I would bet that a well designed and clean GUI would be easier to use for a large percent of the population than text alone..
I would bet that a well designed and clean GUI would be easier to use for a large percent of the population than text alone..
The idea that GUI's are great was good forty years ago when men worried about catching typing-pool-koodies from keyboards; college students would hire typists to turn longhand drafts into print on a page; and the only form of search was query and that query happened over a circuit based network on a mainframe running a non-relational database. Now we've all got a Cray in our pocket yet the industry is breeding faster horses.
I -happily- spend most of my day in one CLI or another, but there are many, many things for which interactive graphical display of information is just the best choice.
If you never have done so, find a copy of Edward Tufte's "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information". You really need to find a professionally-printed dead-tree version; computer screens still can't do the book justice.
Oh:
> "koodies"
That word is spelt "cooties". ;)
["Koodies" alliterates better with "keyboard" more Carrollingean like "wudguts".]
If finding flights is a case of search, then we can look at Google. It uses text to maximize expressiveness. It uses progressive refinement rather than precise query to produce better results, e.g. maps results based on partial addresses. Google is understands that search has intrinsic ambiguity and that natural language is the best tool we have for dealing with it...and the hieroglyphs are not.