[self-interest] text and gui
Jecel Assumpcao Jr
jecel at merlintec.com
Tue Mar 16 00:09:11 UTC 2004
On Monday 15 March 2004 19:32, Albertina Lourenci wrote:
> Well, in this case we have no graphical wall!
It is an example of a textual notation, not a graphical one.
> Of course for graphical designers this makes no sense!
My point exactly.
> What I understand by graphical syntax is something like
> the GUI, the outliner and so on! In this case you also
> have true graphical objects.
I am typing this in an application running in a GUI, yet can't use it to
send you an example of a graphical notation. The outliner only allows
you to type text in it to define a method, even though it is a very
nice graphical notation of an object.
> Hence the difference is not it is only interactive. Indeed
> it has different functionality from the literal syntax.
> It is something like three dimensional collaborative
> architecture and bidimensional collaborative architecture.
Right.
> > Even though the three versions of the wall object are equivalent in
> > theory, in practice it is more fun to deal with the graphical
> > version.
>
> I see no equivalence! Only if you make a reductionist effort or
> a rough mapping from one to the other. For a designer this makes
> no sense!
It is not a rough mapping - it is an exact mapping which an automatic
tool can use to translate from one notation to the other.
But you are the one who said:
# I miss the point here. Semiotically speaking there may be different
# forms for the same content. What's the problem with this? For me the
# problem is when there is no correspondence between the two different
# forms. This is exactly what happens when one tries to map domain model
# and architecture into programming languages.
I showed you three different forms for the same content, and hope you
now see the problem with this. In practice, some forms are more
convenient than others.
-- Jecel
More information about the Self-interest
mailing list