Just as there are different ways of learning (visual, aural/verbal, textual, etc), there are different ways of interacting with a machine. I don't need a to read a book to know which way I prefer. Of course, a neural (thought) interface would probably be best, but that's still science fiction for the most part (and not readily available to the consumer anyway, despite mulitary/research usage).
Microsoft Word has had 20 year or so to get it right, but it's still primarily a textual application (to CREATE text!) so it's not a very fair comparison. Desktop publishing (layout) apps like PageMaker (whatever it's called these days by whoever owns it) and WYSIWYG HTML editors is better, and visual programming is a step in the right direction, but too easily, programmers think they can't get as much functionality out of a GUI-based app vs. a text-based one. Sorry, but that's just not true. If the GUI is designed well enough, the exact same functionality is possible with a command-line interface--and it's a damn lot easier to use too. With all of the gee-whiz functionality of CSS and javascript to dynamically add/remove form elements, and entire page sections, there's no reason linked flow diagrams (whatever) can't be created to represent functions, icons for variables, etc. Sure, there will still be text for strings and integers but there's no reason the relationships BETWEEN those types needs to remain text-based. Relationships, after all, can be represented by ANYTHING--hardly just limited by text! Anyway, I like the idea of a semantic web but it's a bit TOO semantic (i.e. wordy) and not very intuitive (the "intuitive web" sounds better, I think). From: Emanuele D'Arrigo Cc: semediawiki-user@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 2:06 AM On 7/30/07, Eep² <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It just seems like there's a lot of overlap between all of these extensions, >and a more collaborative effort is needed to make >MediaWiki much more easier to use and versatile in terms of searching/querying >its info (WITHOUT REQUIRING ALL THE AMN TYPING!). > I agree that many extensions in MW have overlaps. Some big, some small. I disagree that MW requires a lot of typing. Even with a GUI you'd have to type as much, it would only be much more fragmented because you'd have to access menus, submenus, popup windows and so on. That typing you so much despise is actually saving you from a lot of mouse activity which might seem more efficient, but isn't. Check the book "The Human Interface" by Jef Raskin for an interesting although radical dissertation on ways to interact with a computer, and metrics to measure the efficiency of an interface. In terms of efficiency (which is what you are implying) a prompt is vastly more efficient than a gui. What you want is a GUI because you'd like it better that way. Fair enough. > Most users aren't programmers yet most programs are still geared towards > programmers. That's a bit of a generalization! =) Which programs do you have in mind now? I don't think Microsoft Word is geared toward programmers! > I just don't get it... If the semantic web is going to succeed it's going to > have to become > a LOT more user-friendly and not require so much esoteric syntax to get > anything > accomplished. This means more GUI integration and a LOT less typing. I imagine you are referring to the Semantic Web as the actual world-wide effort in that direction rather than the specific of the Semantic MediaWiki. I think the reason the Semantic Web is so complicated (rdf, owl, ontologies) is because it has to take in account the complexity of human knowledge and its representation. I personally found that once I got over the initial difficulties it all made quite a lot of sense. > Indeed it will remain something geared toward web-developers however, for a > while at least. After all, initially web pages were > developed by programmers, and only afterward WYSIWYG software was developed > to let normal users write their own pages. But notice > that these editors might seem nice and friendly nowadays, but are in fact > preventing you from using the most advanced features of > the web, in order to guarantee simplicity. The Semantic Web is currently an > extremely advanced feature that because of its very > nature would make them way more complicated, no matter the GUI you attach to > it. > I understand your frustration though. I'd recommend you take it easy and allow the people in this list to help you out. =) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Semediawiki-user mailing list Semediawiki-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user
