<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Yeah, I was asking why you think being able to zoom in and out over a collection of points of view would be a bad thing or wouldn't work. </div><div><br></div><div>Seemed like you had an argument to make there and I'd love to hear it. I'm a fan of Raskin, too. In part I'm asking because my tiny brain thinks it would be absolutely fantastic to have a 2&1/2 3D way of moving over a Self world, and I'm always glad to be wrong!</div><div><br></div><div>Or another way of saying it: the desktop pager gets lost if you scroll away from it, and even if you manage to make it work for you... uh. It reminds me of FVWM on Unix hosts. Blergh. </div><div><br></div><div>Is there nothing in the world that's more lively, direct and concrete than not-that?</div><div><br></div><div>So yeah, I'm 100% interested in user interfaces that can be arbitrarily scaled by the user. I'm not blind to the challenges around that idea either; e.g., zoom very far out and you can't read the text anymore. But user interfaces exist primarily to solve problems like these! An easy out of the example problem I gave can be observed on any Macintosh computer. Push the button, all the windows zoom away, click one, it comes close and into focus. This has worked for like ten years and people love it. It's also _not as good as what we can do_ but if we ignore it, and that it totally works, then we're... ignorant?</div><div><br>On Sep 16, 2014, at 4:39 AM, "Mayuresh Kathe <a href="mailto:mayuresh@kathe.in">mayuresh@kathe.in</a> [self-interest]" <<a href="mailto:self-interest@yahoogroups.com">self-interest@yahoogroups.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<span style="display:none"> </span>
<div id="ygrp-text">
<p>do you need specifics on why i feel a zoomworld interface be bad for a <br>
"self"-like system?<br>
<br>
~mayuresh<br>
<br>
On 2014-09-16 16:37, Casey Ransberger <a href="mailto:casey.obrien.r@gmail.com">casey.obrien.r@gmail.com</a> <br>
[self-interest] wrote:<br>
> Can you be more specific? I read Raskin's book, but I'm not sure what<br>
> you're trying to say.<br>
> <br>
> On Sep 16, 2014, at 2:23 AM, "Mayuresh Kathe <a href="mailto:mayuresh@kathe.in">mayuresh@kathe.in</a><br>
> [self-interest]" <<a href="mailto:self-interest@yahoogroups.com">self-interest@yahoogroups.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
>> On 2014-09-16 12:47, Casey Ransberger <a href="mailto:casey.obrien.r@gmail.com">casey.obrien.r@gmail.com</a><br>
>> [self-interest] wrote:<br>
>>> Interesting, timely idea: Juan Vuletich just released a<br>
>> sneak-peek[1]<br>
>>> at his new vector-based Morphic implementation. The renderer is<br>
>>> currently written in Smalltalk -- so, slow -- but the idea is<br>
>> that<br>
>>> we're going to adapt it to Slang so it can be translated as a VM<br>
>>> plugin in C. The most interesting thing is, his algorithm[2] is<br>
>>> unique. It's based on signal processing theory, and provides<br>
>> crisper<br>
>>> rendering than anything I know of currently on or off of the<br>
>> market.<br>
>>> One of the goals behind the work is to realize a truly zoomable<br>
>> user<br>
>>> interface. Do you think that a zooming interface free of pixel<br>
>>> complications would make the large contiguous Self world easier<br>
>> and<br>
>>> more pleasant to navigate? I do! Forget the desktop pager if I<br>
>> can<br>
>>> just zoom out, right?<br>
>> <br>
>> based on what-ever (little) i know about "self", and my<br>
>> interactions<br>
>> with mr. j raskin, i would suggest staying away from a zooming<br>
>> interface<br>
>> for a "self"-like project.<br>
>> <br>
>> a zoomworld, as was described by mr. raskin would be more apt where<br>
>> you<br>
>> want to drill down into _knowledge_, which isn't the case with<br>
>> "self".<br>
>> <br>
>> do correct me if you feel my assumptions are wrong.<br>
>> <br>
>> ~mayuresh<br>
> <br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
<!-- end group email -->
</div></blockquote></body></html>