On 06/03/2008, Rob Myers <rob_at_robmyers.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> The keyboard is *familiar*. It isn't tangible because we don't notice
> it. It's the socks under the shoes of our software. Defamiliarising it
> might be a useful strategy.
>
> Back in the day*, we used to rip keyboards open and wire them up as
> cheap a2d converters. We got through more keyboards that way... But
> stickers and using something other than fingers would be good as well.
I'm sure I'm missing what you mean here. I have two IBM keyboards here, side
by side, and I'm quite sure they are very tangible and very familiar and to
me those are good things and I don't want them to be de-familiarised at all.
If I had a Reactable at home I'd want to get very familiar with that as
well.
Could you re-phrase what you mean? I'm sure we don't disagree and are
instead talking about very different things.
> It seems hip right now to turn these things around, like the Reactable
>
>
> I really don't understand the reaction to Reactable. Projector/camera
> tables have been a regular feature in MA and gallery shows for over a
> decade.
In case you thought so; I wasn't saying it was new, nor do I think the
Iphone's interface is that shocking but those two are interfaces people talk
about a lot these days. I was observing trends more then innovations.
I don't have a big problem with the Reactable either, BTW. It looks very
appealing to me and it's probably extremely accessible to people who don't
feel like reading pages of technical introductory text yet would still enjoy
working with modular sound.
Perhaps the main thing that causes the enthusiasm for the Reactable and
Iphone is that mice aren't that good and have stayed the same while other
aspects of computer interfaces (the visual ones) have evolved. I don't think
that desire to that degree existed yet in the general population in the
early 90's.
Yours,
Kas.
Received on Thu Mar 06 2008 - 19:52:01 GMT