This is The-Right-Metaphors in view mode; [Up]
Date: Sun 31-Aug-1991 15:20:35 From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) Subject: The Right Metaphors (was OCR & Services - Where art thou?) In article <1991Aug31.014809.6099@montana.portal.com> reynolds@montana.portal.com (Jack Reynolds) writes: >PaperSight is not a "digital filing cabinet" and Improv is >not "the NeXT generation spreadsheet." These two metaphors >along with other misleading statements from NeXT have >greatly reduced the sales of NeXT computers to white collar >professionals. I think this was one of the best postings to appear in this group in a long time. One might argue that white-collar professionals are as easily taken in by outworn imagery as anyone else, maybe more easily that some (sophisticates are often easily duped). One might argue that getting too far out front of what the masses are prepared to understand is bad for business, even if one has a really superior product. After all, one can only expect so much. I don't know a thing about PaperSight (but I want to). What you say about Improv, however, is quite right: it is so *far* beyond being just a spreadsheet that to describe it with that term is perhaps akin to describing modern high-speed networks in terms of tin cans and string. It's possible, I suppose, that even NeXT, even Lotus, does not quite realize what they have in their products. Improv (and from what you say, PaperSight) are a huge step beyond what most of us are accustomed to using in the way of computing tools. I think NeXTstep offers a very fertile ground upon which to nurture the development of tools for thinking that *far* outstrip anything we know now, and I wish there were some way to bring this point dramatically to bear on everyone's consciousness. There is a tendency, natural enough as far as it goes, to be sidetracked by the entertainment of high-class toys for technocrats; I certainly do it a lot, because it's great fun. But it's maybe a good idea to keep in front of our minds the idea that the whole reason for computing is to make possible mental activity that without computing would literally be inconceivable. Each advance in computing should always answer someone's "what if we had..." question. I've been in the trade since 1955, when it was a marvel to get numbers back from data on punched paper tape (Iliac I). Things have gotten better, especially in terms of speed, reliability, and convenience, not to mention cost-effectiveness. But most people using computers are still thinking of words and numbers put on paper by human hands with wooden pencils. The *real* potential of computing lies, I think, in seamless, transparent, and above all interactive coupling of the tool to our thinking processes. It seems to me the virtual reality people are the ones who are really at the leading edge of these developments. >NeXT should spend more time explaining how their computer >frees ordinary people from the physical laws of Newton and >brings them the power of the laws of Einstein. Why stop there? It's really the powers of Buddha we need. <> It is precisely because it is fashionable for Americans <> to know no science, even though they may be well educated <> otherwise, that they so easily fall prey to nonsense. <> They thus become part of the armies of the night, the <> purveyors of nitwittery, the retailers of intellectual <> junk food, the feeders on mental cardboard, for their <> ignorance keeps them from distinguishing nectar from <> sewage. -- Isaac Asimov, "The Armies of the Night"
Date: Sun 01-Sep-1991 16:02:38 From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Chuck) Subject: Re: The Right Metaphors (was OCR & Services - Where art thou?) In article <1991Aug31.152035.10771@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes: |>In article <1991Aug31.014809.6099@montana.portal.com> |>reynolds@montana.portal.com (Jack Reynolds) writes: |>>NeXT should spend more time explaining how their computer |>>frees ordinary people from the physical laws of Newton and |>>brings them the power of the laws of Einstein. |> [...] |>Why stop there? It's really the powers of Buddha we need. |> [...] OK, folks, this has gone far enough. Yes, NeXT (along with Improv and PaperSight) can and will change the way we (ordinary mortals) work. And yes, Improv is truly wonderful. But if you're looking for the powers of Buddha, you're looking to change a bit more than just the way we work. No technology will ever be able to do this. Ever. Best to hit the power-off button and go outside and sit under a tree and don't get up until you're enlightened, if that's what you want. Ohm.
Date: Sun 01-Sep-1991 23:43:33 From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) Subject: Re: The Right Metaphors In article <3168@tamsun.TAMU.EDU> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Chuck Herrick) scoffs: >In article <1991Aug31.152035.10771@macc.wisc.edu> >anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes: >>In article <1991Aug31.014809.6099@montana.portal.com> >>reynolds@montana.portal.com (Jack Reynolds) writes: >>>NeXT [...] >>>frees ordinary people from the physical laws of Newton and >>>brings them the power of the laws of Einstein. >>Why stop there? It's really the powers of Buddha we need. >OK, folks, this has gone far enough. Yes, NeXT (along with >Improv and PaperSight) can and will change the way we >(ordinary mortals) work. And yes, Improv is truly >wonderful. Now let's see -- you're accepting the premise, then (these are great tools, and they will change the way we work), but ... >But if you're looking for the powers of Buddha, you're >looking to change a bit more than just the way we work. perhaps we have some disagreement over what Buddha's powers might include. One thing to do about this is look again at the Subject: line, which says metaphor. The idea is really only of extraordinary powers of mind, of deeper ways of thinking than we are accustomed to. >No >technology will ever be able to do this. Ever. It isn't really possible to counter a statement of faith like that one. I would observe that never-ever is *quite* a long time, and that it is only a few years since people were unable to imagine that we would *actually* do thousands of things we now do routinely, without turning a hair or even noticing that it represents a marvelous technological achievement. >Best to hit >the power-off button and go outside and sit under a tree and >don't get up until you're enlightened, if that's what you >want. Ohm. Heh heh, I think that's "om;" ohm is something else altogether. But enlightenment is not something you pursue, I expect; rather, it comes to you when you are ready, and the whole point of the Buddha metaphor is that by thinking in a new way, we could perhaps be in a better position to realize the power of the emerging technology. If that falls short of ture enlightenment, well then it does; the results could still be impressive and of great use, I think. Mind you, I have nothing against sitting under a tree, but the point would be to do more with my power-on button than I've been doing, I think. <> Hunger is not a problem of supply -- there is lots of <> food being produced in the world. It is a problem of <> politics and economics, which are more and more the same <> thing. -- John Olson
These are the contents of the former NiCE NeXT User Group NeXTSTEP/OpenStep software archive, currently hosted by Marcel Waldvogel and Netfuture.ch.