you are really occupied. Clearly, if you are so busy, you must be being
productive.
We've even made sure that your task is fun and challenging
whilst you are being so productive. We have built in a random number
generator to make sure that the OK box wanders around between screens in
a totally unpredictable way. Trying to anticipate where it's going to
be so that, in advance, you can put the mouse pointer in the correct
place for the OK box when it eventually appears is very challenging and
a lot of fun.
We bet that you won't get it right very often, however hard you
practice. This makes you even busier. And there is no type ahead, so
you can have a little rest between operations. You even can change the
colour of the title bar whenever you want. And Html and browsers keep
you even busier because you even have to click on an input box before
you can type in it and you cannot use command keys, so you just keep
clicking away.
Even better you can have lots of windows open at the same time, so you
spend time trying to work out which window to use from the really
confusing screen – in fact, with very little effort, you can soon have
your screen every bit as untidy as your desk. But the best bit of all
is that, if you open enough windows, we have ensured that your
applications have a memory leak, however much memory you have, and then
the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Then there is another
challenge; getting it all restarted. And you don't need to worry about
the unknown amount of data you lose when the machine crashes, because
there is no record of what's lost, so you can
never sue us because you can never prove that you lost anything
important. Think of all the lawyer's fees you will save.
5250's have got to go – you just turn them on and they work straight
away, you can get things done in one tenth of the time, and they don't
need any support staff – all they do is to create unemployment. Where's
your social conscience?
I hope that this will help to clear things up for you.
Rob Dixon
Erros plc
Paul
A beautiful, moving and heartfelt description of a badly written Windows
application. I have an idea for you - why not try developing a
*well-written* Windows application! You know, silly little details like
accelerator keys, pressing Enter activates the OK button, all that good
stuff that allows a user to navigate with the keyboard. Challenging, I
know, but with practice it gets easier.
While you are at it, try to think of a decent navigational interface, to
avoid all those nasty cluttery windows around the place. Oh, and get
someone to show you how to use a debugger, to catch those memory leaks.
I mean, jeez, haven't you ever seen a badly-written AS/400 application?
Because I sure as hell have. I don't see much difference in real terms
between your trouble finding the OK button, and finding that the
green-screen program you are in doesn't implement CUA function keys.
Get a grip. There is a huge demand for GUI applications for the AS/400, and
hankering back to the old days won't get you anywhere.
Of course, if you want to talk about punch cards, now *there* was a user
interface...
- Paul
Rob Dixon wrote in message <35ED1092...@erros.co.uk>...
Paul
>One flaw with GUI is, if you give them a mouse, they'll use it. Very
>unproductive. It's much faster to navigate with the keyboard, but if
>you don't force (bad choice of words, perhaps) the user the learn how to
>use the keyboard, they'll be doomed forever to slow mouse-ing around.
>How many people at your sites use the mouse to put move from the user
>name field to the password field in their Novell or NT log in
>screens??? TAB is sooooo much faster.
I think the issue you just raised is one of user education. I *still* see
people using green-screen terminals (or emulators) and pressing arrow keys
to move between fields!! This is hardly what you would call
earth-shattering productivity.
If you can explain to a green-screen user that the Tab key navigates, you
can explain it to a GUI user. Better again, with a well-designed interface,
you can provide accelerator keys, explain them to the user, and then watch
them zip from field to field!
>Dave Shea
- Paul
sami...@bix.com
is a little ambiguous to me. Are you referring specifically to 5250
_emulation_ on PC's, or hard-wired dedicated terminal displays as well?
The typical response time problem on emulated 5250 (or other PC-based
solutions) seems to be demand by other concurrently running apps on
processor slices, not GUI per se. Protocol and cable plant issues (for
example 10BT for a PC workgroup vs. twinax or twinax/TP for dedicated
displays) may have a bearing as well. Also, "heads-down" DE personnel with
IBM midrange experience will tend to expect validation to occur at time of
field-transmission or record-transmission, not character-by-character.
There are advantages and disadvantages to each mode. Operators from other
environments may have differing expectations. So if your claim is that
some kind of client/server topology with keystroke error flagging done on
the client _could_ be more efficient than "traditional green screen" data
entry, I would tend to agree. I am skeptical that such a goal could be
realized on a network of Wintel PC's running the DE app as part of a mixed
bag of applications.
Internet, Singapore wrote this re Re: 5250 vs GUI - straw poll:
>Actually this is where 5250 is not too good. Generally A heads down data
>entry operator expects two things:
>
> (a) The system to allow them to key as fast as possible.
> (b) Provide response on error fields as they key.
>
>So in this context a PC based (non GUI) front end that will validate input
>and send the transactions asynchronously to the AS/400 is a far better fit.
>(Not to mention it can handle off-line processing !)
sami...@bix.com sami...@cyberenet.net
Have a new Java product? Annouce it @ www.javalobby.org/javawire
crashshw
of building GUI vs. greenscreen, personnel training for GUI vs.
greeenscreen, and redevelopement of GUI vs. greenscreen package (not
greenscreen to GUI but greenscreen rewrites/updates and GUI
rewrites/updates)....It's pretty obvious the hardware costs of 5250 vs. GUI
are disproportionate but I always question those other costs. RPG
programmers are harder to come by nowadays.....
Also, how many in this group use data beyond pure text... for instance, who
uses GIS mapping, televideo, sound, graphics, etc. I know the AS400 has
Ultimedia (even ran the Ultimedia tools/samples) but how many of us actually
use it?
It's very nice that the AS400 does 5250 so well but how about the other
stuff?
I'm a fan of the AS400 but I do see some limitations.....my concern is that
we see the forest through the trees here. While we argue about the relative
merits of GUI vs. greenscreen, the reality is the non-AS400 world is going
by us like blazes.
The reality is the telecommunications basis of the digital industry is what
is going to drive OS's/applications. If people (however unrefined/ignorant)
want to see pretty pictures, that is what they're going to get in the end.
Check out your TV/computer games. If text is so great we would all be
playing Dungeons and Dragons on Apple II's. Text is good within it's context
(sorry unintended) but outside of that, it has it's limitations.
Paul wrote in message <6sll23$avq$1...@news.indigo.ie>...
cw...@ret.cpo.usn
interface). *No One* uses the GUI - all use 5250 emulation. I have
demo'd the GUI to several ppl and they are completely uninterested.
FWIW.
