[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ::scr Ramblings of a Classic Refugee or How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love OS X



<delurks />

Hello.

On Sunday, February 3, 2002, at 04:08 PM, simon wistow wrote:

'inbox' would be :
select * from Mails where read=false;

On this topic,
http://www.namesys.com/whitepaper.html
looks interesting (although I admit I've not been able to read it to the end). Kind of xpath meets filesystems.


But god yes, the current filesystem sucks. You only have to look at the way email clients, mp3 programs, photo archives etc etc reimplement their own filing systems.

together in a folder. It doesn't delete them from more conventional
heirachical file systems but provides another tool for helping you
organise your data. Like the LifeStreams idea. Only less crap.

Yeah! That's views, or dynamic searches, or whatever you want to call them. On that,
http://www.namesys.com/whitepaper.html
appears to be a kind of relationship search-engine for the filesystem kind of thing. It's not out yet, but that's what it sounds like.


How hard would it be for Apple to let you save Sherlock results to the Finder to appear as a folder? I mean, *really*. It'd be brilliant.

The user plays round with an application. Depending on which items of
functionality (hence forth to be referred to as functions) they use the
genes of that function get stronger and breed more. Essentially. There's
more to it than that but it gets a bit involved and then I go crossed
eyed.

Right. I'm onto what you're up to here, and it's a brilliant idea. I think the problem is that it's very difficult to conceive a useful way to do it with the *current* interface metaphors.


Problem with current interfaces: My inhabit-every-day universe doesn't work with action at a distance. I mean, I have the TV remote control but that's *one thing*, and almost my ENTIRE computer life is done with menu options. Disparity.

So number one, get rid of all menu options in computer interfaces. And dialogue boxes. And anything else that appears. All on-screen manipulation should be done:
- by pulling a tool over to act-at-a-place; or
- by looking "closer" at the item to alter its properties


Looking closer? What kind of crazy talk is that? I mean that to change the font on some text in Word you'd "look" at it closer at see a dial for the font size, a dropdown for the face, whatever. Tools would be the same as Photoshop works at the moment.

(This isn't completely arbitrary, seriously. I'm convinced that we aren't looking hard enough at human-reality. If we did we'd find quite fundamental patterns we should be emulating. Interfaces are hard because we aren't.)

There would be a few things to do:
- implement some way of investigating properties ("looking closer")
- have some standard way of storing available tools
And because of the inherent problems with using the mouse to drag tools, we'd end up needing things like gloves (to manipulate multiple points on the screen simultaneously), and some way of emulating peripheral vision <-- that's the important bit.


Now the genetically altering interface can draw on these real life metaphors:

If you use tools from a toolbox, you tend to leave them closer to where you work. That'd help.

If you're on the lookout for something, it tends to leap out of your peripheral vision quicker.


Okay, so it's all quite up in the air, and the whole Looking idea is fairly undefined, but it's the lack of human reality in computer interfaces that's causing all these problems.


[insert Whole Other Rant here.]

-mw