3 ms·
One of the issues is that current UIs for computers have very little context information about whats on screen, which would make language based interaction much
by Qz 16y ago
One of the issues is that current UIs for computers have very little context information about whats on screen, which would make language based interaction much more convenient.
Also, editing a photo is a perfect example of where language interface would be useful: instead of hunting through Photoshop's millions of menus for the graphic effect you want, you could just say/type things like:
Scale to 200%
Increase contrast 10%
Resize to 400 by 600
I'm pretty sure that language based interaction for photo-editing would increase productivity by huge amounts.
The other thing is that we've somehow locked onto the idea that the computer should be able to understand everything immediately or else it's not even worth it. But in the real world human's constantly miscommunicate, and we solve that problem very simply: ask more questions. So if the user says something like:
Adjust contrast by 10%
The computer could respond:
Do you want to increase by 10% or decrease by 10%?
- whatusername 16y agoBut then you need to know the magic words (scale as opposed to "make bigger" or "zoom" or some other combination). Point and click context menus try to fix this -- "oh, it's 'scale'"
- Qz 16y agoOr you could just allow all of them. If they serve different functions in different situations, the program can just ask which function the user meant. The point is that rather than view the program as a slave that is expected to follow orders unflinchingly, the program can be viewed as something to be conversed with, and capable of asking questions of the user.
- damoncali 16y agoThis is how autocad works. (at least it used to - I haven't used it in several versions). An interactive command line complimented by a graphical ui is a beautiful thing.