Yes, it was produced that way. Through sereral iterations of trial and error, watching people driving cars. The first automobiles didn't have a common standard of tools, it even wasn't obvious that a wheel was the best device to drive them.
on a site linked off the article Do you mean the page of the SiEd editor? I had it linked in my previous submits, wich had more credit to you as it's creator. I wonder if that's why the first drafts were rejected.
Of course it's blindingly obvious, we have seen it for 50 years. The question is, was that interface obvious before it got invented? Remember the golden rule that intuitive == familiar.
You should really read something on GUI design before bitching about it. UI designers would tell you that you start with the user. Not with a widget, a gadget, a gear or a stick. The very first task of interaction design is understanding what the user needs and how is s/he going to try to get it done. You do it by making a prototype and letting the user handle it. THEN you design the interface that matches with the actions performed by the user.
Have you ever read something about UI research? 'cos that's not what they say. A real UI designer will tell you that you actually can make unconsistent looks, but that it better be for a very, very good reason and that you should only do it if it's better for the user (not for the programmer).
I'm the culprit. I posted the article because I liked it so much.
In my defense I'l say that I posted it four times to get it accepted, and the original version did have a link to the coralized copy. But alas! it got lost in the rewritings.
I found your article so clearly written and to the point that I felt that it should be seen by the Slashdot crew. In fact, I've tried once or twice to write a similar one myself (without success) so that every FOSS programmer would get a clue of what a good interface is. I hope that now at least they'll get rid of the evil alertboxes!
Sorry again for eating all your bandwith for a day.
if the FSF uses its leverage correctly, it could affect what kinds of trust are recognized in the network.
"But if we don't use our leverage correctly, we could wind up in a world where free software is injured very badly, where you can modify code but you cannot do anything with that modified code because the hardware will not run that code because it cannot be signed 'Microsoft or IBM,'" he said. "If that happens, free software will be excluded from hardware, and that is not an outcome we can tolerate."
Is the GPL movement strong enough to establish de facto standards on trusted computing? Is it even possible to build trusted content and software with modifiable GPL code?
What I'm saying is that this particular paper is not intended to be read by laymen, so laymen should do a little work to decode it. It's a report for the Communications of the ACM, which is an academic conference; no wonder that it includes heavy jargon. Maybe it's unfortunate that it got published in Slashdot, because 99% of people understood that it was talking of programming in Natural Language, when it wasn't. It was about developing an environment with new tools like those mentioned.
Sure there should be more popularizing material for this subject. As I see it, the author were trying to convince the other academics to write such material.
Tell me the truth, when was the last time you said to yourself "You know, what I need here is something that supports Hypothesizing Activities". He he, there you caught me:-)
And thanks, it's gratifying to see that my rants once in a while are useful.
Or, you could try to examine the tools they developed (primarily alice.org and the HANDS environment) and understand the new features like the Why? query debugger.
Sadly true. Will somebody actually RTFA and realize that 99% of the other posts are offtopic? The article isn't describing a new way to program the computer using natural language; we already have COBOL for that, and we all know how that approach works.
The article is talking about new programming paradigms, which deprecate the old Von Neumann architecture programming model and allow for a more flexible mindset while programming. Last generation scripting languages (Python, Ruby...) would be a step in that direction. The article is proposing to explore that domain scientifically.
Will somenbody actually RTFA and realize that 99% of previous posts are offtopic? The article isn't describing a new way to program the computer using natural language; we already have COBOL for that, and we all know how far that approach works.
The article is talking about new programming paradigms, which deprecate the old Von Neumann architecture programming model and allow for a more flexible mindset while programming. Last generation scripting languages (Python, Ruby...) would be a step in that direction. The article is proposing to explore that domain scientifically.
(Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.)
Re:Don't forget to check out the extensions:
on
Firefox 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
You can enable old extensions in the advanced preferences. Enter about:config in the URL bar, and set extensions.disabledObsolete to false. Many of them will still work.
But now that the API is fixed, the extensions are supposed to keep working in newer versions.
The third comment on the page (dated October 26 @ 16:59:07 GMT) has the following complaint:
Some of you may have noticed that the site was down today was we had reached our bandwidth allowance. I have now upgraded the bandwidth to 17GB per month, which should tide us over for a while.
I predict that this will happen again, just 8 days later...
The Zoomworld in The Humane Environment is the "additive" tool that you ask for for managing great volumes of intformation (see my reply to the other guy). Windows, modefullness and inconsistencies between applications are the nasties eliminated by this interface design, everything else which makes things easy for novice and advanced users in current GUIs is kept.
THE is built on the accumulated knowledge of 30 years of windowing lore. Since navigating the Zoomworld is somewhat similar to browsing the web, I don't foresee having unavoidable difficulties in adopting a this kind of interaction.
Slashdot Mirror
See the laparoscope demo. The technique is being used in surgery, and it just requires two flashes and a camera.
But I don't think it will be useful for 3d reconstruction, since the algorithm doesn't have information about the depth of the shadows/borders.
No. Only the interface is a rewrite. Obviously the Gecko rendering engine is the same one of the Mozilla project.
