Cold Constructs Blog

What a brilliant idea. Why should we continue to push sticks of graphite around? What unique purpose does it serve but to express ourselves? It is now obsolete with the onset of typing and voice-recognition software, therefore it should be forced into the category of “art”.

With the advent of computers it is entirely possible to get rid of paper and pen as a tool for writing. It was possible with the advent of typewriters, but now, with computers, it is preferable. Typing and talking is significantly faster, more accurate (no need to squint to discern letters in badly-written script) and altogether more humane.

Think about it.

UPDATE: After a 5-second discussion with my brother, it became clear that a good reason to teach handwriting is that not every place has power, for one, and also the fact that power sometimes goes out, in addition to the fact that batteries wear out at often in-opportune times. So, uh, it’ll be a while before this is a reasonable proposal.

Sometimes we get so caught up in our own little worlds that we simply take too much for granted (in this case, electricity and computers). It is in this way that bad ideas are able to parade as good ones.

Interesting food for thought, at any rate.

This is an exploration of effective digital writing methods - i.e. how to get words onto the screen. There are a number of readily-available solutions for a number of digital device designs, but which ones are best? What is the ideal method that we should work towards?

The first one that comes to mind is to simply write directly on the screen. The problem with this is handwriting recognition. Research has a come a long way though and accuracy has generally reached 80-90%. However, while simply writing on the screen is the most natural way, it is noticeably slower than typing, plus the option of writing isn’t always available due to screen real estate.

Typing, on the other hand, isn’t always available either. Small devices such as phone and PDAs don’t have room for keyboards, and when they do, they’re a pain in the ass to use because they’re so damn small and they limit you to just using your thumbs. Despite our love for our opposable phalanges, using them to input thoughts into a computer is, ironically enough, archaic. However, when keyboards are available, it is one of the fastest and most error-free method short of voice input.

While those small devices don’t have the room for keyboards or sometimes even writing, they do have microphones. Speech input has the advantage of being our only real “natural” way to communicate. But as is the case with handwriting, recognition accuracy isn’t yet perfect. (Then again, this can be a really good thing, for example when you’re drunk, you probably won’t be able to make a call if speech is the sole input method, or the same goes if cars were voice-activated. Designing our creations to work with human frailties like this should be Interface Design 101.) Let’s not forget that computers are non-linear systems thus often requiring non-linear input. Since speech is linear, it’s not very effective for primary input. For example, it’s much faster to navigate a visual data tree than it is a phone menu.

Speaking of recognition, there is yet another method for input: drawing shapes. I’ve mentioned this tech before (wasn’t exactly a positive review), but since then the app has improved a bit and it has become commercial. I think the general idea is worth pursuing for a couple reasons: it works on any sized touchscreen (or stylus-enabled screen) and it’s just as fast as typing (with a similar if not easier learning curve). The letter layout was generated by genetic algorithms - using it is much faster since the distance between each key is drastically shortened. Some tests show that it’s faster than a real keyboard if used by an experienced user.

The ideal method is to have computers translate our thoughts directly to the screen, but without that option (yet), it seems the most effective and versatile method is shape-writing or some derivative of it. Despite its obvious downfall of being a terrible game controller it should work well on mobiles, laptops and desktops. Having it work on most platforms allows for consistency of input, making the whole experience easier on our minds (since it’s just one method we need to memorize). It also decreases physical stress that typing usually causes since you’re either moving your finger around the layout or a stylus. However, it’s still slower than voice, which I think has its place in drafting emails and other linear applications. But until recognition gets to 100% accuracy while still being able to distinguish when the user is slurring their words (eg drunk), we should keep voice recognition to a minimum - working in non-critical (or harmless) situations such as email.

Introducing the TactaPad. Use your computer in the most natural way possible - with your fingers. Check out these demos to see what I mean.

This should be the new standard input device for all desktops and (hopefully) computing devices. There are new display technologies available that are flexible and thin, so I’m sure one of these could be put under it and work just as well, but you might run into problems when you don’t know exactly where your finger will fall. Nevertheless, in its present form it is still exponentially better than a mouse or stylus.

Electric plugs need to be hermaphroditic. This means that no matter which end of the cord your plugging into the wall (or another cord), it will always fit. There’s no reason why this can’t happen–there is no specific way a current needs to flow on a wire since it’s just wire. There’s always at least a positive and a negative wire in the cord, sometimes (and this is probably a good thing to always have) a ground wire.

I’m just sick of all the materials we’re wasting on cords and extensions and converters. Why do we shoot ourselves in the foot so often? It’s fucking ridiculous.

I think the gaming industries around the world will finally get a lesson they won’t forget: just because it has a lot of content and great graphics doesn’t mean it’ll sell. I’m not talking about the gameplay factor, but rather the complexity of a game.

When we say we want to get in and out of game without hassle whenever we want, we don’t mean we can press Esc then confirm and then wait a couple minutes for the damn thing to unload its shit so that we can finally use our computer again. What we mean is, Esc and BAM there’s the desktop in all its working glory. It’s easy - if it was an accident, the next time you fire up the game you’ll have the option to return exactly where you left off. If it’s not easy, too bad. Focus on the customer, the people who pay you, the people who you share the world with, and the people includes yourself. If only everyone actually used the products they created. If only.

The industry fucks got the point that some of us like simple fun little games, but those simple fun games weren’t so little. Apparently, no one’s heard the idea of a complete game costing less than 10 bucks brand new. This can happen if you license game engines to cut down development time, consistently follow a narrow focus (eg what specific effect or experience are you trying to show the player), and keep the dev team itself consistent. You’ll slow yourself down if you keep having to explain everything to the n00bs (just ask the guys who made Metal Gear Solid 2).

There is a market for massive games obviously, but they don’t have to stomp over the smaller ones. Yeah, smaller/simpler games exist, but you really have to dig deep into the net to find any good ones. By ’simple’ and ‘fun’ I don’t mean a million Tetris rip-offs or card games. There is such a thing as graphically advanced games using simple concepts for gameplay and take up less than 20mb of hard drive space (heard of .kkrieger?). Of course there’s others, like that one off-road top-down racing arcade game, called something like Super Off-Road Racing… I love that game.

But anyway, it seems this topic is receiving a fair amount of attention lately… ’bout fucking time.