Regards,
On Sun, 30 Aug 1998 12:41:21 +0100, "Peter Harris"
Gwecnal
<cras...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>I wonder how many companies have done a thorough analysis of the cost curves
>of building GUI vs. greenscreen, personnel training for GUI vs.
>greeenscreen, and redevelopement of GUI vs. greenscreen package (not
>greenscreen to GUI but greenscreen rewrites/updates and GUI
>rewrites/updates)....It's pretty obvious the hardware costs of 5250 vs. GUI
>are disproportionate.
Sadly, I don't think it matters. Even if you could prove that well-designed
green screens are faster to user, cheaper to write, cheaper to deploy, cheaper
to maintain, easier to use, and less error prone for data entry AND inquiry, it
would not change the fact that most people like seeing the standard WinGUI. It
is unarguably terrible in every way, but it does not matter. It takes great
crediblity and upper- management buy-in to fight the M$ marketing machine and
keep using green screens just because they are better. Some places you can win
that fight; other places you can't. Just because they are wrong does not mean
that users don't have power.
charl...@yahoo.com
I work for a software company. We sell software.
GUI is sexy. GUI sells.
At a trade show, if the screen is green, no one comes by.
If no one comes by, no one comes to buy.
For existing '400 users, the green screen is fine.
For new customers, it's an obstacle.
Screen scraping GUI front ends are a dogs breakfast.
You can spot them a mile away.
The fact is, the industry has changed. There are now people with
titles of "User Interface Analyst" and such derivatives that only work
with the visual layer. No business knowledge, little technical
expertise. Just the UI. Can you believe it?
Personally, I think it's horseshit. It drives up costs of development
and support. It is probably less efficient for the user. However, it
is the future, like it or not.
Green screen applications, listen to me! Look what windows did to DOS
programs, and see your future...
Paul
<199809032233...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> ...most people like seeing the standard WinGUI. It
>is unarguably terrible in every way, ...
Unarguably terrible in every way? Unarguably?
Are you *seriously* saying that a 24*80, 8-colour (tops) text-mode
application is better in every respect than a graphical user interface? And
that there can be no argument with this point of view?
Because, wow, that's pretty arrogant.
Don't get me wrong, I have worked with AS/400 systems pretty much from day
one (mid-1988) and System/38's before that - I like the stability,
reliability, uptime etc. of the platform. I just *despise* the user
interface! Now I am writing GUI applications using AS/400 as both a
database and logic platform, and there can be no comparison (in my humble
opinion).
The whole thrust of the 5250 side of this argument thus far has been "users
don't have a clue, they seem to think that they need GUI, but this is just a
marketing ploy and we programmers know what they really want at a
subconscious level." If this is true, the GUI brainwash has been going on
for many, many years now, and there are several million really, really
stupid PC (Mac, OS/2, NeXT, X-Windows, BeOS, Amiga etc.) users out there.
- Paul
Rob Dixon
Paul wrote:
> Rob,
>
> A beautiful, moving and heartfelt description
>
Well - at least you think that I got something right!
> of a badly written Windows application.
You guessed! But, just one??? It's the whole damned lot. I only use well
known applications from the major suppliers.
> I have an idea for you - why not try developing a
> *well-written* Windows application!
Are you suggesting that I rewrite Windows 95, because that is the cause of many
of the problems. Otherwise, since my application can never be any better than
the operating system, unless it is for something that I can only do on a PC, I
will stick to my AS/400.
> You know, silly little details like
> accelerator keys, pressing Enter activates the OK button,
really useful when my hand is on the mouse
> all that good
> stuff that allows a user to navigate with the keyboard.
So are you agreeing that the keyboard is easier to use than a mouse? If so why
do I need a mouse driven GUI other than for graphics?
> Challenging, I
> know, but with practice it gets easier.
>
> While you are at it, try to think of a decent navigational interface, to
> avoid all those nasty cluttery windows around the place.
I think that I can claim to know a little about navigation and navigational
interfaces. I created a totally integrated, fully navigational database (I
believe still the only one in the world on any platform) and a navigational
interface many years ago. As every piece of data is stored in its context, and
every piece is therefore connected to every other piece, however indirectly, I
can navigate through my database in any direction, retrace my steps, change
direction, etc., limited only by my security. My navigational interface gives
me the same, very rapid, response times all the time (generally averaging under
0.05 secs on an AS/400 model 150, as measured by WRKACTJOB). My claim that,
using a GUI, it takes about ten times as long, was deliberately exaggerated.
But a more accurate figure would be five times more. This is not because of my
clumsiness (that is the same for both). If the job can be done on a keyboard at
5 times the speed of a mouse, what are the benefits of the mouse (never mind
whether the keyboard is part of the GUI or 5250 emulation on a PC or straight
5250)?
> Oh, and get
> someone to show you how to use a debugger, to catch those memory leaks.
I am not talking about MY Windows 95 applications. You want me to debug all the
rubbish out in the market place? How much does it pay? I would have to start
by rewriting WIndows. The problem is the Wintel environment. A decent
OS/hardware combination, such as OS/400 and AS/400, doesn't have these problems.
> I mean, jeez, haven't you ever seen a badly-written AS/400 application?
> Because I sure as hell have.
Sure, but I do not use them. If I am to use a PC, I have to use the rubbish
that is available.
> I don't see much difference in real terms
> between your trouble finding the OK button,
I did not say that I had trouble - just that I could not anticipate where it
would be which slowed me down (and everyone else). If there was keyboard
buffering, I could press Enter in advance and not care where it appeared (well
then it wouldn't appear)
> and finding that the
> green-screen program you are in doesn't implement CUA function keys.
If only there were similar standards for Windows. Not all applications even use
Ctrl+P for printing.
I have created my own AS/400 development environment that uses the same single
display file for ALL applications that I create, with the same interface, so my
function keys are always the same. I don't believe in spending my time
re-inventing the wheel. When I press the Attention key to switch tasks, my
AS/400 Group Jobs are displayed using the same display file and layout. My
displays are always totally consistent so my users know what to expect and where
everything is on a screen. There is never more than one window on the screen at
a time. Perhaps I should license the concept to MS.
> Get a grip. There is a huge demand for GUI applications for the AS/400,
The largest readership is generally for the poorest quality newspapers. I am
well aware of the demand, which exists because of superb marketing by MS.
