The other two physical ideas were
-- via head mounted display (in glasses a la Ivan Sutherland's goggles -- ca.
1968 -- but invisible)
-- as embodied in the environment (a la Nicholas Negroponte's and Dick Bolt's
"Dataland" and "Spatial Data Management System" of the 70s).
In the late 60s, many of us thought that it might be easier to do the tiny flat
panels needed for a HMD than to make the big ones needed for the tablet form
factor. But in fact no one with development funds in the US was interested in
flat panel displays at that time. All we had were the main patents and
knowledge for all the subsequent development work of each of the technologies
required (liquid crystal, plasma, particle migration, thin film, amorphous
semiconductors, etc.)
Cheers,
Alan
>________________________________
> From: Loup Vaillant <l...@loup-vaillant.fr>
>To: fonc@vpri.org
>Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:59 PM
>Subject: [fonc] Dynabook ideas
>
>Le 15/03/2012 00:44, Alan Kay a écrit :
>
>> To me the Dynabook has always been 95% a "service model" and 5% physical
>> specs (there were three main physical ideas for it, only one was the
>> tablet).
>
>Err, what those ideas were? I have seen videos of you presenting it,
>but I can't see more than a tablet with a keyboard and a touch screen
>—wait, are the keyboard and the touch screen the other two ideas?
>
>Loup.
>_______________________________________________
>fonc mailing list
>fonc@vpri.org
>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
