4 ms·
It isn't solely Microsoft. The idea of convergence is a seductive ideological fabrication of Eurowestern making. While seductive, there is a tremendous body o
by foolrush 13y ago
It isn't solely Microsoft.
The idea of convergence is a seductive ideological fabrication of Eurowestern making.
While seductive, there is a tremendous body of history to examine to reveal the fallacy of the position.
Automobiles, cellular phones, portable cameras, pencils and pens, floor coverings, building designs, gardens, aircraft, etc. Every single example grows in diversity and complexity away from their base initial forms.
Design appears to begin at a singular starting point and grow in diversity as needs evolve[1].
Only a superficial study of design history would struggle against firm historical evidence of divergence.
“…these examples reinforces my thesis that in order to design a tool, we must make our best efforts to understand the larger social and physical context within which it is intended to function.” - Bill Buxton
[1] Apologies for the apparent forcing of Eurowestern metanarrative arcs onto phenomena where no such arc may exist.
- microcolonel 13y agoThis is silly, they're just making a big deal out of something obvous: Smartphones, tablets, laptops, and desktops are all just personal computers, and there's no reason to have a different one for each paradigm when the hardware is essentially identical in functionality. We're just putting a desktop OS in a smaller box than ever like we have for the last decade. The ease of this transition is reinforced by the fact that GNU/Linux systems already work really well on all of these form factors(and many more).
- minor_nitwit 13y agoInteresting that many of those things have converged in the form of portable computing already. Would you have said that a phone should not have a camera? Or a phone should not try to do scheduling? Be an alarm clock? etc.
- foolrush 13y agoI would hope that we can agree that at some point a qualitative and privileged "good enough" metric applies here? Is it reasonable that a photographer would prefer a cellular phone camera over a focused device? Or a medical imager? Or a security system designer? Or an astronomer? Or an extreme sports enthusiast? The point stands that the technology diverges to meet contextual needs. Following this reasoning, we can wager on two futures. One where we use less devices and less things. Or one where we use more specific devices that meet contextual needs more acutely. I comfortably accept the latter. Design exists in a multi-dimensional realm where some design decisions may inherently pull away from others. Unless someone wants to believe in a car that seats six, goes from zero to sixty in four seconds, has a child carrier area, ravages off-road snow conditions, and offers an upgrade to carry six sheets of plywood. Bill Buxton's analysis of wooden Inuit coastal maps is fabulous, and I would encourage reading his piece if you can find it.