3 ms·
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
by 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 agoYou 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 agoThe 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 agoYou'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".