Apple don't need you to defend them here. They presented what they presented, and whether we're interested is based on that. It's a legitimate concern and a valid point of discussion.
The interaction paradigm you describe (where it's literally impossible to look at one window while actively using another) makes so little sense that we can almost certainly rule it out. Certainly no press members who demo'd the unit are describing the interface that way.
That's not "defending Apple", that's just... gosh, I can't think of any word besides common sense.
From all of the presentations and press accounts, it seems clear that eye tracking is something of a direct replacement for the mouse/trackpad cursor -- in fact it seems you can use a trackpad or presumably a mouse as well. Looking at an app or "window" seems equivalent to mousing over it, not equivalent to clicking to activate that window.
> The interaction paradigm you describe (where it's literally impossible to look at one window while actively using another) makes so little sense that we can almost certainly rule it out.
I think the implication is that the window you are looking at is focussed automatically. Which wouldn't work for say, typing up a document to a text editor while reading from a reference doc. That's just the beginning, I use a mouse-to-focus window manager and that happens all the time with all sorts of things.
I don't disagree with your other points AT ALL, but given how repeatedly proven that common sense is entirely a fiction, if any argument falls back on it you have to be immediately suspect of it.
I hear that now and then, but looking at the wiki on it, the “criticism” paragraph is only like 3 lines with no real refutation, out of a hefty lengthy article.
What’s your motivation for saying that? Personally I am suspect of people say there isn’t common sense.
Here is the definition at the top: Common sense (or simply sense) is sound, practical judgment concerning everyday matters, or a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge in a manner that is shared by (i.e., "common to") nearly all people.
One can certainly say there is common sense. For instance no one likes pain, people like pleasure. People care about entertainment, not boredom. People tend to learn on the whole as they grow up. I also think on the whole have a perception of what is wrong and right, even if there is variance between cultures. The golden rule of reciprocity seems to be near universal (like: don’t kill, don’t steal and so on)
Your basis for discussion is that you read the wiki article on common sense? Then you cite a dictionary definition? Suffice to say that is pseudointellectual and inappropiate.
And then you obviate the concept by rendering your own gross ignorance: people don’t like pain? Today you learn about masochism. People need entertainment? Monasticism, asceticism, Buddhism, nihilism, et al. People learn as they age? Quite unfortunately many studies show many people lose a great deal after their teens. And your invocation of the idea that cultures share morality such as a prohibition on murder (this has nothing to do with “reciprocity” by the by) is truly divorced from basic observable reality.
100% of a farming town/community are going to hold "don't grab an unknown fence, as it might be electric" to be common sense. Yet there's going to be a sizable portion of the planet to whom that WON'T be obvious, and they'll try it.
100% of New Yorkers might know not to park your car overnight in a particular area, yet people new to the city will happily do so not knowing they may be putting themselves or their property in danger.
If you have to put bounds on "common sense", or contextualise it at all, then it isn't common, it's just knowledge shared by a group of people of unknown size.
You say it in your final sentence - "near universal". If it's not universal then what's the point? Where is the magical cutoff point of the population where "common knowledge" is no longer common? 95%? 50%? If so, why?
Such speculation is ludicrous because it's going to change drastically from area to area and change even more so depending one what you're talking about. And if such a definition is so fluid, when you're positing that it is in fact universal, then it's pretty clearly false.
"Common sense" and "common knowledge" are just shortcuts we use so we don't have to explain the entire contents of history in one go to explain one other concept. This is very useful. But relying on it existing _ALL_ the time is the work of a dangerous lunatic that has clearly not encountered a broad enough segment of humanity.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I think I might gonna read up a bit more on the topic, it’s quite interesting.
I think my personal stance is more on the idea that there is a lot we share as a species (from words, to symbols and human basics) and that could be grouped as common sense. But perhaps my grasp of english fails me here.
Looking at the etymology it also seemed to stem from “community” , what is common among a community. I would wager things were very common for his peers when Thomas Payne wrote his book “Common Sense” , a world to him that was largely very the same in style and substance.
Perhaps that concept simply can longer apply in a pluralistic global world or in a modern sense like you point out with your examples.
