Maybe the world isn't ready
on
Ageia PhysX Tested
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think that while this card can do some amazing physics stuff, we aren't ready to make use of that capability for anything more than a little eye candy. Not in networked games, at least. Trying to keep everyone's world in sync is hard enough as it is, without adding even more objects that need to appear in the same place for everyone.
Erm, the expectation is that like Microsoft, everyone making an ODF reader will need to "be prodded and dragged, kicking and screaming." OP wasn't talking about living up to something good.
Re:I guess no vi user ever learned emacs
on
Vim 7 Released
·
· Score: 1
I'm glad I impressed you with my Notepad skills, AC. I have to tell you that if you're focusing on them, you're completely missing my point.
I'm familiar with Emacs's universal argument, but it's not really the same as prepending a number in Vi. You've got to do it before every single motion in Emacs, while you only switch to insert mode once in Vi. You're also assuming that you always start in insert mode, switch to command mode, move, and switch back. Normally I find myself starting in command mode, and many edits don't require leaving it.
As for my comment on mouse usage, I was thinking more about IDE's and the "powerful" Notepad replacements I've seen than Notepad itself (sorry I distracted you by mentioning it).
Vim is one of the fastest editors I've used. I haven't used them all, but I have used Vim, Emacs, ed, notepad and its ilk, and Sam. Its first big strength is that instead of hitting your down arrow twenty times then doing the same with the right arrow, for example, you can navigate to the same spot with five keypresses or so. "20j5w" would take you down 20 lines and forward five words. Compare that to the hold a key and wait that's commonplace in other editors, or the alternative, which is to fumble for the mouse and attempt to line up your cursor with a tiny row of text then attempt to click between the correct pair of letters. Vim takes away the wait between thinking and acting. It takes a single keypress to start appending a line. It takes two to delete or copy a line, and adding a number before that will extend it to take as many lines as you please. The thing that limits your speed most is deciding what to do.
Vim is my first choice for any quick edits. When coding, I like to have the comforting weight of Emacs behind me, but there's no way it's as fast as vim. Maybe it could be almost as fast if you got really quick with c-u.
I think a less complex interface would do wonders for the PEBKAC angle of computer security. It seems to me that computers try to do much more than the average user wants or needs, which just creates more opportunities to screw up, and also makes the computer seem a lot more intimidating.
If we were to hide most of what the computer can do, then users could focus on what they really need it to do. As it is, non-technical folk just learn to tune stuff out, which isn't exactly good when we want them to pay attention to security (like just where that attachment came from, and whether that wonderful program they see is going to screw their computer). A normal user doesn't hope to comprehend everything that their computer is doing, so they don't think about the effects of their actions so hard. The computer is a wily and unpredictable beast. How will they know if it was something that they did that messed the computer up, or whether it did it on its own. Users need to be able to get comfortable with the machine before they'll really worry about it. User interfaces these days are just too much for anyone without an affinity for machines (like many of us here) to come to grips with. They just learn the tasks they need to do and hope the thing doesn't break.
Most users need to be able to use a word processor, a web browser, and maybe an IM client and music player. Why do computers give them lengthy lists of programs which can be run, windows that can obscure each other and take on funny proportions (I hate those things), zillions of little icons in the tray and even more on the desktop, and why do they sprinkle system settings in with all that? That's a lot of stuff to tune out.
If I were designing an interface for noobs, I'd get rid of all that stuff.
I'd have just one menu bar, which would contain at minimum the four essential applications that I mentioned. There would probably also be a couple of popup menus for less frequently used programs (less commonly used office apps, games). Programs would be sorted by function, and the guys writing installers would absolutely not get to create a new submenu for their company, to prevent the mess that any Start Menu will turn itself in to after a while.
Programs would always run full screen. I know there are plenty of slashdotters here who are very upset by that, but this interface wouldn't be aimed at you. You can do whatever you like with your giant monitors. On a screen only a thousand pixels across, overlapping resizable windows are just a complicated waste of time. Most any program will require all the screen real-estate to be useful, so it makes sense to just let them have it.
My four main apps would not only be launched by clicking their icons; the same icons would also give them focus. There's no reason do duplicate them (I realize that this means those four would have to be MDI apps. Tabs seem like a good solution.). When users want a web browsers they'll be able to always click in the same place. Additional apps launched from the menu would just hop into the bar next to them. (This sounds a little like OS X's dock, but I'm not too familiar with it, so I'm not sure how close it is.)
I might also put in a file manager. It wouldn't display system files, or even hint to the user that they exist. I think it would be search based, but it's way too late at night for me to put serious thought into it. A file manager might not be the best idea any way. If users can just start up their apps and let them handle the file types they know about, then the old "porn.jpg.exe" attack gets pretty much foiled.
