[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
My remote controls my TV, my VCR, my DVD player,
and my son and daughter. It is tricky to make a
web interface do that, though not impossible. But
I really would fear to drive my van with it in
rush hour traffic.
I like that article because it will provoke some
serious and not so serious thought about subjects
which if not XML-centric, will engage why XML is
applied and the problems of doing that. One should
be clear that the idea of a browser is to browse, but
a web browser is latched to the notion of content as
interface. Is that smart?
Why are 3D systems such miserable market failures?
len
From: Danny Ayers [mailto:danny666@virgilio.it]
> The best interface ever designed for the web is the google
> page: one box, two buttons, and a human knowledge of terms.
> It doesn't care if it is in a thick client or a thin client
> because its brains aren't owned by either. Success varies by
> the owner who is as effective as they are smart.
Yup, but Tim talks of :
[[
All computer applications fall into one of three baskets: information
retrieval, database interaction, and content creation. History shows that
the Web browser, or something like it, is the right way to do the first two.
]]
Google similarly only covers the first two.
But surely the 3-basket view is a very backwards-looking approach. Without
content creation intimately linked with IR and *processing* I don't think
we're going get anything like the full benefit of the web. All we have
without the fusion is broadcast media, with at best a load more community
channels. The browser is the best interface in the current environment in
the same way the remote control is the best TV interface.
|
