[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Less Stupid XML
I agree completely but as XLANG Orchestration will out, simplicity can be the layer over very complex but coherent processes. It takes imagination and grit, but without imagination, grit gets the same thing and that won't get it done. If I worked for Microsoft or any other company not doing the life-numbing things we do here, I'd design interfaces made to humble a P500 so the user would want a P1000. I would: o Push the 2D interface designers to the bottom of the stack and hire skilled animators. o Push the "Click here:" box designers to the bottom of the stack and replace them with script writers and some sound shape designers who know how to work with ADSR envelopes. Then integrate the presentation of the process inside 3D characters who act. This isn't that far out. You have most of what you need in X3D, VoiceXML, and maybe SMIL (I say maybe because the syncing isn't all that good). You see, Mr Costello, a video game isn't what I had in mind. I see a rockin' revolution that changes the entire face of the web by giving them a much easier interface. If Dvorak wants to play, give him Claudia. The key, as always, is to fuse the information already there into a coherent visualization that is easy to use. Why did want XML? We don't want to write a new parser for all of the different information we need to fuse. Let's use a simple example we can scope quickly: MP3.Com. Artists create playlists for stations and their own site. Let's say that MP3.COM keeps the servers for the music, but allows a "federated page" to be created that takes advantage of several services. One of these can be a DJ service that specializes in: o Design of 3D talking heads with extensible behaviors; for 3D com, digitalWolfmanJack or for Dvorak, ClaudiaWithCurves and a nice soprano. o Sound shaping for the VoiceXML grammars (VoiceXML may need work for this; I don't know what is in the grammar yet, but emotive markup is required that is independent of the particular character). When the user gets the federated page, it sends a SOAP message to MP3.COM to return the comments that artists enter. These are used to feed VoiceXML. They may be dressed up a little, or a savvy artist enters the emotive markup. Because a surfer may be getting songs from several genre, different characters have to be able to use the same markup for say, <phrase tone="scarcasm' /> or whatever. Of course, I am depending on a voice generator with a lot of oompah, or prerecorded snippets in which case, the emotive markup has to select a snippet. How much interaction we do depends on how good we are at using props and scripting dialog (spoken, not square with beveled edges). Complicated to script, sort of. Certainly easier with XML and a good editor. Impossible or unlikely? Well, in 1991, we were told that using SGML to define and drive enterprise processes was lunacy. In 1995 we were told that using information containers to sequence processes was bad design. Here it is 2000 and damm, all of the new markup languages look like drum sequencers with crummy interfaces. Listening to them is a fine way to find innovations in someone elses invention. BTW: the XLANG guys should take a hard look at how midi system designers do it. Same gig; different contents in the macros. You see, I'm not all that excited about a semantic web. It is a "let the machine think for me" wetdream. You can do nice discovery stuff with arcs, but the game is smart interactivity. The game is an interface that is seamless and mouseless. The semantic stuff can be done but it isn't that exciting. Interacting with the network transparently is, and a receptionist is a better index.mimeThing than a top level form. The excitement of milllenium hypermedia is just about to begin. The Dvorak's can bare their teeth or wait until we can hide complex production behind transparent designs. Then we rock this house. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Allen [mailto:joshuaa@m...] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 2:41 PM To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: Less Stupid XML Maybe two others: * Well-defined and limited scope. * Simplicity -- I repeat smplicity because I do not think it has to be all that subjective. Things like XML exist for developers to use.
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|