<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: My Paper iPhone</title>
	<link>http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2007/07/07/my-paper-iphone/</link>
	<description>simplicity resources for design, business, technology, and life</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 22:23:40 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: maeda</title>
		<link>http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2007/07/07/my-paper-iphone/#comment-7361</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2007 02:40:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2007/07/07/my-paper-iphone/#comment-7361</guid>
					<description>Yes it's hard to scale the whole pointing paradigm. It's great for the simple things. 

I had a student once that developed a system for selecting a bunch of things using a flashlight metaphor. By attenuating the intensity and spread of the light, it would select multiple objects in the flashlight's focus. 

Another of my favorite advanced selection paradigms are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_expression&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;regular expressions&lt;/a&gt;. I've always thought that if there could be a visual language for regular expressions, that we'd really be in a different place on the computer. 

Jeff Han's done a nice job of building a kind of &quot;grammar&quot; for interacting with multiple objects on screen with his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perceptivepixel.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;multi-touch&lt;/a&gt; work. Perhaps we are close to a more powerful means to pointing that even transcends the logic of our own two hands?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes it&#8217;s hard to scale the whole pointing paradigm. It&#8217;s great for the simple things. </p>
<p>I had a student once that developed a system for selecting a bunch of things using a flashlight metaphor. By attenuating the intensity and spread of the light, it would select multiple objects in the flashlight&#8217;s focus. </p>
<p>Another of my favorite advanced selection paradigms are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_expression" rel="nofollow">regular expressions</a>. I&#8217;ve always thought that if there could be a visual language for regular expressions, that we&#8217;d really be in a different place on the computer. </p>
<p>Jeff Han&#8217;s done a nice job of building a kind of &#8220;grammar&#8221; for interacting with multiple objects on screen with his <a href="http://www.perceptivepixel.com/" rel="nofollow">multi-touch</a> work. Perhaps we are close to a more powerful means to pointing that even transcends the logic of our own two hands?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Amit Patel</title>
		<link>http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2007/07/07/my-paper-iphone/#comment-7360</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:42:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2007/07/07/my-paper-iphone/#comment-7360</guid>
					<description>Point and click is nice for simple systems, but it's also quite limiting, as are many interfaces inspired by physical systems. They're limiting because they also bring all the limitations of those physical systems. 

Consider folders for example. A file can be in one folder. This is a physical limitation. In the computer though there's no particular reason to impose this limitation. We impose it because folders are simple and familiar, but sometimes the simplicity of the organization system results in added complexity of using the interface. We build multiple interfaces on top of folders to deal with the limitations of folders: search, virtual folders, tagging, etc. Would it not be simpler to have one simple abstraction that can handle these needs?

Point and click and drag tends to work well when you have a small number of items you want to work with, but it becomes unwieldy with a large number of items. Babies speak with points and grunts and cries. As adults we use language instead. It's simpler to communicate most things with language than to express the same thing with pointing and grunting. Command line interfaces are overkill for a small number of items, but they are nice when working with lots of items, or when working with more complex linguistic constructs, such as conditionals, past/future, and hypothetical statements. Try expressing, “next wednesday, if it's raining, bring me a sandwich.”  Sometimes a more complex interface (e.g., language) can lead to easier communication, but it does require some investment to learn.

The iPhone does look nice though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Point and click is nice for simple systems, but it&#8217;s also quite limiting, as are many interfaces inspired by physical systems. They&#8217;re limiting because they also bring all the limitations of those physical systems. </p>
<p>Consider folders for example. A file can be in one folder. This is a physical limitation. In the computer though there&#8217;s no particular reason to impose this limitation. We impose it because folders are simple and familiar, but sometimes the simplicity of the organization system results in added complexity of using the interface. We build multiple interfaces on top of folders to deal with the limitations of folders: search, virtual folders, tagging, etc. Would it not be simpler to have one simple abstraction that can handle these needs?</p>
<p>Point and click and drag tends to work well when you have a small number of items you want to work with, but it becomes unwieldy with a large number of items. Babies speak with points and grunts and cries. As adults we use language instead. It&#8217;s simpler to communicate most things with language than to express the same thing with pointing and grunting. Command line interfaces are overkill for a small number of items, but they are nice when working with lots of items, or when working with more complex linguistic constructs, such as conditionals, past/future, and hypothetical statements. Try expressing, “next wednesday, if it&#8217;s raining, bring me a sandwich.”  Sometimes a more complex interface (e.g., language) can lead to easier communication, but it does require some investment to learn.</p>
<p>The iPhone does look nice though.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Francis Wu</title>
		<link>http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2007/07/07/my-paper-iphone/#comment-7358</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jul 2007 18:14:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2007/07/07/my-paper-iphone/#comment-7358</guid>
					<description>Definitely, I think that point-and-click can transcend many interfaces and it is clear that the makers of the Wii have understood this principle completely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Definitely, I think that point-and-click can transcend many interfaces and it is clear that the makers of the Wii have understood this principle completely.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
