GUI's Bring Out the Worst in Human Creativity...

[Kilmatead]

Is it me (getting old), or is this kind of interface nonsense just nuts?  Even Salvador Dalí would get a headache.  Or do you have to be 13 years old to appreciate it fully?

[nikos]

if you add some spooky spiders it will be ready for halloween!

[fgagnon]

ouch, my head!  :(
that's ridiculous -- even for a 13 year old.

[pj]

Sad, very sad indeed ....






... not the interface, but, whether I like it or not, that three reasonably intelligent individuals would decry the value of innovation. Would that the same hue and cry ensued over the world wide web HTTP: protocol and interface over the "tried and true" dial-up BBS systems in vogue in the 80's.  

And, hey, while we're at it, who needs this whole GUI thing. The DOS prompt and character interface was just fine.  Think of all the gadzillions of computer cycles wasted on drawing the GUI screens that could have been harnessed via distributed computing screen-savers to solve the big computationally-intensive problems of the world like genome decoding or weather prediction. Oh, wait, screen savers weren't even invented until the GUI interface.

Deriding any innovation or a different way of thinking is just the top edge of a slippery slope to banning said thinking... Think not, then ponder the thinking behind Michael Crichton's novel "State of Fear" on the politics of fear (i.e. "global warming") or the essays in James P. Hogan's "Kicking the Sacred Cow".

You asked, I responded. Now you can chisel your replies in the stone tablets you so cherish.

[Kilmatead]

Deriding any innovation or a different way of thinking is just the top edge of a slippery slope to banning said thinking...

You're running on the blind assumption that the above graphical monstrosity exhibits either "innovation" or a "different" way of thinking.  Is there evidence to this effect?  For all intents and purposes, there's nothing new in it (rotating multi-desktops have been around for awhile), but it's only in recent years that desktop pixel-power has reached the level where it can be done more or less simply because it can be done, not because it represents any great leap forward in ergonomic interfacing.

That's what I meant by only "13-year-old's" being able to appreciate it.  Think about it: what separates adults from children in terms of visual stimuli?  It's not taste, or preference, or content - those elements are subjective and contextually bound.  They are the things that the middle-class liberal-arts would have us imbibe so that we may not be boors in front of our peers, and so we may appreciate the value of a fine wine over simply sucking on alcohol swabs.

So what separates adults from children?  One word: Subtlety.  Were I to tell a story, filling it only with bombastic detail of daring-do and visual flair, no doubt it would find an audience - such flippancy always does - yet as the arts have progressed, the Robert Mapplethorpes and Damien Hirsts of the world (they who make the most waves) curiously fall to the wayside in favour of even simplistic things like a true sense of metaphor rather than "Hey, look! I'm using subtext and innuendo!"  Thus the first step in our appreciation, and indeed, our very recognition of the value in found in Depth.  To reach actual Subtlety usually takes a little longer, but as with all things hard-won of true innovation, it does not jump out at you and demand attention (that's for children), it sirens a wealth of puzzling disquiet of a place just outside of our boring everyday perspective.

Any boy can (and usually does) say "Wow, look at the bazungas on that girl!".  It takes them a little longer to notice how some women, of a rarity, can seem to float across the room in an effortless breeze to leave you breathless and ashamed of your boorish impulses at the same time.

I dare say, the exampled GUI does neither of those things.  It's simply a sugar-water placebo that screams of insecurity: "Look at me! Look at me!  Look at me!".  As I have chosen to be an adult in this world (as over-rated as that is), I must turn away.

It is pomp and circumstance which catches the eye, and even at times invigorates the spirited soul, but Innovation and a "Different way of thinking" are so rare that they can command attention just by existing.

Do you really see them in that silly maelstrom?

[pj]

You're running on the blind assumption

Exactly the opposite, my Irish expert-debater friend. I'm not assuming anything. Just the opposite. My thesis is innovation is, as much as beauty, in the eye of the beholder. I make no judgement at all, but applaud the developer's efforts to create. That's all. Create.

