On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 14:58 +0100, Diego Moya wrote: > - they still program using the interaction techniques of the late 70s > (main application event loops, event-based triggering of subroutines, > and throwing everything into a single application window with separate > function points - all (mis)organized into lots of submenus.
I thought event loops belong to software architecture, not "interaction techniques". Anyway, what would be more modern approaches? > All private companies have that underlying goal. That is not > incompatible with providing what the intended users need. I think > Apple got it right in focusing on users with little computing > experience/needs. > The suggested solution (self-contained apps) is just one viable format > for this, currently popular because of the success of the iPhone. As > you say, this is not good for all users (only the majority of them) - > so different solutions will evolve for the kind of users left behind. I suspect that emphasizing applications has quite a lot to do with pushing sell-able entities. -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ _______________________________________________ Usability mailing list Usability@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
