3 ms·
As a youngster I got the idea that truly novel experimentation should be conducted alongside the most predictable incremental progress, in a unified way so that
by fuzzfactor 4y ago
As a youngster I got the idea that truly novel experimentation should be conducted alongside the most predictable incremental progress, in a unified way so that an overall structural approach which allows this would be an ideal thing to build.
Even if it takes decades.
Which is how long research labs take anyway.
Maybe this means something. Talk about HCI. Coming from a guy back in 1982 who thought pointing & clicking was pretty cool. Almost a decade before the mouse was widely recognized, the trackball/firing-button was in use industrially to select graphic items. At one of the control rooms of the most automated marine chemical installations at the time, they had consoles that looked like NASA Mission Control during the moon mission. Tied into their mainframes. And wired into their tank farms, pipelines, and ship docks. Well a somewhat humble oil company can have more money to spend on this kind of thing than NASA sometimes.
The oversize CRTs would have the sharp monochrome graphics showing little pictures of the available tanks on the left and available docks on the right. In between, connecting them, was the pipeline maze. Scattered across the pipelines were the little markers representing the control valves, which physically controlled where the product was going to go. They were like a little blank spot in the pipeline, just big enough so a cursor could go there and select it with a click so it would no longer be blank. Using a big console-mounted trackball like would appear years later on the Atari Millipede arcade game. And that would end up opening the valve so the product would flow through that segment. Until they had an unbroken line from tank to dock.
When your ship was coming in, you would co-ordinate the exact dock and tanks that were going to be involved, and after review the graphic layout would be executed physically in the field before measurement & testing could be directed for that vessel.
So I went home to my Atari computer, unplugged the Centipede cartridge and popped in the BASIC. Kept the home trackball with the regulation cueball plugged into a joystick port. Mocked up the console GUI in color since this is what really set new things like home Ataris apart from earlier plain-text machines, so besides basic graphics I got accustomed to pointing & clicking at home using my own code. No Mouse. Statically like I had seen. Really just one more step away from people intuitively pointing & clicking for targeting in Missile Command, which was the other main Atari game using the trackball.
I read a number of Atari books and experimented quite a bit and I could see that the truly fast games were really a product of deeper experience in things that I did not possess; immersion in the emerging microprocessor ecosystem, and very long hours of progress, which I could not compare to as a hobbyist. I wanted to make an accurate navigational Google-map type framework where the graphics would be first-person 3-D as you drove along realistic freeways. You would certainly want a racing mode, so that would be a bit of GTA style landmark navigation either way. Obvious idea, but that was really too much for me and my equipment.
Instead I did a much simpler slow-action logic game called Master Mind where you deduce the color pattern that the opposing player (or computer) has secretly encoded. You simply dragged & dropped the colors into position, and the computer answered.
So I was dragging & dropping quite a few years before most of the world had a mouse to point & click with in DOS. Heck, before most of them even had DOS. But it was really just one day's HCI work. What else are you going to do with the equipment? You're going to have to experiment for yourself. It's good not to be hampered by all the traditional academic obstacles.
I think nothing beats returns on inventions which have already been accomplished compared to research yet to be done, but the wisest investments are in the balanced performance of both. They go together so well.
- psychomugs 4y agoThanks for the long response and I agree that experimentation like yours needs to have more venues for exposure, which is hard to do in our contemporary content treadmill. "The enemy of art is the absence of limitations." Seeing research budgets spent on equipment - that either never gets used or is poorly maintained - just to save a spot on a given funding bracket leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
- fuzzfactor 4y agoI know what you mean. I built my own laboratory from surplus research equipment where I only had certain types of pieces but I ended up with stronger resources than any one original owner. Was able to use more features over more years doing invoiceable routine work the research way, and between vessels explore applications that were not invoiceable. That's where the real progress is, and it's possible to make it eventually pay off. Got so much more out of the equipment for many more years than the original companies. And I made money making progress on the instruments while it cost them money every inch of the way. So what if I could have gotten a whole lot more out of millions of dollars worth of new gear, I was just making the most of the limited stuff I could get affordably instead. I was also a lot more of a loose cannon when it didn't really cost me a million dollars either. The large petrochemical labs, with all their PhDs and virtually unlimited budgets compared to mine, could not do what I could do with their old equipment. Even after they had gotten a head start on newer models they had acquired before declaring their older ones surplus. And it took even more time before I had access to the surplus. Even though these were industrial labs they were hampered by a carryover from the academic laboratory background. And I was welcome to the unexplored possibilities overflowing out the basement doors with the truckloads of "obsolete" electronics. So I can't complain.