People use Windows on their home computers. GUI is what children see at school
and college and that is what they later expect at work. They want to be seen
using the latest gizmos. Therefore no green screens. But managers can lay down
the rules and tell them what they are getting and why.
> and
> hankering back to the old days won't get you anywhere.
What gave you the impression that I was? All I want is something that works
efficiently, consistently, and reliably with minimal hassle. This might be
GUI's but at present it isn't. For quite a while, PC applications provided
shortcut key combinations that you could use if you preferred. Many
applications today only work, in part at least, with a mouse, and pointing and
clicking is very slow. I know that for some applications, such as graphics, it
is the only way, but then I am less likely to be swapping constantly between
mouse & keyboard. If GUI's had standard (used by all PC packages) short cut
keys for all non graphical work and they also had keyboard buffering, they would
be much better.
> Of course, if you want to talk about punch cards, now *there* was a user
> interface...
80 column or 96?
> - Paul
New technology exists not for its own sake but for the benefit of users. I
enjoy new technology and will welcome anything that brings real benefits, such
as new functionality, or ease of use, or greater accuracy, or shorter learning
curve, or faster response times, or greater productivity. To my mind, GUI only
produces these benefits in limited areas. Elsewhere the disadvantages seriously
outweigh the benefits. My 64 bit AS/400, which is being used as a Web Server,
has only 64mb. My PC has much smaller instructions and addressing and has 96mb
yet still has memory leaks. That people accept the appalling inefficiencies of
PCs and their applications shows that the world is mad. In addition, GUI
development, hardware and operating costs are very much higher. 5250 screens
have a much longer usable life than the typical PC and they also have a field
exit key - something I miss when using a GUI.
I would be pleased to see a thin client GUI, with standard short cut keys
(following CUA guidelines?) and keyboard buffering, that could be used without
change with all my applications - since you are clearly a PC expert as well as
an AS/400 expert, why don't you develop one?
This thread has produced some interesting answers. Most seem to agree on the
productivity benefits of 5250. Many respondents said that their users preferred
them. Some recognised the power of the users to dictate what they use. To me,
this suggests weak management. It also underlines that people are afraid of
change. At least some of those users mentioned who showed no interest in moving
from 5250 to GUI may not be rejecting the idea because they cannot see the
benefits but because they are not familiar with GUI's and they are not sure they
will cope - a common human reaction!
Rob Dixon
Erros plc
Paul
I think we are arguing at cross-purposes here. You have described your
approach to developing AS/400 applications with a consistent look-and-feel,
keyboard interface etc. I admire and applaud your approach (and envy your
response times!).
By the same token, I am developing Windows applications against an AS/400.
I have the same level of control over the user interface as you have over
yours. No, I can't control the quality of the software other people
develop, but can you?
There seems to be an impression that GUI interfaces are useful only for
graphical applications. On the contrary, with a little imagination a GUI
can add tremendous functionality to an inquiry application. An example - I
have several inquiries that allow users see summary and detail data over an
arbitrary number of weeks. With the aid of a scrollbar, it is extremely
quick and easy to glance through the displayed data. Another example is in
printing - I have saved hundreds (thousands?) of pages of paper through
implementing decent print/preview functionality. You just can't acheive
that level of versatility in a 5250 environment.
I write GUI applications. I write them consistently, and I write them well
(at least, I don't get memory leaks). The reason I am writing them at all
is because our customers want them. They don't just want a glitzy Windows
application, they want functionality which I can implement much more easily
in Windows than our 5250 department can do.
Rob Dixon wrote in message <35EFA89D...@erros.co.uk>...
- snip -
>This thread has produced some interesting answers. Most seem to agree on
the
>productivity benefits of 5250. Many respondents said that their users
preferred
>them. Some recognised the power of the users to dictate what they use. To
me,
>this suggests weak management. It also underlines that people are afraid
of
>change. At least some of those users mentioned who showed no interest in
moving
>from 5250 to GUI may not be rejecting the idea because they cannot see the
>benefits but because they are not familiar with GUI's and they are not sure
they
>will cope - a common human reaction!
Sorry for the previous rant, I take things so personally sometimes!
;^)
>Rob Dixon
>Erros plc
- Paul
Jim Banks
Jim Banks
bank...@mo-net.com
Research & Development
Jack Henry & Associates, Inc.
663 West Highway 60
Monett, MO 65708
(417) 235-6652
http://www.jackhenry.com
------ AS/400 GUI developer... but hey, I learned to program on a System 34
in good ol' RPG.
Nicholas Bridge
from someone who uses investigatory techniques and not general data
entry or application coding. But here is my view:
I have a 5250 terminal running 2 sessions (one of which is the console).
I have a PC running Windows 95.
The terminal is powered down 99% of the time. When I need to interrupt
something out of control, the terminal gets switched on. When I need
restricted state, the terminal is the option.
The rest of the time, I run with about 6 5250 emulation sessions, a
number of sofcopy books open, an MSDOS prompt for FTP and our products.
I regularly use the cut/copy/paste functions of the PC. And the use of
alt-pgup to switch between 5250 sessions allows me to modify a number of
related programs - QCLSRC, QRPGSRC and QDDSSRC - without groping around
for the correct source file and members (the files are permanently
displayed in different windows); and also to quickly jump to a testing
environment to test the most recent changes. I could accomplish much
less using just the 5250 terminal - I have in the past had only a
terminal, and made excellent use of a home grown group jobs menu to
switch between sessions - but with the PC I can move from window to
window whilst the AS/400 session is busy. In addition to which I also
use the internet for reference much of the time - a task that I would
find reasonably difficult with only a green screen. (Author wonders
whether to emphasise his sarcasm with an emoticon ;)
To conclude:
I would hate to have to run mission critical software on Windows (any
flavor), but the use of accelerator keys, cut/paste and so on, give GUIs
the edge for me.
I would not lose too much going back to a simple terminal, but I would
most certainly gain nothing.
I hope my view is of interest.
Nick B.
PS Although irrelevant, I would also not be able to develop the PC GUI
front end for our software!
Bob Gilsdorf
>> ...most people like seeing the standard WinGUI. It
>>is unarguably terrible in every way, ...
>
>Unarguably terrible in every way? Unarguably?
>
>Are you *seriously* saying that a 24*80, 8-colour (tops) text-mode
>application is better in every respect than a graphical user interface?
And
>that there can be no argument with this point of view?
>
>Because, wow, that's pretty arrogant.
