Virtual folders are the single biggest change in terms of user tools, and a departure from the arcane hierarchical filesystem model. The point is not managing multimedia files without the Player, the point is managing ALL kind of files the same way (thus making the player application redundant).
iTunes and now Media Player have trained users into this information management way - based on libraries of similar items, and now its intended to be escalated to the whole system and replacing the old way (which was not good for tasks not related to OS programming, due to its many shortcomings).
So if a version of ID can be found that excludes the exclusiveness clause, does that make that version a scientific idea? Sure. But if a ID theory claimed (with plausible evidence) that intelligent intervention can create life, such theory would first win the Nobel Prize, since it would include hints for the methods to create life from raw matherials.
You know that science doesnt require all concepts to be proven by direct observation, do you?
If your model makes predictions about a change of state in the world, and you find traces of the predicted changes, then your model is supported even if you havent seen the event directly.
What you want is Scatter/Gather, a procedure defined in a scientific paper about 15 years ago. This is a clustering . If it hasnt been implemented yet to industrial scale, its probably because the computing requirements of a system like that are unmanageable.
>>It's like a warm blanket. It's stupid I know, but it's mine. >So other people who use CmdTaco are imposters.
In no way the first implies the second. I myself like the TuringTest name to post everywhere, but that doesnt mean that every reference to tests designed by Turing should be a tribute to me.
"It's my name" means that I feel good with that name and I will try to use it wherever possible. Since we are entitled to unique names when we register to online forums, it pisses you off when someone tries to remove it from you.
Isn't in Chinese culture when people get to have a public name, chosen by oneself, and a "family name" only known by your nearest ones (and given by your fathers)? I see online nicknames that way.
Take yourself back to the 1980's when the web wasn't invented. Try to explain it to your collegues, and you'll be ranted at by short-sighted, closed minded, and practicality-focused "tekkies".
Yes, that was my point. Ted Nelson is precisely at that point with respect to his ideal hypertext system.
I have a vision on my own, but since I'm more a visual thinker than a relational one, I work on visual programming languages. It touches on semantic web, so maybe I'm also one of those who will make it happen:-)
Ted Nelson might be a little obscure in his words, but how about you try to explain an interface that implements this which hasn't been made, yet.
IHMO *those* are the very both reasons why Ted is doomed to obscurity. From the interview (yes I have RTFA) he seems an awful speaker (not just a little obscure). When asked how his system would differ from the already familiar WWW hypertext, he's unable to explain how will this software get his users laid. It doesn't help that there's no working system so that others can learn by example what is it useful for. (I said all this elsewhere in other words...)
It now has the added difficulty of trying to supersede a trivially simple system which is in widespread universal use. He's a victim of the Worse is Better principle acting again!
Dun Malg says it better than I ever could. The process of gathering the meaning of a text is the process of sequentially reading the words. In this context, each hyperlink acts as a choice point which potentially breaks the process - should I continue reading the rest of the paragraph or should I follow the hyperlink into a whole new context of meanings? Multiplying the number of links only makes this problem worse. I yet fail to see how Xanadu would handle the real and fundamental "lost in hyperspace" problem which predates all hypertext systems I know.
Reading more about the Xanadu system I begin to appretiate how they could be onto something. The idea of transclusion seems the origin of what the Semantic Web is trying to accomplish, and pullacross editing looks like a good interface for a version-enabled process of document composition.
The main problem Ted Nelson faces might be that he's a very bad communicator - he may very well have truly wonderful ideas, but since nobody manages to understand what the hell he's talking about it's really difficult to support him.
I agree with this Wikipedia article that part of the problem could be that of availability - we were able to see and learn what the WWW was about because we had an early and simple Mosaic implementation of the concept, while we still waiting for a working full-blown Xanadu-like system. Until we get our hands on it, there's no hope that his ideal will become used in the wild.
"What if we could write in midair, without enclosing rectangles? What new ways can thoughts be connected and presented?" I have one more question: How would we know where to look next, while reading such a mess?
