4 ms·
I felt that full-screen mode in OS X was in part a response to avoiding distraction. Also, in social settings, I've noticed I'll check my phone if I'm alone, o
by dgallagher 14y ago
I felt that full-screen mode in OS X was in part a response to avoiding distraction.
Also, in social settings, I've noticed I'll check my phone if I'm alone, or near people where conversation has ended. Part of that is a mini-escape, and another part is caused by insecurity/peer pressure. If you're all alone doing nothing, you have less perceived worth than if you're all alone doing something.
- jessriedel 14y agoThis reminded me of this TED talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=iueVZJVEmEs#t=32s http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...
- fusiongyro 14y agoFull-screen mode did nothing for me. I can enter and leave full-screen instantly. It added the kind of speed bump that has room on the side to be perfectly circumvented. I don't think it's possible to create a distraction-proof UI that is also user-friendly.
- dgallagher 14y agoBooks are a distraction-proof UI. Their simplicity focuses you only to read. Magazines and newspapers are books plus distractions. Ads divert your attention. Thoughts in newspapers must be hunted like a wild animal, scattered all over pages. Books only compete with external distractions, such as noise, or you're own thoughts. You can build a distraction-proof UI on a computer, but all parts must cooperate. If a single one annoys, the UI has failed. This is difficult to do if the UI's foundation, its OS, doesn't play along nicely. That's probably the way to do it, build a new OS, or train an existing one into submission. "I see there are wireless networks available. Would you like to connect to one?" (...currently connected to a wired network, concentration lost...)
- fusiongyro 14y agoThe problem, then, is that the OS is interested in helping you multitask.