4 ms·

Did he actually expect that the work he created would all be used? Or that if it wasn't used that he would be able to take that work (now property of Apple) an

by 9999 15y ago

Did he actually expect that the work he created would all be used? Or that if it wasn't used that he would be able to take that work (now property of Apple) and show it to the public? I don't think either positions can be considered reasonable. Also, in general, direct manipulation of objects (mapped to real world gestures/physical object interaction) is not the end all be all of HCI. The use of abstraction in the pursuit of increased expressiveness and user input magnification is perfectly acceptable. Being able to immediately understand something is not more important than being able to efficiently accomplish a task repeatedly.

tsunamifury 15y ago
"The use of abstraction in the pursuit of increased expressiveness and user input magnification is perfectly acceptable. Being able to immediately understand something is not more important than being able to efficiently accomplish a task repeatedly." Whoa that is a pretty strong statement you just made there. I'd say there are two pretty strong and valid camps about this -- one saying its important to understand immediately and another saying tis important to do a depth of work effeciently. Both have extremely valid examples of why their theory is better.
- 9999 15y ago
  Ideally you would have a balance between the two. What put me off in his statement regarding working at Apple (aside from what seems to be some unrealistic expectations) was his statement that he became known for "pervasively direct-manipulation interfaces (where the user does his thing by moving and gesturing with meaningful objects, instead of relying on verb buttons and other indirect controls)." I think there's certainly a place for that sort of interaction, but I can see why Apple would not entirely embrace it to the exclusion of other types of interaction.
dennisgorelik 15y ago
Why not show stuff in public after a year? If Apple was not able to use his inventions in a year - it's unlikely Apple would ever use these inventions efficiently.
- count 15y ago
  How much of OS X and the iPhone came out stuff they tried and failed years ago?
  - dennisgorelik 15y ago
    Do you imply that if society benefited from Apple's secrecy, because without secrecy Apple wouldn't be able to deliver OS X and iPhone? I'm not buying it.

by 9999 15y ago

tsunamifury 15y ago

"The use of abstraction in the pursuit of increased expressiveness and user input magnification is perfectly acceptable. Being able to immediately understand something is not more important than being able to efficiently accomplish a task repeatedly." Whoa that is a pretty strong statement you just made there. I'd say there are two pretty strong and valid camps about this -- one saying its important to understand immediately and another saying tis important to do a depth of work effeciently. Both have extremely valid examples of why their theory is better.

9999 15y ago
Ideally you would have a balance between the two. What put me off in his statement regarding working at Apple (aside from what seems to be some unrealistic expectations) was his statement that he became known for "pervasively direct-manipulation interfaces (where the user does his thing by moving and gesturing with meaningful objects, instead of relying on verb buttons and other indirect controls)." I think there's certainly a place for that sort of interaction, but I can see why Apple would not entirely embrace it to the exclusion of other types of interaction.

dennisgorelik 15y ago

Why not show stuff in public after a year? If Apple was not able to use his inventions in a year - it's unlikely Apple would ever use these inventions efficiently.

count 15y ago
How much of OS X and the iPhone came out stuff they tried and failed years ago?
- dennisgorelik 15y ago
  Do you imply that if society benefited from Apple's secrecy, because without secrecy Apple wouldn't be able to deliver OS X and iPhone? I'm not buying it.