Now this is interesting!  Allen Holub makes a similar point in his lovely book
'Enough Rope to Shoot Yourself in the Foot' (where he compares the Mac unfavourably
with a pencil, for just the reasons you give). He also points out that what is a
suitable tool for an expert is not necessarily a suitable tool for a beginner, and
vice versa.

The problem we face is that the computer, as we are obliged to have it most of the
time, is not a target-specific tool.  Eyeglasses are great for seeing through, and
at a pinch you might even be able to start a fire with them, but they won't undo the
wheel-nuts when you need tc change a wheel. Yet we somehow expect 'the computer'
(define ad lib...) to be able to do everything - write our letters, fetch our mail,
design machines, make sounds, fix our finances, play games... so the more
'universal' or generic the tool is, the more visible it will inevitably be. It is
not really the fault of the tool, it the the consequence of our ambitions for it,
which may or may not be appropriate, strictly speaking.  Csound is an excellent tool
for many tasks, but less so for others, though with skill and ingenuity those other
tasks may still be managed. Thus, the tool is unlikely to become invisible if the
'context of use' is itself imprecise.

The computer (or, rather, the software in it)  is also special in that as well as
being a tool, it is also frequently a tool-maker, so the level of visibility is in
constant flux. When I play my flute, it is, indeed 'invisible' to a degree (though I
am also part of the instrument, and a level of self-awarenes is always valuable),
but when I make one, the flute is very visible, as indeed is the lathe I use to make
it, when I have to adapt it to pretend to be a different tool I would like to have
(a horizontal mill) but cannot afford. Again, this is not the fault of the lathe -
it was not designed to be a horizontal mill - but I am choosing to 'see' the lathe
in order to adapt it to my needs, as I design my flute, to adapt that to my needs
too.

So, surprise, surprise, even the statement 'a good tool is an invisible tool', which
I agree with when the tool is specific to a task, and well-designed for that task
and for the aptitude of the user, becomes closer to a moral imperative when, as
almost inevtitably happens, we ask the tool we do have to substitute for a tool
which we don't. Really, it is remarkable how we manage that, with software, so much
of the time!

As for the desktop; well, we know that the world is not a desktop, but, the desktop
(or whatever/whomever we are focussed on) can become the world, at times.


Richard Dobson

=cw4t7abs wrote:

>
>
> Title: the world is not a desktop
>
> What is the metaphor for the computer of the future? The intelligent agent?
> The television (multimedia)? The 3-D
> graphics world (virtual reality)? The StarTrek ubiquitous voice computer?
> The GUI desktop, honed and refined? The
> machine that magically grants our wishes? I think the right answer is "none
> of the above", because I think all of these
> concepts share a basic flaw: they make the computer visible.
>
> A good tool is an invisible tool. By invisible, I mean that the tool does
> not intrude on your consciousness; you focus
> on the task, not the tool. Eyeglasses are a good tool -- you look at the
> world, not the eyeglasses. The blind man tapping
> the cane feels the street, not the cane. Of course, tools are not invisible
> in themselves, but as part of a context of use.
> With enough practice we can make many apparently difficult things
> disappear: my fingers know vi editing commands
> that my conscious mind has long forgotten. But good tools enhance invisibility.