Bret's argument, though, only applies to Information Software.
Which... hey, if you want to go with describing fundamentally
different approaches to GUIs based on the classifications he uses in
his arguments, I think that's a better place to start than trying to
figure out how to make a new denotationally-semantic GUI toolkit that
works for everyone everywhere.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Malcolm Wallace
Jeff Heard wrote:
Similarly, I've been wondering what's at the core of a GUI? It seems in recent years that more people have been moving towards web-based applications, and away from traditional GUIs, so the meaning of them may be changing. The old question seemed to be Page vs. Control-Board, but that seems like implementation, when the real essence of a GUI is taking in common kinds of user input and displaying output in a sensible way.
I would go with Bret Victor's argument (http://worrydream.com/MagicInk/) that the concept of user interface as primarily _interaction_ is misguided. What GUIs are really about is visual _presentation_ of information. The semantic questions are about what it means graphically to compose information sources. We spend more time reading, viewing, and absorbing that information, than rearranging it, or adding to it.
Interaction changes the sources, or the way they compose, but is (or should be) fundamentally an infrequent activity. The better the visual presentation, the less you need to interact with it.
Regards, Malcolm
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe