             A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF VI AND EMACS FROM THE
               PERSPECTIVE OF NOVICE AND REGULAR USERS

(author: William Knottenbelt - william@cs.uct.ac.za/wjk@doc.ic.ac.uk)

ABSTRACT:

The editors  vi and  emacs were  compared using  a  simple  time-based
experimental method  involving common  text manipulations  and a post-
test  opinion  survey  by  questionnaire.  The  subjects  were  twelve
students; six  were novices  and six  were regular  users. Significant
objective performance  differences were  confined to the novice users;
here emacs  consistently outperformed vi with respect to time taken to
perform the tasks and the amount of help needed. Subjectively, novices
preferred emacs  because of  its more  predictable nature.  Emacs  was
therefore the  editor of  choice for  the novice  users tested.  There
appears to  be no advantage for a regular user of one editor to switch
to the other.

INTRODUCTION:

A text  editor is  an essential  tool  in  virtually  every  computing
environment since  a large proportion of a user's time is likely to be
spent in  editing documents  or writing  program code  and job control
files. Intense and sometimes emotional "my-editor-is-better-than-your-
editor"  debates   are  common  in  computer  discussion  groups.  One
perennial bone  of contention  concerns  the  qualities  of  "vi"  and
"emacs" -  both popular and widely-used UNIX editors. Published formal
studies of  text editors  [eg. 1] tend to be very complex, and few, if
any, have  specifically addressed  the "vi"/"emacs" controversy. Other
informal studies  on this  subject [2]  have generally been anecdotal,
reflecting the  personal experience  of the  author, rather than being
objective reviews.  This study  attempts to compare the performance of
"vi" and  "emacs" in  our local environment in a simple but scientific
way.

METHOD:

A controlled  experiment was  determined  to  be  the  best  means  of
objective comparison.  The design  was in  keeping  with  the  limited
resources available  so methodology  involving  in-depth  analysis  of
functionality and  specialized techniques  such as real-time keystroke
recording were avoided. Instead, the final design was simple enough to
be implemented by two observers with stopwatches.

Twelve subjects  were used  in the  experiment -  six novices  and six
skilled regular  users. Three  of  the  novices  were  "non-technical"
novices who had little or no computing experience and no experience of
either vi  or emacs;  the other three novices were "technical" novices
who had  substantial computing  experience but little or no experience
of either  vi or  emacs. Since  all the novices had similar experience
with vi  and emacs,  useful comparisons could be made by testing their
performance with  both editors; on the other hand, each of the regular
users was tested only on his/her editor of choice.

Each subject  was asked to perform some common text manipulation tasks
on an extract from Sue Townsend's Diary of Adrian Mole. These included
text entry, insertion and deletion of characters, words and sentences,
searching and replacing, and transposition of paragraphs (see Appendix
A for the complete task list, starting text and target text).

All tests  were conducted  individually on  a user/observer basis. The
subject was  told that  the editor, rather than the subject, was being
tested and  that he/she  was free to quit at any time if he/she became
uncomfortable. The  subject was then given a copy of the task list and
a help  sheet  containing  relevant  commands  for  each  editor  (see
Appendix B).  Each task  was explained  and questions  were  answered.
During the  observation, the  time for each task was noted, as well as
the amount of time spent looking for help and the number of times help
was needed.

Novices used  the editors  in randomized order (determined by the toss
of a  coin) and  performed the set of tasks twice so that some idea of
learning curves  could be  obtained. Skilled  regular users  were only
required to perform the tasks once.

After completing  the tasks, subjects completed a questionnaire asking
them to  rate the  editors based  on six  criteria, viz.  consistency,
feedback, friendliness,  learnability, usability  and efficiency. They
were also  asked to  give details of any problems or frustrations they
experienced, as  well as  any features  they liked (see Appendix E for
the full questionnaire).