I must agree that green screen is better than GUI if you look at
productivity. The simplicity of green screen makes it simpler for
inexperienced users to handle data. Tab is easier than the constant back and
forth between mouse and keyboard that GUI forces us to do.
Go GUI only if you need pictures, or graphs for data presentation. Text only
stuff can get away with green screens quite nicely. Remember text is not
graphical.
Peter Klyne
>
> A nice simple, non-controversial question ...
>
To me this is a VERY controversial question.
For the environment you are asking about, there is no contest between
the two alternatives.
For straight character based DATA PROCESSING (despite the newer
fancy terms) character based devices (5250, or PC & TN5250 or similar)
provide an efficient and cost effective method.
Some users and programmers want the latest 'TOYS' to play with, myself
not excluded. This is not a need only a desire. They for the most part
provide no incremental benefits to the user or programmer and the
employer.
The cost of developing and supporting GUI applications is far in excess
of the cost of Green Screen applications.
Parts of the IS and user communities have lost sight of the purpose of
computerized systems. Namely the timely and efficient collection and
dissemination of data relating to the operation of the organization.
They have been lured into the 'bleeding edge' of technology by desire
to show how au courant they are and by the skillful marketing strategies
of some software vendors targeted primarily at non IS management.
I am not opposed to change, but I am opposed to change for the sake
of change. RF Terminals, Scanners Bar Code and text (not as new as
most people might think) Data Warehousing (another old concept wrapped
up in new clothes) and now beginning to be implemented and Data Mining
or plain and simple analysis being examples.
The KISS approach, which us old-timers have always tried to implement
is still the best way. Gewgaws are fine in their place, but that is not
in a production business / Service environment.
FLAME ON
The trend in the academic / research community to gewgaws is fine, but
if they would only teach basic business practices and vanilla
programming as well, then maybe there would not be a shortage of
qualified programmers today.
FLAME OFF
Peter Klyne
Enki Associates Ltd
AS/400 Consulting
(416) 223 2506 Fax (416) 223 3299
boo...@ibm.net
Has anyone used all of the new options available for green-screen design?
If so, what is your reaction to these, viz-a-viz Windows GUI?
(The options I mean include pushbuttons on panels and scroll bars on
subfiles. Not hotspots, but mouseable, tabbable pushbuttons that reverse
image when tabbed, and an honest to goodness scroll bar with the slider
bar mouseable and the slider representative of the amount of file data
displayed.)
I just showed this to some folks in a big shop that is basically green
screen and at the moment they are ecstatic to see this available for
terminals.
The reason I ask is because it seems to me we are beginning to get the
GUI-environment things we want, for the green screen.
In <35F29D7D...@interlog.com>, on 09/06/98
at 10:34 AM, Peter Klyne <p...@interlog.com> said:
>Peter Harris wrote:
>>
>> A nice simple, non-controversial question ...
>>
>To me this is a VERY controversial question.
>For the environment you are asking about, there is no contest between the
>two alternatives.
>For straight character based DATA PROCESSING (despite the newer fancy
>terms) character based devices (5250, or PC & TN5250 or similar) provide
>an efficient and cost effective method.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
boo...@ibm.net
Booth Martin
-----------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Handy
>I must agree that green screen is better than GUI if you look at
>productivity. The simplicity of green screen makes it simpler for
>inexperienced users to handle data. Tab is easier than the constant back and
>forth between mouse and keyboard that GUI forces us to do.
Say what? Why in the world does GUI "force" you to constantly switch
back and forth between mouse and keyboard?
On the contrary, a well-designed GUI can be *more* productive for an
experienced keyboard person provided the machine can keep up with the
user. The tab key still works, although you do have to make sure your
GUI controls (text boxes, etc) have the best Z-order (tab sequence)
for the data being entered. [I can't stand applications where the
programmer obviously didn't bother to check the Z-order and let it
default to the order in which controls were added to the form.]
You can (and SHOULD) also assign a mneumonic (underlined) letter to
each control that let's a *keyboard* user instantly jump to that
control without the need for the mouse or multiple tabs. This is
actually much faster than you can do it in a straight 5250 environment
A properly designed GUI also uses auto-fill where appropriate which
again aids the *keyboard* user, not the mouser. Or the fact that you
can navigate through lists by typing the first letter instead of the
mouse or even the arrow keys.
A well thought-out form will never require the mouse for data entry
(note that I am excluding image and graphics stuff). I have designed
text screens for about 20 years, and GUI screens for probably only
about 6 years. I have one client where I wrote one order entry system
optimized for their heads down data entry people (for mail orders,
etc) and another optimized for the telemarketers (who require more
pre-sales info, etc.). Both of these run on their AS/400. Then I
wrote a PC based sales automation system for outside sales reps, where
they can enter their own orders on the road using scanners and/or the
keyboard.
Guess which one is the fastest for entering orders? I can key an
order *faster* on the PC (without ever using the mouse) then I can on
the AS/400 based system *designed* for heads down data entry. Of
course, most of the sales reps are inexperienced and tend to use the
mouse more than they should, but the fact remains it is *faster* for
even experienced keyboard users.
Part of the problem is that many GUI designers never worked in a
green-screen environment and don't understand the importance of
setting the Z-order, assigning mneumonics and accelerator keys,
default command buttons, etc.
Don''t get me wrong -- I still think green-screen is the most cost
effective design for most data entry, but that is because the costs,
including support and program maintenance, are so much higher for GUI
than for PaTUI. But I vehemently disagree that GUI forces a heads
down entry person to be slower than with a PaTUI. Assuming of course
the GUI was designed by somebody who understands keyboard entry and is
using an architecture which can keep up with the user.
*IF* development, hardware, reliability, and support costs were the
same for both GUI and PaTUI, then I would opt for GUI every time. But
they are not, and that is the reason I still recomment PaTUI, not
because GUI is inherently slower for professional data entry.
Doug
boo...@ibm.net
>>I must agree that green screen is better than GUI if you look at
>>productivity. The simplicity of green screen makes it simpler for
>>inexperienced users to handle data. Tab is easier than the constant back and
>>forth between mouse and keyboard that GUI forces us to do.
>On the contrary, a well-designed GUI can be *more* productive for an
>experienced keyboard person provided the machine can keep up with the
>user. The tab key still works, although you do have to make sure your
>GUI controls (text boxes, etc) have the best Z-order (tab sequence) for
>the data being entered. [I can't stand applications where the programmer
>obviously didn't bother to check the Z-order and let it default to the
>order in which controls were added to the form.]
