7 ms·

It's clear from the interview that Kay thinks mobile computing isn't where it should be. But I haven't studied the DynaBook. Does anyone know exactly what Kay t

by pcl 9y ago

It's clear from the interview that Kay thinks mobile computing isn't where it should be. But I haven't studied the DynaBook. Does anyone know exactly what Kay thinks is needed, in order to realize his dream? I found a few such things in the article: - more-discoverable undo - some sort of AI-based virtual assistant - a stylus and holder, and presumably input methods and applications that are better suited for that stylus - something nebulous about having warning labels and being designed for the higher-order cognitive centers of our brains

ktRolster 9y ago
more-discoverable undo I think he wanted more discoverable everything, the undo was just used as a particularly bad example on the iPhone. He wants the world to be more discoverable, to modify our very culture so that learning is easy (an example he gave was with math, so it's not just a small, 'smart' percentage of the population who actually gets it, but everyone absorbs it from a young age).
- digi_owl 9y ago
  In the end i think he, like many intellectuals, overestimate people's interest in learning. Aka you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
  - runevault 9y ago
    actually I'd argue he understands the problem pretty well. He talks about needing to offer something SO compelling they cannot help but interface with it, in spite of their desire for things that do not push them.
    - p1esk 9y ago
      I'm not sure if there's a problem at all. Learning how to do anything is much easier today than ever. Just type "how to do X" in google, and you will probably see a nice YouTube video, or a tutorial. If you get stuck, there are online forums with people willing to help for free, 24/7. Has the number of people who want to learn decreased? If so, was it because of iPhones/iPads?
      - ktRolster 9y ago
        It's not a problem. It's a way things can be better.
        p1esk 9y ago
        Sure, nothing wrong with trying to make things more discoverable. I think the first step towards this goal could be making an app which implements what AK is talking about. I'm not sure what this app would be like, or for, but if someone makes it, then we can test how effective are his ideas. You don't have to redesign an iPad to do this. On the other hand, things can (and probably will) get better organically. The iPad/iPhone is only 10 years old. In that time it has improved both in terms of hardware (e.g. stylus for iPad, 3d touch, extra sensors, slo-mo video recording), and software (voice recognition, Siri, AppStore, multi-tasking, StreetView, even something as simple as cut and paste - none of that was available in iOS 1!). In a few years we will move to smart glasses and virtual/augmented reality. My guess is it will make learning experience better for everyone.
      - imtringued 9y ago
        When I do that I constantly think why is it so difficult to learn things? Why do I need to look at least 3 different sources just to confirm that they are not bullshitting me? After learning one thing related to the topic I want to learn I still have 99 to learn but I don't even know what those 99 things are. So basically I'm learning through dumb luck. Yes the reason is that I haven't reached the magical "bootstrap knowledge" where you have enough information in your head to just look up the things I don't know. Those youtube videos are nice and all but they will barely teach you anything, they are easy to consume low quality crap for lazy people. I know that because I'm one of them. The fundamental problem is still the same. Discoverability sucks. I still have to ask someone who is more knowledgeable than me. So why not let the AI do that task?
        p1esk 9y ago