... the above graphical monstrosity exhibits either "innovation" or a "different" way of thinking.  Is there evidence to this effect?

I present no evidence, but my statements require no evidence of such. Whereas, you state this creation is a "monstrosity" and, by negative inference, has no innovation nor is different in any way. All of this is pure opinion without proof of evidence, so, where is your support for your statements?

...not because it represents any great leap forward in ergonomic interfacing.

Does every creation have to subscribe to a set of criterion to be value-judged or condemned if found wanting? I thank you for showing me the video so I can see what was done -- if I so choose!! -- but whether I choose to or not is a personal value judgement, just as I may choose not to view art exhibits by Andres Serrano, although it truly offends me that someone would want to create something that I would judge purely for the purpose of offending. That's not what, IMHO, the creative processes should be channeled toward.

I have no qualms in infinite rooms full of monkeys pounding on typewriters as an inefficient process of creation, especially if they're pounding on one of my IBM progeny like the Model 75, but I shamelessly digress.

In closing, perhaps my thoughts are uncritically child-like. So be it.

[Kilmatead]

I make no judgement at all, but applaud the developer's efforts to create. That's all. Create.

Laudable in sentiment, if lacking in substance.  You keep using words that are meant to evoke an open-minded invitation: "Innovation", "Different", and now "Create".

The trouble is, defecation is also a form (in perspective) of creation.  Do I applaud it?  Indeed, we do applaud defecation when young children are taught to do it properly, and they recognise the value in preferably not smearing it over the walls and countertops of our pretend-civilised lifestyles in some childish form of personal expression.

Have you ever house-trained a kitten?  It's quite easy, if a little rude: you shove their furry little face in their fresh "creation", then carry them very quickly to the (human-preferred) "appropriate" place for their ablutions.  After repeating this once or twice, the animal gets the notion to associate one with the other all by itself and your job is done.  Can this be considered Innovation on the part of the feline?  Not really, most mammals are generally intelligent enough not to confuse stool with food (excepting rabbits), and thus nature provides an impetus to function.  The innovation of the act is in that suggestion (of Nature).  Open-mindedly, we would place negative connotations upon the word "training", seeing it as a form of control and domination (Victorian ideal of man's conquering of Nature).  As humans mentally trapped in an historical belief system, to escape the dreaded label of being called conservative by behavioural association, we like to imagine breaking free and being the masters of our own destiny.  This requires imagination - not imagination in the sense of creative thinking (as novels of old would have us believe in personal celebration) - but rather to imagine a "distance from the familiar", which is a far more difficult thing to do; this is why innovation is achieved by so few, and so rarely, and never seen in conjunction with popular society.  (The two are contradistinctive, if you wish a more technical term.)

You state, (This creation...) ...by negative inference, has no innovation nor is different in any way. All of this is pure opinion without proof of evidence, so, where is your support for your statements?

As Fred put it so eloquently (paraphrasing), "My eyes hurt."  That's evidence enough.  

Joking aside, I alluded to Innovation being a slightly higher calling than just "more of the same" special effects.  Creation without Imagination I could not in all honesty call Creation - it's simply regurgitation.  As I stated before, the GUI in question provides any "proofs" necessary by dint of itself, as it contains nothing new, and tries to suggest (desperately, I might add) a sense of that "distance from the familiar" - but never quite achieves it.  Yes, I use suspiciously emotive terms as well: "Monstrosity" and "Maelstrom" with dismissive adjectives like "Silly" thrown in for good measure.  You should be familiar enough with my playful writing style to know by now that these things are window dressing (no pun intended) compared to any real opinions I may hold.  (Besides, if my previous example of "bazungas" wasn't enough for a good chuckle, I don't know what is. )

Yes, I intentionally apply a negative inference: is it not the responsibility of the creator to provide (even a selfish) justification for creative existence?  This is graphical interface design we're talking about after all, not the Sistine Chapel ceiling.  If you've ever seen the latter in person, you'd be less inclined to see the former as an art-form.