Yes, it was produced that way. Through sereral iterations of trial and error, watching people driving cars. The first automobiles didn't have a common standard of tools, it even wasn't obvious that a wheel was the best device to drive them.
on a site linked off the article
Do you mean the page of the SiEd editor? I had it linked in my previous submits, wich had more credit to you as it's creator. I wonder if that's why the first drafts were rejected.
this might mean anticipating how the user expects to use a program
Bingo! You have reached GUIru illumination. That's what usability is all about.
Then you'll love to hear of Zoomable User Interfaces. Search for them in Wikipedia.
Of course it's blindingly obvious, we have seen it for 50 years. The question is, was that interface obvious before it got invented? Remember the golden rule that intuitive == familiar.
wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
You should really read something on GUI design before bitching about it. UI designers would tell you that you start with the user. Not with a widget, a gadget, a gear or a stick. The very first task of interaction design is understanding what the user needs and how is s/he going to try to get it done. You do it by making a prototype and letting the user handle it. THEN you design the interface that matches with the actions performed by the user.
Have you ever read something about UI research? 'cos that's not what they say. A real UI designer will tell you that you actually can make unconsistent looks, but that it better be for a very, very good reason and that you should only do it if it's better for the user (not for the programmer).
I'm the culprit. I posted the article because I liked it so much.
In my defense I'l say that I posted it four times to get it accepted, and the original version did have a link to the coralized copy. But alas! it got lost in the rewritings.
I found your article so clearly written and to the point that I felt that it should be seen by the Slashdot crew. In fact, I've tried once or twice to write a similar one myself (without success) so that every FOSS programmer would get a clue of what a good interface is. I hope that now at least they'll get rid of the evil alertboxes!
Sorry again for eating all your bandwith for a day.
I can see at least 6 of those 11 being implemented in the next week! 8-)
An interesting quote from the article:
if the FSF uses its leverage correctly, it could affect what kinds of trust are recognized in the network.
"But if we don't use our leverage correctly, we could wind up in a world where free software is injured very badly, where you can modify code but you cannot do anything with that modified code because the hardware will not run that code because it cannot be signed 'Microsoft or IBM,'" he said. "If that happens, free software will be excluded from hardware, and that is not an outcome we can tolerate."
Is the GPL movement strong enough to establish de facto standards on trusted computing? Is it even possible to build trusted content and software with modifiable GPL code?
What I'm saying is that this particular paper is not intended to be read by laymen, so laymen should do a little work to decode it. It's a report for the Communications of the ACM, which is an academic conference; no wonder that it includes heavy jargon. Maybe it's unfortunate that it got published in Slashdot, because 99% of people understood that it was talking of programming in Natural Language, when it wasn't. It was about developing an environment with new tools like those mentioned.
:-)
Sure there should be more popularizing material for this subject. As I see it, the author were trying to convince the other academics to write such material.
Tell me the truth, when was the last time you said to yourself "You know, what I need here is something that supports Hypothesizing Activities". He he, there you caught me
And thanks, it's gratifying to see that my rants once in a while are useful.
Or, you could try to examine the tools they developed (primarily alice.org and the HANDS environment) and understand the new features like the Why? query debugger.
Sadly true. Will somebody actually RTFA and realize that 99% of the other posts are offtopic? The article isn't describing a new way to program the computer using natural language; we already have COBOL for that, and we all know how that approach works.
The article is talking about new programming paradigms, which deprecate the old Von Neumann architecture programming model and allow for a more flexible mindset while programming. Last generation scripting languages (Python, Ruby...) would be a step in that direction. The article is proposing to explore that domain scientifically.
Will somenbody actually RTFA and realize that 99% of previous posts are offtopic? The article isn't describing a new way to program the computer using natural language; we already have COBOL for that, and we all know how far that approach works.
The article is talking about new programming paradigms, which deprecate the old Von Neumann architecture programming model and allow for a more flexible mindset while programming. Last generation scripting languages (Python, Ruby...) would be a step in that direction. The article is proposing to explore that domain scientifically.
REASON COMICS NEED IN WORDS WERE ALWAYS IT DOES
It's almost poetical.
(Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.)
You can enable old extensions in the advanced preferences. Enter about:config in the URL bar, and set extensions.disabledObsolete to false. Many of them will still work.
But now that the API is fixed, the extensions are supposed to keep working in newer versions.
Actually, there's something different taking place...
17'' of glass.
The third comment on the page (dated October 26 @ 16:59:07 GMT) has the following complaint:
Some of you may have noticed that the site was down today was we had reached our bandwidth allowance. I have now upgraded the bandwidth to 17GB per month, which should tide us over for a while.
I predict that this will happen again, just 8 days later...
The site seems to still be available at the Web Archive:
It actually comes from Spanish, where Gamba means prawn.
Just in case... There's a Flash demo of the Zoomworld available.
The Zoomworld in The Humane Environment is the "additive" tool that you ask for for managing great volumes of intformation (see my reply to the other guy). Windows, modefullness and inconsistencies between applications are the nasties eliminated by this interface design, everything else which makes things easy for novice and advanced users in current GUIs is kept.
THE is built on the accumulated knowledge of 30 years of windowing lore. Since navigating the Zoomworld is somewhat similar to browsing the web, I don't foresee having unavoidable difficulties in adopting a this kind of interaction.