Written text has the very interesting property of linearity, which matches it to the linear processing of spoken discourse, for which we have hardwired functions in brain. How could you "improve" on that?
Why are trackbacks horrible? To me they work just like comments to the blog entry, only you have to click a link if the comment is too long. Is that how they are worse for you?
You drop an unexplained reference to Fitt's Law and expect that to justify dead space? No, it was just a quick'n'dirty commentary to start a debate. The GP didn't bother, so it stopped there.
About the best thing you can do is add a spell checker to the TextArea and Input fields of forms
So you *do* other things that browse the web, do you? (Note for you, entering text in TextAreas doesn't qualify as "browsing"). And you recognice that having specific integrated tools for those other uses is useful.
So what's wrong with having other tools for other popular uses that *other people* might want like say, posting to weblogs and tagging URLs, and having them integrated right from the beginning?
That's the point of Flock. Instead of having to investigate the available extensions for blogging and tagging, they provide non-expert users some good tools for those tasks (and yeah, the ammount of research needed to get good extensions into Firefox is for internet expert users).
Plus if I want to flickr my firefox, I will hunt down an extension. So you're not the target for this browser. So, why should Flock developers take note of your advice?
That's why I prever Semantic Web (or even "lowercase semantic web") over Web 2.0. The first is an academic concept based on research if distributed information networks, while the second is just commercial convergence on some already available technological buzzwords.
Vista is going to flop, mainly because XP can already do what people need their computers to do.
Maybe, but Vista will do it prettier, easier and (probably) with less security nightmares. Since this is what almost all users really need, it will have a high desirability value - even if the baddies of having the MS grip on you are still there, most users won't care.
what's with all the dead space around toolbars, blocks of text, etc?
Ever heard of Fitt's Law?
It's also a good thing to display information in a clean, uncluttered. It improves efficiency when scanning the screen for the information you need, and it reduces stress (really!) and makes for an easy-to-love interface.
Why do you assume the only things new in Vista is prettier looks? The new Vista Shell (a.k.a. Windows Explorer) actually has lots of (e)volutionary functionality that will finally deprecate the old "files inside folders inside more folders" filesystem-based information management. (I'm talking primarily about the consistent meta-data interfaces&hooks for all kinds of user information).
It doesn't require any new futuristic functions to make something really better. The previous desktop information management metaphor was such a mess that simply by applying some state-of-the-art usability & information architecture, it will greatly improve the use of the system for everyday non-programming tasks.
Still my question remains: what's the next big thing for web browsers?
Support for the Semantic web (a.k.a. Web 2.0, a.k.a. web APIs + RSS feeds + other kinds of high-level semantic markup). You can already have a taste for it in projects like Haystack and the Firefox Piggy Bank extension.
The main difference is that future web hypertext content will be less based on the "site" metaphor and more on services like del.icio.us and Flickr, so interface support for interacting with these new information structures is a must.
But there's nothing ethically wrong in that. Integration within MS Office products does NOT prevent you from transferring the content to an aplication from a different vendor, if that is required. So if Office comes to be a better product that's not a bad thing.
But we are born (or trained in our infancy) with expectations of how the world works, and the OS should work like that. When it doesn't, it feels weird.
He's not trolling nor ignorant, he's addressing a real usability problem which is not totally solved in the Linux world.
It's good to have a central repository for installing distro-packaged applications, but what's wrong with also having the file manager doing "the right thing" when clicking on a separately downloaded package? (The right thing being to open the clicked package in the package manager). Redundancy is often good in UI, and downloading packages from the developer scales better than mantaining a central repository.
Autopackage is meant to support this two ways of installing software (repository-based and distributed-packages-based) but it isn't popular enough yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Except you won't have a coice if OTHER people use it for their projects on which you rely...
Ah, but that is called "freedom"... do you like it?
