5 ms·

Cards can be used at many contexts, for many purposes. Self-contained tweets is good for small talk and social content sharing, but RSS-like snippets that link

Cards can be used at many contexts, for many purposes. Self-contained tweets is good for small talk and social content sharing, but RSS-like snippets that link to external articles are also a valid option. Technically, cards are not far away from any other previous content-delivery system; what's specific to them is their structure - centered around easy-to-scan bits of content, that can be directly linked to. This makes them more apt for social sharing and aggregation than the classic web of interlinked whole pages. Some have pointed out how they increase the granularity of content. I also foresee them being used as the basis for an end-user development platform, a la Bret Victor's interactive drawing (but not necessarily geometric), as this structure is friendlier and simpler than semantic markup. I believe that this metaphor could close the gap that "Visual Basic", widget-based languages had respect the need to use imperative languages to define behavior. That "cards can be manipulated" is actually a good thing. It allows both the content creator and the end user to select which tools to use for handling the content. In web pages, snippets can only be manipulated with whatever tools the content platform provides; conversely, RSS feeds are entirely handled by the client, and it's difficult for the content provider to specify some suggested tools (other than cues to some pre-defined microformats). Imagine a system where users could share content cards like they do on current social webs, but where they're able to define new simple automatic procedures in the way that Victor's "programming-by-drawing-comic-strips" allows for, and I think that's the future of the user-facing side of the web. Hypercard shows that the card metaphor is a good basis for this; and the standards are finally mature enough to make such a system possible on the web.

taeric 13y ago
I can't imagine said system, is the problem. Imagining a system where people share ideas is fine. Trying to pin the idea to a specific metaphor is where I just start grumbling. I agree wholeheartedly that headlines and catchphrases are more easily shared. I am not convinced that they are somehow more natural in manipulation.
- TuringTest 13y ago
  Then, I'll have to finish my PhD and show the world how it's done. :-) The essence of the card is that it contains a fixed, small amount of content that can be linked to and reused at different contexts, not that you 'always' have to interact with it in a fixed "3x4 inches" format. If you try out the Smallest Federated Wiki below, you can drag-and-drop cards within a page, but the page doesn't seem to built from cards (although it is). Pages can be created by composing cards and giving them lightweight styles (such as removing the visual frames around them, or showing them in list formats). If it helps you, this is how I picture a system programmable by the end user through cards: - The structure is roughly like in the 10/GUI concept demo:[1] * Information is organized in non-overlapping plaques. * Plaques can be shown folded (cards), unfolded (pages) or minimized (links). * Plaques are hyper-linked; clicking on links open related plaques like in the Smallest Federated Wiki. [2] - Users can create new cards (this is what's missing in current card-based systems, which are read-only): * Creating a card's structure is like creating a dialog in a traditional visual GUI builder, by composing small elements in a larger layout. * The card's behavior is programmed with the interactive comic-strip operations that Bret Victor demoed recently in the "Stop Drawing Dead Fish" demo. [3] Does such system make sense? Can you picture it? -- [1] http://www.gizmag.com/10gui-multi-touch-interface/13104/ http://www.gizmag.com/10gui-multi-touch-interface/13104/ [2] http://fed.wiki.org/view/welcome-visitors/hsi.fed.wiki.org/hacking-social-impact http://fed.wiki.org/view/welcome-visitors/hsi.fed.wiki.org/h... [3] http://vimeo.com/64895205 http://vimeo.com/64895205
  - taeric 13y ago
    The 10gui demo is somewhat neat, though it does harken to traditional wacom devices in my mind. The GUI part is the neatest, and I'm just not sure how I feel about moving actions which are almost strictly conceptual now, choosing applications, and moving them to a physical component. Well, at least more into a physical concept. (That is, right now picking an application to run is more conceptual. You state the application name you want to launch. In the physical analogy, you have to find the application you want to launch.) I fully grant that this is territory that most guis already breach. (I'm much more heavily into the command line than I would guess most are.) But, back to the idea of a card containing a fixed amount of content. This seems no different than the semantic idea of RSS or even HTML. Items have dates, links, titles, and descriptions. "Unfolding" is simply following the link to the full item. Seen this way, I am not at all sure how what you are describing is much different than an RSS UI. (Indeed, if you drop the idea of moving and editing items, and move the orientation to vertical, this is the old google reader. Or, the current gnus. :) The only difference is "opening related plaques" becomes "launching relevant related application.") I argue that twitter gained success because they effectively dropped the link/description part and set a hard limit on how large the title could be. Probably more importantly, they provide the hosting service for everyone. More directly, twitter has seen success largely by limiting the interactions and capabilities available to users. This would leave the interface we are talking about largely more confusing than twitter, without being as powerful as just giving access to the raw data. More confusing for the less interested audience, and less capable for the more interested audience. All of this is to say that I am not at all against you doing this. Indeed, I welcome the advances that may come. Sadly, I still can not picture it myself. Instead, I see the ashes and poor reflections of previous offerings.