Trial runs  of the  experiment were  performed  on  both  editors.  No
problems  were  found  with  vi  and  all  tasks  could  be  performed
successfully.  However,   some  problems,   all  caused   by  terminal
peculiarities, were  experienced with  emacs. In particular, backspace
did not  work, the  cursor keys  did not  work and Ctrl-s could not be
used (it  is used  for XON/XOFF  flow control). Investigation revealed
that the  ibm3151 terminals  we use  are not  supported by emacs; when
emacs was  run on  a more  common vt100  terminal,  everything  worked
correctly. However,  emacs on-line  help gives  full details to enable
system administrators  to have  emacs support  any particular terminal
type without  user intervention.  So as not to penalize emacs for this
administrative oversight,  emacs was minimally customized to emulate a
proper working  setup on  our terminals.  (* the error was reported by
the author  and emacs  has now  been correctly set up for use with our
terminals.)

To statistically  compare the  editors with  regard to  the total time
taken to  perform the  tasks and  the time  spent  looking  for  help,
appropriate t-tests for dependent or independent samples were applied.

RESULTS:

OBJECTIVE EVALUATIONS:

Appendix C  contains a complete summary of the times taken to complete
the tasks. The statistical analysis of the results is given below:

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|              HYPOTHESES             |  Non.   |  Tech.  |  Reg.  |
|         (Objective testing)         |  Tech.  |  Nov.   |  User  |
|-------------------------------------+---------+---------+--------|
| First trial: emacs faster than vi   |  Yes+   |  Yes+   |  No    |
| Second trial: emacs faster than vi  |  Yes*   |  Yes+   |  N/A   |
| Less help required with emacs       |  Yes+   |  Yes+   |  No    |
| Text entry faster with emacs        |  Yes*   |  Yes*   |  No    |
| Text manipulation faster with emacs |  Yes+   |  Yes*   |  No    |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Non. Tech. = Non-technical Novice      + p<0.05  * p<0.01
Tech. Nov. = Technical Novice
Reg. User  = Skilled Regular User

The mean  improvement in  time taken  by novices between the first and
the second trials for each editor (expressed as a percentage) was also
calculated:

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|         PERCENTAGE IMPROVEMENT IN TIME BETWEEN TRIALS            |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        Non-technical            Technical        |
|                        novices                  novices          |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| vi                     39 +/- 4 %               28 +/- 5 %       |
| emacs                  27 +/- 6 %               21 +/- 8 %       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+

SUBJECTIVE EVALUATIONS:

Appendix D  contains summarised results of the questionnaire. Although
differences in subjective scores were not significant on testing, each
editor came in for some criticism and some praise.

SUBJECTS' OPINIONS OF VI:

The main difficulties novice users found with vi were:
  - editor modes were hidden resulting in apparent unpredictability
  - backspace worked only on newly inserted text and did not update
    the screen accurately
  - using ESC x to delete a character appeared to be unpredictable -
    most novices could not apparently tell whether the character
    to the left of the cursor or the character under the cursor
    would be deleted (see discussion below)
  - case-sensitivity of commands caused some confusion
  - cursor keys could not be used to get right to the end of a line or
    right to the end of a document
  - non-technical novices found it very clumsy

Positive features appreciated by novice users were:
  - the undo feature
  - commands could be backed out of at any time by pressing ESC
  - technical novices thought it had potential to be efficient

Regular vi users felt:
  - vi was fast, powerful and efficient
  - although vi had some "quirks", they were not a nuisance as one
    got used to them very quickly
  - the command structure of vi was logical and intuitive
  - vi's key mapping/macro facilities were very useful
  - vi was the standard UNIX editor and was always available; it
    should be learned for this reason alone
  - vi was, however, difficult to learn; an on-line help facility
    was needed

SUBJECTS' OPINION OF EMACS:

The main difficulties novice users found with emacs were:
  - some of the commands were regarded as being unnecessarily
    cumbersome, especially for the more complex manipulations
  - mistyping commands sometimes resulted in "windows" appearing
    which some users had difficulty in getting rid of

Positive features appreciated by novice users were:
  - the "modeless" operation (or rather the lack of mode changes)
  - the undo feature
  - the backspace key was consistent in operation; it always
    worked and always deleted the character to the left of the
    cursor
  - commands generally did what was expected first time
  - technical novices in particular liked the way emacs agreed
    with their experience of other editors and word processors,
    making basic editing tasks easy and giving the editor a
    familiar "feel" ("You don't have to learn what you already know")
  - moving around the document was easy - getting to the end of a
    line or to the end of the document was simply a matter of moving
    the cursor

