Disney has been using CG in their "traditional" animation for some time. My kids were watching "The Emperor's New Groove" the other day and I watched the behind-the-scenes portion in which they showed how many elements (such as the wagon pulled by the John Goodman character) were CG and combined with traditional animation for the characters. It looks just like the cel-based animation, since they use shaders that make the 3D objects look hand-drawn. If I recall correctly, they also used a good bit of CG in even older productions, such as "Beauty and the Beast."
This is also a trend that goes beyond Disney- DreamWorks used lots and lots of CG in "Spirit- Stallion of the Cimmeron" (the extras on the DVD are worth watching).
The thing to remember in all this is that the move to CG doesn't mean you won't have Disney features that look hand-drawn. Not all CG looks like work from Pixar or "Shrek." Use the right shaders and picking out the CG from hand-drawn gets very difficult indeed.
The vision of computers on every level of our lives holds great promise, but there are dangers as well. Personally, I like the concept of wearables (just the next step up from my PDA), but what about when the police have wearables that can photo-match your face to pictures in their databases simply by looking at you. SUre, we can argue that it will help cut down crime by cornering fugitives, but what's to stop them from using it against political dissidents and other "undesirables?" I'm a law-abiding guy, but this type of power scares me even when I've got nothing to hide.
"Raskin wasn't criticizing OSX for its qualities as an OS, but for the fundamental principal that it represents: something standing between you and whatever you want to do."
So the desktop metaphor that Raskin helped to invent just gets in the way these days, huh? I wonder if Raskin is underestimating the value that most people put in "the familiar."
The common "desktop" environment is the standard on most GUIs, no matter what the OS or hardware platform; Apple might not be traveling too far into uncharted waters with Mac OS X, but sticking with the tried and true is a better business decision on their part. If they implemented a totally new UI they'd probably end up with a pretty box and the support of a few developers, but would their users move with them? It's going to be daunting enough for Apple to get the user base used to the big changes in Mac OS X without changing metaphors, let alone making them adapt to a whole new UI.
Raskin may be a visionary, but his vision is unrealistic at this point. Maybe Apple will get where he's suggesting, but I'd bet it's by slow evolution, not a forced revolution.
If you ask yourself the question, "Can I make a difference?" and the answer is "No, they're going to collapse eventually," then jump. Tell your friends why and give those you can trust some advance notice.
I'll bet most folks can see the writing on the wall, as you have. It's best if you all move on and let management reap what they've sown.
Slashdot Mirror
Disney has been using CG in their "traditional" animation for some time. My kids were watching "The Emperor's New Groove" the other day and I watched the behind-the-scenes portion in which they showed how many elements (such as the wagon pulled by the John Goodman character) were CG and combined with traditional animation for the characters. It looks just like the cel-based animation, since they use shaders that make the 3D objects look hand-drawn. If I recall correctly, they also used a good bit of CG in even older productions, such as "Beauty and the Beast."
This is also a trend that goes beyond Disney- DreamWorks used lots and lots of CG in "Spirit- Stallion of the Cimmeron" (the extras on the DVD are worth watching).
The thing to remember in all this is that the move to CG doesn't mean you won't have Disney features that look hand-drawn. Not all CG looks like work from Pixar or "Shrek." Use the right shaders and picking out the CG from hand-drawn gets very difficult indeed.
The vision of computers on every level of our lives holds great promise, but there are dangers as well. Personally, I like the concept of wearables (just the next step up from my PDA), but what about when the police have wearables that can photo-match your face to pictures in their databases simply by looking at you. SUre, we can argue that it will help cut down crime by cornering fugitives, but what's to stop them from using it against political dissidents and other "undesirables?" I'm a law-abiding guy, but this type of power scares me even when I've got nothing to hide.
"Raskin wasn't criticizing OSX for its qualities as an OS, but for the fundamental principal that it represents: something standing between you and whatever you want to do." So the desktop metaphor that Raskin helped to invent just gets in the way these days, huh? I wonder if Raskin is underestimating the value that most people put in "the familiar."
The common "desktop" environment is the standard on most GUIs, no matter what the OS or hardware platform; Apple might not be traveling too far into uncharted waters with Mac OS X, but sticking with the tried and true is a better business decision on their part. If they implemented a totally new UI they'd probably end up with a pretty box and the support of a few developers, but would their users move with them? It's going to be daunting enough for Apple to get the user base used to the big changes in Mac OS X without changing metaphors, let alone making them adapt to a whole new UI.
Raskin may be a visionary, but his vision is unrealistic at this point. Maybe Apple will get where he's suggesting, but I'd bet it's by slow evolution, not a forced revolution.
If you ask yourself the question, "Can I make a difference?" and the answer is "No, they're going to collapse eventually," then jump. Tell your friends why and give those you can trust some advance notice. I'll bet most folks can see the writing on the wall, as you have. It's best if you all move on and let management reap what they've sown.