Re: [NTLK] Dream OS [WAS: "The iMoleskine ?" AND "Re: newtontalk Diges

No need to apologize, I think you make very goo dpoints. I do not really
disagree with any, except for the GUI component.. But perhaps for different
reasons than have been discussed.

On 5/22/08 6:22 AM, "Simon Stapleton" <simon.stapleton@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'll have to apologise in advance for use of ALL BLOODY CAPS in this,
> but a lot of stuff makes me cross. Not what people here are saying,
> just stuff in general. Oh, and I apologise for my own epic fail in
> subject lines :)
>
> Bryan Cantley wrote:
>
>> I'm sure I'll be criticized about this.. But... "the actual UI can
>> suck,
>> hell it could be purely textual..."
>>
>> Ugh. I could not disagree more. The UI IS the experience interface,
>> regardless of what it lets you do. Granted, the REST of what you say
>> is
>> golden, but to ignore the UI is to ignore ONE of the GREAT things
>> about OSX
>> and the Newton- REGULAR peeps will NOT care how efficient and smart
>> the
>> system is, if the damn UI is buggy, boring, overly complex, or..
>> Heaven help
>> us.. Textual.
>
> Don't get me wrong, Bryan, I do largely agree with you, and a slick
> user interface is important as a selling point. However, a graphical
> approach is only one of a number of potential approaches, and a very
> bad one if, for example, you happen to be blind. A natural language
> textual interface could lead to a completely spoken interface very
> easily, freedom from keyboards and screens and stylii and mice and -
> well, you get my point.

But what if you are mute? Or deaf? The argument for any "sense" specific
interface is only partial, no?
>
> What's important to me in systems design is not the intricacies of
> where this widget should be on the screen and what happens if you
> click here, but how you interact with your data, what commands are
> necessary to carry out the tasks you want to carry out, and so on.
> Function first, form later.

I disagree. Form and function together [but that is such a last phase
paradigm argument]. I don't think the ideal OS is restrictive in EITHER.
I don't think I;m talking "widget placement".. As much as im talking "visual
interaction.. And aesthetic pleasure". But again, im trying to approach this
from the viewpoint of the consumer who knows nothing about, nor cares about
the technical mechanics..not the tech heads like us that "somewhat"
understand "data hierarchy" [that sounds bad, but I hope you get my point].

>
> An example of EPIC FAIL form over function is much of the "Web 2.0"
> "experience" - sites that simply don't work if you don't have some
> bloated behemoth browser running javascript despite the fact that what
> they are doing is, in fact, completely trivial and would fit quite
> neatly into the existing HTTP request-response cycle. this,
> incidentally, is where I believe a lot of the issues with linux,
> pointed out later in this thread by Jon, lie - a perceived need to be
> the same as everything else, blind following of the status quo rather
> than actually thinking about the issues, problems and potential
> solutions.
>
You completely lost the average, non-tech user. I agree, but yo just lost
70% of the consumer base

> Here's another one. Word processors. The goal of a word processor
> is, after all, to produce printed output. So why do they all typeset
> so frickin' badly? It's not like computer typesetting is some
> mysterious lost art, Knuth's TeX typesets beautifully and has done for
> 20+ years. But no, instead of major fixes to the broken NUMBER ONE
> FUNCTION OF THE APPLICATION , we get minor UI tweakage and file format
> churn, all sold as some major bloody innovation.
>
> I agree with Christian, data interaction is where it's at, not
> graphical "innovation" or otherwise. Not that there's anything wrong
> with tailfins, and they are important (at least, they are if they are
> in vogue this year), but I feel it's utterly secondary to the primary
> purpose of computing.
>
The purpose of computing: u r correct

The experience of computing: you are wrong

There is a difference!

> Newton was a massive step forward in data manipulation. Almost as big
> a step forward as the introduction of the relational model in
> databases, the object model in software design. I could live with a
> desktop machine that uses a Newton-like interface, probably more
> easily than I can live with OSX, and I've been using that, as the
> "best of the current choices", since 2001.
>
> I believe the next big thing *must* come from the handheld arena, and
> will slowly (or, perhaps, not-so-slowly) encroach into the desktop
> environment. I have a certain amount of faith that it will come from
> Apple, and that it will come soon - the pieces are in place for it to
> happen right now - but maybe I'm being over-enthusiastic there.
>
> Jon Glass wrote:
>> Linux is a complete rewrite of an OS.... And better, it's done by
>> geeks--guy who know and appreciate all the engineering and such that
>> goes into all this--
>
> Personally, I'd say Linux is a botch, a clone of an aging model that
> has got to the point where it's sometimes as good as what it apes,
> *but no better, and frequently worse*. This doesn't make it bad, and
> certainly it's hard to beat at the price, but if you want something
> with real engineering, you need to look at something like OpenBSD,
> OSX, or even the original NT kernel.
>
>> so why is _every_ user interfact/window
>> manager/desktop environment such a slavish imitation of what already
>> exists?
>
> Because real innovation is hard, bloody hard. It's far easier to copy
> what exists, to make incremental improvements on what you have. And,
> of course, the free unix-a-likes are fighting not only MS and Apple
> for market share, wanting to convert people (and thus "having" to
> conform to the expected norms), but also infighting amongst
> themselves. So what you see is a tendency to follow the current
> trend, to imitate what's currently seen as "cool" (see also Vista's
> Aeroglass). Don't get me wrong, in the userland ecosystem of the
> Linux / *BSD world, there *are* innovations happening, but they are
> low level, and more of them are coming from corporations who want to
> make money than from the "geeks". And I say that as a geek myself.
>
> There have been very few real UI breakthroughs over the years. Partly
> because what we have is largely seen as "good enough", and partly
> because, as I believe I may have said, innovation is hard. Developing
> a new user interface paradigm takes not only a helluva lot of code,
> but a lot of input and work from people with heavy theoretical skills
> across a lot of domains. Then, once you've implemented it, you have
> to get it accepted, to sell it as something people want to use, to
> give people a reason to switch. Take, as an example, Lotus'
> "Improv" / Lighthose Designs' "Quantrix" - vast impovements over the
> simple spreadsheet model as implemented in Visicalc and its endless
> clones, but eventually niche products (and, in the case of Improv, a
> dead one).
>
> </largely negative ramble>
>
> Simon
>
I like the discourse! You are making all of us think.. Which is the way
change is propagated.. :)

>
>
> ====================================================================
> The NewtonTalk Mailing List - http://www.newtontalk.net/
> The Official Newton FAQ - http://www.splorp.com/newton/faq/
> The Newton Glossary - http://www.splorp.com/newton/glossary/
> WikiWikiNewt - http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
> ====================================================================
>
>

-- 
bryan cantley
    form:uLA dimension laboratory
    spatial orchestrator  + owner
+
    Professor of Design Theory
    CSUF
714.278.2075
bcantley@fullerton.edu
bryancantley@gmail.com
http://www.fotolog.net/formula
http://web.mac.com/form.u.la/iWeb/FIEDAD2007/00.html
==================================================================== 
The NewtonTalk Mailing List - http://www.newtontalk.net/
The Official Newton FAQ     - http://www.splorp.com/newton/faq/
The Newton Glossary         - http://www.splorp.com/newton/glossary/
WikiWikiNewt                - http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
====================================================================