Regular emacs users felt:
  - emacs was powerful and efficient enough for their purposes
  - although there were a daunting number of commands and some
    commands were cumbersome to type ("escape-meta-alt-control-
    shift"), emacs was easily customizable so frequently
    used operations could be moved to more acceptable key
    combinations
  - emacs was particularly suited to editing large documents as
    it had facilities such as a spelling checker etc.
  - emacs was very easy to use and also easy to learn, especially with
    the on-line tutorial and help

DISCUSSION:

Emacs appears  to be  the editor  of choice for novices performing the
given  tasks.   Not  only   were  they   able  to  perform  the  tasks
significantly faster  on both  trials with significantly less need for
help, but  they  also  seem  to  have  experienced  less  frustration.
Novices, especially  non-technical novices,  had a very mechanical way
of  approaching   the  tasks  and  disliked  having  to  give  special
commands - emacs  suited this  approach. For example, to add something
to the  end of  a paragraph,  novices generally just tried to move the
cursor there  and type. While this worked with emacs, vi would not let
them move  their cursor  past the  last character on a line (some held
down the  right arrow  key for  several seconds, hoping to achieve the
desired effect);  eventually they  had to consult the help sheet (they
needed ESC a - append to line).

Some  apparent   inconsistencies  in   vi's   operation   particularly
frustrated novices. For example, the backspace key works only on newly
inserted text  - many  novices expressed dismay that the backspace key
that had  worked while  they were  typing in  text suddenly  seemed to
cease functioning  when correcting  other errors.  They were forced to
consult the  help sheet  again; this  time they  needed ESC x - delete
character.  The   delete  character  operation  itself  seemed  to  be
inconsistent -  users felt  they had to guess whether the character to
the left  of the  cursor or the one under the cursor would be deleted.
This is  because vi moves the cursor backwards one space when the mode
is changed  from insert to command mode; thus if the user is in insert
mode, the  character to  the left  of the cursor is deleted, otherwise
the character  under the  cursor is  deleted. To novice users who were
unused to  these subtleties, however, deletion appeared to be a random
process. By  contrast, the operation of backspace in emacs was totally
consistent -  it always  deleted the  character to  the  left  of  the
cursor.

The experiment  also served  to illustrate the main disadvantage of vi
and the  strong point  of emacs  as far  as novices are concerned: the
issue of on-line help. Not only did novices find that they needed less
help with  emacs (many  did not  need any help at all to perform basic
manipulations), but  a full  tutorial and  interactive on-line help is
available; emacs'  title screen  gives new  users full instructions on
how to  access these  features (as  well as  how to  quit emacs at any
stage). This  immediately puts  the user  at ease  and gives him/her a
sense of  security. Vi,  however, does  not provide  any on-line help;
system manual  pages are  generally available  but these  tend to give
reams of very technically-oriented detail which is mostly useless to a
novice. In  addition, most  novices are  not even  aware of the manual
page's existence.  All  the  novices  in  our  experiment  encountered
difficulties and required lots of help with vi right from the start of
their tasks;  it is  therefore puzzling  that vi  should have  no help
facilities. Every  editor user  must pass through the novice phase; if
the editor seems difficult to use and does not even provide basic help
(like a  list of  common command  keys), the user is likely to abandon
the effort and use another program (if available).

The comparison  of the  percentage improvement  in time between trials
(see objective  results) can  be used  to get  an idea  of the initial
learning curves  of vi and emacs, since time taken to perform tasks is
a good  measure of  how well  the user  has learned to use the editor.
While non-technical  novices underwent  a  dramatic  time  improvement
(39 +/- 4 %) between trials with vi, a more modest improvement (27 +/-
6 %) was  noted using  emacs. Thus we may tentatively conclude that vi
has the  steeper initial learning curve for non-technical novices. The
percentage increases  for technical  novices were  not as  striking; a
similar tendency  was noted, but uncertainties were too large to reach
any firm conclusions.

