I've been into GUI's and so on since before the birth of the web, and I've always had this deep discomfort with where we have arrived here and now, today. The W

I've been into GUI's and so on since before the birth of the web, and I've always had this deep discomfort with where we have arrived here and now, today. The Web and its UI is such a disastrous, convoluted mess of abstractions and significance and conceptual complexity - yet, it works "well enough" that a majority of the world can deal with it. But this doesn't mean we can't think outside the box. Yes, I concur - TeX's box and glue is another kettle of fish - but then so too are things like Box2D's physics forces and contact mechanisms, which I personally believe, were it integrated into a forward-thinking GUI framework, would open the doors to very interesting and versatile interfaces - as has been demonstrated by its application towards making those most intuitive interfaces of all times, games. I would love to be able to say "[ the context of this independent element has a gravity of -1. ]", and then watch as my sentence floats away to the top of the screen, to function as a daily "Todo list" which, once I press the '.' period at the end of the ToDo item, then sets the gravity to 1, and the whole thing lands at the bottom of the screen, away from my attention. There are many abstractions like this out there which could be applied to human/computer interaction - we've selected a set of words, symbols, concepts that are granted us by the designers of modern OS's, but I truly believe that the effort of producing interaction symbology is far, far from where it could be. As do many other people of course (http://worrydream.com http://worrydream.com) .. there seems to be a plethora of views about this. Almost as many views, as symbols in the world there are to be read ...