        I don't know why it's hard for you to learn things, you were supposed to get the "bootstrap knowledge" in your undergrad education. My point is that the discoverability today is much better than it was, say, 30 years ago. Back then your options were: go to a library, find and read good books, or find someone knowledgeable, and go talk to him in person, or write him a paper letter with your questions, and hope he responds. For example, I remember how I was given my first access to a computer, with a command prompt blinking on a black screen, and I had not a slightest idea about what to do with it. Oh, and people nearby were not particularly keen on stopping what they were doing and explaining things to me. I was given a poorly translated DOS manual and a few simple BASIC programs to study. My computer access was limited to one hour, twice a week, and I remember how I thought this was so cool, and that I want to learn.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    People have little desire to get education force-fed into them. But they have plenty of desire to solve their own problems, whatever those problems are. What I feel AK (and others) are advocating is for computing to support individual problem-solving in an iterative manner. You have this powerful general-purpose machine, you should be able to mold it towards something that solves the problem you currently have.
  - imtringued 9y ago
    Right now the problem is that the horse doesn't even know that water even exists so unless it happens to find it through dumb luck or talks to someone other horse about it's problem it won't ever find water to even consider drinking it. The idea is that the AI takes over the role of the other horse.
TuringTest 9y ago
What's missing in today's software is described by the field of End User Development, the ability for normal people to craft new software artifacts without the need to learn a formal programming language. For most people, using computers means being force-feed a selection of existing applications; and most applications are pro- consumption, which is favoured by the media companies. App stores (and the Linux repositories that preceded them) were a significant advance for the public, as they allowed common people top be able to find tools to cover their needs; previous to that, only power users were able to tune the computer to their needs. However, non-developers still depend on the capabilities put in there by the developers, and can't fine-tune their behaviour.
- fauigerzigerk 9y ago
  >the ability for normal people to craft new software artifacts without the need to learn a formal programming language. The problem with that is that normal people often have formal requirements that software has to meet in order to be useful. Therefore I think the secret to end-user programming is not to be less formal. It's to be less complete or less general - DSLs. But at that point you could legitimately ask whether it's programming at all or just configuration and what was actually achieved compared to the status quo.
  - TuringTest 9y ago
    You're right about DSLs; they're the greatest tool for tasks that require a formal spec. The thing is, not all tasks that users engage with need a formal sspecification. For those, the ability to iterate and refine quickly is more valuable than having a precise description of every machine behaviour; I'm thing of things like page structure on Wikipedia (optional, and done with simple text markup); or the structure of documents in outlets like OneNote or Evernote, or attributes in Excel tables, which are all easy to re-arrange on the fly without needing a data schema. All my examples refer to data structure. What's missing is that kind of lightweight, optional structure for behaviour. All current software, except debuggers and unit tests, expect a fully defined program to be defined before execution. Power users need a top level loop that could execute partially specified functions over any DSL, prompting user input for the parts of the procedure not yet specified, and the capability to expand the DSLs themselves. There's nothing in the status quo like that, although environments like Hypertalk, Squeak and Excel are close, yet limited to a single DSL each.
shalabhc 9y ago
If you want to study the ideas of the dynabook, here you go: http://www.newmediareader.com/book_samples/nmr-26-kay.pdf http://www.newmediareader.com/book_samples/nmr-26-kay.pdf

