Sure, it’s not 100% better in all situations. But when you’re unfamiliar with something, almost universally, it’s far more intuitive.
And this doesn’t even take into account things like gaming. I also can’t imagine trying to do visual design things solely with the computer. Like any type of drawing or schematic design.
Being pretty adept at using the keyboard, I’m often frustrated when I find out that the only way to do something is by mouse when there appears that there should be an easy way to do it by keyboard. But, man, I can’t imagine longing for the days before the mouse.
Yes, the mouse is useful in many situations (esp 3d modeling), so I don’t think anyone is arguing that it shouldn’t exist.
The problem, however, is that we’ve standardized on it for everything, to the point where software often ignores a better KB-driven workflow because the mouse one is good enough. “When all you have is a hammer…”
We’ve prioritized “intuitive” over “efficient.” There’s nothing wrong with learning to properly use a tool, and it’s sad that we don’t expect users to put in that modicum of effort. In the 80s and 90s, that’s just how things were, you either learn the tools (often with a handbook) or you don’t use them. The net result was a populace that didn’t need support as much, because they were used to reading the docs. If a component died, the docs would tell you how to diagnose and fix it. These days, those docs just don’t exist, so if the solution isn’t intuitive, you replace it (both hardware and software).
That’s where this frustration comes from. Making things intuitive also means reducing the average person’s understanding of their tools, and the mouse is a symptom of that shift.
I would argue, overall, it’s more efficient to aim for the former than the latter, especially if we are talking about the wide range of people who need to use a computer.
But I’m curious as to the “actions per minute” type of efficiency that people are talking about here. I’m an engineer, who has moved into computer programming. I would say the bottleneck for me is never that I have to move my hand to my mouse, but it’s always about thinking and planning. I feel like this “it’s so much more efficient” is viewing us as almost machines that are just trying to output actions, rather than think through and solve problems.
The net result was a populace that didn’t need support as much, because they were used to reading the docs. If a component died, the docs would tell you how to diagnose and fix it.
I think this is more of a problem that it went from an extremely niche thing, to something that almost everyone is required to use, rather than a move away from keyboard only. Or, maybe, the rise of the mouse opened the computer to everyone being able to use it, which is why it has become so ubiquitous.
Sure, it’s not 100% better in all situations. But when you’re unfamiliar with something, almost universally, it’s far more intuitive.
And this doesn’t even take into account things like gaming. I also can’t imagine trying to do visual design things solely with the computer. Like any type of drawing or schematic design.
Being pretty adept at using the keyboard, I’m often frustrated when I find out that the only way to do something is by mouse when there appears that there should be an easy way to do it by keyboard. But, man, I can’t imagine longing for the days before the mouse.
Yes, the mouse is useful in many situations (esp 3d modeling), so I don’t think anyone is arguing that it shouldn’t exist.
The problem, however, is that we’ve standardized on it for everything, to the point where software often ignores a better KB-driven workflow because the mouse one is good enough. “When all you have is a hammer…”
We’ve prioritized “intuitive” over “efficient.” There’s nothing wrong with learning to properly use a tool, and it’s sad that we don’t expect users to put in that modicum of effort. In the 80s and 90s, that’s just how things were, you either learn the tools (often with a handbook) or you don’t use them. The net result was a populace that didn’t need support as much, because they were used to reading the docs. If a component died, the docs would tell you how to diagnose and fix it. These days, those docs just don’t exist, so if the solution isn’t intuitive, you replace it (both hardware and software).
That’s where this frustration comes from. Making things intuitive also means reducing the average person’s understanding of their tools, and the mouse is a symptom of that shift.
I would argue, overall, it’s more efficient to aim for the former than the latter, especially if we are talking about the wide range of people who need to use a computer.
But I’m curious as to the “actions per minute” type of efficiency that people are talking about here. I’m an engineer, who has moved into computer programming. I would say the bottleneck for me is never that I have to move my hand to my mouse, but it’s always about thinking and planning. I feel like this “it’s so much more efficient” is viewing us as almost machines that are just trying to output actions, rather than think through and solve problems.
I think this is more of a problem that it went from an extremely niche thing, to something that almost everyone is required to use, rather than a move away from keyboard only. Or, maybe, the rise of the mouse opened the computer to everyone being able to use it, which is why it has become so ubiquitous.
I feel that.