On 1/9/08, AlgoMantra <algomantra_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > i was trying to contrast interactive and non-interactive (automated).
> > the most interactive way to change all foo's to bar's would be to find
> > them in the text, delete and type new values in.
> > less interactive would be to ask editor to replace them and let it ask
> > you about each foo.
> > least interactive and most automated is to ask to replace all.
> > of course there is always interaction of something with something,
>
> My point exactly, that interaction occurs at all levels of physicality,
> not just human-machine "couplings". All that differs is probably the
> "degree" of interaction.
no, not degree, but character.
in less interactive system the non-human part enjoys large autonomy,
even though it only does what human asks it to do. but in this case
all human input happens up front, then the machine goes on to do its
thing "on its own". so when we speak about interactivity in
human-computer interaction context we really mean amount of constant
feedback from human part of the system.
this distinction makes sense because interactive and non-interactive
systems have different requirements and hence different designs.
> > e.g. here program with text, but when they speak of interactivity in
> > the context of human-machine systems they mean interaction between
> > human and machine.
> >
>
> That's just stating the obvious. If they are speaking in the context of
> giraffes,
> obviously they mean giraffes.
my bad, when i was repeating myself here I forgot to add something
like "at run time".
--
cheers,
artm
http://lab.v2.nl/
Received on Wed Jan 09 2008 - 10:53:00 GMT