I wrote:
> There is no such thing as intuitive software.

ray writes:
> Yes and no. No, there is no perfectly inutitive software for everyone on
> the planet. Yes, there is some software which is intuitive enough that
> anyone with a decent grasp of what is to be done can get by without much
> additional help.

An original definition of "intuitive".
--
John Hasler

John Hasler wrote:

> nobody writes:
>> Do we have any really good apps that are *intuitive* and powerful?
>
> There is no such thing as intuitive software.



Your reply is not helpful. If you do not have sufficient knowledge of
the subject then perhaps silence would be the best course of action.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:10:13 -0700, ray wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:23:22 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>>> There is no such thing as intuitive software.
>>
>> ray writes:
>>> Yes and no. No, there is no perfectly inutitive software for everyone on
>>> the planet. Yes, there is some software which is intuitive enough that
>>> anyone with a decent grasp of what is to be done can get by without much
>>> additional help.
>>
>> An original definition of "intuitive".
>
> Intuitive is relative. What is intuitive to one person is not necessarily
> to another.

Defense Exhibit 1: `gimp` :-)

ray wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:23:22 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>>> There is no such thing as intuitive software.
>> ray writes:
>>> Yes and no. No, there is no perfectly inutitive software for everyone on
>>> the planet. Yes, there is some software which is intuitive enough that
>>> anyone with a decent grasp of what is to be done can get by without much
>>> additional help.
>> An original definition of "intuitive".
>
> Intuitive is relative. What is intuitive to one person is not necessarily
> to another.

Thats right, to be more accurate, what is perfectly
intuitive for normal people, is unthinkable for
programmers :-)

Edmund


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:23:22 +0100, Hadron wrote:

[edit]
> And so is 127.0.0.1 smarty pants. Like just about every recipient
of your post near enough.
>

Think about it a bit more deeply, Hadron. My munged address doesn't point
at some innocent third party's server.

> Side note - it was perfectly obvious to anyone wishing to help just what
> the OP meant be "intuitive" - even if it does means *slightly* different
> things for some clever people. As for you having no clue to what he was
> talking about then you clearly missed the bit about "video editing".

Here in newsgroups we interface with people the world over and even though
this is a English Language group many people who's first language is not
English come for help. It is most helpful for the most people if one is
clear and organised with their questions. That's why I suggested reading
the smart questions document, it mentions the most effective ways to ask
questions and receive help and hints about what may be counterproductive.

If one was open to it, my answer could have been helpful.

nobody wrote:

> I need to do fades, cut-n-spice, add background music and other basic
> stuff. Want to input AVI's from my security system and input from a
> camcorder (not yet bought).
>
> Thanks for the info ....

Try kdenlive. Nice little proggie. For very basic editing I use Kino.
Very easy.

ray wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:23:22 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>>> There is no such thing as intuitive software.
>> ray writes:
>>> Yes and no. No, there is no perfectly inutitive software for everyone on
>>> the planet. Yes, there is some software which is intuitive enough that
>>> anyone with a decent grasp of what is to be done can get by without much
>>> additional help.
>> An original definition of "intuitive".
>
> Intuitive is relative. What is intuitive to one person is not necessarily
> to another.

Thats right, to be more accurate, what is perfectly
intuitive for normal people, is unthinkable for
programmers :-)

Edmund



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

ray wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:23:22 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>>> There is no such thing as intuitive software.
>> ray writes:
>>> Yes and no. No, there is no perfectly inutitive software for everyone on
>>> the planet. Yes, there is some software which is intuitive enough that
>>> anyone with a decent grasp of what is to be done can get by without much
>>> additional help.
>> An original definition of "intuitive".
>
> Intuitive is relative. What is intuitive to one person is not necessarily
> to another.

Thats right, to be more accurate, what is perfectly
intuitive for normal people, is unthinkable for
programmers :-)

Edmund



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:26:40 +0100, Edmund wrote:

>> Intuitive is relative. What is intuitive to one person is not necessarily
>> to another.
>
> Thats right, to be more accurate, what is perfectly
> intuitive for normal people, is unthinkable for
> programmers

It was mildly amusing the first time, but now I'm bored of reading it.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:26:40 +0100, Edmund wrote:

> ray wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:23:22 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>>
>>> I wrote:
>>>> There is no such thing as intuitive software.
>>> ray writes:
>>>> Yes and no. No, there is no perfectly inutitive software for everyone on
>>>> the planet. Yes, there is some software which is intuitive enough that
>>>> anyone with a decent grasp of what is to be done can get by without much
>>>> additional help.
>>> An original definition of "intuitive".
>>
>> Intuitive is relative. What is intuitive to one person is not necessarily
>> to another.
>
> Thats right, to be more accurate, what is perfectly
> intuitive for normal people, is unthinkable for
> programmers :-)

More vice versa, I think.


>
> Edmund