Hacker News Reader

Comment by gradstudent | Hacker News Reader

> If by usable we mean "one can be productive in it" then yes that's correct, vim is immensely usable and I've been using it in that sense for six years.

Usable means an interface which is (i) consistent and (ii) well suited to the task at hand. It does not mean you should not require any training nor that you should be able to intuit the functionality without looking at the manual.

vim is an example of software that is both highly usable and intended for use by advanced users.

> I spent all of university using vim purely as a way to indent and colour my code; but intelligently using splits, buffers, tabs, code folding, ctags etc should not require luck to discover and exacting patience to use.

You're doing it wrong. Read the bloody manual.

View on HN

> Usable means an interface which is (i) consistent and (ii) well suited to the task at hand.

No it doesn't. Usable as in Usability is defined in the ISO-norm 9241-110 by seven principles, a summary can be found here: http://www.userfocus.co.uk/resources/iso9241/part110.html

"suitability for the task (the dialogue should be suitable for the user’s task and skill level); self-descriptiveness (the dialogue should make it clear what the user should do next); controllability (the user should be able to control the pace and sequence of the interaction); conformity with user expectations (it should be consistent); error tolerance (the dialogue should be forgiving); suitability for individualisation (the dialogue should be able to be customised to suit the user); and suitability for learning (the dialogue should support learning)."

vim falls short in discoverabilty and, arguably, in user expectation, and suitability for learning.

Though I don't want to further spawn a vim-discussion. Just to show you that you don't seem to know the necessary vocabulary to tell you parent that he is wrong.

> You're doing it wrong. Read the bloody manual.

Yeah. Way to prove his point.

> vim falls short in discoverabilty and, arguably, in user expectation, and suitability for learning.

vim fits very well all the criteria you just cited. Moreover, "discoverability", "user expectation" and "suitability for learning" appear to be buzzwords that you just threw in on your own at the end.

Nope, they all are part of the ISO. I cited two of them, and the first, discoverability, is a consequence of self-descriptiveness and learnability. Don't know how you get the idea I throw them in as buzzword when they are part of the quote...

They are very really things and relatively well understood. By calling them "buzzwords" that were just randomly "thrown in" you don't really make a good case for your understanding of usability.

You have to admit, compared to most any tool out there, vim has one of the worst newbie experiences, given its popularity.

Even a terminal window allows you to type help to get something to work with. VIM replies with "Left, end of word, Right, paste after" which in most cases is nearly a NOP.

I believe what he is trying to say is that it would make sense to figure out how to make the initial experience less daunting without giving up the power it provides.

The first thing that shows up in a VIM session is a small introductory text that includes

    type   :help<Enter>  or   <F1>  for on-line help

And of course the GUI also has the familiar Help menu as most common GUI apps.

Oh, yes, because showing the help entries first when entering the application clearly is the right idea.

And surely that is why all the text-entering applications in the world have followed vi's lead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com