Thoughts on, and pictures of, the original Macintosh User Manual
peterme.com
peterme.com
I liked the commentary about preppy white guys. I think this was deliberate (perhaps subconsciously so), but not for reasons why it might happen today.
First, back in the 80s there was still a big issue as to whether execs would use computers. Most could not type; that was at that time considered a female activity. Sounds absurd, but this was literally a topic not just in newspapers talking about computers but also in computer journals wondering if PCs could break into business. And most execs were (and still are :-( ) male.
Second, the Mac was quite a bit more expensive, really at the edge of what an individual could afford (Apple offered a finance plan, if not at launch then soon after). So they were making an affinity pitch to people who could afford it.
> Also, why is the keyboard in Chapter 3 positioned like that? Why on earth was it posed that way?
I suspect it was to show you could use the mouse and not be intimidated by that scary keyboard thing.
I was also struck by the Chapter 3 photo as it seemed to be the only one that could have been shot today (except for the Mac itself of course). All the others had hairstyles, color palette, and/or artifacts (desk phone, tape dispenser) that you'd never see today. Even the final shot of the Stanford Campus has bikes that look old fashioned.
I think it's more about showing you can use the computer with just the mouse. They went to great lengths to avoid having the series-of-menu-selections/commands-by-keystroke-and-arrow-keys type text mode UIs (which were the norm on other personal computers) replicated on Macs. The original Mac keyboard didn't even have arrow keys.
(On the other hand, try using that Mac with only the keyboard, and you'll be disappointed at how much more difficult it is.)
Entering filenames is exactly what the interface is trying to avoid, doubly so for entering paths. And it worked - you could be a sophisticated classic Mac OS power user and not know what the HFS path separator was.
Before arriving at this simple mistake I had got her to close the blinds in the room where my computer was setup. In those days mice were opto-mechanical with the ball, and, under extreme bright light the sensors in the mouse were vulnerable to light coming through the plastic housing of the mouse. Connections had been checked too, plus I had managed to get her to reboot the machine with the reset button on the front. Yet all along it was operator error, I imagined everything that could be wrong up to 'it must be a stray neutrino' levels of implausible yet I overlooked the idea that my mum intuitively thought that a computer mouse was like a real mouse with the 'tail at the back'.
We got there in the end after I had the eureka moment and worked out my mum was holding the mouse wrong. I could talk her through the rest when that was resolved and got the snippet of information I needed - a telephone number - which I needed for work.
It was only when ecommerce and the Amazon Kindle came along that my mother was finally able to use a computer. All difficulties and fears mysteriously vanished when it came to buying stuff online, she became perfectly adept at using a computer then, much to my father's amusement.
If only I had known of this tutorial back then.
The original mouse did have the cable at the back. That’s why it was called a mouse.¹
1. https://stason.org/TULARC/languages/english-usage/51-mouses-...
Hearing that struck me as so strange since I have no recollection of ever learning to use a mouse—I had always assumed it was just completely intuitive.
He'd try over and over and over. Nipple on cheek. Nipple on chin. Nipple on neck. Drop bottle entirely. Nipple in eye. (Do not want!) And once in a great while, nipple in mouth. Then he'd suck for a while and start over again.
We learn so much that we forget even learning. If he could have talked and he'd asked me how to put something in his mouth, I couldn't really have told him. I just did it.
I think about that a lot when dealing with students, junior programmers, etc. It's so easy for me to think, "How could they not know that?!?" When the real question is how I managed to forget learning.
There was no way you were going to fit an audio track onto a 400 kilobyte floppy disk along with the demo software.
My favorite bit was the randomized maze generator that you used to develop your fine grained mousing skills.
"Until you save your work, it exists only in the computer's memory - like thoughts that are lost unless you write them down."
This is almost as good as:
"All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain"
-Nintendo "Quit Screen" message.
http://www.minuszerodegrees.net/manuals/IBM_5170_Guide_to_Op...
No colour, and of course a CLI doesn't need a lesson in how the UI works, but plenty of technical information.
"The System (Sys) key has its functions defined in your operating system or application program manual."
Heh, it's like it's written by my co-workers that simply can't do anything user friendly but like to make totally redundant "documentation." E.g.:
"The option --result-dir specifies the result directory"
"The function int getSize( int frob ) returns the size of the frob. The parameter is frob." (God forbid they inform you what the allowable range of input or output is, in which units they measure the size or what the frob in their program means or what is actually measured or counted, and they never include an example of using anything)."
Also the most common.
(Btw this is an illustrative example of why you can’t have “news that just states the facts.” That principle doesn’t even work for technical documentation! You need some degree of interpretation and empathy for writing to make sense.)
https://imagemagick.org/script/command-line-options.php#adap...
Where the option is "explained" as:
"The -adaptive-resize option defaults to data-dependent triangulation. Use the -filter to choose a different resampling algorithm. Offsets, if present in the geometry string, are ignored, and the -gravity option has no effect."
I bet they feel so smart every time they do that, when they give at the same time the technically correct and practically unusable answer (for anybody but the author of the program and two other friends of him). In my case they would reply, unsurprisingly, "see the documentation of getSize." And there would be of course also long getSize( long trunnion, int length )" and some 10 more.
Come to think about it, I've had a discussion here on HN just some days ago where some "programmers" stated that if I want to use a single click with the mouse on the scrollbar to get to the previous page:
- I should use PgUp and PgDown on the keyboard, har, har.
- is completely unnecessary in the time of wheels and touchpads
- that that means a PgDown button on the mouse is missing
- that I should remap the third mouse button (why should I need both Up and Down movement anyway?)
- Or a mouse gesture? FoxyGestures, a Firefox addon
- that what I wish is illogical and trying to use it so is being stubborn.
