I have no idea what this is about, but that website is pretty and interesting, and will provide a suitable distraction for me today. So thank you!
He talks about redefining the way programming works to emphasize the principle of creativity. Instead of programming blind and having to compile to see your results, he showcases some very cool demos of some 'live' coding and the creative opportunities that arise. You would like it, Krynn. Go watch it.
I'm about 10 mins in, and it looks neat, but not exactly groundbreaking. This is how I set up scripts in Unity for example, I can make the variable public, and edit it in the Unity editor in realtime to dial it in. EDIT: OK, at 13 minutes... I've shit myself.
It seems a bit cumbersome to me. Part of the nice thing about code and more general tools is that they are flexible. I can imagine a lot of different ways to break his examples and I am sure he can too. They are great for the examples he shows, but they are limiting because of that. I think that the message is really, that good designers shouldn't use his tools, they should learn to make their own tools in the same way that he does. Being able to script in any environment is a quick way to get things done in the way that you want them done.
I think you maybe missed the point, Dan. This isn't about getting things done in the way you want them done. It's about opening creative opportunities. Notice all the parts where he came up with new ideas simply because of what he could do with the live manipulation. It's not about expertly programming some vision you already had.
Yeah, I know that's what he's saying. But I am saying that it pigeonholes design in to his idea of design. Take the coding example. What if you want to write something that is computationally intensive, like multidimensional optimization, or computational fluid dynamics. How do you live preview something that takes hours? There are a lot of ways that these "easier" more intuitive interfaces can speed up certain tasks, but that means you are doing certain tasks that fall into the range of things this software was intended for, not coming up with open unconstrained design. What I am saying is that good designers ARE the people who have a good conceptual model of what they are doing. He is trying to cater design to everyone, essentially dumb it down and simplify it. It's like the difference between giving an artist a canvas and paint versus giving a regular schmuck a paint by numbers kit. Sure the schmuck will probably end up with a nicer end product than he would of otherwise, but it still won't compare to what a good artist with unlimited reign will make. I am saying that if a designer needs a better interface for a specific task, they would be much better off with the skillset to implement it themselves, then with design software that tries to guess what kind of "helpful" interface will make things easier for them.
The interface is the "connection" to the tool. It's all that he's talking about for the first half. Do you care to elaborate some? I disagree with the notion that a lack of appropriate tools is ever the limiting factor in design, or as he puts it, the cause of "stillborn" ideas. I don't believe that creators need an immediate connection to the ideas that they have to be able to carry them out, or that that connection is as creatively fruitful as he implies. The immediate connection that he is talking about, the "better" interface, is intended to foster ideas and creativity. I think that it does a lot for regular users of these tools, and other types of interactions, and can serve as an aid for those using the computer model in place of their own mental model. But it doesn't increase creativity. Creativity comes from the mental model, and all the tools he demonstrates foster is basically limited preprogrammed creativity. "We will make it really easy for anyone to be creative in the ways that the tools allow." It's painting by numbers. The tools suddenly have an intention rather than being just generic inanimate tools that you manipulate. Code is there and it very simply does what it says it does. When you start putting in his instant feedback, and computer graphics on the left, you are starting to second guess the designers intentions.
Yeah it's dumb but I actually looked it up in Sulkdodds's copy of the HL2net extended rulebook (you know, the one that all the moderators have a copy of but they don't let anyone else see because it's more fun that way) and it's right there, rule 137, clause B: The OP of a thread has the right to justly declare a winner of any argument, given both the argument and the judgment are contained within the first page (as indicated by the default 15-post-per-page layout), and the argument is not about whether or not Gordon has a helmet (because he so obviously does not). Sorry guys Anyway I had the same reaction to this as Krynn did – 'oh that's okay I guess' and then at 13 minutes 'OH SHIT' I find it really endearing that he used an early build of Braid for that demonstration
And it's stated that the suit protects him from the radiation from the Citadel Core in EP1 so unless Gordon has lead goatee I think he must be wearing something to block that.
1. The HUD is probably projected on the back of his glasses by the suit or it is a creative liberty taken for the sake of gameplay to make what would otherwise be displayed on the arm or something more visible 2. You don't know that it's not a lead goatee
I take it back. Vegeta is the winner, but Rule 137, Clause B says the judgment has to be on page 1. That's unlucky. Krynn only won because his post was in my view when writing the reply.
Who the **** still uses the 15-posts-per-page system? How slow is your internet that you can't load 40 posts at a time?
Guys--and girl--see ... this is why I still go to this forum. Also, headcrabs would be 1-hit deaths if Gordon didn't have a helmet. SECURITY OFFICERS ALL HAD THEIR HELMETS OFF AT THE TIME. This talk will definitely inspire me to reevaluate the tools I use as an engineer on a regular basis.
Look, you guys, this is exactly why we have the rulebook. Otherwise you start thinking that just because you can use 'logic' to say that 'Gordon would be dead if he didn't have a helmet' you're 'right.' When you're not. You're obviously not right. In fact, you're wrong. You're wrong. You're wrong because Gordon doesn't have a helmet. (it was stolen) Actually, funny thing about that, I checked the indexes for any references to take-backs and did find one rule in the 8th chapter of the forth volume which just so happens to be the section for rules that are punishable by death, and so I was real excited like, I had this bandanna wrapped around my face and two shotguns strapped to my back you know like with the barrels forming an X on my back and I had some grenades across my chest and I had a knife in my pocket and I even had a desert eagle on my hip and I had Stardog's address already pulled up on google maps but then Silkbabbs pointed out to me (and I guess that this is all made quite clear if you actually go to hl2net law school rather than just thumbing through the rulebook occasionally) that all transgressions of the rules require both the perpetrator and the injured party to be human, and I was pretty disappointed at this point but then he even went as far as to tell me to put the desert eagle away because I would break my arm trying to fire it, can you believe that, he actually said that to me Oh but wait I think he also said something else like make sure to never tell Kry wait WAIT ****
But if Gordon has a helmet... how does he put the bag of crabs in his mouth? [video=youtube_share;iFHAn2rTKpY]http://youtu.be/iFHAn2rTKpY[/video]