All that being said, I really would simply reiterate Fred's joy in pith and pain.  (Which I do every day, anyway. )

Does every creation have to subscribe to a set of criterion to be value-judged or condemned if found wanting?

In the context of GUI, yes, it does.  Going back to the Victorian ideal of Man over Nature (by degree, Nietzsche suggested the next step), the Western proclivity towards an Animal Zoo exhibit (which we take for granted on Sunday afternoons) is a more broadly apt analogy than monkeys and typewriters.  GUI's are only superficially about personal preference and taste, they are first and foremost a function of controls (rather literally!) - i.e., man's dominance over the computer itself (or its data-specific contents).

Out of the context of GUI, you are effectively correct, but I don't think anyone misconstrued my providing the above link as an example of contemporary abstract artistic impression.  Certainly Ubuntu does not represent itself that way.

[pj]

Laudable in sentiment, if lacking in substance.

As I implied, I have no defense if my musings are judged to be child-like or even childish. They are as they are, the weight of which one cannot self-judge.

Have you ever house-trained a kitten?

The efforts to produce a horse suitably trained to perform as one of the Lipizzaner Stallions begins with the very simple act of putting a bit in its mouth. Judging that one act outside of the context of the entirety of the horse's training could produce similar belittling of the effort involved.

(Yes, I had to bring horses into the discussion! )

This discussion is not about the quality of the final product, but that a step was made to put forth something that someone else may find useful. There is a similarity here to others writing and presenting simple utilities that maybe one or two other people in the entire world may find beneficial, but still worthy to be considered a creative act.

This is graphical interface design we're talking about after all, not the Sistine Chapel ceiling.  

Now you've come around to my thinking! The expectations of this persons efforts to make an entertaining GUI needs be on par with the (assumed) level of worth.

If you've ever seen the latter in person...

I have, but prefer the artwork in the Raphael Rooms and some of the 'minor' cathedrals around Rome and inside the St. Peter's Basilica dome. Though I did find it quizzically amusing to take a wizz in a WC on the top of St. Peter's Bascillica. I'll let you surmise my intellectual level from that (perhaps more childish than child-like?) reference.

...you'd be less inclined to see the former as an art-form...

My personal opinion of the GUI lies between the Sistine Chapel and an upside-down cross in a jar of urine. As the gulf between these two reference points is about equal to the distance across this universe (even the exaggerated distances purported by the "Dark Matter" theorists), there is a lot of wiggle room in the judged value. But I didn't place a value on the work, I just believe the work does lie within the boundaries of the creative form, I just chose not to declare where within that boundary it fell (ahem).

Does every creation have to subscribe to a set of criterion to be value-judged or condemned if found wanting?

In the context of GUI, yes, it does.  Going back to the Victorian ideal of Man over Nature ...

OK, I'm quite amused by the use of centuries-old ideals to justify the valuation of a work created on a platform that was released this year, and was wholly unimaginable to those espousing said ideals. Of course, by all means let us fall back on the 'wisdom of the ancients' to provide guidance for all thought and thinking.  

...you are effectively correct...

So, taken out of context, this is your acceptance of the superiority of my argument! Of course, the rest of your statement is irrelevant.

[nikos]

what's the point of progress? people live longer, get fatter, but are basically unhappy and stressed and working like slaves in the name of competitive advantage and exponential growth. Somewhere it all went terribly wrong all this progress thing.

[Thracx]

Is it me (getting old), or is this kind of interface nonsense just nuts?...Or do you have to be 13 years old to appreciate it fully?