Green screens have assignable key progression.
>You can (and SHOULD) also assign a mneumonic (underlined) letter to each
>control that let's a *keyboard* user instantly jump to that control
>without the need for the mouse or multiple tabs. This is actually much
>faster than you can do it in a straight 5250 environment
Green screens have push buttons with mneumonic letters now.
> I have one client where I wrote one order entry system optimized
>for their heads down data entry people (for mail orders, etc) and another
>optimized for the telemarketers (who require more pre-sales info, etc.).
>Both of these run on their AS/400. Then I wrote a PC based sales
>automation system for outside sales reps, where they can enter their own
>orders on the road using scanners and/or the keyboard.
>Guess which one is the fastest for entering orders? I can key an order
>*faster* on the PC (without ever using the mouse) then I can on the
>AS/400 based system *designed* for heads down data entry.
Why? What is different about the PC application? Does the Green Screen
application need a touch of re-design? I will grant that the green screen
requires a control key press and is not a key-by-key environment and that
is a bummer. But otherwise the green screen environment has had many
changes in it's capabilities over the last half dozen years.
>Doug
boo...@ibm.net
But i would be interested in hearing more about what you mean by the
learning curve. For whom? Under what circumstances? How often?
In <199809070131...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, on 09/07/98
at 01:31 AM, samia...@aol.com (Samiam1525) said:
>I'm a community bank. There's no need for anything other than 5250. The
>learning curve is too great and our banking applications work just fine
>on green screen and DOS.
>Sam in Panama City FL
Samiam1525
Douglas Handy
> Green screens have assignable key progression.
Yes, assuming you have the enhanced ws controller. My point to Bob
was that GUI was no worse than green screen in this regard. He made
it sound like using the tab key was an inherent advantage of green
screen over GUI. I have seen many Windows programs where the
programmer obviously did not pay attention to the tab order, but this
is certainly not the fault of the GUI...
>You can (and SHOULD) also assign a mneumonic (underlined) letter to
>each control that let's a *keyboard* user instantly jump to that
>control without the need for the mouse or multiple tabs. This is
>actually much faster than you can do it in a straight 5250 environment
>> Green screens have push buttons with mneumonic letters now.
Again, with the enhanced ws controller this is true, although I've had
some problems with them in my tests. But you can't assign
accelerators to each text entry field the way you can with Windows.
In Windows, a "text box" is also called a "control". You have to use
tab (or whatever) to get to the field, which Bob likes to do. With
Windows, I can tab too but better yet jump directly to any given
field. Look Ma, no mouse.
> Why? What is different about the PC application? Does the Green Screen
>application need a touch of re-design? I will grant that the green screen
>requires a control key press and is not a key-by-key environment and that
>is a bummer. But otherwise the green screen environment has had many
>changes in it's capabilities over the last half dozen years.
The biggest time saver is the auto-fill while keying the product
number. Their product number is (up to) 14 characters. As they make
each keystroke, it attempts to complete the product number for them.
They can leave the field at any time, or quickly scroll to the
nex/prev product number without having to pop-up the selection/search
window. In their product numbering scheme, this is a big timesaver.
(If you have ever used Quicken, you'll know what I mean.)
There are other examples but many are also either tied to having
keystroke sensitive logic or logic while exiting a field. This isn't
really a GUI issue, because I can do most of the same tricks with
stuff like DOS Foxpro, but you could never expect the AS/400 ws
controller or application programs to provide this level of user
interface support with reasonable response time.
Mind you, I don't want the 400 to try and support this directly -- it
would kill the response time you would otherwise get with the same
model 400. I'm just refuting Bob's assertion that text entry is
inherently faster than GUI just because you can use tabs and are not
"forced" to constantly switch between keyboard and mouse. A good GUI
design is every bit as good to a keyboard user.
My order entry comparison was used just because I have it running on
both the AS/400 green screen and on stand-alone PCs as part of a sales
automation system. Not all the sales reps have access to Frank's
legendary laptop AS/400 to run the home office's software... <g>
Doug
Paul Nicolay
I don't think learning curves have anything to do with Windows ! The
reason (to my opinion ) is that a learning curve has nothing to do with the
screen being graphical or text mode, but to the fact that the complete
package of applications that is being used is consistent.
Due to the fact that Windows isn't made for data entry type of jobs, the
programs which do support so are often quite different in their behaviour
to process such data. Cut and paste keys (and even that, try CTRL-INS in
some of them) are common, but how about a save/update and delete process
for data entry type of screens.
In addition to that, users are very quickly confused by a Windows
environment, and the multiple open Windows and applications.
Unfortunatly, companies like JDE produce the most horrible user interfaces
ever seen on OS/400. I don't understand that IBM is even supporting
companies that don't follow CUA standards !
Kind regards,
Paul
__________________
boo...@ibm.net wrote in article
<35f34249$1$obbguz$mr2...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>...
> My sentiments exactly. mostly.
>
> But i would be interested in hearing more about what you mean by the
> learning curve. For whom? Under what circumstances? How often?
>
>
> In <199809070131...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, on 09/07/98
> at 01:31 AM, samia...@aol.com (Samiam1525) said:
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> boo...@ibm.net
> Booth Martin
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
The contents of this message express only the sender's opinion.
This message does not necessarily reflect the policy or views of
my employer, Merck & Co., Inc. All responsibility for the statements
made in this Usenet posting resides solely and completely with the
sender.
Paul Nicolay
I don't consider that as a flam.... but as reality. Most students these
days are able to hack whatever PC, but they just don't know how to write a
decent business application. I even see newcommers not even familiar with
basic issues of structural programming. I guess the mind of many students
these days is busy with GUI, hacking, Windows, ... not with running a
business.
Regards,
Paul
________________
Peter Klyne <p...@interlog.com> wrote in article
<35F29D7D...@interlog.com>...
...snip...
>
> FLAME ON
>
> The trend in the academic / research community to gewgaws is fine, but
> if they would only teach basic business practices and vanilla
> programming as well, then maybe there would not be a shortage of
> qualified programmers today.
>
> FLAME OFF
>
...snip...
