[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.

-- Jecel

More information about the Self-interest mailing list