No significant  difference in performance times was found with regular
users of  the editors;  this suggests  that, with  practice, a similar
level of performance can be obtained using both editors. Regular users
of both editors were fully satisfied with their editor's functionality
and efficiency.  Regular users  of vi,  however,  seemed  to  be  more
emotionally attached  to that  editor (ironically,  this  is  possibly
because they  had invested considerable effort in learning it and take
pride in their achievement).

It is important to note that while these experimental results strictly
only apply  to  the  specific  set  of  tasks  given  ie.  basic  text
manipulation, each editor has advanced facilities for other tasks such
as programming.  A  non-technical  novice,  however,  is  unlikely  to
require these  features  at  the  beginning  of  his  editing  career;
therefore it is reasonable to omit such specialized tasks from his/her
tests. It  is also  likely that  the performance  of technical novices
using these  special features would be similar to their performance on
basic text  manipulation since programming involves similar tasks: for
example  insertion   and  deletion   of  "text"   (code)  and   moving
"paragraphs" (procedures).  This, however,  needs to  be  verified  in
further studies.

All subjects  used in  the study  were relatively  intelligent,  well-
educated  university   students  (selected  from  various  faculties).
Although it  would be presumptuous to extrapolate these results to the
general population,  it seems  likely  that  with  less  sophisticated
users, emacs  would perform  even better  relative to  vi due  to  its
novice-friendly  nature.   Again,  this  needs  to  be  experimentally
verified.

CONCLUSION:

In this  study, Emacs  was found  to be  a significantly faster editor
than vi  for all  grades of  novice user  attempting the  simple  text
manipulation tasks  given; they  required significantly  less help and
also felt  more comfortable  with emacs'  uniform modes and consistent
response. Since emacs also has on-line help which is lacking in vi, it
is definitely the editor of choice for novice users undertaking simple
editing tasks. Further work needs to be done on specialized tasks such
as programming and involving a broader spectrum of users.

No significant  performance difference  was found between vi and emacs
for regular  users and  both  have  sufficient  power  to  maintain  a
considerable following.  Since every  UNIX system  already has vi, and
many devoted adherents, vi should continue to be available as a choice
to users;  there is  no advantage  for regular  vi users  to change to
emacs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

Although the  analysis presented  here is  the work of the author, the
experiment  was  designed  and  executed  in  collaboration  with  Ms.
Marjolijn Weber, also a third year computer science student at UCT.

REFERENCES:

[1] T.  Roberts,  and  K.  Moran.  The  Evaluation  of  Text  Editors:
    Methodology and Empirical Results; from Readings in Human-Computer
    Interaction (edited by B.M. Baeker and W.A.S. Buxton, 1987)
[2] Collected undergraduate  studies of  vi and  emacs (Compiled by E.
    Blake, 1991)
[3] K. Gomoll.  Some Techniques  for Observing  Users; from The Art of
    Human-Computer Interface Design (edited by Brenda Laurel, 1990)
[4] R. L.  Mason.  Statistical  Design  and  Analysis  of  Experiments
    (Wiley, 1989)

                                APPENDIX A:

                               USER TASK LIST

1. Go to the end of the document and type in the following paragraph:

Joined the library. Got Care of the Skin, Origin of the Species, and a book
by a woman my mother is always going on about. It is called Pride and
Prejudice, by a woman called Jane Austen. I could tell the librarian was
impressed. Perhaps she is an intellectual like me. She didn't look at my
spot, so perhaps it is getting smaller.
2. Correct  the three  spelling errors in the first three lines of the first
   paragraph (one  error per  line) and  remove the extra "Geography" in the
   3rd line of the first paragraph.
3. Add the words "About time!" to the end of the second paragraph.
4. Delete  the sentence  "Time flies  like an  arrow but  fruit flies like a
   banana" and re-form the paragraph.
5. Replace all occurrences of "is" with "was".
6. Swap the two paragraphs.
7. Save the file and quit.

                               STARTING TEXT

Wednesday January 14th

None of the teechers at school have noticed that I am an intellectual. They
will be sorry when I am famouse. There is a new girl in our class. She sits
nixt to me in Geography Geography.
Time flies like an arrow but fruit flies like a banana.
She is all right. Her name is Pandora, but she likes being called "Box".
Don't ask me why. I might fall in love with her. It's time I fell in love,
after all I am 13 3/4 years old.