by pcl 9y ago

ktRolster 9y ago

more-discoverable undo I think he wanted more discoverable everything, the undo was just used as a particularly bad example on the iPhone. He wants the world to be more discoverable, to modify our very culture so that learning is easy (an example he gave was with math, so it's not just a small, 'smart' percentage of the population who actually gets it, but everyone absorbs it from a young age).

digi_owl 9y ago
In the end i think he, like many intellectuals, overestimate people's interest in learning. Aka you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
- runevault 9y ago
  actually I'd argue he understands the problem pretty well. He talks about needing to offer something SO compelling they cannot help but interface with it, in spite of their desire for things that do not push them.
  - p1esk 9y ago
    I'm not sure if there's a problem at all. Learning how to do anything is much easier today than ever. Just type "how to do X" in google, and you will probably see a nice YouTube video, or a tutorial. If you get stuck, there are online forums with people willing to help for free, 24/7. Has the number of people who want to learn decreased? If so, was it because of iPhones/iPads?
    - ktRolster 9y ago
      It's not a problem. It's a way things can be better.
      - p1esk 9y ago
        Sure, nothing wrong with trying to make things more discoverable. I think the first step towards this goal could be making an app which implements what AK is talking about. I'm not sure what this app would be like, or for, but if someone makes it, then we can test how effective are his ideas. You don't have to redesign an iPad to do this. On the other hand, things can (and probably will) get better organically. The iPad/iPhone is only 10 years old. In that time it has improved both in terms of hardware (e.g. stylus for iPad, 3d touch, extra sensors, slo-mo video recording), and software (voice recognition, Siri, AppStore, multi-tasking, StreetView, even something as simple as cut and paste - none of that was available in iOS 1!). In a few years we will move to smart glasses and virtual/augmented reality. My guess is it will make learning experience better for everyone.
    - imtringued 9y ago
      When I do that I constantly think why is it so difficult to learn things? Why do I need to look at least 3 different sources just to confirm that they are not bullshitting me? After learning one thing related to the topic I want to learn I still have 99 to learn but I don't even know what those 99 things are. So basically I'm learning through dumb luck. Yes the reason is that I haven't reached the magical "bootstrap knowledge" where you have enough information in your head to just look up the things I don't know. Those youtube videos are nice and all but they will barely teach you anything, they are easy to consume low quality crap for lazy people. I know that because I'm one of them. The fundamental problem is still the same. Discoverability sucks. I still have to ask someone who is more knowledgeable than me. So why not let the AI do that task?
      - p1esk 9y ago
        I don't know why it's hard for you to learn things, you were supposed to get the "bootstrap knowledge" in your undergrad education. My point is that the discoverability today is much better than it was, say, 30 years ago. Back then your options were: go to a library, find and read good books, or find someone knowledgeable, and go talk to him in person, or write him a paper letter with your questions, and hope he responds. For example, I remember how I was given my first access to a computer, with a command prompt blinking on a black screen, and I had not a slightest idea about what to do with it. Oh, and people nearby were not particularly keen on stopping what they were doing and explaining things to me. I was given a poorly translated DOS manual and a few simple BASIC programs to study. My computer access was limited to one hour, twice a week, and I remember how I thought this was so cool, and that I want to learn.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  People have little desire to get education force-fed into them. But they have plenty of desire to solve their own problems, whatever those problems are. What I feel AK (and others) are advocating is for computing to support individual problem-solving in an iterative manner. You have this powerful general-purpose machine, you should be able to mold it towards something that solves the problem you currently have.
- imtringued 9y ago
  Right now the problem is that the horse doesn't even know that water even exists so unless it happens to find it through dumb luck or talks to someone other horse about it's problem it won't ever find water to even consider drinking it. The idea is that the AI takes over the role of the other horse.

TuringTest 9y ago

What's missing in today's software is described by the field of End User Development, the ability for normal people to craft new software artifacts without the need to learn a formal programming language. For most people, using computers means being force-feed a selection of existing applications; and most applications are pro- consumption, which is favoured by the media companies. App stores (and the Linux repositories that preceded them) were a significant advance for the public, as they allowed common people top be able to find tools to cover their needs; previous to that, only power users were able to tune the computer to their needs. However, non-developers still depend on the capabilities put in there by the developers, and can't fine-tune their behaviour.

fauigerzigerk 9y ago
>the ability for normal people to craft new software artifacts without the need to learn a formal programming language. The problem with that is that normal people often have formal requirements that software has to meet in order to be useful. Therefore I think the secret to end-user programming is not to be less formal. It's to be less complete or less general - DSLs. But at that point you could legitimately ask whether it's programming at all or just configuration and what was actually achieved compared to the status quo.
- TuringTest 9y ago
  You're right about DSLs; they're the greatest tool for tasks that require a formal spec. The thing is, not all tasks that users engage with need a formal sspecification. For those, the ability to iterate and refine quickly is more valuable than having a precise description of every machine behaviour; I'm thing of things like page structure on Wikipedia (optional, and done with simple text markup); or the structure of documents in outlets like OneNote or Evernote, or attributes in Excel tables, which are all easy to re-arrange on the fly without needing a data schema. All my examples refer to data structure. What's missing is that kind of lightweight, optional structure for behaviour. All current software, except debuggers and unit tests, expect a fully defined program to be defined before execution. Power users need a top level loop that could execute partially specified functions over any DSL, prompting user input for the parts of the procedure not yet specified, and the capability to expand the DSLs themselves. There's nothing in the status quo like that, although environments like Hypertalk, Squeak and Excel are close, yet limited to a single DSL each.

shalabhc 9y ago

If you want to study the ideas of the dynabook, here you go: http://www.newmediareader.com/book_samples/nmr-26-kay.pdf http://www.newmediareader.com/book_samples/nmr-26-kay.pdf