Je77 --

At 2:29 PM -0500 2/17/01, Jochen F. Rick wrote:
>Alan Kay wrote:
>>  I meant this in part, but I mainly meant that the WEB, bad as it is,
>>  willy nilly broke people's perception that the only UI that was or
>>  could be was Windows. And, further, it should give us motivation to
>>  REALLY go after the possibilities of the Internet and the much richer
>>  interfaces yet to be invented. A lot of the reason for our efforts in
>>  Squeak is to help provide a vehicle that will help all of us make
>>  progress by giving us a way to bring new ideas to live and share them
>>  out over the net.
>
>I remember Andrew Lippman saying something about the power of the masses.
>If I remember correctly, he was saying that the Media Lab needed to
>abandon innovating the PC, because the Web already allows so many people
>to do that. Thus, the great PC inventions just by numbers would not come
>from a handful of researchers. His personal take on the future of the
>Media Lab was going after innovation in arenas that were less competitive,
>because of still being relatively exclusive. If he is right, it would be
>an argument for letting the masses innovate interfaces if you really want
>innovation. Since Squeak allows for innovating the interface (at least
>better than most anything else out there), Squeak could be the vehicle for
>that innovation.
>
>>  This is a great Bruner quote. Where is it from?
>
>"Towards a Theory of Instruction" (p.89). You recommended it at Apple Hill.

Yikes! A senior moment ... I read that book about once a year ......

>
>>        This is partly why we keep the kids programming stuff looking
>>  like language. The idea is that, even though a 10 year olds' main
>>  payoff may be to draw and drive the car (Doing and Images), our
>>  "Montessori game" is to entice them into doing the dynamic parts
>>  using symbolic language, because that is where the big powers
>>  ultimately reside. Etc. Etc.
>
>I'm not sure that's what you actually meant. A 10 year olds' main payoff
>is not only drawing and driving the car. I would argue that the main
>payoff is the accomplishment that comes with doing something new (making a
>script to control a drawing) and creating an artifact (a fairly functional
>car). Drawing the car on a computer is probably not too exciting, nor does
>the scripted car compare with modern video games. But, yes, the symbolic
>is extremely powerful.

Yes, I meant that too ... but an amazing amount in that example comes 
from actually learning to drive the car (according to the kids ...).

Cheers,

Alan