I am mostly just a user too, but I  use ubiquity to write my own
commands that make my work on a proprietary web application easier.
Mainly automating multi-step interactions with the apps web pages by
using a sentence to describe what I want to do or end up with.   What
advantages will quicksilver give me in this context that ubiquity
doesn't?

>  Natural language interfaces have been
> tried on and off since the 1960's, but they have never really caught
> on, and there's probably a reason for that
 Such as, any references?

Are those reasons good enough to never try developing a NLI again? I
guess I don't understand what advantages using a separate input areas
for the object, action, and (optional) argument will give me over the
way I am currently using ubiquity. When I invoke it it is usually to
do one specific task and imo, it is easier written as a one liner ->
"on my custom site open blah and for field 1 enter and save values of
blahblah and field2 values of blahblahblah; than accomplished with
actions (mouseclicks, clicking on different tabs and typing in
information etc ). But I don't know how quicksilver works since I
haven't ever taken the time to install it and learn it.


Do you think it would be possible to add in the functionality you are
looking for rather than developing a whole new plug-in that just looks
and works differently?

On Jan 26, 5:17 am, Tom 94301 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I'm just a user but I like the current Ubiquity interface.
>
> Have you actually used Quicksilver or Gnome Do?
>
> > I think their idea was to leverage natural language.
>
> Sure, and it's a natural idea.  Natural language interfaces have been
> tried on and off since the 1960's, but they have never really caught
> on, and there's probably a reason for that.  Quicksilver took off
> because it added a bunch of features that made such interfaces work
> well, one of them being an unambiguous and intuitive separation of
> verbs and objects.
>
> > Maybe someone else can create another firefox plugin that works more like 
> > you describe
>
> Possibly.  The problem is that because Ubiquity's interface doesn't
> allow some forms of interactions, Ubiquity's plugins will be less
> functional and useful than they would be if Ubiquity had a more
> Quicksilver-like interface.
>
> In any case, I was foremost interested in whether this was a simple
> "hey, natural language sounds good to me" decision or whether people
> had actually done an in-depth analysis and evaluation of different
> interfaces.

On Jan 26, 5:17 am, Tom 94301 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I'm just a user but I like the current Ubiquity interface.
>
> Have you actually used Quicksilver or Gnome Do?
>
> > I think their idea was to leverage natural language.
>
> Sure, and it's a natural idea.  Natural language interfaces have been
> tried on and off since the 1960's, but they have never really caught
> on, and there's probably a reason for that.  Quicksilver took off
> because it added a bunch of features that made such interfaces work
> well, one of them being an unambiguous and intuitive separation of
> verbs and objects.
>
> > Maybe someone else can create another firefox plugin that works more like 
> > you describe
>
> Possibly.  The problem is that because Ubiquity's interface doesn't
> allow some forms of interactions, Ubiquity's plugins will be less
> functional and useful than they would be if Ubiquity had a more
> Quicksilver-like interface.
>
> In any case, I was foremost interested in whether this was a simple
> "hey, natural language sounds good to me" decision or whether people
> had actually done an in-depth analysis and evaluation of different
> interfaces.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"ubiquity-firefox" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/ubiquity-firefox?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to