pirateking

There is a fine line between using things like color as a tool to shape a product, versus using them as an option to sell a product. I know which side Jobs was on.

I naturally see the visual language as an output and the interaction language as an input, both interfacing with the holistic design space that I am trying to explore across the design process. They are not two discrete activities, but two forms of participation in a singular activity, with a design of the thing as a single output. I have taken this approach to designing things for a long time now, with no great peril beyond philosophical curiosities such as this.

I consider visual design to be a part of interaction design, and taking one without the other is a failure to understand design (to the limited extent it can be understood at all). An example: a traffic light's visual design is fundamental to its interaction design.

Software is made of a set of symbols unique to its particular function, and user interaction at its most primitive is no more than the relationship of those symbols to the ones present in the mind of the user.

The latest fads in user interaction design seem to ignore this perspective, and instead treat "UI" as another abstraction layer of unique symbols on top of software, then expecting all software to be designed top-down based off this "unified design language". This approach unfortunately ignores the user, providing further indirection away from the underlying software and it's function, herding the user into a church of the designer's own construction where they are now forced to worship interaction in the abstract as a prerequisite to using the software (or at least blindly perform whatever rituals it demands).

The aim of design unification is often a false path, born out of convenience for the designer, and it's pursuit shows a certain level of disrespect to both the user and other designers. Programming languages - arguably interaction design in its purest form - are a more interesting path towards better software (see Smalltalk, Swift playgrounds, and the work at VPRI).

Material is not what software is made of, but it is a pretty good sign of what marketing is made of these days.

Make and use technology just for yourself, then you can always keep up.

I am getting a familiar sensation.

An unsettling feeling that Home Automation™ is not actually about making the home and its consumer electronics more integrated, easier to use, and providing more free time and control to the individual. Rather, it is about making things harder to use for the average consumer without machine or professional assistance, requiring more hardware bundles and software services to get the "total experience", and control and data slowly taken away from the individual. Of course, this play for command and control is for the innocent sake of predictable behavior that can be optimized (and the steady revenue and growth that implies).

Self optimizing systems' predilection to predictability is quite predictable (whether machine or human).

While I believe Nest and HomeKit will likely be successful due to these optimizations they can potentially bring, I consciously will take the less optimal route this time, and have fun DIY'ing my automation instead.

Scheme.

What would we do? Well, we might aspire to be more like our newfound superiors. We might attempt to become cyborgs.

Haven't read the book yet (as I just heard of it from the post), but sounds interesting. I am also currently working on a piece of fiction with some similar themes, and was wondering if you could share some thoughts on how you manage references to real world entities and technologies in the story? What sort of balance did you find between history, science, and fiction?

The author and the technology/finance circle jerk he feeds off are most definitely conspiring to put the reader in their bubble. The only thing bubble based software is eating is available capital, which could be used to research and develop more robust, long term solutions by advancing hardware and software together.

The article only mentioned kidney disease, low potassium dietary restrictions, that the factory vegetable industry is going to grow, and that kids like factory lettuce better. No other details on motivations for getting into the factory vegetable business. The article makes it seem like the reason was just because they had the clean room facilities and they could - so why not?