[Sussex] Improving on UNIX

[Nik Butler]

> > or maybe that like say Mandarin, the
> pictogram requires a full rfc for
> > any new concept. which makes building
> a new concept pictogram require
> > the user to establish foundations in
> previously established ideas.
> > Meanwhile if I use Frecnh, English or
> Navaho I can establish a word
> > through definition of context.
sure okay lets say the following

I use [x] this will represent a door

so now I use Y[x] meaning a door a man uses

and I use o[x]o meaning the door to a soul

then I use o[Y]o 

now you may suggest the rosetta stone can be used to decipher this as a
outside viewer .. but we are talking about use in terms of its context
and its application. so now you have to view trying to understand what
it means to you if you use that language on a daily basis.

however language is a great tool, when used with clearly defined
context.

If I say we are meeting next saturday, do I mean 15th March or the 22nd?

I grew up with a rare disorder, I never understood subtleties in
language because to me it was a method of translating understanding. 

to me next saturday is 15th, but to most its 22nd. and yet the only
possible next saturday is 15th. 

so back to pictographic context.

I got into this conversation pointing out that pictograms restrict not
the development of technology but the ability to communicate the
implementation of that technology.

Gunpowder, WainWrights and Glass Blowers did not really write anything
down dor a long time. but had it been appropriate ? well look at
Cuniform and Hieroglyhipcs and ask how it might have been possible to
record the instructions to make those items.

Now if we are talking mathematics we see that the language is always
building and developing. trying to either be more concise and pure or
agree to be more abstract and accept the idea of "tending"

how does this relate to a GUI...


try the following experiments:

Supposition: humans unserstand more information when communicated as a
picture

Experiment 1: 
Mute your television and watch the programme. Try to explain what you
are seeing and its context.

Experiment 2: 
Close your eyes, unmute the television now attempt to explain whayt you
are listening to and its context.

Experiment 3: ( a little harder ) 
Read a transcript of the dialog to the show !



Okay so what are we seeing here. 


Well we notice that images alone actually communicate lots of
information but much of it unnecesary. Words immediately inform you but
do not carry the full purpose of the current meaning.

Now try the same in a computer environment.


use several gui environments and from the "desktop"( assuming desktop to
be common } open and read a text file. time how long it takes and how
many items are involved.


use a command line environment and do the same


have you noticed that Computers have always had data entry of some sort,
keyboards being primary and current mas data inputs for the personal
computers. When we added GUI we added another input device. increasing
the amount of controls every user has to aclimatise to. 

if we wanted to make computers simple for end users we should have built
input devices specific for each task.  instead we made each device to
hanlde multiple tasks and expected users to learn that. which is quite
unnatural. 


okay so thats a bit more...


in short 

GUIS hamper first the developers and designers long before they hamper
the end user!


-- 
nik at wired4life.org	http://www.wired4life.org/	Wired4Life, an Answer.

Q: Divide 14 sugar cubes into 3 cups of coffee so that each
cup has an odd number of sugar cubes.
A: 1,1,12
Riposte: 12 isn't odd!
A: It's an odd number of cubes to put in a cup of coffee (groan)