On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 19:58 +0100, Kassen wrote:
> Wait, are there actually people who feel the keyboard isn't a
> "tangible interface"? I think it mainly becomes a strange buzzword
> (and I agree it does) because it's applied as meaning "tangible where
> we aren't used to it being tangible". So far car-manufacturers and
> martial-arts classes aren't advertising tangible interfaces as new and
> exciting.
Yes it's a trendy buzz word so gets applied inappropriately. I think it
is used to mean "domain specific hardware interface". Perhaps a more
valid use would be to mean "simple interface for direct control over
perceptual quality dimensions". But of course different people have
acquired different perceptual quality dimensions, and the universal ones
are already well served by musical instruments without any need for
computation.
> Oh, well, some experimentation can't hurt, I think it means we are
> collectively moving from "hey, look, it works!" to "how can we make it
> work pleasantly?" which in many cases was about time, IMHO.
Yep, I was just playing with a monome, a very nice thing.
> I think so.... but then can we also have a space where one of the
> dimensions is "while-loop"? When I wrote that I meant it as a sort of
> joke but now it's starting to sound like a actual good idea to me.
Yes this is a key idea I think... How can we arrange all the possible
actions of a system of computation within a couple of dimensions? So
you could take two programs, and find another program halfway between
them?
alex
Received on Fri Mar 07 2008 - 12:42:40 GMT