Ubiquity, the Word

written by Javier on 27/08/2008

In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with Quicksilver, and the Word was Quicksilver. Then Ubiquity was born:


.

Ah, and make sure you check Mort’s Ubiquity tips for users and developers.

There are 8 comments to this article:

  1. 27/08/2008Sam Lown says:

    “add this to my planet” coming soon? (although its probably easier to click a bookmarklet :-)

    sam

  2. 28/08/2008Julio Loayza says:

    ¡Dios! Javier, te voy a des-suscribir ¡No se le puede dar juguetes a los niños cuando tienen que estudiar! ¡Coñ.! :-S

    Sam: You know that persons (I’m tired of saying users) are too far more unpredictable than we could ever think. While the easiest way (we could say the only!) to visit a site with already known URL is typing the address in the the address bar, you know that many of them rather type the address in the search box in Google. So … already started creating the command? :-)

  3. 28/08/2008xema says:

    Enso (http://humanized.com/enso/) came into my mind!

  4. 28/08/2008Sam Lown says:

    Couldn’t help myself, sorry:

    http://www.planetaki.com/ubiquity

    Just a tiny test based on a Google Reader one. Even detects if there is a feed available… I’ve also decided type “pl” is easier than clicking a bookmarklet :-)

    sam

  5. 1/09/2008César Astudillo says:

    I’m always amazed with the thrill with which GUI natives (present company excluded if this is not your case, of course) discover command lines. It’s like when we discovered GUIs, but the other way round.
    This is a beautiful example of how the concept of progress as a linear process is fundamentally wrong.

  6. 1/09/2008Sam Lown says:

    César, I’m not sure that I would compare Ubiquity with a command line as the vocabulary is based on words that you are thinking of, rather than what you have learnt.

    For example, I know that “rm -r folder” is something I learnt and is not something I would come up with myself easily, “remove this folder and all its contents” is far easier to remember, but less practical. With Ubiquity all I need to do is think of the concept of what I want to do and start typing. If I’m on a website that I want to add to planetaki, I would think “planetaki” or “add to planetaki”, and this is exactly what one would type in, ubiquity realises that we are on a page that we want to add to our planet.

    So one deals with commands, the second deals with concepts and works out the command, a very subtle but important difference. I wonder how long it will be before a I can shout to the computer “add to planetaki” or “email this to Javier”… rather more exciting than a command line!

    sam

  7. 1/09/2008César Astudillo says:

    Hi Sam,

    Well, substitute “command lines” for “text input” and I’ll still be able to sustain my argument. Take into account that efforts to humanize command lines by making them able to parse natural language are also much older than GUIs. What I mean is, the collision front between text input and GUIs started in the eighties, and what we’re witnessing now is a symmetric phenomenon, only at a smaller scale.

    For instance, it was in 1994 that Umberco Eco made that funny statement that MacOS is catholic, whereas MS-DOS is protestant. Those were the latest turbulences of the old collision front. Since then, for more than ten years, the victory of the graphical counter-reform had flattened the interface landscape (at least, as mass-market users were concerned –power users, sysadmins and developers had remained semi-loyal to the now occult command line faith). It wasn’t until recently that new Luteros such as Quicksilver and Ubiquity have nailed their language-centered manifestos on the very doors of the graphical cathedrals, to boldly remind us that, for many applications, language can be far more powerful than graphical object manipulation as a human-machine communication system :-)

  8. 1/09/2008Javier Cañada says:

    I think you both (Sam and César) mean the same.

    It’s true that natural language is way better and more advanced than command line instructions. In fact, commmand line style is RECALL whereas natuaral language is RECOGNITION only the other way around: the computer recognises your messages in a natural way.

Write your comment: