Windows Interface to Noncomputer Environments

Windows interface to noncomputer environments

I am quite concerned about your recent report detailing what you call
problems in extending the Windows interface to products other than
computers. The growth of Microsoft is dependent on our ability to extend
Windows to every aspect of business, home, and society. After all, we all
own MS stock, and if you want to become a billionaire, too, you will, I’m
sure, learn to minimize the effects of what others call reality and laws
of physics. Here’s some feedback on the first wave of Windows-ready
products.

WINDOWS TOASTER: This is one of the few products on which we have any
agreement. You agree that tapping on a minimize arrow will lower the
bread into the toaster and that tapping a maximize arrow will make the
slices pop out again. But you complain that you can’t figure out any way
that double-clicking on the box will reduce the size of the toaster to a
1-inch cube. Let the toaster companies worry about it. It’s a hardware
problem.

MOUSE-CONTROLLED CAR: I’m happy to see we’ve made more progress in
developing a mouse that can steer a car. But you still object to tapping
the left button to make the car go and the right button to apply the
brakes. You say it will be confusing to drivers who are used to the gas
pedal on the right and the brake on the left. That’s a user problem. We
can`t be changing our button standards to accommodate such out-moded
technology as automobiles. You also mention that having to lift up the
mouse, move it back and scoot it forward again just to keep the car going
means that cars won’t travel more than 33 mph. Don’t worry. If the
drivers are Windows users, they’ll live with the slowness. By the way,
what has become of the preliminary plans to replace a car’s four wheels
with one large roller?

WINDOWS VACUUM CLEANER: If it’s technically possible to create a vacuum
cleaner with 100 levels of undo , let’s do it. Yes, I know that an undo
feature is probably not a meaningful feature o n a vacuum; unless you suck
up the cat, of course. So why do we need 100 levels of undo? Consistency.
We don’t know why anyone needs 100 levels of undo in Word, either , so we
may as well be consistent.

Best wishes,

B.G.

Bookmark the permalink.