Rob Dixon
Paul wrote:
<snip>
> There seems to be an impression that GUI interfaces are useful only for
> graphical applications. On the contrary, with a little imagination a GUI
> can add tremendous functionality to an inquiry application. An example - I
> have several inquiries that allow users see summary and detail data over an
> arbitrary number of weeks. With the aid of a scrollbar, it is extremely
> quick and easy to glance through the displayed data.
I personally dislike scroll bars as it means picking up the mouse. I don't see
anything above that you cannot do with straight 5250, using CUA standard F19 &
F20 to window horizontally and Page up and down for vertical movement. For me,
using these is much quicker.
> Another example is in printing - I have saved hundreds (thousands?) of pages
> of paper through
> implementing decent print/preview functionality. You just can't acheive
> that level of versatility in a 5250 environment.
I accept this but, apart from standard forms, e.g. orders, etc., I prefer to
provide answers on a screen if possible so that as little printing as possible
is required (I know it will never be eliminated). Nevertheless, I would prefer
5250 to have an all points addressable screen.
> I write GUI applications. I write them consistently, and I write them well
> (at least, I don't get memory leaks).
Please give lessons to the major PC software suppliers!
> The reason I am writing them at all
> is because our customers want them. They don't just want a glitzy Windows
> application, they want functionality which I can implement much more easily
> in Windows than our 5250 department can do.
This is getting away from the subject of this thread, and might make the subject
for another thread - I will try and phrase an appropriate question to get it
going. But perhaps your 5250 department doesn't have the correct tools - if
they would like details of my company's ERROS for OS/400 which allows
application creation without physical database design, and, most of the time
without any program coding or generation, please let me know.
Rob Dixon
Erros plc
Rob Dixon
Peter Klyne wrote:
<large snip about 5250's, all of which I support>
> The cost of developing and supporting GUI applications is far in excess
> of the cost of Green Screen applications.
Most certainly.
> Parts of the IS and user communities have lost sight of the purpose of
> computerized systems.
If they ever stopped to think what it was.
> Namely the timely and efficient collection and
> dissemination of data relating to the operation of the organization.
>
> They have been lured into the 'bleeding edge' of technology by desire
> to show how au courant they are and by the skillful marketing strategies
> of some software vendors targeted primarily at non IS management.
Technology is only a means to an end - it is not an end in itself.
> I am not opposed to change, but I am opposed to change for the sake
> of change.
How refreshing!
> RF Terminals, Scanners Bar Code and text (not as new as
> most people might think) Data Warehousing (another old concept wrapped
> up in new clothes) and now beginning to be implemented and Data Mining
> or plain and simple analysis being examples.
>
> The KISS approach, which us old-timers have always tried to implement
> is still the best way. Gewgaws are fine in their place, but that is not
> in a production business / Service environment.
There are two approaches -
1. The KISS approach, of which I have been an avid practitioner for more
years than I care to mention.
2. Why make something difficult, when, with only a little more effort, you
can make it bloody impossible!
Far too many techies don't seem to realise how unnecessarily complex are the
systems that they create/maintain. They are far too interested in the
minutiae to consider the wider implications of their IT policies. If they
stood back and looked at the overall picture, they might understand that
there are very much simpler ways of achieving their objective, which is not
to create files, programs, etc., but to serve users. Anything else is only
a means to that end.
Not only do you not need thousands of objects in your installation, the
existence of so many means that you do not have proper control of your
company's data.
I never understand why people insist on writing, or generating, program
code. Surely, programming must be the most inefficient process ever devised
by man in any field of human endeavour, fine for masochists, but
extraordinarily unproductive. Our brains don't need shutting down and
reprogramming every time we learn something new and nor do our computers -
at least my AS/400 doesn't.
Rob Dixon
Erros plc
sami...@bix.com
GUI - straw poll:
You and Meg each have valid points. Your analysis assumes that users want
to learn to be more productive. I have on many occasions educated green
screen users on effective cursor management, including appropriate use of
the "new-line" key. In as many cases as not, subsequent observation of
those users has shown that they reverted to their old,"comfortable" habits.
Imagine how much more inefficient these particular users could become by
exercising the enhanced time-frittering opportunities in a GUI
environment;>) This isn't to say that no users exist who can leverage
multitasking and a richer interface environment (the former has more
potential IMO) to increase their meaningful productivity, just that it's
not a given.
>I think the issue you just raised is one of user education. I *still* see
>people using green-screen terminals (or emulators) and pressing arrow keys
>to move between fields!! This is hardly what you would call
>earth-shattering productivity.
>
>If you can explain to a green-screen user that the Tab key navigates, you
>can explain it to a GUI user. Better again, with a well-designed
>interface,
>you can provide accelerator keys, explain them to the user, and then watch
>them zip from field to field!
Nicholas Bridge
productive?
(author is humming ironically)
Regards,
Nick B.
boo...@ibm.net wrote:
>
> >Bob,
>
> >>I must agree that green screen is better than GUI if you look at
> >>productivity. The simplicity of green screen makes it simpler for
> >>inexperienced users to handle data. Tab is easier than the constant back and
> >>forth between mouse and keyboard that GUI forces us to do.
>
> >On the contrary, a well-designed GUI can be *more* productive for an
> >experienced keyboard person provided the machine can keep up with the
> >user. The tab key still works, although you do have to make sure your
> >GUI controls (text boxes, etc) have the best Z-order (tab sequence) for
> >the data being entered. [I can't stand applications where the programmer
> >obviously didn't bother to check the Z-order and let it default to the
> >order in which controls were added to the form.]
>
> Green screens have assignable key progression.
>
> >You can (and SHOULD) also assign a mneumonic (underlined) letter to each
> >control that let's a *keyboard* user instantly jump to that control
> >without the need for the mouse or multiple tabs. This is actually much
> >faster than you can do it in a straight 5250 environment
>
> Green screens have push buttons with mneumonic letters now.
>
> > I have one client where I wrote one order entry system optimized
> >for their heads down data entry people (for mail orders, etc) and another
> >optimized for the telemarketers (who require more pre-sales info, etc.).
> >Both of these run on their AS/400. Then I wrote a PC based sales
> >automation system for outside sales reps, where they can enter their own
> >orders on the road using scanners and/or the keyboard.
>
> >Guess which one is the fastest for entering orders? I can key an order
> >*faster* on the PC (without ever using the mouse) then I can on the
> >AS/400 based system *designed* for heads down data entry.
