Talk:Archy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] License
Having visited FSF, I find no reference to a negative judgment of Archy by FSF. Where does the "does not recommend it for software" come from, and cannot it be described in different terms, i.e. without sounding as negative? For all I care I could add: ...and Microsoft doesn't recommend it for software, either." Until such neutral statement can be implemented, I have removed the sentences. IMHO Archy is a great idea and deserves at least neutral description. --Dorthonion 07:54, 05 Aug 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Trademarks
Removed the little ™s as according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). -- Foofy 17:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Page protection
Hmm, contrary to what the history seem to tell, the page is still protected as of October 18. -- Jugalator 07:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- I left a message on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection so somebody should fix it in a bit. -- Foofy 20:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] LEAP commentary
I am removing the link to THE and LEAP because it is simply wrong. He is confusing the Leap keys with the Command key:
- "When you want to type in a command, you hit the LEAP key and start typing the command (all commands are named) -- when you release the LEAP key the command is run."
That makes the entire article worthless, you can't make a commentary about something that you don't understand! --Foofy 02:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Funding
I am about to remove the funding comment. The $2 million is closer to $1.8 million and went not to RCHI but to BZ Web for a project to design a ZUI for a major cell phone manufacturer. RCHI is pretty much a volunteer effort and has even lost many of those most knowledgeable about The Humane Interface. Nevertheless it retains some promise to provide direction for future humane computing environments. --Karpinski 22:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism
Obviously Archy is a radical detraction from computing as we have known it now for 30 years. There must be some criticisms of this approach to user interface design.
- Why? To an extent Archy is just a few modifications to GNU Emacs (LEAP and COMMAND keys to eliminate modality). Are you trying to tell us that GNU Emacs is a radical detraction? RussNelson 03:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I can think of some myself right now: Contrary to Raskins assertions about human interaction with interfaces, I think people have become very used to and good at using a graphical interface. This can even be seen outside computing. When I want to play music, I go over to my stereo and interact with a series of buttons and switches. If I want to turn the music up, I adjust a knob on the stereo to the right, I don't give the stereo a volume increase command in text form. I think following this pattern in computing is just as useful.
When user interface designing scientists evaluate the efficiency of an interface, they talk about how many clicks or keys it takes to get a command done. I think typing a series of commands to jump around a never ending document is not as easy as clicking Media player program + play button.
- How does it know what to play? Oops, gotta click some more. RussNelson 03:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Archy is about your content, and allowing the particular content you want to just fly in before your eyes. If computers interfaced with our brains, I'd imagine it would be a lot like Archy. But that's not they do. I have to dig around a screen to find my content, and I don't think endlessly zooming around an infinite space is as efficient or understandable as the traditional file/folder paradigm.
- That's as foolish as saying that there is no point in laying keys out in grid fashion, because people will always have to hunt and peck to find the key they want to type. RussNelson 03:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Software vendors might also have a completely different set of criticisms for replacing the idea of separate computer programs.
- Jeff was not against the idea of separate computer programs. In fact he was perfectly in favor of people selling add-on programs for Archy. What he didn't want was a gazillion different paradigms for controlling each program. RussNelson 03:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
--149.169.60.160 06:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sure there are criticisms, just not many documented criticisms that we can link to. This has more to do with Archy's obscurity than it's quality. As for current interfaces being easy to use: just because it's "good enough" doesn't mean it's "good." I think most people see Archy as a new perspective that will lead to better interfaces, not the be-all and end-all of interfaces. :) -Foofy 14:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Modelessness
- I took the liberty of moving modelessness out into its own section. It's a major characteristic of Archy, and if it's wrong, then most of Archy's design decisions are wrong. RussNelson 15:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hey Anon, I found something you might enjoy: The Anti-Mac Interface.
-
- Modelessness
- Modelessness means the computer interface should not have distinct modes that restrict the user's actions depending on the mode he or she is in. Users should be able to perform any task at any time. Although modelessness seems to be an object of veneration among some Macintosh interface designers, even the section on modelessness in the Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines [2] is primarily devoted to explaining how to use modes successfully. The basic problem presented by modelessness is that the user cannot cope with everything at once. Users need the interface to narrow their attention and choices so they can find the information and actions they need at any particular time. Real life is highly moded [11]: What you can do in the swimming pool is different from what you can do in the kitchen, and people can easily distinguish between the two because of the richness of the experience and the ease with which we can move between environments.
- I'd love to see some stats on how good "context sensitive" toolbars and palettes work. --Foofy 15:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- there's modes and then there's modes. I think that Jef's original modelessness principle was tied to the fact that many programs lock you into answering a dialog. Sometimes the operating system doesn't even give you a choice to switch to a different program. From arguing with him over how the ZUI should work, I am pretty sure that he expected that the cursor would only move by key action. I'm not sure how he was going to move the cursor between zoomed documents. I'm not sure even he knew. RussNelson 15:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
