4 ms·

It isn't legitimate to do so without at least offering some idea of how the object of criticism could be improved though. If you criticize something, that means

by hx87 10y ago

It isn't legitimate to do so without at least offering some idea of how the object of criticism could be improved though. If you criticize something, that means you know it could be better in some way, and you should at least point out those ways.

eridius 10y ago
It means you know that there are problems with the current way, and at a minimum you hope there's a better way to do it, but it by no means requires you to know what that better way is. You can be capable of recognizing the flaws in something without figuring out how to fix those flaws.
- hx87 10y ago
  If you can recognize a flaw, you also know what could be improved since you're comparing the flawed attribute to some non-flawed or less-flawed ideal. You might not know how to get there, but you at least know where "there" is.
  - eridius 10y ago
    You can recognize it when you see it, but that doesn't mean you know what it is ahead of time. Determining that something is flawed does not in the slightest require some sort of "ideal" to compare it to. It just requires the ability to recognize that there are problems with the current state of the thing. To go back to the article's subject, we can look at the current state of touch interfaces and determine that they have problems. You're touching a textureless pane of glass, using gestures that aren't actually used when manipulating real-world objects, you can't see what's directly under your finger, etc. But if we knew what a better interface looked like, we'd be working on it already. There's certainly no known "ideal" interface to compare with.
    - hx87 10y ago
      The ideal is in the attribute, not the object it is attached to. With respect to interfaces, if the problem is that we use gestures that we don't in real life, then the solution is to implement ones that are closer to those in real life; if the problem is that we can't see under our fingers, then we should implement some way to display the blocked information. The critic doesn't have to know how to implement, just that it can/should be implemented.
      - eridius 10y ago
        You've now reduced your argument to the trivially inane. You were claiming that the critic needs to be able to propose a solution, but now you're just claiming the critic needs to say "given flaw X, the solution is to not have flaw X".

by hx87 10y ago

eridius 10y ago

It means you know that there are problems with the current way, and at a minimum you hope there's a better way to do it, but it by no means requires you to know what that better way is. You can be capable of recognizing the flaws in something without figuring out how to fix those flaws.

hx87 10y ago
If you can recognize a flaw, you also know what could be improved since you're comparing the flawed attribute to some non-flawed or less-flawed ideal. You might not know how to get there, but you at least know where "there" is.
- eridius 10y ago
  You can recognize it when you see it, but that doesn't mean you know what it is ahead of time. Determining that something is flawed does not in the slightest require some sort of "ideal" to compare it to. It just requires the ability to recognize that there are problems with the current state of the thing. To go back to the article's subject, we can look at the current state of touch interfaces and determine that they have problems. You're touching a textureless pane of glass, using gestures that aren't actually used when manipulating real-world objects, you can't see what's directly under your finger, etc. But if we knew what a better interface looked like, we'd be working on it already. There's certainly no known "ideal" interface to compare with.
  - hx87 10y ago
    The ideal is in the attribute, not the object it is attached to. With respect to interfaces, if the problem is that we use gestures that we don't in real life, then the solution is to implement ones that are closer to those in real life; if the problem is that we can't see under our fingers, then we should implement some way to display the blocked information. The critic doesn't have to know how to implement, just that it can/should be implemented.
    - eridius 10y ago
      You've now reduced your argument to the trivially inane. You were claiming that the critic needs to be able to propose a solution, but now you're just claiming the critic needs to say "given flaw X, the solution is to not have flaw X".