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
--
http://yaxu.org/
Received on Thu Oct 15 2009 - 16:50:59 BST
