A consistently valuable interface design prompt for me: how would I do [X activity] with paper/pen/physical tools? The answer is often so much more fluid and improvisational than typical UI idioms and "data structures" tend to produce!
Conversation
Replying to
If I "highlight" something on a computer, it needs to represent that with a literal start offset and length. But annotating a physical document is often intentionally vague and gestural—attach a sticky to the general vicinity of an area, shade a line down the margin, etc.
3
2
30
I can improvise purpose-specific solutions with a physical highlighter: draw a box around something; make special marks in a personal code; write big-font marginalia. Most interfaces permit only pre-set verbs and a small surrounding space of creative repurposing.
2
25
This is an old problem, of course. There's a great discussion in "Formality considered harmful"[1] (via , I think!). See also Smalltalk, Dynamicland, Chalktalk…
[1] andymatuschak.org/files/papers/S
1
2
35
Replying to
agreed! been poking at a structured editing concept for a while which can be described as writing down bits of code/spec/comments/values on postits and then re/arranging them in a grid, where vertical adjacency connotes flow and horizontal connotes alternative or annotation >>>
2
5
point being to problematize the boundary between structured vs unstructured, explanatory vs exploratory programming. while a soup of text is in principle infinitely remixable, trad hierarchical syntax can counter playful physicality
1
1
Show replies
Replying to
1
12