[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.
> > 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.
More information about the Self-interest