>> Wearable, just like PDAs, are not desktop and they
>
>An excellent point. While people will undoubtedly want=20
>something along the same lines, much as Palm/OS echoes
>many of the UI conventions used in MSWindows, Windows'
>acceptance for desktops does not mean that it will be the
>predominant wearable interface.
>
>Or, at least I hope not...it's klunky enough with a stationary
>computer and trackball!
N.B. This turned into a long piece. Call it a Sunday sermon, and skip it if=
you're not interested.
First, any wearable computer that does not REPLACE a laptop or desktop won't=
succeed... by which I mean, if we need to keep the desktop/laptop as well=
as the wearable (to take care of tasks the wearable can't handle), why=
bother?
Second, yes, the MS interfaces are awful. What bothers me, however, is that=
usually we (humans) only build what we first imagine. And in sci-fi, where=
most of the imagining for this sort of thing takes place, the imaginings of=
an interface remain very primitive. All the Star Trek series, for example,=
either rely on scanners (and you have to look at a small, clunky handheld=
device even to make out the result) or a voice-driven, somewhat=
structured, query system ("Computer, access the personal log of ..."; "How=
many references to ...?"). Or we see Captain Jean-Luc sitting at his desk,=
working on a laptop. Okay, we can agree tv-based sci-fi is aimed at L.C.D.,=
and thus has to account for stupidity... but most real sci-fi is not much=
more imaginative in this arena.
Voice-based interfaces are a problem -- unless we expect to use wearables=
only when we're alone, or we're in a relatively quiet environment and we're=
the only one speaking (or at least the main speaker, as in facilitating a=
business meeting, teaching a workshop, etc.). Mouse-gesture interfaces,=
broadly defined, are still going to be limited to a relatively narrow band=
of options, unless we want to enshine the silly menu drill-down paradigm=
for another decade. To borrow the progression of humanity's progress in an=
earlier medium, what is efficient will be "interchangeable type." We might=
not necessarily need a keyboard, but we sure do need a relatively small=
symbol set (gestures or whatever) that can be meaningfully combined in=
infinite ways.
For now, I figure the symbol set might as well be the familiar characers of=
the English language, which has already been widely adopted by the=
computer-literate part of the world.
Now here's a cautionary tale: Kenneth Iverson, around 1964, sugggested a new=
set of symbols to be used in addition to those characters. In his scheme,=
the familiar characters represented data, and parameter values; his new set=
represented very powerful operators or "primitive functions." He devised=
his operators and primitive functions in order to describe efficiently a=
powerful, then-new computer. Because at the time he was an IBM fellow, his=
new symbol set was taken from characters that could fit on an IBM selectric=
typewriter ball -- many Greek characters, for example.
Later on, someone realized since his new notation uniquely represented=
operations, it could become A Programming Language. So they wrote an=
interpreter for it. (Yes, I'm talking about APL. How many of you even knew=
that much? How many have heard of APL? And you are the smart ones.)
Now, as years passed, quite a few intelligent humans became devotees of APL.=
(I have worked with many programmers in my 20+ years documenting systems &=
programs, and I can tell you APL programmers are simply not like other=
programmers. They tend to be noticeably more intelligent, creative, and fun=
to be with. I personally would far rather work in APL or J than in any=
other language I've ever learned or known of.) APLers formed groups and=
user groups and developed new languages. (How many COBOL programmers get=
together after work, enthusiastic about enhancing or exploring COBOL??)=
APLers argued that the reason their far superior language (which was=
intrinsically object-oriented, btw, treating data as one big amorphous=
block that could be addressed in any fashion, not just linearly -- i.e.,=
linear =3D read in record, compare field values, process, store or write=
output, read next record) was not spreading because one needed a special=
keyboard or stickers or something.
And, lo, one of Iverson's sons, working on Wall Street for an infamous=
broker (infamous among Wall Streeters for paying extremely high wages but=
expecting ALL of your time in return), developed an offspring of APL which=
used three-letter English-language combinations as the primitive functions=
and operators (i.e., the character represented by the Greek letter rho,=
which looks a bit like a curly "p," would henceforth simply be represented=
by the string "rho"). The new language also, to some extent, altered the=
operators and primitive functions and their meanings. And the entire=
brokerage house invested all its programming capabilities in the new=
language, and lo, they prospered (at least until greed at upper levels of=
management pretty much did them in).
And lo, Iverson senior came back with J, a marvellous language which used=
the same trick to remove the need for special keyboard symbols, also=
normalized operators and primitive functions, and generally was a fabulous=
language. Iverson won a Turing award for his earlier work. He called APL a=
"tool of thought," because (once you get your head around it), you can=
actually do very powerful things (that is, manipulate very large blocks of=
any kind of data, including "nested" data, in extremely powerful ways)=
very, very quickly. There are actually the equivalent of "help screens" in=
APL which, based on English-language requests you input (like, "separate=
this mess into sentences and count the number of words in each and tell me=
the mean number of words/sentence), hand you "idioms": one-liners (or even=
a short string of characters) that replace pages of code written in other=
languages. And btw a good APL or J programmer can write a simple program to=
do the above which would in fact be a one-liner... unless s/he was=
concerned to make it simple to follow, in which case it might take, oh,=
maybe 3 lines!
Now here's the caution: Almost no-one programs anymore. Of those who do,=
almost no-one uses APL, or J, or has even heard of those languages. The=
higher-generation languages, mostly devoted to doing things with so-called=
databases -- themselves very limited -- are very limited in what they can=
do (nothing near as flexible as J, or even something like FORTRAN).
APL was an elegant, precise, powerful, general-purpose meta-tool. Many old=
APLer's still use home-grown WP, stat programs, and other tools they've=
developed over the years with this language. Iverson spent his life betting=
on the intelligence of human beings; he still (AFAIK) works up there in=
Toronto with kids in schools, teaching them how to think/program/explore.=
MS, in contrast, bet on the stupidity and laziness of human beings in the=
U.S. of A. (Again, they were winning until greed at upper levels etc.)
And now, the conclusion I draw from this sad little history: If we want=
wearables to be popular (thereby making them *affordable* for the rest of=
us), they have to run all current popular software, and do what the masses=
want done now (but maybe look cooler as well as be more convenient). If we=
design them primarily as tools for those of us who are intelligent,=
far-seeing, creative thinkers, they will never become popular. So the=
strategy of those of us who ARE intelligent, creative, etc. should be to=
make them modular, make them adaptable, make them flexible.
Eventually, as we feel our way into the right interface and the right tools,=
one of us will come up with a killer-ap that will make the good interface,=
the good tool, turn into the popular tool and/or interface. In the=
meantime, to popularize an interface/tool, it would help just to have some=
great gaming software, full of violence and sex, probably with some aspect=
of pornography thrown in.
I'm not really cynical about humanity; in the long run I'm hopeful. I=
recognize that intelligence and spiritual maturity are rare now, but I=
think they're generally considered attractive (as well as survival traits).=
(After all, _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ is popular, right?)
I think wisdom implies the maturity to recognize that we have to work with=
very imperfect humans, that we're very limited individuals. In the current=
corporate culture of the U.S. especially, many are so pressed for time they=
feel they cannot learn a new interface before they get the next task=
accomplished, and the rest of us must respect that if we're to change it.=
We should use a stealth campaign (games?) to insinuate the new GUI, OS,=
program, or interface.
Cheers --
Carol
--
Subscription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" to 
Wear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.blu.org
Please, *PLEASE* don't subscribe through a forward/expander/false domain
From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail