"The GUI isn't there because the people who WOULD write the GUI balk at the idea, and the people that would USE the GUI generally aren't the people able to write the code."
That's the most cogent point made yet.
Even then it's not just about GUI. It's no suprise that the power users of applications or OS's end up scripting (Flash, 3D apps,OS scripting, etc.) They've hit the limits of the GUI design and abilities. But, like us fabulously wonderful Slasdot readers, they're not representative of the average computer user.
Windows and Mac-based design programs are fashioned in the same framework, but vary in the quality of design. Even in this relatively similar environment people won't shift apps because the learning curve eats time they don't want to "waste" re-learning efficiences when they could be working or going to the pub. Learning brand new applications can be worse (ever seen Lightwave or Blender's "GUIs")? Great, even just good, GUI design is damn difficult.
A great OS, the same applications, and a couple of great exclusive apps, or an easier GUI won't lead the masses to Linux. There's a whole host of other issues to get people to switch Apple is proof of that.
Isn't this a reprise of the same video from about a year ago?
What's new here? Looks to be another GUI that makes me work harder to use it. Right-clicking (even on a mac) and selecting a "notes' category would still be faster and less memory intensive.
All the motion tracking in the world can't compensate for a lack subtley of muscle and fat jiggle on the body; it's too much to adequately mimic. (if you move your pinky, even the muscles in your forehead tense -- hook yourself up to a biofeedback rig and you'll see). Without that "micro" body language we read subconsciously, the more real the CG actors become, the less human they come across.
___________________ "I don't believe in bad luck; but I do subscribe to the theory of horribly inconvenient coincidences." -Timmy
Slashdot Mirror
"The GUI isn't there because the people who WOULD write the GUI balk at the idea, and the people that would USE the GUI generally aren't the people able to write the code."
That's the most cogent point made yet.
Even then it's not just about GUI. It's no suprise that the power users of applications or OS's end up scripting (Flash, 3D apps,OS scripting, etc.) They've hit the limits of the GUI design and abilities. But, like us fabulously wonderful Slasdot readers, they're not representative of the average computer user.
Windows and Mac-based design programs are fashioned in the same framework, but vary in the quality of design. Even in this relatively similar environment people won't shift apps because the learning curve eats time they don't want to "waste" re-learning efficiences when they could be working or going to the pub.
Learning brand new applications can be worse (ever seen Lightwave or Blender's "GUIs")? Great, even just good, GUI design is damn difficult.
A great OS, the same applications, and a couple of great exclusive apps, or an easier GUI won't lead the masses to Linux. There's a whole host of other issues to get people to switch Apple is proof of that.
Isn't this a reprise of the same video from about a year ago? What's new here? Looks to be another GUI that makes me work harder to use it. Right-clicking (even on a mac) and selecting a "notes' category would still be faster and less memory intensive.
All the motion tracking in the world can't compensate for a lack subtley of muscle and fat jiggle on the body; it's too much to adequately mimic. (if you move your pinky, even the muscles in your forehead tense -- hook yourself up to a biofeedback rig and you'll see).
Without that "micro" body language we read subconsciously, the more real the CG actors become, the less human they come across.
___________________
"I don't believe in bad luck; but I do subscribe to the theory of horribly inconvenient coincidences."
-Timmy