Before I dive into the firepit, let me explain that I spent the first half of my career in the IBM mainframe world, which meant writing Job Control Language (JCL) to submit batch jobs. Part of that time, I spent maintaining a TCP/IP stack written in assembler language. Compared to that, the distance between the command line and the GUI is much smaller than their advocates seem to realize.
To be honest, I didn't use GUIs for a quite a while after they became available. I didn't fight them so much as I just didn't find them intuitive or efficient. However, as usability studies improved the interfaces and processor speeds increased their capabilities, I gradually came to appreciate what they provide.
I think that much of the bias in favor of GUIs comes from the saying, "A picture is worth a thousand words." And certainly, pictures of cityscapes or family reunions or battlefields convey much more information than even the best description. However, imagine having to draw a picture to say, "I'm thirsty," or, "Turn left at the next light," or even to describe how to use a graphical user interface to a first time user. Very often, a few words are more efficient than any picture.
Obviously, each interface has its strengths and weaknesses. So what I was wondering, as I read Bill and Kyle, was whether it is possible to generalize the strengths of each. I'm not suggesting that I have it completely figured out, but I think there are, in fact, some common elements for the situations in which each is superior to the other.
To begin with, I am assuming that the interface in question has gone through enough testing and real-world use to be very good at what it is supposed to do. The Linux/Unix command line's many utilities that can be piped or scripted to create miniature applications is the best example of that interface. And I prefer the GNU collection because of the extra arguments that have been added by developers scratching an itch. Meanwhile, the current state of the art web browsers are good examples of GUIs.
Command line interfaces are best for data that is concise and reasonably well known in advance. For example, comparing the dates of two copies of the same file in different directories:
- ls -l /a/b/c/file /d/e/f/file
- ps aux | grep program
- /etc/init.d/daemon start
/etc/init.d/daemon stop
Graphical user interfaces are best for displaying somewhat large amounts of data that needs to be analyzed to determine what to do next. When a web page is loaded in a browser, it is usually not known in advance what link(s) will be selected. A window with a helpful design to guide the user to the proper selection and a mouse pointer that can be moved directly to the appropriate target is a highly effective use of this interface.
With this in mind, I started thinking about the use of both interfaces in the Realeyes IDS.
The installation is performed by executing several shell scripts on the command line. Many of the responses have a default, which allows the Enter key to be pressed for a majority of the responses. And where that is not possible, simple information, such as an IP address or a single name, is entered. To begin with, a graphical environment is not required. And second, there is no switching between the keyboard and the mouse. This makes deploying a new sensor or updating the application very fast after the first couple of times.
In contrast, the analysis window displays large amounts of information that may not be selected in a sequential order. Having the data in a scrollable list allows me to focus on one column, while watching another with my peripheral vision. This allows me to see patterns that might not be apparent in a text display.
Another advantage of the GUI comes when I want to view the session data. This is done by right clicking on a report and selecting Playback from the popup menu displayed. When the reports are sorted by Event, all of those with the same Event are similar enough that a quick glance at the session data is sufficient to determine whether it warrants more attention. Then a single click closes the window. This means that I can often rip through reports, spending only 2 or 3 seconds on most of them.
The GUI also provides tabs that allow me to search for trends or get summary reports without losing my focus on the original display. And the status frames automatically notify me if there is something that needs attention, without my having to query for it.
There are some administrative functions that could be performed from the command line as easily as the GUI, and in the early versions of the Realeyes IDS, it was the only way to do that. However, having them incorporated into the GUI is very convenient.
The downside of this is a lack of flexibility. In order for a capability to be available, there must be code in the GUI application. The command line gives an administrator complete control of maintenance procedures, and under certain circumstances, this is the only option.
From a design perspective, the choice of command line vs. GUI seems pretty straightforward. First, how quickly does the code need to be produced? Second, which interface makes the user most productive? While there is plenty of room for different points of view on the answers to these questions, it is simply not true that one is always better than the other.
Later . . . Jim
Posts
3 comments:
Ouch (colour scheme detracts from content).
:-)
A refreshing article. As I read it I thought that there were no pre-conceived ideas, but rather an objective look at both methods. Keeping an open mind like that also helps us to learn new things, whereas rigidly sticking to: "This is best and yours is rubbish" closed-mindedness sticks people in deep ruts. I use GUI's and CLI's and yet I learned a few tricks by reading this article. Cheers mate
GUIs are great for either managing small amounts of data among a large amount or manipulating small amounts of dissimilar data for basic operations like opening, playing, copying and moving. For everything else, I still prefer a CLI.
Post a Comment