Dynamicland Communal Computer
dynamicland.org
dynamicland.org
And then it turns out that such a system works really well with more constructivist approaches to computer supported learning and collaboration, and the Dynamicland team is doing a very solid job at developing that too.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20180210180104/http://www.ubiq.c...
My own feelings about Dynamicland, after a couple of hours there, are mixed but mostly positive:
* Like many who experience it, I don't have a handle on DL's most valuable differentiators as a platform. But that's OK, because it feels like they're not trying to achieve that yet; it's more about just experimenting. We're so unused to computing with this UX model that it's going to take a while to find its best uses.
* Plus, DL is chasing an idea for which the hardware barely exists yet. Ideally, it would be cheaply sensing full 3D in the environment, and projecting higher contrast visuals at all angles.
* Even so, there are some easy, playful ideas they've done that are wonderful. For example, an animator script which lays out three paper-sized outlines to the right of wherever you place the script, and then rapidly cycles the images it captures from those outlines. So, if you want to teach animation, you just draw a cycle across three pieces of paper, put them in the outlines, and the animation shows up instantly on the animator.
* The RealTalk code for the whole DL environment is pasted on a couple of whiteboards on one side of the space. They've voluntarily chosen to constrain themselves in how complex it can be. I really like that.
I see a lot of people focusing on the technology of Dynamicland but less the idea behind it, which is to make computation more of a medium that's continuous with our human world, not something that is trapped in tiny rectangles (hijacking our attention and crippling our bodies) where only people with developed symbolic representation skills can use it. The technology will change and be outdated in many years (like paper and pens have changed over time), but the medium will live on. Maybe my work on Laser Socks provides another example in this space: http://glench.com/LaserSocks/
Users here familiar with the game industry likely know about Unreal Engine’s blueprints as a kind of abstraction between C++ code and a more “design-y” format. It has its problems of course, but I think the more we can help express technical problems in a productive way our industry will better manage tech, I think.
i just don’t see how you can claim “normal” computer programs let you choose how you interact with them. i don’t see that at all.
i think you miss the point of dynamicland because it is about accessibility. it is about touching. it is about seeing. in dynamicland, there are a multitude of ways to interact with the system.
We're confusing two notions of accessibility here. Dynamicland is more accessible for a normal user who wants to tinker under the hood (compared to closed source apps). It's less accessible for individuals who need alternate representations of the digital reality. With Dynamicland, the code is actually stored in the real world and the computer merely interprets it. If you can't manipulate the real world, you can't manipulate the code. When you use a normal computer system, the program is stored inside that system and you can use any input/output device to manipulate it. That includes keyboards, touchscreens, screen readers, switches, voice control or even brain computer interfaces. Using them to manipulate something written on a whiteboard is impossible.
While I agree with the goal of making software and systems more open to the average person, I think solutions like Smalltalk, that don't distinguish between the code itself and it's manifestation and let you open any system and tinker under it's hood, along with better programming literacy taught in schools are the way forward. I agree that smartphone screens with their addictive qualities aren't the best option out there, but I don't think Dynamicland is the solution. Something akeen to it, using AR, or even better, Matrix-like VR when that becomes a thing, would be actually a much better solution. Sadly, we're not there yet.
The value proposition of tangibles took an especially hard blow when smartphones hit the market — multi-touch direct input achieves much of what tangibles promise to offer (e.g., intuitiveness) while retaining all of the benefits of digital computation (e.g., portability of data, negligible marginal cost of production) that are sacrificed in systems like Dynamicland.
i am not sure i understand how appealing to human experience is a fetishization.
> multi-touch direct input achieves much of what tangibles promise to offer (e.g., intuitiveness)
i fully disagree about the intuitiveness of multi-touch inputs which tend to have a hidden gesture language. simply trying every possible permutation of touches and gestures, which is what most people do when presented with a new touch interface, does not represent intuitiveness. buttons, sliders, switches, etc. always yield much more efficient and intuitive interfaces.
also, humans are not digital computers, and we struggle to think like them. humans really like the physical world we're born into, and our senses respond positively to things that trigger them. our senses are dulled when interacting with digital computers. look at the synthesizer world. it's a common fact that software synthesizers are extremely flexible and convenient (in some ways, not so in others) but are monotonous to interact with. people often (almost always?) augment them with tangible external interfaces such as knobs, buttons, and keyboards. people tend to much prefer hardware synths (digital or analog based) that they can touch, feel, smell, see, etc. it creates a tangible environment that is much more enjoyable.
i guess you must live in a different universe than me if this doesn’t apply to “normal” and “viable” computer systems and cs education.
the entirety of your post seems like you are just making stuff up out of thin air simply because it is different than what you know. have you used dynamicland? have you seen presentations on it? have you watched how it works?
if something doesn’t work in dynamicland, you can just go and look at what isn’t working. it’s all there. a major component of bret victor’s work is seeing. watch his talk seeing spaces for some elaboration.
Lua!
Bret already answered similar concerns:
There really should be a name for the phenomenon if there isn't already.
I’d say it’s a sort of affordance[0], but I’m sure Don Norman[1] suggested material properties can be described as the “psychology of materials” in his book[2]. He describes how British Rail kept building tougher and tougher glass that was still always being broken, but when it was replaced with plywood the vandalism stopped, even though the wood would be easy to break. Certain materials (and designs) beg to be used (and abused) in certain ways.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordance
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Norman
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Design_of_Everyday_Thing...