For a scientist of his stature to admint he was wrong is a credit to the man and the profession. Especially since he went and did the additional leg work (no pun) to validate the theory himself.
This book was written in the 80's but the concepts are timeless. It's not software specific but it is an excellent primer for designers and engineers of all types.
Maybe we can circle back to the original premise. I think Kay is concerned that we haven't used the PC to its potential. Sure we use it to iterate and optimize the things we do but we haven't used it to innovate and make life substantially better. You can argue that being able to iterate faster and produce more makes life better but I don't think that is his point.
To me the internet is an innovation that promotes communication but what innovations in learning or science has occured as a result of the PC? There are some that come to mind (SETI, personal produtivity,...) but the list is also arguably short of what it could be. He had higher expectations for the PC. That's not so bad.
You're confusing the ability to create with the ability to innovate. And quantity (of PC's) does not say anything about the quality of work being accomplished. And you're using your PC for commnication? Of what? Are you using your PC to innovate or create anything new or are you just iterating things you normally do, only faster?
I'd argue that usability has not progressed very far. Usability of the internet in particular. HTML was a nice start but we haven't seen much progress since then. Think of how fast PC's went from text to GUI. The internet is still struggling to get there.
How far have we really come in the last 30+ years of personal computing?
The personal computing revolution has stalled with the advent of the WWW. Excluding the MS virus, personal computing was making a lot of progress up until the mid 90's. Since then we've failed to truly exploit the power of both a computing platform and a means of communication. Somewhere along the way we've floundered. It's not necessarily a bad thing but think about where we could be.
Listen to the guy. He's really just asking where should we be?
Real 'friendly' gains are only going to come by reducing energy needs. We need to realize major gains in the areas of conservation and technology.
New types of energy production ideas tend to fail when it comes to efficiency. Nuke power and fossil fuels produce a very high energy content for the cost of production. We need to find ways to produce energy more efficiently while at the same time find ways to use that same energy more efficiently.
Work both sides of the equation. The best way to conserve IMHO is for the consumption side to be made more efficient.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the stuff good science is made of. Science advances when you move past being wrong and discover what's behind it.
I only wish I was better at it ;-)
For a scientist of his stature to admint he was wrong is a credit to the man and the profession. Especially since he went and did the additional leg work (no pun) to validate the theory himself.
Your sig implies that your employer doesn't share your sound wisdom ;-)
This book was written in the 80's but the concepts are timeless. It's not software specific but it is an excellent primer for designers and engineers of all types.
The Design of Everyday thingsThis is great stuff :-)
Maybe we can circle back to the original premise. I think Kay is concerned that we haven't used the PC to its potential. Sure we use it to iterate and optimize the things we do but we haven't used it to innovate and make life substantially better. You can argue that being able to iterate faster and produce more makes life better but I don't think that is his point.
To me the internet is an innovation that promotes communication but what innovations in learning or science has occured as a result of the PC? There are some that come to mind (SETI, personal produtivity, ...) but the list is also arguably short of what it could be. He had higher expectations for the PC. That's not so bad.
You're confusing the ability to create with the ability to innovate. And quantity (of PC's) does not say anything about the quality of work being accomplished. And you're using your PC for commnication? Of what? Are you using your PC to innovate or create anything new or are you just iterating things you normally do, only faster?
I'd argue that usability has not progressed very far. Usability of the internet in particular. HTML was a nice start but we haven't seen much progress since then. Think of how fast PC's went from text to GUI. The internet is still struggling to get there.
How far have we really come in the last 30+ years of personal computing?
The personal computing revolution has stalled with the advent of the WWW. Excluding the MS virus, personal computing was making a lot of progress up until the mid 90's. Since then we've failed to truly exploit the power of both a computing platform and a means of communication. Somewhere along the way we've floundered. It's not necessarily a bad thing but think about where we could be.
Listen to the guy. He's really just asking where should we be?
Bingo
Real 'friendly' gains are only going to come by reducing energy needs. We need to realize major gains in the areas of conservation and technology.
New types of energy production ideas tend to fail when it comes to efficiency. Nuke power and fossil fuels produce a very high energy content for the cost of production. We need to find ways to produce energy more efficiently while at the same time find ways to use that same energy more efficiently.
Work both sides of the equation. The best way to conserve IMHO is for the consumption side to be made more efficient.