|
|
|
| Authored by: mrisch on Sunday, June 10 2012 @ 07:59 PM EDT |
Fair enough - in which case it should be invalid. But for that
reason.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mrisch on Sunday, June 10 2012 @ 08:03 PM EDT |
I should add that this gets to the heart of how we think
about obviousness (and my point in the main article that
most computer scientists I know think everything is
obvious). The comparison and error handling was well known,
as you note. Was it obvious to apply those techniques to
swiped touch keyboards?
And this leads to which part we view as obvious. I suspect
here the "a-ha" moment is just that - the idea of using
known methods for swipe touch typing. Implementation was
likely not that difficult (or obvious). And the question is
whether we should reward the a-ha moment or not (or think
that too was obvious). I suspect most readers here say no.
I'm a bit more on the fence, and am still searching for a
coherent theory I can apply more generally than just
software.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Sunday, June 10 2012 @ 08:18 PM EDT |
And probably the reason it wasn't around in 2002 was it was pretty obvious WHAT
to do, but not how to achieve it "in reasonable time".
That's the thing about maths, it says you can do all sorts of fancy things. Just
when you try and apply it to the real world you get nasty shocks like "but
it'll take forever to actually do it". On hardware back then, it was
probably totally impractical, even if it was obvious.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