I think it's cool.  The purpose of these fancy GUIs is to look fancy so that we can make a neat YouTube video out of it and maybe impress some friends with what you were able to setup

I think the bit about needing to be 13 years old to truly appreciate it is partly true - when you're that age, you don't have to worry so much about productivity and can spend more of your time on hobbies, art, and the like.  I'm sure once they get old enough and get a job, they'll figure out a more efficient way to organize their GUI.  Or maybe by then, they'll be so proficient at using it that it will work wonders for them.  Or maybe they won't work on computers for a living, so they won't have to worry about how efficient their GUI'ing is


Just trying to add some humor to a post which has gone astray

[Kilmatead]

Just trying to add some humor to a post which has gone astray

Hey, this is one of my few threads that hasn't gone astray!  Design and art are paramount, "productivity" is for white-collar criminals and pencil pushers, and thus easily dismissed.

...when you're that age, you don't have to worry so much about productivity and can spend more of your time on hobbies, art, and the like.

Art, unlike the mere ephemeral impressionism these last few centuries have had to offer (i.e., television), is and always has been, a truly consuming activity - it does not care for a world where people waste their lives getting jobs, having children, or "paying the bills".  That is why it is enduring.  Everything else is, and always has been, failure.

[Thracx]

...Design and art are paramount,...

Wait, I thought you were against the guy's artistic desktop?  Surely, if you value art, then you can understand how different people can appreciate different forms of art.  While you may not really like that guy's 3D desktop, I would still think that you'd recognize it as art - maybe ugly art, but art.  Personally, I think it's annoying and would never use it, but I can appreciate the effort it took to get that working and how some people would like how it looks and feels.

..."productivity" is for white-collar criminals and pencil pushers, and thus easily dismissed.

You really don't consider efficiency and productivity useful?  I thought that's why you used X² - it lets you perform tasks better than Windows Explorer does.

Hey, this is one of my few threads that hasn't gone astray!...

Oh come on now, I remember posting in quite a few good threads with you in it!  :D

[Kilmatead]

You really don't consider efficiency and productivity useful?  I thought that's why you used X² - it lets you perform tasks better than Windows Explorer does.

As strange as it may seem, no, I don't consider efficiency and productivity useful - I consider them to be the by-product-values of a world that wants everyone to grow up to be good little members of society (i.e., get a mortgage, have children, be responsible, etc.).  Those activities are fine if you only want to imitate what those around you have done - but I find it unfortunate when people assume that that's all there is in life - or, indeed, all there is in the world, and they don't even try and imagine another way of living.

And (I think I've said this before) I use x2 primarily because Nikos quoted Aristotle in Greek on the website.  Yes, that's really the only reason.  I am a man who believes the only "real" work in the world is that which comes from the strength of one's arm - everything else is the bastard-child of the Industrial Revolution, creating whole magnificent structures of employment for millions and millions of people who... strangely... don't actually do anything "real" at all (as Nikos said earlier, "Somewhere it all went terribly wrong... all this progress thing").  And when you judge the world (in an admittedly "simplistic" manner like mine), I'm afraid that file-management by definition simply cannot contribute efficiency or productivity - at the end of the day, that would just be confusing one illusion for another.

And yes, that makes me a Medievalist in the truest sense of the world.  (Trust me, my life has been one big contradiction ever since I was a child.  I've learned to live with it. )

Wait, I thought you were against the guy's artistic desktop?  Surely, if you value art, then you can understand how different people can appreciate different forms of art.

I am against that desktop.  However, as the discussion in the rest of the thread shows (the stuff I surmise you thought was "off topic"), I hold Art special because it exists on a plane separate from humanity (be that spatial plane "above it" or "below it" I leave each to conclude for themselves).  As such, it (Art) defies human appreciation - and if anything, Art (to vie towards personification) exists in spite of our appreciation.  That most of what we call Art is actually created by humans is an unfortunate type of dark humour of the universe, if looked at from that perspective.