Anything but a single click. That worked before.
BTW Gnome is actively removing things that worked with such an attitude (trying to remove even the settings which allow the users to switch back to the saner behavior). Yay user friendliness. And when you check what they are doing themselves, they don't even use GUI, but live in the console the whole day. And to see the previous page in their terminal they press Control-PgUp (or was it Shift-PgUp) and believe that that is the most natural thing ever, needing both hands for such a task. But "they don't need it anyway."
Btw, I've spent enough time explaining "normal users" how to do "normal actions" that I really appreciate that the original Mac had a single button mouse:
You can explain it with "just click there" not every time with "click with the link button, no, click with the right button" etc.
Fundamentally, technology is means and method, and both point to ends or goal.
Technology is the study of means. (John Stuart Mill's definition. He also gives science as "the study of causes".)
Which means that documentation should point you at what you might want to do and how the tool(s) available to you serve that end. Referencing only the internal state of the system itself (and worse, at the most trivial level, as in the example give, which is by no means unusual in the field) is ... perfectly useless.
It's actually worse than useless, because you've got to wade through so much goddamned mud soup trying to find information that's actually useful. I've long had this problem with various "documentation by the pound" publishers -- Que and "Learn Foo in 24 hours" type series -- where the books are so padded with cute comments and junk statements that you cannot find the real meat.
O'Reilly's "Nutshell" series often go too far in the other direction, but at least the information is (usually) there.
The O'Reilly UNIX Power Tools book, a cookbook of recipes and methods with specific ends and goals explicitly stated is, pound for pound, probably the most valuable reference book I've ever bought. It doesn't cover everything (though it touches on a lot of material), but it covers a vast range of useful information and best of all gives you the tools to find out more.
My plea to everybody: user-test your documentation. Give the thing to a novice, have them do tasks, see if they can figure it out. If nobody looks at the docs, great, just throw them out. But if they do look, make sure it is useful to the person who is looking.
// Increment frob
frob++;Apple did the opposite, user-centered approach meaning it should work by default.
Opposite cultures, indeed.
ftp://ftp.oldskool.org/pub/misc/Hardware/IBM/IBM%20PCjr%20Guide%20To%20Operations.pdf
which combines the conventional IBM-style step-by-step troubleshooting guide with an extensive keyboard tutorial featuring full-color, cartoon-style artwork on nearly every page, illustrating...the fact that someone at IBM thought a bland and largely uninteresting tutorial could be made more approachable by adding full-color, cartoon-style artwork to nearly every page.
That, or else there's some connection I'm missing between the Ctrl key, say, and towing childhood pets around in an improbably stable two-wheeled trailer behind one's tricycle...
a full PDF can be found here: http://www.maccaps.com/MacCaps/DIY_Information_files/Macinto...
Apple makes it difficult from the beginning to do anything other than use the computer as an appliance, while IBM seemed to be the exact opposite.
I write this from a Linux laptop, so obviously my preferences are different. But I recognize that I'm part of a relatively narrow niche. And I'll note that Apple is still making personal computers. If you include their phones (which I do) then they have hundreds of millions of daily users. Whereas IBM got out of the personal computer business long ago because they couldn't compete.
I used to teach computers in the early 1990s before Windows 3.1 was popular, and the main PC apps like Lotus 123 and WordPerfect were impossible to learn without the keyboard templates that had the key-presses printed in them you needed to do anything including edit, print and save. Each app had its own key presses and the publishers fiercely protected them to ensure competitors were NOT copying them. Then came the Mac and you learned to print in one app, you knew it for EVERY OTHER MAC APP.
At the time developers couldn’t understand why such functions (and appearance) were standardised and many considered it negatively, as in “Apple restricting my creativity and telling me what to do.”
Of course later the Mac started shipping with HyperCard which was an absolutely fantastic development environment for amateurs.
http://www.classiccmp.org/cini/pdf/Commodore/VIC-20%20User's...
Anyway, he published a magazine (or maybe more than one, I can't remember) with photos and stories about racing. They had to be literally cut and pasted onto boards before printing. It was genuinely irritating to him that people could simply point and click at a scissors icon to edit their layout and still call themselves "editors."
Of course, I listened with great interest, since I'm still irritated that CLI isn't the standard any more.
Well resourced offices had a machine that you’d feed the photos into to put a thin layer of wax on the back. The wax remained tacky (like post-it note glue) to hold the photos and text elements in place but let them be easy to reposition.
Source: He was a highschool and college friend.
At times, the prose is a bit flowery: "Computers can perform marvelous feats of mathematical computation at well beyond the speed capable of most human minds. They are fast, cold and accurate; man on the other hand is slower, has emotion, and makes errors."
http://www.classiccmp.org/cini/pdf/Apple/Apple%20II%20(Redbo...
https://www.brainpickings.org/2011/12/21/steve-jobs-bicycle-...
I have a huge Ikea desk and some monitors. I never feel like it all "fits". I won't give up my big monitors... at the same time it irks me that it never feels it all fits on my desk.
Uh... that's literally _why_ it's called a scroll bar in the first place...
Of course it addressed a different audience ... the users, not the purchasers.
The same thing happened to the technical manuals; the II manual was transparent about the machine; while the Mac manual left out a lot of useful technical info and replaced it with the first incarnation of the software-prison. No PEEKs or POKEs or hardware insights, no friendly appeals to having fun and learning.
Eventually the rainbow logo became a blase grey ... same shape, but drained of color. Revealing a different personality.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_FileWare
https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor...
That was a Jobs thing. For years, Mac ads didn't show cables. Then came the iDweeb earbuds.
even ads for other things, say a desk, don’t show cords of the computer or lamp on the desk.