Developing a Global Interface

Those who are wise and on-top of the new business world (i.e., the global information economy) have set their focus on the development of general and global interfaces that serve to reconcile basic software conflicts between different operating systems and working software programs. There is good reason for this emergent interest--integration that is the basis of the information revolution depends critically upon the development of such an interface. Streamlining software entails a convergence of systems to a common programming lingua franca, and an optimal set of programming solutions.

Work on a global interface has proceeded here on a part-time and somewhat distracted basis over the last year, with several years of a previous runway to get going on. My interest has been as much theoretical and philosophical as it has been in terms of developing a real working system that makes sense to everyone. The greater significance of the development of such a common programming framework must be grasped. Informational integration of infrastructure and articulatory systems is truly revolutionizing pan-human civilization, at a quickening pace that is quickly rendering most of what we had before somewhat obsolete and archaic.

The problem in my mind has taken many different dimensions. Technical concern over the compatibility and complementariness of a multiplicity of operating software systems has not been on my priority list. It strikes me that in the long run many of these systems will fall by the wayside and other systems will emerge that will not just take their place, but subsume all that came before. 

Given my leverage (and critical lack of leverage) in the larger world, my concern has come to focus more on the human dimensions of interactivity in the problem. Any interface, to be a true interface, must not only be capable of switching between different software systems, but, more importantly, facilitating human access, learning and activity within such systems.

The bottom line seems to be that as computing capacity grows exponentially at a phenomenal rate, tending to make the effective life-span of any program or software solution that is not regularly updated relatively brief and ephemeral, is that the human counterpart to such systems have remained largely stagnant and the same. The result seems to be computing systems of massive, almost "super-computing" power, and human users who remain no more competent or capable of working these systems than they were a decade previously. We have massive computing powers and potentials, but most of this goes wasted in the average system as the users who deploy these ultimately do not have the lifestyle logistics needed to overcome the learning curves need to optimally utilize these systems. 

People want one touch/one button programming solutions. They want the program that does it all with minimal effort expended. They want to watch the fireworks by lighting a simple fuse. They are not really interested in how the fireworks are made or put together.

The tendency I have noticed at least in what I do is the trend for things soft to grow increasingly complex and complicated, and in the process, the human dimensions of the solution set become buried beneath the somewhat obsessive preoccupation with details. This tendency must be always resisted, but there is a need as well to find real solutions to the proverbial programming bottle-necks that they represent--simplicity must subsume complexity, not obviate it.

The human side of the global interface is a larger problem than the technical programming side, and we must eventually come to terms with it if we wish to achieve a kind of meta-systemic paradigmatic unity to the global Internet and all it represents.

It is recognized for instance that one of the most important obstacles to overcome is that of human language differences. English seems to be the most common and preferred language on the web--largely due to the fact that most Internet activity originates from English speaking countries. Chinese would be more relevant, but the Communist Chinese government is one of the greatest enemies of a free and open Internet, and their China-net is essentially a "Big Brother Web" in which all out-going or in-coming transmissions are being monitored and censored. Other world class languages play an important part and carry a significant portion of the total web and it is primarily the translation between these world-class languages. 

Automatic translation is largely context insensitive and connotatively superficial--the challenge in any language is mastery at a level that one can work intuitively with words and phrasal expressions that are not just make sense, but carry some greater significance in the world, about the world. This is not to say that automatic translation is not worthwhile, especially for some kinds of communication that are relatively context independent and concrete in reference.

Developing soft-ware systems that are multi-lingual is good, and to some extend obviates the need for automatic translation. This fits within the larger capacity framework of the Internet and information revolution. We can afford to maintain multiple parallel operating systems, side-by-side, and concurrent to one another, rather than aiming for a single common system. The challenge becomes then, like the human languages upon which they are based, is to make each of the alternate possible systems sufficient to its capacities and equivalent to one another.

A related area is the "one in all" software system--the one program that does everything, if not well, at least half-ass. These seem so far not to have been very successful, and I think the solution was largely abandoned in favor of more advanced and expert-type systems that were specialized on key functional areas. But computing capacities have advanced to a sufficiently level that it is feasible once again to reconsider the notion of a "one program fits all" kind of solution.  I get frustrated when I'm writing and I want to do some spread-sheet calculations and must switch out to get it done, or when I want to draw something or diagram for a web-site and I need to switch out from a web-site development program to a drawing or image-manipulation program. I've gotten better at this kind of thing of course, but I still don't understand why all these functions cannot be bundled into a single software tool-bag, sharing a common window frame, with all the tools and functional capacities one might need no further away than a drop-down menu or a collapseable tool-bar.

