JEF RASKIN

I am confident that we can do better than GUIs because the basic problem with them (and with the Linux and Unix interfaces) is that they ask a human being to do things that we know experimentally humans cannot do well. The question I asked myself is, given everything we know about how the human mind works, could we design a computer and computer software so that we can work with the least confusion and greatest efficiency?

Users do not care about what is inside the box, as long as the box does what they need done.

As far as the customer is concerned, the interface is the product.

What I proposed was a computer that would be easy to use, mix text and graphics, and sell for about $1,000. Steve Jobs said that it was a crazy idea, that it would never sell, and we didn't want anything like it. He tried to shoot the project down.

If I had not studied music, there would be no Macintosh computers today.

Right now, computers, which are supposed to be our servant, are oppressing us.

A computer shall not harm your work or, through inaction, allow your work to come to harm.

I hate mice. The mouse involves you in arm motions that slow you down. I didn't want it on the Macintosh, but Jobs insisted. In those days, what he said went, good idea or not.

If our field is "to advance", we must - without displacing creativity and aesthetics - make sure our terminology is clear.

The system should treat all user input as sacred.

As far as the customer is concerned, the interface is the product.

Users do not care about what is inside the box, as long as the box does what they need done.

A computer shall not harm your work or, through inaction, allow your work to come to harm.

A computer shall not waste your time or require you to do more work than is strictly necessary.

Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining.

Once the product's task is known, design the interface first; then implement to the interface design.

An interface is humane if it is responsive to human needs and considerate of human frailties.

Right now, computers, which are supposed to be our servant, are oppressing us.

The system should treat all user input as sacred.

A well-designed and humane interface does not have to be split into beginner and expert subsystems.

If I had not studied music, there would be no Macintosh computers today.

An unlimited-length file name is a file. The content of a file is its own best name.

I am confident that we can do better than GUIs because the basic problem with them (and with the Linux and Unix interfaces) is that they ask a human being to do things that we know experimentally humans cannot do well. The question I asked myself is, given everything we know about how the human mind works, could we design a computer and computer software so that we can work with the least confusion and greatest efficiency?

When you have to choose among methods, your locus of attention is drawn from the task and temporarily becomes the decision itself.

What users want is convenience and results.

I am only a footnote, but proud of the footnote I have become. My subsequent work on eliciting principles and developing the theory of interface design, so that many people will be able to do what I did is probably also footnote-worthy. In looking back at this turn-of-the-century period, the rise of a worldwide network will be seen as the most significant part of the computer revolution.

If I am correct, the use of a product based on modelessness and monoty would soon become so habitual as to be nearly addictive, leading to a user population devoted to and loyal to the product.

What I proposed was a computer that would be easy to use, mix text and graphics, and sell for about $1,000. Steve Jobs said that it was a crazy idea, that it would never sell, and we didn't want anything like it. He tried to shoot the project down.

I hate mice. The mouse involves you in arm motions that slow you down. I didn't want it on the Macintosh, but Jobs insisted. In those days, what he said went, good idea or not.

If our field is "to advance", we must - without displacing creativity and aesthetics - make sure our terminology is clear.