taeric 13y ago

I can't imagine said system, is the problem. Imagining a system where people share ideas is fine. Trying to pin the idea to a specific metaphor is where I just start grumbling. I agree wholeheartedly that headlines and catchphrases are more easily shared. I am not convinced that they are somehow more natural in manipulation.

TuringTest 13y ago
Then, I'll have to finish my PhD and show the world how it's done. :-) The essence of the card is that it contains a fixed, small amount of content that can be linked to and reused at different contexts, not that you 'always' have to interact with it in a fixed "3x4 inches" format. If you try out the Smallest Federated Wiki below, you can drag-and-drop cards within a page, but the page doesn't seem to built from cards (although it is). Pages can be created by composing cards and giving them lightweight styles (such as removing the visual frames around them, or showing them in list formats). If it helps you, this is how I picture a system programmable by the end user through cards: - The structure is roughly like in the 10/GUI concept demo:[1] * Information is organized in non-overlapping plaques. * Plaques can be shown folded (cards), unfolded (pages) or minimized (links). * Plaques are hyper-linked; clicking on links open related plaques like in the Smallest Federated Wiki. [2] - Users can create new cards (this is what's missing in current card-based systems, which are read-only): * Creating a card's structure is like creating a dialog in a traditional visual GUI builder, by composing small elements in a larger layout. * The card's behavior is programmed with the interactive comic-strip operations that Bret Victor demoed recently in the "Stop Drawing Dead Fish" demo. [3] Does such system make sense? Can you picture it? -- [1] http://www.gizmag.com/10gui-multi-touch-interface/13104/ http://www.gizmag.com/10gui-multi-touch-interface/13104/ [2] http://fed.wiki.org/view/welcome-visitors/hsi.fed.wiki.org/hacking-social-impact http://fed.wiki.org/view/welcome-visitors/hsi.fed.wiki.org/h... [3] http://vimeo.com/64895205 http://vimeo.com/64895205
- taeric 13y ago
  The 10gui demo is somewhat neat, though it does harken to traditional wacom devices in my mind. The GUI part is the neatest, and I'm just not sure how I feel about moving actions which are almost strictly conceptual now, choosing applications, and moving them to a physical component. Well, at least more into a physical concept. (That is, right now picking an application to run is more conceptual. You state the application name you want to launch. In the physical analogy, you have to find the application you want to launch.) I fully grant that this is territory that most guis already breach. (I'm much more heavily into the command line than I would guess most are.) But, back to the idea of a card containing a fixed amount of content. This seems no different than the semantic idea of RSS or even HTML. Items have dates, links, titles, and descriptions. "Unfolding" is simply following the link to the full item. Seen this way, I am not at all sure how what you are describing is much different than an RSS UI. (Indeed, if you drop the idea of moving and editing items, and move the orientation to vertical, this is the old google reader. Or, the current gnus. :) The only difference is "opening related plaques" becomes "launching relevant related application.") I argue that twitter gained success because they effectively dropped the link/description part and set a hard limit on how large the title could be. Probably more importantly, they provide the hosting service for everyone. More directly, twitter has seen success largely by limiting the interactions and capabilities available to users. This would leave the interface we are talking about largely more confusing than twitter, without being as powerful as just giving access to the raw data. More confusing for the less interested audience, and less capable for the more interested audience. All of this is to say that I am not at all against you doing this. Indeed, I welcome the advances that may come. Sadly, I still can not picture it myself. Instead, I see the ashes and poor reflections of previous offerings.