Virtual folders are the single biggest change in terms of user tools, and a departure from the arcane hierarchical filesystem model. The point is not managing multimedia files without the Player, the point is managing ALL kind of files the same way (thus making the player application redundant).
iTunes and now Media Player have trained users into this information management way - based on libraries of similar items, and now its intended to be escalated to the whole system and replacing the old way (which was not good for tasks not related to OS programming, due to its many shortcomings).
So if a version of ID can be found that excludes the exclusiveness clause, does that make that version a scientific idea?
Sure. But if a ID theory claimed (with plausible evidence) that intelligent intervention can create life, such theory would first win the Nobel Prize, since it would include hints for the methods to create life from raw matherials.
You know that science doesnt require all concepts to be proven by direct observation, do you?
If your model makes predictions about a change of state in the world, and you find traces of the predicted changes, then your model is supported even if you havent seen the event directly.
What you want is Scatter/Gather, a procedure defined in a scientific paper about 15 years ago. This is a clustering . If it hasnt been implemented yet to industrial scale, its probably because the computing requirements of a system like that are unmanageable.
>>It's like a warm blanket. It's stupid I know, but it's mine.
>So other people who use CmdTaco are imposters.
In no way the first implies the second. I myself like the TuringTest name to post everywhere, but that doesnt mean that every reference to tests designed by Turing should be a tribute to me.
"It's my name" means that I feel good with that name and I will try to use it wherever possible. Since we are entitled to unique names when we register to online forums, it pisses you off when someone tries to remove it from you.
Isn't in Chinese culture when people get to have a public name, chosen by oneself, and a "family name" only known by your nearest ones (and given by your fathers)? I see online nicknames that way.
Take yourself back to the 1980's when the web wasn't invented. Try to explain it to your collegues, and you'll be ranted at by short-sighted, closed minded, and practicality-focused "tekkies".
:-)
Yes, that was my point. Ted Nelson is precisely at that point with respect to his ideal hypertext system.
I have a vision on my own, but since I'm more a visual thinker than a relational one, I work on visual programming languages. It touches on semantic web, so maybe I'm also one of those who will make it happen
OED is not open, but you can read an example in their Word of the Day. I find its structure somewhat hierarchical, though.
Ted Nelson might be a little obscure in his words, but how about you try to explain an interface that implements this which hasn't been made, yet.
IHMO *those* are the very both reasons why Ted is doomed to obscurity. From the interview (yes I have RTFA) he seems an awful speaker (not just a little obscure). When asked how his system would differ from the already familiar WWW hypertext, he's unable to explain how will this software get his users laid. It doesn't help that there's no working system so that others can learn by example what is it useful for. (I said all this elsewhere in other words...)
It now has the added difficulty of trying to supersede a trivially simple system which is in widespread universal use. He's a victim of the Worse is Better principle acting again!
Dun Malg says it better than I ever could. The process of gathering the meaning of a text is the process of sequentially reading the words. In this context, each hyperlink acts as a choice point which potentially breaks the process - should I continue reading the rest of the paragraph or should I follow the hyperlink into a whole new context of meanings? Multiplying the number of links only makes this problem worse. I yet fail to see how Xanadu would handle the real and fundamental "lost in hyperspace" problem which predates all hypertext systems I know.
Reading more about the Xanadu system I begin to appretiate how they could be onto something. The idea of transclusion seems the origin of what the Semantic Web is trying to accomplish, and pullacross editing looks like a good interface for a version-enabled process of document composition.
The main problem Ted Nelson faces might be that he's a very bad communicator - he may very well have truly wonderful ideas, but since nobody manages to understand what the hell he's talking about it's really difficult to support him.
I agree with this Wikipedia article that part of the problem could be that of availability - we were able to see and learn what the WWW was about because we had an early and simple Mosaic implementation of the concept, while we still waiting for a working full-blown Xanadu-like system. Until we get our hands on it, there's no hope that his ideal will become used in the wild.
"What if we could write in midair, without enclosing rectangles? What new ways can thoughts be connected and presented?"