That's about it, really. I think that would accomplish most everything that needs doing for most users. Naturally an admin mode of some kind would be required. I envision a simple one that would allow users to tweak the OS's look and install software from repositories (either online or from CD). Real admins could go yet further. Maybe just a CLI. It doesn't matter much. Anyone with the will and the know-how to muck around with the system's guts will figure out whatever you throw at them.
Oh, and mouse cursors would be big, because I like them.
I don't see why they would do damage to your eyes, although it's probably not best to focus at the exact same distance for too long. It would be nice if they could slowly change their apparent distance to alleviate any eyestrain that might cause.
You can if the image is already passing through optics to change its focus. Presumably it is, since I don't think anyone can focus on an image that's an inch from their eyeballs. I sure can't.
But focusing on the screen wouldn't mean focusing an inch from your eye. The optics would put it at a much greater apparent distance, and there would be no way to tell whether you meant to look at the screen or the real world. Maybe shaking your head like an Etch-a-Sketch could be the signal instead.
Same here. It's not like the songs in my collection change much. If a song belongs in the ~/music/Rush/album/ folder it's pretty much going to stay there.
I also like to use mpd (Music Player Daemon) with mpc (a client for it) to play my music. I don't even have to worry about folders then. Playing songs is as simple as "mpc search artist Coheed | mpc add; mpc play", or somesuch. No need for some bloated piece of software when I can just ssh to my music holding computer and ask for what I want.
Spinners turn out to be collapsable sections of text. You can click an arrow or a +/- to expand them and read them or make them just a single line. So yes, they're very obnoxious.
Except for the tabs, these all seem like a pretty bad idea. Nobody wants to click all over to get at information that could have just been displayed in the first place.
I actually liked the columns, although the text was a little small. It would be nice if there were a way to make text show up in columns but still play nice with scrolling and custom fonts.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that while this card can do some amazing physics stuff, we aren't ready to make use of that capability for anything more than a little eye candy. Not in networked games, at least. Trying to keep everyone's world in sync is hard enough as it is, without adding even more objects that need to appear in the same place for everyone.
Erm, the expectation is that like Microsoft, everyone making an ODF reader will need to "be prodded and dragged, kicking and screaming." OP wasn't talking about living up to something good.
I'm glad I impressed you with my Notepad skills, AC. I have to tell you that if you're focusing on them, you're completely missing my point.
I'm familiar with Emacs's universal argument, but it's not really the same as prepending a number in Vi. You've got to do it before every single motion in Emacs, while you only switch to insert mode once in Vi. You're also assuming that you always start in insert mode, switch to command mode, move, and switch back. Normally I find myself starting in command mode, and many edits don't require leaving it.
As for my comment on mouse usage, I was thinking more about IDE's and the "powerful" Notepad replacements I've seen than Notepad itself (sorry I distracted you by mentioning it).
I wish! I sure don't want one of the lame headsets they're turning out these days, but a Trek style earpiece would catch my eye.
Vim is one of the fastest editors I've used. I haven't used them all, but I have used Vim, Emacs, ed, notepad and its ilk, and Sam. Its first big strength is that instead of hitting your down arrow twenty times then doing the same with the right arrow, for example, you can navigate to the same spot with five keypresses or so. "20j5w" would take you down 20 lines and forward five words. Compare that to the hold a key and wait that's commonplace in other editors, or the alternative, which is to fumble for the mouse and attempt to line up your cursor with a tiny row of text then attempt to click between the correct pair of letters. Vim takes away the wait between thinking and acting. It takes a single keypress to start appending a line. It takes two to delete or copy a line, and adding a number before that will extend it to take as many lines as you please. The thing that limits your speed most is deciding what to do.
Vim is my first choice for any quick edits. When coding, I like to have the comforting weight of Emacs behind me, but there's no way it's as fast as vim. Maybe it could be almost as fast if you got really quick with c-u.
Well, my reaction was more like, "That's a hell of a Unix beard!"
I think a less complex interface would do wonders for the PEBKAC angle of computer security. It seems to me that computers try to do much more than the average user wants or needs, which just creates more opportunities to screw up, and also makes the computer seem a lot more intimidating.
If we were to hide most of what the computer can do, then users could focus on what they really need it to do. As it is, non-technical folk just learn to tune stuff out, which isn't exactly good when we want them to pay attention to security (like just where that attachment came from, and whether that wonderful program they see is going to screw their computer). A normal user doesn't hope to comprehend everything that their computer is doing, so they don't think about the effects of their actions so hard. The computer is a wily and unpredictable beast. How will they know if it was something that they did that messed the computer up, or whether it did it on its own. Users need to be able to get comfortable with the machine before they'll really worry about it. User interfaces these days are just too much for anyone without an affinity for machines (like many of us here) to come to grips with. They just learn the tasks they need to do and hope the thing doesn't break.
