The Human Interface
Michael L Torrie
torriem at chem.byu.edu
Thu Mar 10 10:00:39 MST 2005
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 09:35 -0700, Eric Jensen wrote:
> I agree with you with those types of applications, in fact I think that
> would be really swank. But what about the more complex applications
> like video games, advanced multimedia, etc? I'd definately run some
> like THE at work if it functioned the way you described, but I can't
> really see how it would work for me at home with all the DVD,
> multimedia, and high end games I run. Unless I had one beefy machine
> anyway or my own cluster farm. I would so love to zoom out my video
> game to a picture-in-picture size and work on another project. THE is
> definately something to drool over, no argument on that.
Multimedia is easy, actually. Multimedia is just another form of a
document (compound document) with internal smarts to handle interaction.
The document is the application. A simple example of this is a flash
document. It can be entirely self-contained (or point to other things).
So I don't think multimedia would have any problem fitting into the
paradigm I've described. DVDs aren't a problem. Even movie editing
isn't really a problem. Realize that some things we think of as
applications can really just be described as tools and frameworks that
can hold the documents. A video-editing system could be the same thing.
I mean in real life we need a desk to hold documents on. Plus tools to
work with them. While this can be described by an application, I
believe it can be also described from the data's pov as tools that are
automatically available anytime you need to work with a movie.
As for games, well, they don't really fit into our current paradigms of
computer use or UIs anyway, so nothing need change.
I agree that zooming out of a game and checking on our other work would
> Eric Jensen
> | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. |
> | Don't Fear the Penguin. |
> | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net |
More information about the PLUG