I have one more question: How would we know where to look next, while reading such a mess?
Written text has the very interesting property of linearity, which matches it to the linear processing of spoken discourse, for which we have hardwired functions in brain. How could you "improve" on that?
Why are trackbacks horrible? To me they work just like comments to the blog entry, only you have to click a link if the comment is too long. Is that how they are worse for you?
You drop an unexplained reference to Fitt's Law and expect that to justify dead space?
No, it was just a quick'n'dirty commentary to start a debate. The GP didn't bother, so it stopped there.
About the best thing you can do is add a spell checker to the TextArea and Input fields of forms
So you *do* other things that browse the web, do you? (Note for you, entering text in TextAreas doesn't qualify as "browsing"). And you recognice that having specific integrated tools for those other uses is useful.
So what's wrong with having other tools for other popular uses that *other people* might want like say, posting to weblogs and tagging URLs, and having them integrated right from the beginning?
That's the point of Flock. Instead of having to investigate the available extensions for blogging and tagging, they provide non-expert users some good tools for those tasks (and yeah, the ammount of research needed to get good extensions into Firefox is for internet expert users).
Plus if I want to flickr my firefox, I will hunt down an extension.
So you're not the target for this browser. So, why should Flock developers take note of your advice?
That's why I prever Semantic Web (or even "lowercase semantic web") over Web 2.0. The first is an academic concept based on research if distributed information networks, while the second is just commercial convergence on some already available technological buzzwords.
What is this about Steve and chairs....I have seen it everywhere lately, and I don't get it
It's because of this
Vista is going to flop, mainly because XP can already do what people need their computers to do.
Maybe, but Vista will do it prettier, easier and (probably) with less security nightmares. Since this is what almost all users really need, it will have a high desirability value - even if the baddies of having the MS grip on you are still there, most users won't care.
what's with all the dead space around toolbars, blocks of text, etc?
Ever heard of Fitt's Law?
It's also a good thing to display information in a clean, uncluttered. It improves efficiency when scanning the screen for the information you need, and it reduces stress (really!) and makes for an easy-to-love interface.
Why do you assume the only things new in Vista is prettier looks? The new Vista Shell (a.k.a. Windows Explorer) actually has lots of (e)volutionary functionality that will finally deprecate the old "files inside folders inside more folders" filesystem-based information management. (I'm talking primarily about the consistent meta-data interfaces&hooks for all kinds of user information).
It doesn't require any new futuristic functions to make something really better. The previous desktop information management metaphor was such a mess that simply by applying some state-of-the-art usability & information architecture, it will greatly improve the use of the system for everyday non-programming tasks.
Still my question remains: what's the next big thing for web browsers?
Support for the Semantic web (a.k.a. Web 2.0, a.k.a. web APIs + RSS feeds + other kinds of high-level semantic markup). You can already have a taste for it in projects like Haystack and the Firefox Piggy Bank extension.
The main difference is that future web hypertext content will be less based on the "site" metaphor and more on services like del.icio.us and Flickr, so interface support for interacting with these new information structures is a must.
I'll wait for the Klein Bottle version. 3D screens rocks!
But there's nothing ethically wrong in that. Integration within MS Office products does NOT prevent you from transferring the content to an aplication from a different vendor, if that is required. So if Office comes to be a better product that's not a bad thing.
But we are born (or trained in our infancy) with expectations of how the world works, and the OS should work like that. When it doesn't, it feels weird.
He's not trolling nor ignorant, he's addressing a real usability problem which is not totally solved in the Linux world.
It's good to have a central repository for installing distro-packaged applications, but what's wrong with also having the file manager doing "the right thing" when clicking on a separately downloaded package? (The right thing being to open the clicked package in the package manager). Redundancy is often good in UI, and downloading packages from the developer scales better than mantaining a central repository.
Autopackage is meant to support this two ways of installing software (repository-based and distributed-packages-based) but it isn't popular enough yet.