>
> Why? What is different about the PC application? Does the Green Screen
> application need a touch of re-design? I will grant that the green screen
> requires a control key press and is not a key-by-key environment and that
> is a bummer. But otherwise the green screen environment has had many
> changes in it's capabilities over the last half dozen years.
>
> >Doug
Nicholas Bridge
this in a manner that is more intuitive and more capable than a green
screen.
An example - a scroll bar.
Ever paged down a very large "Word" document?
Find that it is quicker to speed thru' it with a scroll bar (which also
presents the selected page number as you scroll)?
The whole point of GUI is to aid interactivity and ease of use; not add
unnecessary complexity.
The idea that adding a function will cause users to play with it, thus
reducing productivity is absurd - "playing" with a new function is a way
to learn it (GUI _or_ PaTUI): and by making it graphical and intuitive
can only make this learning simpler. Adding a "hot key" to this
function can only improve something that is inherently easier for a GUI.
The difficulty with GUIs is that bad design is amplified.
If you need to modify your behaviour occasionally to work around a green
screen problem, then a similar problem with a GUI will be intolerable.
Don't discard GUIs because of apparent reduced productivity.
Make an intelligent decision based on cost, efficiency, actual
productivity, and required training.
How many green screens allow cut and paste?
My opinion is just that - an opinion.
Regards,
Nick B.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Name: erros.vcf
> erros.vcf Type: VCard (text/x-vcard)
> Encoding: 7bit
> Description: Card for Rob Dixon
Alex Bunardzic
>Hi guys
>Do most users (NOT programmers, NOT text-processors, just simple
>end-users in warehouses, offices, order-processors etc) prefer 5250
>(green-screen, dumb terminal) interfaces with the AS/400 or Windows
>look-alike GUI use-a-mouse-and-click interfaces?
>No controversy intended for any of the above.... No irony anywhere....
Users are a fickle bunch. Believe it or not, I've met users who prefer
paper and pencil to any computer, GUI or not.
But the point that frequently gets overlooked is that by delivering a
GUI-based application, you don't actually sacrifice ANY of the
text-based, green-screen, 5250 functionality. You simply add new
things to it.
We develop all our business applications in Java. Any Java application
behaves exactly the same as it's 5250 equivalent, and then some.
We retain all of the keyboard functionality... function keys, page up
and down, arrow keys. Plus, we add a nice, tidy, easy to follow and
self-documenting visual interface, with floating tooltips, status bars
etc.
If you don't believe that you can have the best of both worlds (in
other words, that you can have your cake and eat it too), just talk to
me, and I'll convince you with my examples.
Alex
Paul
>Users are a fickle bunch. Believe it or not, I've met users who prefer
>paper and pencil to any computer, GUI or not.
Oh, trust me, I know this type only too well... (sound of head repeatedly
striking wall...!)
>If you don't believe that you can have the best of both worlds (in
>other words, that you can have your cake and eat it too), just talk to
>me, and I'll convince you with my examples.
I am with you 100%. I wonder why such a level of animosity exists toward
GUI applications at all? Have most AS/400 people had bad experiences with
poorly designed GUI applications? I know I have (AS/SET IWS for OS/2 being
a notable example), but it just inspired my to learn from other people's
mistakes, and develop usable GUI applications.
FWIW, my idea of a usable GUI is one that provides the ease-of use of a 5250
application, and much more besides!! Maybe those eight or nine years of
writing RPG paid off...
>Alex
- Paul
Alex Bunardzic
>I would never pretend to know what most users use or don't use. But
>let me try to put this issue into perspective. IMHO, a heads down data
>entry application or any kind of job involving repetitive input into
>the machine is a green-screen style app. It is waste of resource to
>try to produce a fancy GUI system for this purpose.
>On the other hand, applications involving research where a user might
>need to gather multiple sources of information before entering their
>data is more appropriate as a GUI application. So I don't think there
>is a simple answer to your question.
>Mike Cravitz
>NEWS/400 Technical Editor
This is a black-and-white generalization par excellence, if there ever
was one. So the simple answer you've proposed is simply an
over-simplification.
Many other factors influence the approapriateness of the
implementation. Please note that I'm not saying that green-screen apps
have no appropriate place. But let's be more open to the requirements
imposed by the circumstances. For instance:
We have a portion of our "data production" (read "data entry")
applications that are perfect for the heads-down green-screen
implementation. But:
We have a huge turnover in some areas. People get hired almost on a
monthly (sometimes, in the peak periods, on a weekly) basis. Plus,
there are temps in and out -- in a word, a revolving door situation.
What's the issue here? The training! Green-screen 5250 apps are
unfriendly, difficult to 'crack', and require considerable training
before users are really productive. Half the time, people don't know
where they are in an application, how did they get there, how to
navigate their way back, how to switch to a different function, and so
on. Granted, green-screen usually is very criptic and sparse. And,
needless to say, our help desk was a bunch of not-so-happy campers.
So, willy-nilly, we had to replace those clunky text-based apps with
the GUI ones. They are much more intuitive, easier to navigate, and
have reduced the training time from days and weeks to literally
minutes.
Sure, the resource requirements imposed by those GUI apps are
drastically higher (we even had to upgrade the RAM for the
workstations to 32 Megs). But, the payback, calculated in the savings
in the training cost, plus in the savings incurred by the increased
productivity and decreased error rate, made it more than worthwhile.
Plus, the users are much, much happier. They now actually like coming
to work in the morning.
Again, in the stable, reliable sections of the corporation, where
employees stay put for decades, introducing GUI may be a double-edged
sword. We may risk aggravating those old dogs. So, they're already
well trained, they're productive, they can do their job in their sleep
-- so let the lying dogs sleep!
Alex
Alex Bunardzic
>Non-GUI is more productive for the jobs you described above. You can keep
>your hands on the keyboard and just type away.
I don't know who put in many people's heads this nonsense that GUI
equals "mouse only"? This is ridiculous!
All my GUI apps are 100% operable via the keyboard. You don't EVER
have to use a mouse (unless you'd like to move or resize the window --
but you'd do the same thing in the 5250 emulation anyway).
My users *insist* that they never have to take their hands off the
keyboard. That's absolutelly easy to accomplish in GUI. A GUI app has
everything that a text-based one has, plus a huge amount of features
that a text-based app is incapable of.
Why are people complaining when you give them more, is simply beyond
me!
Try to understand -- nobody's taking anything away from you by giving
you a GUI app. Everything is still there, the whole keyboard,
including the function keys, plus many more goodies, which are yours
to discover.
