Doug Engelbart (Doug Engelbart Institute Founder) – White Rabbit (Dec 2013)

Chapters

Abstract

“Tracing the Mouse’s Tale: From Inception to Global Acceptance”

In the annals of computing history, few devices have revolutionized user interaction like the computer mouse. From its intuitive naming origins to its first prototype and subsequent evolution, the mouse’s journey epitomizes innovation and adaptability in technology. This article delves into the developmental milestones of the mouse, examining its early competition with other input devices, the skepticism it initially faced, and its eventual widespread acceptance. It also explores the unique challenges and visionary ideas behind its creation, including the significant contributions of Doug Engelbart, Bill English, and others at Xerox PARC, the NASA-funded experiments that propelled its development, and the pivotal public presentations that introduced it to the world.

Main Ideas of Each Segment:

1. Naming the Mouse: The term “mouse” was adopted spontaneously for its resemblance to the device, amidst unclear origins. The simple and descriptive name was essential for practical use in experiments.

2. Early Competitors: The mouse surpassed earlier input devices like light pens and joysticks in usability for computing tasks. Command keys and cursor stepping keys were not considered as alternatives.

3. First Working Mouse: The prototype’s primary focus was on text selection, with meticulous testing of its analog circuits. Doug Engelbart built and tested the first mouse, which functioned immediately upon its initial use.

4. Comparison with Other Devices: In its development phase, the mouse wasn’t compared to command keys, focusing solely on efficient point-and-select capabilities.

5. Evolution of the Mouse: Transitioned from a single-button to a three-button device to enhance functionality. The three-button mouse emerged due to the need for more buttons, limited by the available space.

6. Skepticism and Acceptance: Despite initial doubts, the mouse gained favor for its innovative approach to user interaction. Later on, the mouse faced opposition in the PC industry, but it eventually became a widely accepted and essential input device.

7. Early Development: Engineers at SRI developed the foundational technology for the mouse, emphasizing angle and distance measurement. The mouse had a unique slider that controlled two potentiometers simultaneously, allowing for both angle and distance control relative to a pedestal point.

8. NASA’s Funding and Interest: NASA’s involvement, driven by Bob Taylor, was crucial in advancing the mouse technology. NASA Langley Research Center funded research at SRI for mouse development through the Langley Research Center.

9. Voice Control Considerations: Voice control was dismissed as impractical, with Doug Engelbart advocating for more immersive interaction methods. Licklider, an influential figure in the field, advocated for voice control but encountered skepticism.

10. Public Presentation Impact: The FJCC presentation and its unconventional setup played a pivotal role in showcasing the mouse’s potential. The speaker reflects on the JFCC presentation, where they demonstrated a hierarchical system with multiple views and acknowledges making a verbal faux pas during the presentation.

11. Innovative Collaboration: Meetings with NASA Langley and interactions with figures like Ted Nelson and Arthur Clarke highlighted the collaborative and innovative environment at Xerox PARC.

12. Design Decisions: The design, including button number and ergonomics, was dictated by practical limitations and user comfort. The ergonomic design and the decision to limit the number of buttons were driven by practical considerations and user comfort.

13. Comparative Advantages: The mouse’s efficiency and extensive command vocabulary gave it an edge over other input devices like the keyset, establishing its superiority in user interface technology.



The mouse’s journey from a rudimentary input device to an integral component of modern computing is a testament to the power of innovation, collaboration, and visionary thinking. Its development, marked by challenges, skepticism, and breakthroughs, highlights the relentless pursuit of more intuitive and efficient ways of interacting with technology. The mouse, more than just a pointing device, represents a pivotal moment in computing history, shaping the way we interact with the digital world.

Supplemental Information Segments:

1. Paradigm-Shifting Multimedia Presentation and its Impact: Doug Engelbart’s groundbreaking presentation at FJCC was a seminal moment in modern computing. It featured a primitive video mixing device that enabled split-screen presentations and enthusiastic audience response. The presentation highlighted the potential of video presentations and showcased the mouse’s capabilities.

