Dear Dave,
These are typographically compelling, but don’t give me much confidence that they will “work” for the goals I have.
I’m preparing my talk for Michael Nielsen’s Tools for Thought event, and have settled on the topic of “Intimate Interfaces,” which I claim to be developing. I’ve come up with four qualities of such interfaces, and am very curious for your reactions:
- intimate interfaces cannot be “wireframed” or otherwise faked. they are a lens more than a frame.
- repetition can lead to new discoveries. use is not “monotonous” and therefore automation is never the goal.
- meaning “passes through” the system. “the answer” is never directly modeled, but occurs in the heads of humans.
- programming intimate interfaces is more intimate than using them. and since this intimacy is fundamentally lingual, it is a non-intuitive process poorly served by “end user” tooling.
This is all to say: I won’t believe any representational concept until I see it applied to a recording of a multi-person conversation in a noisy space.
I can send more notes from my talk if anyone is interested, but I have the feeling I’ve unleashed quite a few words on the group already today.
-RMO
On Mar 18, 2016, at 1:45 PM, Dave Cerf wrote:
On Mar 18, 2016, at 10:16 AM, Robert Ochshorn wrote:
a representation of audio that unlike spectograms, waveforms, pitch traces, or any other that I’ve seen, can compactly (inline with text) show speaker/accent/emphasis changes
<DSC09053.jpg>
<DSC09072.jpg>
<DSC09073.jpg>