Is this so difficult to grasp?
Alex
Alex Bunardzic
>Personally I think a combination of both, GUI for Word, Excell, ..and 5250
>for AS/400 based applications is the best way to go. I still need to
>find the first user that enters data more quickly via a GUI.
If you could see one of my apps, you'll realize that some visual-based
data entry is simply unbeatable when it comes to speed. Quickly
grouping disparate visual elements on the list and
dragging-and-dropping them on some easily identifiable visual
component on the right-hand side of the window is as fast as it gets.
No amount of lightning fast, slim text-based interface where you must
Tab, Field exit or arrow your way around, can come even close to this
versatility.
It's hard to convincingly demonstrate this capability using words...
it's almost like trying to describe music... not really doable.
But, once you see it in action, you'll know instantly what I'm talking
about.
Alex
Alex Bunardzic
> I wonder why such a level of animosity exists toward
>GUI applications at all?
The advent of visual, object-oriented apps spells the death for the
unsophisticated users. Let's face it, people dread that one morning,
as they enter their office, they'll be informed that their services
aren't needed anymore, thanks to those new fangled software packages.
Naturally, they'll do everything to sabotage that...
Alex
sami...@bix.com
www.ameritech.net Complaints: ab...@ameritech.net wrote this re Re: 5250 vs
GUI - straw poll:
>GUIs are a method of presenting information and taking input. They do
>this in a manner that is more intuitive and more capable than a green
>screen.
screen. For repetitive, forms-oriented, "heads down" entry (example: a
cash receipts input screen that wants customer#, invoice#, amount paid, and
discount, and nothing else), however, the typical GUI will impose
navigational requirements that are detrimental to achieving maximum typing
speed. It's tough to "press" a button control with the mouse without
looking up at the screen;>)
>
>An example - a scroll bar.
>Ever paged down a very large "Word" document?
>Find that it is quicker to speed thru' it with a scroll bar (which also
>presents the selected page number as you scroll)?
>
be accomplished with a text-only mode of entry;>)
>The whole point of GUI is to aid interactivity and ease of use; not add
>unnecessary complexity.
abused.
sami...@bix.com
vs GUI - straw poll:
>paper and pencil to any computer, GUI or not.
>
>GUI-based application, you don't actually sacrifice ANY of the
>text-based, green-screen, 5250 functionality. You simply add new
>things to it.
"paths" through the process, potentially some of these are less efficient.
This is the sacrifice of control, which isn't necessarily bad, but to claim
that it has no downside potential is just not correct. Question: how much
do you trust the user who prefers paper-and-pencil to choose the most
efficient GUI tools and methods to navigate through an application? The
main "real" benefits og GUI's IMO accrue to the programmer who can provide
for many user "styles" in one, largely pre-programmed, shot, rather than
continously tweaking a green screen entry form to accomodate "user
preference" requests.
Fatbloke
entry system) when we tried out GUI was the difficulty of distinguishing
between I, I ,l (small L) and 1 (one). YOu get a code number, say
lillian11 (LILLIAN [in lowercase] eleven) shown in Times Roman and you've
got the users with their noses 2 inches from the screen trying to decipher
the letters! :)
The managers with their 'enquiry' type applications seemed to like it
though..
--
Steve.C remove "nospam4." from reply address if present
ICQ - 13986280
Visit me at http://www.bigfoot.com/~steve.conrad
Carnivorous Plants. Cadfael Chronicles. Hedgehog Homepage
Alex Bunardzic
>One thing some of our users complained of (there's was a 'head-down' data
>entry system) when we tried out GUI was the difficulty of distinguishing
>between I, I ,l (small L) and 1 (one). YOu get a code number, say
>lillian11 (LILLIAN [in lowercase] eleven) shown in Times Roman and you've
>got the users with their noses 2 inches from the screen trying to decipher
>the letters! :)
Excellent point. This is exactly why nobody should settle with just
any old crummy GUI based product.
All my GUI applications are at a minimum color-and-font customizable.
For any control that you see on the screen (meaning, the input field
etc.) you can, by clicking the right mouse button while pointing at
it, define your preferred font name, font style (bold, italic, plain,
etc.) and font size (unlimited largness), plus the background and
foreground color. Not to mention that visual controls can be resizable
and can be rearranged on the screen during run time (if there's a need
to do that).
So, if somebody gives you an object oriented, GUI app which is rigid
and non-customizable, tell them to take a hike.
Alex
P.S. One thing's not clear to me, though -- if we're talking "heads
down" data entry, when do these people have the time to stop and look
and notice this small l and 1 problem?
Worley Barry
[Snip}
> I wonder why such a level of animosity exists toward GUI applications at
>all? Have most AS/400 people had bad experiences with poorly designed
>GUI applications?
[Snip]
> - Paul
>
You bet, just like we've had a lot of bad experiences with poorly
designed As/400 applications. But we can recognize a poor 'Green Screen'
program and most of the GUI programs (maybe poorly written) all seem to
share the same functional deficiencies. Therefore we equate programs that
move the cursor around the screen in some strange sequence with the tab
key, or requires you to click on the OK button instead of pressing enter,
or allows input longer than the field so that part of it disappears are
standard GUI functions.
I think we also assume it must be really hard to debug GUI (windows)
programs because so few of them are debugged. And that buggy programs can
walk on the operating system to the point (apparently) the operating
system has to be reinstalled before it works.
But most of all we just resent the dogma that GUI is better when all
GUI means is a PC running some flavor of windows and we can't imagine
that's better than anything.
--
Regards, Worley
sami...@bix.com
program of some kind that you could distribute?
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:26:41 GMT Alex Bunardzic of wrote this re Re: 5250
vs GUI - straw poll:
>data entry is simply unbeatable when it comes to speed.
charl...@yahoo.com
>
>If you could see one of my apps, you'll realize that some visual-based
>data entry is simply unbeatable when it comes to speed.
<sarcasm>
Oh, yes! I have seen that app! It's called Humility/98.
</sarcasm>
Alex Bunardzic
><sarcasm>
></sarcasm>
Hey, I like your sarcasm!
It has probably kept you afloat and took you to unprecedented heights,
right?
I agree that talking about visual apps is meaningless. The trouble is,
so many people who dismiss visual applications have never been exposed
to a really good one. That's how you learn.
A good book to start delving into this area is Allan Cooper's "About
Face".
Alex