4 ms·

> The Flex group uses technology to improve the range and fluidity of human expression. We invent new concepts and representations that amplify people’s ability

by soared 10y ago

> The Flex group uses technology to improve the range and fluidity of human expression. We invent new concepts and representations that amplify people’s ability to create, connect, and understand. We create tools that blur the line between using and creating, in order to provide a conversational medium for thinking and doing. What the hell does this even mean? Usually I don't mind marketing-speak at all, but this is literally comical. I was expecting some art or creative related .. something. What I got was tools for building programming languages.

ata_aman 10y ago
that looks like an example from YC's text on how not to describe your startup
lgas 10y ago
Do you mean to tell me you've honestly never felt held back by the poor range and lack of fluidity to your human expression?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
seanmcdirmid 10y ago
It's what we honestly do (and aspire to do) as best explained in a couple of sentences. But as always, judge us by what we do rather than the vision that we profess.
- kbuchanan 10y ago
  It may be accurate, but it doesn't mean it's understandable.
- jnicholasp 10y ago
  I'm interested in and sympathetic to the vision I believe you're trying to express - that we have powerful new opportunities with computers/software to develop and express ideas in more powerful, more intuitive ways, and that we should be explicitly thinking about how we can take advantage of this opportunity to increase the range of ideas that it's possible, and easy, to think about and with. I agree with the other commenters, though, that the statement of vision is unclear; the meaning of it is hard to pin down to something concrete. What the Flex group is actually trying to do remains ambiguous after reading it. If it matters that people who run across that statement without other context can understand it, you may be leaving value on the table that could be captured with a more intelligible version of it.
- traverseda 10y ago
  Maybe try something like > At flex we believe that good interfaces should empower users. We try to blur the line between simply using a user-interface and being a programmer. We do this by thinking about new ways to intuitively represent programming concepts, and endeavor to provide tools that have a smooth learning curve that takes you all the way from just being a user to being a programmer. Unless I'm horribly misunderstanding your goals. Which really I probably am because you're horribly vague.
  - theon144 10y ago
    Well as I understand them it's not wrong, it's just very limited. It would be like describing Engelbart's projects as "Making interaction with the computer more graphical and efficient such as by employing pointing devices and interactive text", whereas ARC's aim was much more visionary. I think their ideas go beyond just making programming more accessible (your summary), but more along the lines of "using computers as instruments of enriching thinking". One of the projects (Chorus) even specifically mentions and rejects programming as a problem-solving tool (for that specific domain of problems), instead opting for thought-process enhancement from the other side, basically making spreadsheets on steroids.

by soared 10y ago

ata_aman 10y ago

that looks like an example from YC's text on how not to describe your startup

lgas 10y ago

Do you mean to tell me you've honestly never felt held back by the poor range and lack of fluidity to your human expression?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

seanmcdirmid 10y ago

It's what we honestly do (and aspire to do) as best explained in a couple of sentences. But as always, judge us by what we do rather than the vision that we profess.

kbuchanan 10y ago
It may be accurate, but it doesn't mean it's understandable.
jnicholasp 10y ago
I'm interested in and sympathetic to the vision I believe you're trying to express - that we have powerful new opportunities with computers/software to develop and express ideas in more powerful, more intuitive ways, and that we should be explicitly thinking about how we can take advantage of this opportunity to increase the range of ideas that it's possible, and easy, to think about and with. I agree with the other commenters, though, that the statement of vision is unclear; the meaning of it is hard to pin down to something concrete. What the Flex group is actually trying to do remains ambiguous after reading it. If it matters that people who run across that statement without other context can understand it, you may be leaving value on the table that could be captured with a more intelligible version of it.
traverseda 10y ago
Maybe try something like > At flex we believe that good interfaces should empower users. We try to blur the line between simply using a user-interface and being a programmer. We do this by thinking about new ways to intuitively represent programming concepts, and endeavor to provide tools that have a smooth learning curve that takes you all the way from just being a user to being a programmer. Unless I'm horribly misunderstanding your goals. Which really I probably am because you're horribly vague.
- theon144 10y ago
  Well as I understand them it's not wrong, it's just very limited. It would be like describing Engelbart's projects as "Making interaction with the computer more graphical and efficient such as by employing pointing devices and interactive text", whereas ARC's aim was much more visionary. I think their ideas go beyond just making programming more accessible (your summary), but more along the lines of "using computers as instruments of enriching thinking". One of the projects (Chorus) even specifically mentions and rejects programming as a problem-solving tool (for that specific domain of problems), instead opting for thought-process enhancement from the other side, basically making spreadsheets on steroids.