Talk:IBM Common User Access

[Ins]
Sorry but who writes this C-R-A-P? Do people just make this stuff up as they go along? Let me quote a sentence I have removed.

'[Ins] sometimes toggled between overtype and inserting characters, but some programs used it for 'paste'.'

1.) Ins always toggled as that was its purpose. Its flag value was read off by programs that then knew how to act. The Ins key had a static value in page zero independent of applications running; a bit of debate was whether this static value should be recognised or whether each app should assume on start that the Ins key was on or off. The former won. As back in the days of MS-DOS there was little else to go on, this key was the de facto insert/overwrite key. Period. It was not just 'sometimes'.

2. 'Some used it for paste'? Who makes up this nonsense? The combination of Ins with other keys lead to deprecated (but always fully supported) key combinations - but not for MS-DOS but for Windows! Hello! Windows recognises Alt+Backspace for Ctrl/Cmd-Z for example. The programming guidelines say these shortcuts should not be displayed on the menus but they should be taken up in the applications' accelerator tables. But most importantly: they pertain to two completely different platforms.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.92.203.237 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Read the SAA/CUA?
Has anyone here actually read the SAA/CUA? This bit about the CUA attempting to bring order to MS-DOS applications? Hello? HELLO? Who amongst here worked with a 3270? Hello?

OK, 1) get the books; 2) until then: SAA/CUA was started at IBM because they had (themselves, screw WP and 123) too many hardware and software interfaces. DUH. It was too confusing both for their client and their own staff.

The original PC had 10 F keys; later it got 12. If you've used a 3270 you'll immediately know why. And so forth.

Secondly, this bit about being inspired by Apple is just pure rubbish. If you feel it's true, then CITE IT - otherwise remove it.

Finally, the SAA/CUA - if the topic is to be given any respect at all (and it should) should be explained in terms of the 'seven principles' with a description of each. For example, the User in Control Principle and the Recognition Principle. (And someone actually thought these came from Apple - that's ludicrous.)


 * Fully concur with above.


 * Reading the full intro to the article, one sees how deluded things are in this corner. See the section intro here and buy a clue. This is Wikipedia, not a romper room.

Inspiration
Inspiration for the CUA interface came from many places. One of them included Apple's HIG, but more in the sense that having a book was a good idea than the detail of the contents. For the third version the HIG was an inspiration in the sense that we wanted to be better than HIG. Hence a lot of work on the format of the book to make it more usable.


 * See section above. The paragraph immediately above is rubbish.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magpie5212 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

CUI
Mention of MS using CUA is misleading. MS officially broke with CUA, calling their standard CUI for 'consistent user interface', so as not to be confusing on the issue.


 * True.

Hello
Hello

I am unsure where to raise this issue, so am doing it here under "Common User Access".

The current Wikipedia "skin" disobeys the Common User Access rule in one very important way: It reassigns alt-f as an "access key" to the Wikipedia search function.

alt-f should go to the "File" menu in their browser. So, when a user expects to go the file menu they go to search instead. This is a big problem.

I hope someone can help by disabling the alt-f "access key" in the skin or by reassigning another "access key" for search.

Thanks!


 * Doesn't for me. It still activates the File menu in Firefox on Windows XP. Liam Proven 23:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

For me it activates search. Firefox on Win2003. (21 May 2006)



I agree that Alt-F should not have been highjacked; Ctrl-F is a better access key for "find" function. However, a work-around exists: press "Alt" and "F" sequentially instead of concurrently. This works for me in Firefox on Windows XP. (14 August 2006)


 * So everyone uses the same computer hardware and the same OS as you? What a nice world you live in!

(In other words the above discussion is painfully pompous, ignorant, and myopic. Enough said.)

Distinguish OOUI and the Rest
My copy of the CUA describes and promotes OOUI in great detail. Because I use OOUI, I separate OS/2, MacOSX, GNOME, and KDE from Microsoft's desktops. The OOUI article is very vague on its history; so, seeing Microsoft associated with the CUA, the OOUI bible, is very confusing. If the last version of the CUA were separated into OOUI and 'the rest', the article would be much clearer. Geologist (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Unaccessible links to research.ibm.com
All links to http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/273/*.pdf leads to nothing readable. The page says:
 * The IBM Journal of Research and Development (Including IBM Systems Journal) contains peer-reviewed papers on the technology and science of information systems.
 * Orders of individual papers are suspended from this web site.

Are there some other known source of informations? --Hibou57 (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the internet archive has useful content TEDickey (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it don't :( --Hibou57 (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The link to IBM Systems Journal 273 can be read as Volume 23, Number 3. There's an index page about that at http://ftp.math.utah.edu/pub/tex/bib/toc/ibmsysj.html#27(3):1988.
 * Of the articles most relevant to CUA would be: Berry, Richard E. "Common user access—a consistent and usable human-computer interface for the SAA environments." IBM Systems Journal 27, no. 3 (1988): 281-300., https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=362867408900296544.
 * IBM moved custodianship of the IBM Systems Journal over to IEEE, in some leaning years. Daviding (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

blatant WP:SYNTH
"...it was part of a larger scheme to bring together, rationalise and harmonise the overall functions of software and hardware across IBM's entire computing range from microcomputers to mainframes. This is perhaps partly why it was not completely successful." blatant violation of WP:SYNTH, removed (after more than 11 years of "citation needed") 208.118.175.250 (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)