2. Public Debut and Technical Challenges: Doug Engelbart’s invitation to present at FJCC led to a site visit committee’s evaluation of the proposed presentation’s feasibility. A NASA Langley system resembling their system sparked skepticism, which Doug addressed by clarifying their system’s presence at NASA. The team encountered challenges in capturing movie footage of the editing process, requiring a shrouded setup for the camera.

3. Film Screening and Bob Taylor’s Insight: At an ARPA meeting, Doug presented a movie showcasing the system’s rapid response and editing capabilities. Bob Taylor, an ARPA representative, critiqued Doug’s limited ambitions, urging him to think bigger. Doug’s proposal for a time-sharing computer and collaborative lab received funding through Taylor’s connections.

4. Securing Funding and Meeting NASA Langley Officials: Doug, Bill, and Jeff Rollison faced a challenging meeting with the head of information resources at NASA Langley. Despite initial resistance, their persuasive efforts ultimately secured the necessary funding.

5. Ted Nelson’s Involvement: Ted Nelson, known for his work on hypertext, visited Doug to discuss their shared interests. Doug and Nelson had different ideas about how hypertext should work, but they shared a creative vision for the technology.

6. SRI Hypertext Project: Ted Nelson visited the SRI lab when Engelbart’s team had made considerable progress on their hypertext system, possibly after they had developed the 940 display. Engelbart and Nelson had different ideas about how hypertext should work, but they shared a creative vision for the technology.

7. Arthur C. Clarke’s Visit to the SRI Lab: Arthur C. Clarke, a renowned science fiction writer, visited the SRI lab at the invitation of Elmer Shapiro’s wife, who had worked as Clarke’s assistant in the past. Clarke was impressed by the hypertext system and remarked that it felt like science future, blurring the line between science fiction and reality.

8. Dave’s Mouse-Related Question: Dave asked about a pair of snakes and whether they could be used to hand-shoot a mouse. Engelbart suggests that Dave repeat the question so that he can clearly understand and respond to it.

9. Mouse Button Decision: Doug indicated that only three buttons were initially allowed, but more were needed. The decision on the number of buttons was influenced by the position of the wheels and the desire to avoid expanding the mouse size. Multiple functions were considered, leading to the engineering of more buttons in the lab.

10. Key Cord vs. Mouse Acceptance: The mouse gained acceptance due to its added capability that fulfilled a universal need. Command buttons on keyboards provided limited flexibility, but could partially compensate for the keyset’s absence. Typing commands on the keyset was effortless, allowing for a growing vocabulary of verbs and nouns. The time taken to select menu items using a mouse was perceived as less efficient compared to using the keyset.

11. Keyset Typing Efficiency: Typing commands on the keyset enabled parallel processing, making it more efficient than selecting menu items with a mouse. The vocabulary of verbs and nouns associated with the keyset was extensive, allowing for a wide range of commands. Modern GUI interfaces often lack the efficiency of the keyset, leading to a desire for its incorporation.

Supplemental PARC Mouse Information:

PARC’s Five-Button Mouse:

– At PARC, a five-button mouse was developed, although only three of the buttons were used.

– Designed for ergonomics, it utilized the thumb and little finger and was used on a terminal.

– The mouse had a clear plastic casing and spaces for all the fingers.

– Speaker 00 believes they may be the only person who remembers the mouse.

Bill Bowman and the Five-Button Mouse:

– Speaker 00 had a conversation with Bill Bowman about the five-button mouse, but Bowman did not recall it.

– Speaker 00 believes Bowman may not have built the mouse and would like to find the mouse or a picture of it.

Other Details about the Five-Button Mouse:

– The mouse was not connected to the wheel used with the carved mahogany mouse.

Notes by: ChannelCapacity999