Most users need to be able to use a word processor, a web browser, and maybe an IM client and music player. Why do computers give them lengthy lists of programs which can be run, windows that can obscure each other and take on funny proportions (I hate those things), zillions of little icons in the tray and even more on the desktop, and why do they sprinkle system settings in with all that? That's a lot of stuff to tune out.
If I were designing an interface for noobs, I'd get rid of all that stuff.
I'd have just one menu bar, which would contain at minimum the four essential applications that I mentioned. There would probably also be a couple of popup menus for less frequently used programs (less commonly used office apps, games). Programs would be sorted by function, and the guys writing installers would absolutely not get to create a new submenu for their company, to prevent the mess that any Start Menu will turn itself in to after a while.
Programs would always run full screen. I know there are plenty of slashdotters here who are very upset by that, but this interface wouldn't be aimed at you. You can do whatever you like with your giant monitors. On a screen only a thousand pixels across, overlapping resizable windows are just a complicated waste of time. Most any program will require all the screen real-estate to be useful, so it makes sense to just let them have it.
My four main apps would not only be launched by clicking their icons; the same icons would also give them focus. There's no reason do duplicate them (I realize that this means those four would have to be MDI apps. Tabs seem like a good solution.). When users want a web browsers they'll be able to always click in the same place. Additional apps launched from the menu would just hop into the bar next to them. (This sounds a little like OS X's dock, but I'm not too familiar with it, so I'm not sure how close it is.)
I might also put in a file manager. It wouldn't display system files, or even hint to the user that they exist. I think it would be search based, but it's way too late at night for me to put serious thought into it. A file manager might not be the best idea any way. If users can just start up their apps and let them handle the file types they know about, then the old "porn.jpg.exe" attack gets pretty much foiled.
That's about it, really. I think that would accomplish most everything that needs doing for most users. Naturally an admin mode of some kind would be required. I envision a simple one that would allow users to tweak the OS's look and install software from repositories (either online or from CD). Real admins could go yet further. Maybe just a CLI. It doesn't matter much. Anyone with the will and the know-how to muck around with the system's guts will figure out whatever you throw at them.
Oh, and mouse cursors would be big, because I like them.
But it is a dialog -- the computer tells you something, and you answer, "OK." Or choose between some options.
That's what I thought too. Maybe the idea is that moon hops would be much longer.
But games tend to reward you as you go along. Typing is pretty much impossible until you learn most of the chords.
That would be nice.
I don't see why they would do damage to your eyes, although it's probably not best to focus at the exact same distance for too long. It would be nice if they could slowly change their apparent distance to alleviate any eyestrain that might cause.
You can if the image is already passing through optics to change its focus. Presumably it is, since I don't think anyone can focus on an image that's an inch from their eyeballs. I sure can't.
No, he meant that they would be even better for driving than they are on the subway.
I believe you. If you did eat squirrels, then you wouldn't have had to ask.
But focusing on the screen wouldn't mean focusing an inch from your eye. The optics would put it at a much greater apparent distance, and there would be no way to tell whether you meant to look at the screen or the real world. Maybe shaking your head like an Etch-a-Sketch could be the signal instead.
It takes a few of the best concepts. Not all of them by a long shot.
MPD, mentioned on the first page linked, is excellent. It takes the headache out of organizing music, because you basically don't have to.
Same here. It's not like the songs in my collection change much. If a song belongs in the ~/music/Rush/album/ folder it's pretty much going to stay there.
I also like to use mpd (Music Player Daemon) with mpc (a client for it) to play my music. I don't even have to worry about folders then. Playing songs is as simple as "mpc search artist Coheed | mpc add; mpc play", or somesuch. No need for some bloated piece of software when I can just ssh to my music holding computer and ask for what I want.
Beats me. I'm sure there are many good uses for them, but they fall squarely in the "way too easy to misuse" category.
Spinners turn out to be collapsable sections of text. You can click an arrow or a +/- to expand them and read them or make them just a single line. So yes, they're very obnoxious.
Except for the tabs, these all seem like a pretty bad idea. Nobody wants to click all over to get at information that could have just been displayed in the first place.
On the other hand, if he doesn't personally have to cobble them together and the end result works right, it may not make much difference.
I actually liked the columns, although the text was a little small. It would be nice if there were a way to make text show up in columns but still play nice with scrolling and custom fonts.
I doubt that there are too many Lynx users there.