The Final Demonstration of the Xerox 'Star' computer

Mainly videos Self [LINK] Xerox Star User Interface [LINK] [LINK] Tektronix 4404 Smalltalk [LINK] The Smalltalk-80 Programming System [LINK] The Final Demonstration of the Xerox 'Star' computer [VIDEO] Symbolics Hypertext Document [LINK]

Self [LINK] Xerox Star User Interface [LINK] [LINK] Tektronix 4404 Smalltalk [LINK] The Smalltalk-80 Programming System [LINK] The Final Demonstration of the Xerox 'Star' computer [VIDEO] Symbolics Hypertext Document [LINK] Warren Teitelman work at Xerox PARC [LINK] The Mesa/Cedar programming environment [LINK] Steve Jobs internal demo of NeXTSTEP 3, [LINK] Alan Kay on Xerox PARC work [LINK] [LINK] [LINK]

And current designers and product managers build crippled products. “Star had many fewer commands than today's systems, and it didn't do it by having fewer functions; it just had fewer commands .” — Dave Smith, Xerox Star human factors designer, in the ‘Final Demo’ [VIDEO]

“Star had many fewer commands than today’s systems, and it didn’t do it by having fewer functions. It just had fewer commands.” — Dave Smith¹ at The Final Demonstration of the Xerox ‘Star’ Computer² Most UX designers are not as good as David Smith; they worship Apple/Jobs' “function follows form” misunderstanding of the Star GUI, and think you need to remove functionality in order to remove complexity. ¹ [LINK] ² video: [VIDEO] text: [LINK]

> you have two hands. Every watch ‘the mother of all demos’⁰? Engelbart's system was designed to be used with one hand on the mouse and the other on the chordset. Xerox followed this with the Alto, and on to the Star¹, eventually dropping the chordset but with the same model: the mouse and the left-side function key block worked together.² ⁰ [LINK] ¹ [LINK] ² [VIDEO]

> The easiest way to achieve that is simply to remove functionality The easiest way, yes. I am reminded again of the point made by Dave Smith, one of the Xerox Star human factors designers, at the ‘Final Demo’¹: “Star had many fewer commands than today's systems, and it didn't do it by having fewer functions — it just had fewer commands .” PARC weren't trying to make things easy on themselves . Genericity is hard. Orthogonality is hard. Design is hard. (It's unfortunate that Steve Jobs either didn't understand what he saw, or didn't care, and popularized a Potemkin village imitation.) ¹ [VIDEO] (The particular session starts around 54:30.)

> I've watched both sandbag good design because there was no percieved business value more than once. Riffing on the article title: Simple Does Not Mean Deficient. “Star had many fewer commands than today’s systems, and it didn’t do it by having fewer functions. It just had fewer commands.” — Dave Smith at The Final Demonstration of the Xerox ‘Star’ Computer (video: [VIDEO] text: [LINK] )

Anything based on the workstation concepts explored at Xerox PARC, and further pursued at ETHZ, TI and Genera. Bitsavers has all the necessary papers and manuals, and computer museum as well. Here are some video sessions. "Yesterday's Computer of Tomorrow: The Xerox Alto │Smalltalk-76 Demo" [LINK] "Alto System Project: Dan Ingalls demonstrates Smalltalk" [LINK] "Eric Bier Demonstrates Cedar" [LINK] "The Final Demonstration of the Xerox 'Star' computer" [VIDEO] The end of the road from Plan 9, Inferno. [LINK] [LINK]