Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!iuvax!purdue!bu-cs!encore!gloom!cory
From: cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: desktop of the future
Message-ID: <312@gloom.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jan 89 00:13:33 GMT
References: <8901092247.AA05892@multimax.encore.com>
Reply-To: cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf)
Organization: Alloy Computer Products, Framingham Mass.
Lines: 96

In article <8901092247.AA05892@multimax.encore.com> dan@WATSON.BBN.COM (Dan Franklin) writes:
>I find the question of the "desktop of the future" a very interesting
>one.  But comments so far have only described new hardware
>developments like the DataGlove and small variations on the desktop,
>like the "virtual room" (or set of rooms).

I have to admit, this is probably a better place for this than .Next
is...  Isn't the 'virtual room' concept more a software one?  as in
'shell'?  

>By themselves, these developments will not lead to breakthroughs in
>computer use. 

True, IF you are only considering the OS/HW changes and not
considering the changes in the way that people think about the systems
that they are on as a result of this.  Take the mac for examle... 
the idea of the desktop, and all that goes with it led to a lot of
ideas that are (loosely) based on this metaphor.  It has changed how
people view the system, and what occurs to them to do with it.  Kinda
like spinoff technology... 

>What kind of future user interface SOFTWARE would lend itself to this
>kind of operation?  Dealing with massive complexity--being able to
>find the needle in the haystack--is clearly going to occupy more and
>more people trying to cope with the "information explosion".

Looking at files is a rather static view of the system... the idea of
a computer program is a batch mode apporach.  If we can get faster
hardware/better algm's, it should become feasable to view software in
a more interactive mode... to actually see the data as it is flowing
around the system...  Of what use this would be, I am still working
on, but one thing that I can see is a faster turnaround time -- with
the changes being made while the system is opperating (ie reach in a
swap the bad code object for a new one... add/change the functionality
of the system without the need of source, etc.

>It helps a lot that I can represent each file or directory as one line
>on a big screen, and I can order the files by date, type (filename
>suffix, that is), or other salient characteristics.  I can even do
>this for the contents of many directories at once.  (Try *that* with
>MacOS!)  But it's still very clumsy, and I do this almost every day!

cakewalk.  Before you start putting down a system, the least you could
do is research it a bit.  In fact, on the mac *I* can do better.  But
I really don't see any good reason to start a 'my system is better
than yours' battle...  (With work, I could probably do something
similar on any good system)

Personally, I am hoping that the idea of files as static disk objects
will fade away (if it ever becomes reasonable to have several Gb of
RAM, of what use is a Hard Disk? -- there was a blurb in a one of the
tech rags that I read a long time ago about some research using
bi-state protiens as memory cells.  They predicted something on the
order of 10 Gbit/cm^2 density.  Use a low power laser to read, a
higher power one to switch.  Nonvolatile.)

>What I want is a way to look at hundreds or thousands of files at
>once, in such a way that possibly-important properties, whatever they
>are, spring out at me. 

It sounds like you would be in a world of sensory overload... picture
the cockpit of an airplane... now increase the number of controls,
dials, etc 100 fold.  Now find the usefull data with everything
blinking lights at you to get your attention.

I generally use a form of grep to deal with this... If I tell 'ls' 
to give me the data, I can use 'grep' to show me only the data that 
I want to work with.  The only real problem is that it takes a while 
and is clumsy.  On the Mac II (when I have access to a colour monitor, 
I use different colours to represent different things... either projects, 
or types of files (ex: all .h files have light blue icons)  I would like
to see other text attributes as well as colour added to the text
listing of the directories though.  

>Or maybe I'm interested in a continuum, rather than a binary question:
>how old is each file? 

I wonder if it would be practical to set up a system of colours and
shades to represent continuum function gradiations... such as age for
example... old data would fade out, current data would be bright...
perhaps a version of grep that would alter the way that the the list
in the current window is displayed, based on the values of the data
objects... say turn all files that match the current selection pattern
bright red?  etc?

I could go on for ages on this... maybe (if I get the time and
inclination), I will write another micro-story...

don't think that I am putting down the idea, cause I'm not.  Just
don't limit the ideas that are already out there.

+C
-- 
Cory ( "...Love is like Oxygen..." ) Kempf
UUCP: encore.com!gloom!cory
	"...it's a mistake in the making."	-KT