unity-design team mailing list archive

[Frederik Nnaji <frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 20:59, Ian Santopietro<isantop@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

   Those are all great, but how do they relate to touch interfaces? Are
   touch interfaces inherently invalid in the eyes of the UNIX
   philosophy? This is ironic, since I believe well over 90% of
   touch-based OSs in use are UNIX-based.


Android has a Linux Kernel, WebOS runs on Linux, iOS is Unix-based, so yeah.
To be Unix-like in my opinion has more to do with lower level concepts 
and philosophy, it is less GUI related.

If a button is difficult to hit because it is too small a target area 
for a pointer, that has nothing to do with Unix-like or not, it's Fitt's 
law or simply HCI. And it is irrelevant, whether we are talking about a 
touch-device, a mouse operated device or what ever other pointer-based 
HID have you.


   On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:50, Chad M/ Germann <cgermann@xxxxxxxxx
   <mailto:cgermann@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
   >  On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 12:52 +0100,frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx
   <mailto:frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
   > > how do you define Unix-like in 2011?
   >
   >  In a nutshell Keep it Simple, Stupid.
   >
   >  to expand.
   >
   >   1. Small is beautiful.


beautiful is mostly also useful, but not always usable.

   >      2. Make each program do one thing well.


true, ..and name it after that thing, too, so that the user can identify 
the purpose rather than the manufacturer.

   [...]

   >      9. Make every program a filter


hot, interesting! i think this might be the idea behind lenses and prisms.

   >     11. Separate policy from mechanism; separate interfaces from

   >         engines.


a good way of thinking often..
This corresponds with the "Walt-Disney Method"

   >     15. Programmer time is expensive; conserve it in preference to

   >         machine time


what about user time? How expensive is that?