Just out of interest..
How much difference would it make if all the boxes in max were icons
you selected from a dropdown list or something, with no 'english' text?
Tom Betts
----------------------
www.nullpointer.co.uk
www.odessadesign.co.uk
----------------------
alex wrote:
> While I'm hear, it's transfer at goldsmiths tomorrow!
> http://slab.org/transfer/
>
> 2009/10/15 evan.raskob [lists] <lists_at_lowfrequency.org>:
>> And I also have to disagree
>> about the position of boxes on the screen - it's a fundamental part of
>> MaxMSP that things happen from left-to-right (this is not the case in Pd)
>> and so you *must* read patches from left-to-right otherwise you will get
>> drastically different results, as anyone who has done any real patching in
>> Max knows.
>
> In Pd, execution order is the order than you connect the wires in.
> Using X position in Max certainly seems like an better way than that,
> and I'm happy to take your point that it is important (I've never used
> max). I don't think it's as important as left to right order in
> non-graph languages though.
>
>> Interesting point, but now MaxMSP patches are in JSON notation, so they are
>> essentially Javascript that can be livecoded and edited.
>
> So max is a live coding IDE for javascript now? Interesting.
>
>> They certainly aren't - textual symbols are processed
>> by different parts of the brain.
>
> I'm not sure if the "different parts" thing is true, from what I can
> tell from a naive glance at the literature, brain areas are
> multi-talented things. I agree though that reading is different from
> looking at a picture though so we're on the same page.
>
> However, you're wrong to imply that we don't read a max patch. It's
> full of symbols! In max a box is meaningless unless you type into it.
>
> Look at all the words and numbers in this simple patch:
> http://taknight.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/firstnotes1.jpg
>
>> It's a very different experience
>> connecting lines and occasionally typing in object names than typing
>> everything in words and symbols.
>
> Sure but it's a different experience writing code in eclipse than it
> is in emacs, and different again in vi. They all require visual
> faculties, and some (not PD, and only in a limited way Max) require
> spatial arrangement.
>
>> That's not the case for most people, especially non-designers. There
>> have been studies that show that their brains recognize words as meaning
>> something, but not as graphics or symbols in their own right (I hope I am
>> explaining this well... wish I could dig up that paper).
>
> No need, I agree. Similarly hearing sounds is perceived differently
> to hearing words (cf sine wave speech and noise speech). But I think
> it gets more complicated than that when we're coding. When we zoom
> out and think about the structure of what we're looking at, we think
> in more spatial terms, and structure of the code on the screen helps
> with that. This is true both with max and with java. With max the
> spatial arrangement is not part of the language. With java, more of
> it is part of the language, with organisation into classes, objects
> etc.
>
>> For most people,
>> words are words and pictures are pictures, and while they get the hang of
>> the "text-as-symbols" eventually, they need to adapt to them over time.
>
> Sure, but I think we diverge where you say a max patch is a picture.
> The interface might let you make a picture but that is nothing to do
> with the language.
>
>> I
>> think this is why photographers and graphic designers take to programming
>> well (in my experience) - they already have the mental toolkit for seeing
>> the worlds as a collection of abstract symbols laid out spatially.
>
> Interesting...
>
>> Anyway, the funny thing is that now that I've come to the end of this long
>> rant, I just had an offline conversation with Dave about this, and I think
>> I've been intellectually nudged closer to the central view that the real
>> issue is about accessibility, there is less difference between text and
>> image (even though I reserve the view that there is a neurological basis for
>> treating them differently)
>
> Text is represented within an image, but I agree evokes a different
> category of perception. As I say though, a max patch is fundamentally
> textual.
>
> But yes great point about accessibility. What makes max accessible?
>
> 1/ Live coding
> 2/ You can put words anywhere, it doesn't matter.
> 3/ Great help
> 4/ Easy to share patches
> 5/ You can't make syntax errors (syntax checking happens at mouse-click time)
> 6/ You can edit someone else's patch without fully understanding it (due to 5/)
> 7/ Nice a/v library functions
> 8/ Some myth about max being more 'visual' means people drop their guard
>
> What makes java accessible?
>
> 1/ ... err
>
>> and the "accident" of using text to describe
>> complex instructions (computer programs) to machines due to typewriters
>> being so ubiquitous. I'll leave you with that thought...
>
> Oh, that reminds me of something I was reading yesterday by Ted Nelson:
> http://geeks-bearing-gifts.com/gbgContents.html
>
> Yes it's strange that seems so solid and fixed about computing is so
> arbitrary and, well ... broken. The qwerty keyboard is a fine example
> of that.
>
> I don't think the notion of text, as discrete symbols, is an accident
> though. If you are going to organise your ideas about the world into
> discrete categories, to understand it, make predictions etc, then
> you're going to want to give those categories names (symbols), and
> want to combine and manipulate those names with computations.
>
> alex
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.18/2437 - Release Date: 10/15/09 03:57:00
>
Received on Thu Oct 15 2009 - 17:22:42 BST
