By "screens" over "paper" I mean dynamism, transformation and computing power. Paper cannot execute, and paper simulation on computers takes no advantage of their digital environment. "Screens" however know where they live and open up capabilities to their users that reflect the device's actual power. I have shells on my desktop, I do not have shells on my OneNote. Capstone gives me a shell again. Why would I ever give it away, and use OneNote without the power and ability I expect everywhere else on my computer?
I would like a better word to sum up this idea than "screen" vs "paper" so please drop me some recommendations.
Paper = “spatial interface” in the original/most literal way the term was intended. The data is materialized into one point in space, and can only be accessed by going to that point in space. This was the original idea behind the early unification between saving files in a file-manager, and “iconifying” document-displaying windows: a file was just a hibernated window, and a window was a 1:1 representation of some particular file.
Screens = “views” or “data bindings” in the SQL or MVC sense, or “projections” in relational algebra. There’s data somewhere, and then, separately, you have a view into that data: a distinct, live object through which you interact with the data, which can have a UX optimized for a given use-case, distinct from the “objective” UX suited to directly displaying the data.
Capstone is sort of a spatial interface of view objects (rather than a spacial interface of literal documents, or a database-representation of view objects), which is novel.
Dang, I like your perspective. Thanks for sharing.
I want to explain digital displays in a name that exposes the idea of dynamic use. Of reading/writing/drawing while simultaneously affording computational ability, execution and simulation.
I would like a better word to sum up this idea than "screen" vs "paper" so please drop me some recommendations.