                                TARGET TEXT

Wednesday January 14th

Joined the library. Got Care of the Skin, Origin of the Species, and a book
by a woman my mother was always going on about. It was called Pride and
Prejudice, by a woman called Jane Austen. I could tell the librarian was
impressed. Perhaps she was an intellectual like me. She didn't look at my
spot, so perhaps it was getting smaller. About time!

None of the teachers at school have noticed that I am an intellectual. They
will be sorry when I am famous. There was a new girl in our class. She sits
next to me in Geography. She was all right. Her name was Pandora, but she
likes being called "Box". Don't ask me why. I might fall in love with her.
It's time I fell in love, after all I am 13 3/4 years old.

                          APPENDIX B - HELP SHEETS


VI COMMANDS:


INSERTING & TYPING TEXT:
ESC i          insert text
ESC $a         append text (to end of line)
ESC J          join lines

CURSOR MOVEMENT:
ESC ^          beginning of line
ESC $          end of line
ESC 1 G        top of document
ESC G          end of document

DELETING & MOVING TEXT:
Backspace      delete character before cursor (only works with
               newly inserted text)
ESC x          delete character
ESC dw         delete word
ESC dd         delete line (puts deleted text into a buffer which can
               be restored by pressing ESC "1P)
ESC <n> dd     delete n lines (puts deleted text into buffer which
               can be restored by pressing ESC "1P)
ESC "1D        delete rest of line (puts deleted text into a buffer
               which can be restored by pressing ESC "1P)
ESC "1P        yanks back (restores) text deleted with ESC dd or
               ESC "1D

SEARCHING FOR AND REPLACING TEXT:
ESC :%s/<search string>/<replace string>/g <RETURN>

MISCELLANEOUS:
ESC u          undo
Clear          redraws screen
ESC :w         save file
ESC ZZ         save file and quit


EMACS COMMANDS


CURSOR MOVEMENT:
Ctrl a         beginning of line
Ctrl e         end of line
ESC <          top of document
ESC >          end of document

DELETING & MOVING TEXT:
Backspace      delete character before cursor
Ctrl d         delete character under cursor
Ctrl k         delete to end of line (puts deleted text into a buffer
               which can be restored by pressing Ctrl y)
ESC k          delete to end of sentence (puts deleted text into a
               buffer which can be restored by pressing Ctrl y)
Ctrl y         "yanks" back (restores) text deleted with Ctrl k or
               ESC k

SEARCHING FOR AND REPLACING TEXT:
ESC x repl str <RETURN> <search string> <RETURN> <replace string> <RETURN>

MISCELLANEOUS:
Ctrl G         cancel
Ctrl X u       undo
Ctrl X k       kill window
Ctrl X s       save file
Ctrl X Ctrl C  quit


                     APPENDIX C - TASK COMPLETION TIMES


Note: all  times given  in seconds.  HELP refers  to the  total  time  spent
      looking for  help; the number in brackets next to the help time refers
      to the  number of times help was needed. For a complete description of
      tasks, see appendix A.


NON-TECHNICAL NOVICES:


VI TRIAL 1:

------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    TASK
              1    2    3    4    5    6    7     TOT    HELP (no)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject 1   570   94   21  135   56  113    3     992     151 (14)
Subject 2   486   75   19  273   94   95    9    1051     233 (16)
Subject 3   637   72   56  178  101   90   12    1146     182 (19)
------------------------------------------------------------------


EMACS TRIAL 1:

------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    TASK
              1    2    3    4    5    6    7     TOT    HELP (no)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject 1   343   26   24   53   90  129   12     677     151 ( 9)
Subject 2   232   71   10   91   44   55   10     513     102 (10)
Subject 3   414   47   50  136   70   57   10     721      94 ( 6)
------------------------------------------------------------------


VI TRIAL 2:

------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    TASK
              1    2    3    4    5    6    7     TOT    HELP (no)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject 1   380   82   41   77   57   47   11     695     101 ( 9)
Subject 2   222   63   31   95   82   40    2     535      82 (17)
Subject 3   369   67   56  104   41   61   30     728      93 ( 9)
------------------------------------------------------------------


