xerox 19770830 Janus Functional Specification free download

File name 19770830_Janus_Functional_Specification.pdf

Inter-OHice Mcmonmdum To J. Szclong Date Augllst 30, 1977 From Wendell Shultz Location Palo Alto Subject Janus Functional Specification Organization SO~/SO XEROX XEtOX SDD ARCHIVES I have read and unue~stuod Pages _________ To ______ ~_ Filed on: (Lopez)Janllsreview.memo Reviewer Date _ _ __ # of Pages Ref " 11~/)t>-'3fJ These comments are relative to the July 22 Janus Functional Specification. Many points have been covered in a number of other memos. Let me try to list some that may not have been covered. Sorry that these comments did not get to you sooner, but I have had a hard time getting responses collected from my section. J will summarize most of the comments and then attach three writeups from my people that you may not have seen yet. (These cover many detailed points.) "Discussion Required" ltem~ 1. In its present form, I do not see how this product can span the whole range of users-- from unsophisticated lIsers doing letter or short memo writing to those editing complex technical or business documents or doing page layout. It is too rich and complex for the simple lIser--especially the abstractions of option sheets. That is, a sophisticated user can lise the system to do simple things, but a simple user may be completely lost. Several other suggestions have been made to try to improve this area--and the document does do many good things in this regard. Maybe a revised version will solve all this. But I question the idea that one "universal" editor can serve all users. It has never worked before. Icons might help, but maybe not totally. It still may be necessary to "package" this as several different "application" packages, with increasing levels of power and sophistication. 2. There are many comments on file naming. (See the memo from Kimball, item #3; Bishop memo; Redell memo; Burr memo.) Basically these all ask: a. Should string names be unique? b. String names vs. icons c. Multiple index (name) fields versus single (unique) names d. Versions or other modifiers e. Cataloging dismounted volumes f. Naming of remote files (over the Xerox wire) 3. The question of filing on the floppy disk versus a future rigid disk generates a lot of potential issues. For example: