81–90 of 91 posts
"We didn't have networks at all at the time of the MacIntosh's introduction." Seriously? Seems like that estimation might be about fifteen years off to me. Edit to say: In fact, he's an intelligent and well-versed enough guy that I'm sort of puzzled by this remark. Does anyone know what Mr Underkoffler means when he says that networks weren't around then? I think he must have something different in mind than I do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I'm skeptical about that. The movements are big so that they will be captured and correctly interpreted by their pattern recognition system. I think they would not be able to detect very subtle movements like ASL. It is ingenious to claim that it was made artificially big and clumsy for the audience.
Not so sure that these huge gestures are necessary, depending on the technology - You can play games perfectly fine on the wii with little more than the flick of your wrist.
Why? This goes against the current major trend in the industry: mobilisation / pocket-isation. It is inconceivable that our built environments will have the required sensors, projectors, etc. to enable these interfaces. Even more than that, our computing is becoming ever more mobile. Computing has to fit our environment, not the other way round.
Maybe this stuff is the future, but it's certainly not the near future and I didn't really see much value in the interfaces demoed.
Then again, the point of R&D is to discover what doesn't work as much as what does and you can't do that without realising your ideas.
This is still 2d. You can't interact in 3d if it is just projected in 2d. He is just pointing and flying. You don't have to fly between documents if you have a real 3d augmented reality. Apps would be like real 3d objects, you can touch them, manipulate their shapes like you do it with your keyboard or a door-knob, the only difference is that they won't be from real material. So they won't have phisical boundaries, i…
Imagine a virus that injects fake flooring into your vision where instead there is a 40ft fall!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except mock-ups != prototype.
Picky, picky. Semantics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype#Semantics
One client thinks prototype means "mock-up", another thinks it means "ready to go" after a round of QA.
Surely you can see how this might effect a project overall?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Picky, picky. Semantics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype#Semantics
I'm picky because, as a coder, I have to personally deal with different variations of what people think "prototype" means. One client thinks prototype means "mock-up", another thinks it means "ready to go" after a round of QA. Surely you can see how this might effect a project overall?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why are command line interfaces still the most efficient way for experts to interact with a system? That's an easy one to answer. It's for the same reason humans developed natural language by sounds emitted by vocal cords, with a pretty simple mechanism ... you've got a vocabulary of words that describe something, like an action, or an attribute or a physical object, and then you can mix them together to form phras…
> there's only so much you can describe with hand gestures without the movements becoming unintuitive. Even more so for sounds. Most spoken words are no more intuitive than arbitrary gestures in modern gestural languages (which can similarly be articulated in powerful systems just like spoken languages). Aural, visual, tactile and chemical channels each have advantages and disadvantages for different applications. I'…
I wasn't talking about the method of delivery.
A wagging tail may not be intuitive, but moving a physical object from A to B by picking it up and dropping it is very much intuitive, not just by hardwired convention (both cats and dogs do it in the same way).
And the only rationale for the futuristic graphical interfaces we see demoed (including stuff like multitouch in iPhone/iPad) is based on the implicit intuitiveness of handling physical objects with your hands.
But that's just a niche ... beyond that you need a language for building stories out of composable phrases, and the demos of futuristic graphical interfaces I've seen just don't cut it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, if we are talking about computer interfaces, the more sophisticated graphic and music programs have some kind of scripting capabilities. Think Photoshop, AutoCAD, C-Music... If you are talking about computer vs non-computer interfaces, yes, you are not going to play a piano concert with a mouse either.
Who said anything about a mouse? The three interfaces I was thinking about were (a) a piano (that is, the keys and pedals), (b) a brush, a canvas, and some tubes of paint, and (c) a joystick and a few walls of dials and switches and buttons. If you want to put things directly in a computer, you probably want a digital piano keyboard, a graphics tablet, and a joystick + keyboard. Scripting it is an alternative way to…
A painting you cannot, but the architecture of a building is better if it's built by using a CLI interface ... because you need control over every detail of your construction. Just look at AutoCAD sometimes.
Also, for playing on a piano you first need to read a sheet of music that describes your melody.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm picky because, as a coder, I have to personally deal with different variations of what people think "prototype" means. One client thinks prototype means "mock-up", another thinks it means "ready to go" after a round of QA. Surely you can see how this might effect a project overall?
No doubt. That's why specifying project requirements and writing proposals is usually so important for both client and coder. Managing expectations is key.
It's simple. We have a word for mock-up or comp. We have a word for prototype which is...prototype.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who said anything about a mouse? The three interfaces I was thinking about were (a) a piano (that is, the keys and pedals), (b) a brush, a canvas, and some tubes of paint, and (c) a joystick and a few walls of dials and switches and buttons. If you want to put things directly in a computer, you probably want a digital piano keyboard, a graphics tablet, and a joystick + keyboard. Scripting it is an alternative way to…
> but you wouldn’t want to “paint” a digital picture by typing in some JavaScript to direct it A painting you cannot, but the architecture of a building is better if it's built by using a CLI interface ... because you need control over every detail of your construction. Just look at AutoCAD sometimes. Also, for playing on a piano you first need to read a sheet of music that describes your melody.
Bullshit. The architecture of buildings is refined from models made in clay, drawings made on paper, people walking around the physical site, and annotations to photographs. Eventually, the building is realized with cranes and hammers and two-by-fours and drywall.
There’s potentially one step in there where each part is precisely specified numerically, and you could maybe make that step easier by typing into a CLI. But saying that’s “the interface”, or “a better interface” to the design or construction of the building is an almost impossibly myopic analysis.