As outlined elsewhere in the thread - specifically my tasteless simile of seeing "defecation [as] also a form (in perspective) of creation" - I called into relief whether the desktop in question could even be considered "creative" at all - never mind being any form of art.  And how pj conveniently echoed this with his own association of "pissing on top of St. Peter's Bascillica" being a high-point of his own "appreciation" was just icing on the cake, as it were.

[Thracx]

...And yes, that makes me a Medievalist in the truest sense of the world...

heh, I suppose it does.

...I consider [efficiency, eta] to be the by-product-values of a world that wants everyone to grow up to be good little members of society (i.e., get a mortgage, have children, be responsible, etc.)....I find it unfortunate when people assume that that's all there is in life...

What if a person wants to do those things because they enjoy them?  Does everyone necessarily think that these are the only things in life?  I take it you're very frustrated by a multitude of people who act and indeed probably do live life by trying to imitate those around them.  But does that make you presume that all of us are the same?

I am a man who believes the only "real" work in the world is that which comes from the strength of one's arm... ...I'm afraid that file-management by definition simply cannot contribute efficiency or productivity...

Could you elaborate on the first part of this quote?  I take it that you do find some tasks worthwhile and indeed valuable - such as art, since earlier you labeled everything else as a 'failure'.  Wouldn't you say that it's better to be more efficient with doing stupid tasks - like file-management - faster, such that one can spend more of their time on the tasks which are valuable, like making art?

...(the stuff I surmise you thought was "off topic"),...

Just as a note, when I said 'astray', I was thinking that the discussion seemed a little spiteful or angry, and less playful (the mood of the first few posts).  The discussion was actually quite on topic - the 'deviations', from what I remember, were always made to accent a point.

[Kilmatead]

What if a person wants to do those things because they enjoy them?  Does everyone necessarily think that these are the only things in life?  I take it you're very frustrated by a multitude of people who act and indeed probably do live life by trying to imitate those around them.  But does that make you presume that all of us are the same?

I was trying to intone the rejection of the Technocracy without sounding like a broken old hippie who repeats himself.

I'm not suggesting everyone is the same (well, that's a lie, I am suggesting that), but it boils down to the sheer difficulty (nigh, impossibility) that we have in this age of advertising, propaganda, and social convention, of people actually "thinking for themselves".  This sounds very simple, but if one investigates the reasons why one believes this or that... or feels this or that... or (especially) thinks this or that... it can usually be traced to some event or cause or influence which came from outside the individual.  At its simplest, these things are traced to one's parents, one's culture, one's forebears, never mind Freud's rather "odd" ideas of what influences our subconscious behaviour (does your wife resemble your mother, why do some people look like their pets, and could it be considered child-abuse to teach your children your own inherited "values"?).

Could you elaborate on the first part of this quote?  I take it that you do find some tasks worthwhile and indeed valuable - such as art, since earlier you labeled everything else as a 'failure'.  Wouldn't you say that it's better to be more efficient with doing stupid tasks - like file-management - faster, such that one can spend more of their time on the tasks which are valuable, like making art?

You're assuming the distinction of "stupid tasks" (de-boning chicken) as being undeniably separate from "valuable tasks" (making whoopee).  One of the things I've tried to do as I get older is to eliminate this "given" assumption of dichotomy (which I have in myself, against my will) - to see everything as effectively "one task", without allowing personal preferences ("I enjoy this task... but I dislike this other task...") to prejudice my approach to the task.

Taken the wrong way (envisioning the human penchant for extreme conclusions), one could end up with either "everything is futile, why bother" or "don't worry, be happy" as one's philosophy (to be glib).  I'm not denying the existence of "efficiency" and "productivity" - I'm merely denying their nascent values as being inherent.

And yes, I'm aware of the pathological dangers in this pursuit (it paves the way, ultimately, for the logical justification of anti-social behaviour that contemporary social conventions find abhorrent).  But that would be going truly off-topic, as opposed to merely "astray", as you correctly pointed out.