EMACS TRIAL 2:

------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    TASK
              1    2    3    4    5    6    7     TOT    HELP (no)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject 1   216   26   23   54   79   52   23     473      11 ( 4)
Subject 2   168   36    6   82   33   38   12     375      42 ( 7)
Subject 3   246   42   35  112   57   48   14     554      62 ( 5)
------------------------------------------------------------------



TECHNICAL NOVICES:



VI TRIAL 1:

------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    TASK
              1    2    3    4    5    6    7     TOT    HELP (no)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject 1   134   73   14  168   33   76    3     501     165 ( 9)
Subject 2   276   54   14   92   28   33    2     499     106 ( 7)
Subject 3   221  157   15  129   50   53   15     640     164 ( 9)
------------------------------------------------------------------


EMACS TRIAL 1:

------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    TASK
              1    2    3    4    5    6    7     TOT    HELP (no)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject 1   127   34    7   46   25   42    8     289      70 ( 9)
Subject 2   243   28   12   34   26   20   10     373      42 ( 6)
Subject 3   157   24   28   61   24   21   14     329      52 ( 8)
------------------------------------------------------------------


VI TRIAL 2:

------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    TASK
              1    2    3    4    5    6    7     TOT    HELP (no)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject 1   136   57   12   56   14   43    2     320      10 ( 3)
Subject 2   252   48   15   73   20   27    1     436       4 ( 1)
Subject 3   178   54   14   95   55   80    2     423      41 ( 5)
------------------------------------------------------------------


EMACS TRIAL 2:

------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    TASK
              1    2    3    4    5    6    7     TOT    HELP (no)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject 1   100   18    9   17   15   11    5     175       8 ( 2)
Subject 2   217   37   10   37   15   20    6     342       6 ( 2)
Subject 3   140   21    7   50   26   12    6     262      14 ( 4)
------------------------------------------------------------------










SKILLED REGULAR USERS:



VI USERS:

------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    TASK
              1    2    3    4    5    6    7     TOT    HELP (no)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject 1    97   22    9   23    7   12    2     172       0 ( 0)
Subject 2    89   27    7   35   12   15    1     186       5 ( 1)
Subject 3   102   25    9   31   11   18    2     198       7 ( 1)
------------------------------------------------------------------


EMACS USERS:

------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    TASK
              1    2    3    4    5    6    7     TOT    HELP (no)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject 4   101   19   10   23   17   17    8     195       4 ( 1)
Subject 5    93   18    7   28    8   10    6     170       0 ( 0)
Subject 6    95   21    8   24   11   12    7     178       3 ( 1)
------------------------------------------------------------------











                     APPENDIX D - QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY


Note: All  qualities below  are average  scores as  judged by  subjects on a
      rating from 1 to 5. See Appendix E for the complete questionnaire.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    NON-TECH. NOVICE    TECH. NOVICE        REG. USER
                    VI   EMACS          VI   EMACS          VI   EMACS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Consistency       1-2    3             2     4             4     4
  Feedback           2     3             3    3-4            3     4
  Friendliness       2     3             3     4             3     4
  Learnability       3     4             3     4             4     4
  Usability         1-2   3-4            3     4             4     4
  Efficiency         1     3             3     3             4     4
----------------------------------------------------------------------

               APPENDIX E - VI/EMACS POST-TEST QUESTIONNAIRE


1.1 AGE:___                        1.2. SEX:___


1.3. COMPUTING EXPERIENCE

     1              2              3              4              5
   None         Under 1          1-2            2-3          over 3
                 years          years          years          years



----------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  2. EMACS

2.1 PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH EMACS

    1              2              3              4              5
   None       Have used it    Occasional      Regular        Expert
             once or twice      User           User           User

2.2 IF  YOU HAVE  PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE,  HOW DID  YOU LEARN HOW TO USE EMACS?
(you may select more than one answer)

    1              2              3              4              5
On-line help/   External       Manual/        Friends         Other
On-line tutor  tutor file   documentation                   _______

2.3 HOW WOULD YOU RATE EMACS WITH REGARD TO:

a) CONSISTENCY (ie. did the editor always react to your commands in the same
way and was its behaviour consistent with your past experience)

    1              2              3              4              5
 Erratic,                     Tolerable                      Always
Unpredictable             Mostly Predictable               Predictable

Comment: _____________________________________________________________

         _____________________________________________________________


b) FEEDBACK (ie. did the editor inform you what was going on?)

    1              2              3              4              5
    No                           Some                        Complete
 feedback                      feedback                      feedback

Comment: _____________________________________________________________

         _____________________________________________________________


c) FRIENDLINESS

    1              2              3              4              5
Intimidating,                 Reasonable                    Welcoming,
Unhelpful                                                    helpful

Comment: _____________________________________________________________

         _____________________________________________________________


d) LEARNABILITY (ie. how easy was it to learn how to use EMACS?)

    1              2              3              4              5
Nightmare                    Manageable                    Very easy

Comment: _____________________________________________________________

         _____________________________________________________________


e) USABILITY (ie. if you had to use an editor, would you use EMACS?)

    1              2              3              4              5
Would avoid    Would use      Would use      Would use    Would always
  using      if necessary   occasionally    regularly         use

Comment: _____________________________________________________________

         _____________________________________________________________


f) EFFICIENCY  (ie. is  it possible  to get  things done  speedily and  with
minimal effort)

    1              2              3              4              5
Clumsy and                    Reasonably                     Lean and
cumbersome                    efficient                       mean

Comment: _____________________________________________________________

         _____________________________________________________________


2.4 Particular problems/frustrations: ________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________


2.5 Particular "likes": ______________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________


----------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   3. VI

3.1 PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH VI

    1              2              3              4              5
   None       Have used it    Occasional      Regular        Expert
             once or twice      User           User           User

3.2 IF  YOU HAVE  PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE, HOW DID YOU LEARN HOW TO USE VI? (you
may select more than one answer)

    1              2              3              4              5
On-line help/   External       Manual/        Friends         Other
On-line tutor  tutor file   documentation                   _______

3.3 HOW WOULD YOU RATE VI WITH REGARD TO:

a) CONSISTENCY (ie. did the editor always react to your commands in the same
way and was its behaviour consistent with your past experience)

    1              2              3              4              5
 Erratic,                     Tolerable                      Always
Unpredictable             Mostly Predictable               Predictable

Comment: _____________________________________________________________

         _____________________________________________________________


b) FEEDBACK (ie. did the editor inform you what was going on?)

    1              2              3              4              5
    No                           Some                        Complete
 feedback                      feedback                      feedback

Comment: _____________________________________________________________

         _____________________________________________________________


c) FRIENDLINESS

    1              2              3              4              5
Intimidating,                 Reasonable                    Welcoming,
Unhelpful                                                    helpful

Comment: _____________________________________________________________

         _____________________________________________________________


d) LEARNABILITY (ie. how easy was it to learn how to use VI?)

    1              2              3              4              5
Nightmare                    Manageable                    Very easy

Comment: _____________________________________________________________

         _____________________________________________________________


e) USABILITY (ie. if you had to use an editor, would you use VI?)

    1              2              3              4              5
Would avoid    Would use      Would use      Would use    Would always
  using      if necessary   occasionally    regularly         use

Comment: _____________________________________________________________

         _____________________________________________________________


f) EFFICIENCY  (ie. is  it possible  to get  things done  speedily and  with
minimal effort)

    1              2              3              4              5
Clumsy and                    Reasonably                     Lean and
cumbersome                    efficient                       mean

Comment: _____________________________________________________________

         _____________________________________________________________


3.4 Particular problems/frustrations: ________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________


3.5 Particular "likes": ______________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________


----------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 4. GENERAL


4.1 WHICH EDITOR WOULD YOU PREFER TO USE?

     VI                  EMACS

Comment: _____________________________________________________________

         _____________________________________________________________


4.2 DO  YOU THINK  THAT EITHER EDITOR IS SATISFACTORY OR DO THEY HAVE COMMON
FAILINGS WHICH SHOULD BE ADDRESSED?

Comment: _____________________________________________________________

         _____________________________________________________________