The other side of developing a global interface, I believe an aspect of the entire phenomenon that has been largely over-looked, is the extension of the practical and harder side of the thing. In other words, I find the tools for extending the web in applications that are beyond a key-board or a mouse to be somewhat lacking and largely overpriced. Palm tops are part of this kind of solution, of course, and as they become more powerful and versatile, will become more a central part of computing system frameworks. For instance, why are direct drawing tools so primitive on computers? Why can't a mouse point become a laser point or a ball-point that works like a pencil, and that has the same control as a real pencil in the hands of a would-be artist. Why can't there be a direct drawing surface, somewhat like a mouse-pad that allows on to draw a straight line, or a nice cross-hatched curve on the computer screen.  I do not understand why the functions of an advanced pocket calculator are not readily available on any computer key-board, and why key-boards themselves cannot offer a range of alternative programming functions at the touch of a finger.

In fact, I see the old-fashioned key-board as a bit more than a converted typewriter interface. It is rather potentially a dashboard to the future--it provides a direct form of empowerment for its user. So why do we need to remain stuck in old-fashioned key-board templates? In fact, I can see pre-processing and co-processing even in key-boards themselves. What I would also like to see are potential relay plug-ins for instance that would allow us to set home systems, lighting systems, coffee makers, etc., on timers or that can be controlled from the key-board.

What else should I add to the shopping list of the future--Dick Tracy, hold on to your hat. How about full audio-visual communications and self-programming systems. Automatic programmable systems, where the most the human user need be concerned about is answering a few dowdy questions that pop-up on the computer screen, seems to be part of  the final solution for a free and unfettered future.

My other brilliant idea is an full in-house university system, complete with wall-sized three dimensional high-resolution imaging systems and room-round effects including lighting, sound, even weather. I would include with this an electronic globe-sized electronic crystal ball, that can bring up detailed satellite maps of anywhere in the solar system, and, eventually, beyond. But then I see nothing wrong with solar-panel power sources that can be stuck on a roof or just outside one's window and used to power a computer.

I've not been too interested in anthropomorphized or zoo-morphic "Robbie the Robots" that can vacuum or wash dishes or "androids" or "Cyber-Insects" that walk and crawl, but I find the idea of automation and robotization of working systems fascinating and important, especially when it may come to things like management and control of human habitation systems. I see this more in industrial and other work contexts.

This brings up another area that I feel is overlooked and neglected in the development of personal and home based computing systems. This is ultimately systems of advanced environmental monitoring, that might include, by the way, the ability to monitor things like a person's heart rate, blood pressure, breathing, etc.

I see no reason either not to imbue home-based systems with real super-computing power, by allowing them the become "multi-processing" or "parallel processing" units. Of course, this may aggravate the challenges of coming up with a global interface that is suitable for a wide range of users and user's systems, but still I see it as part of a more general kind of solution set that is part of the problem of developing a global interface.

My main concern over development of a "global interface" has really been in terms of a defining a programming language, complete with a compiler, that is powerful enough to perform any possible function with a computer, and friendly and facile enough to be scripted and used by almost any person with only a minimum in educational preparation. I found the "pseudo-language" Hyper-script, compatible to the old Mac systems, to be the closest thing I've come to to such a common "interface" language. But it did not go far enough in the right direction, and somewhere along the way got side-tracked.

What I am suggesting is that we rethink our computing systems from the ground up, starting with the basics, with the idea that they are useful and good only to the extent that they make life easier, not harder, for the humans who depend upon them. If figuring out a simple programming procedure to get something "virtual" done takes a day and a life-time, it is simply not worth it. If figuring out how to network two computers, or getting them to talk on the same digital wave-length, takes a team of technical experts and multiple telephone calls, it is simply not worth it. If getting one's web-site to fly on the Internet and to attract significant surfers who are really interested in what you have to say or sell requires a long-term, ultra-full term commitment, it is simply not worth it. If using a new soft-ware program takes an extended learning course on what to do and how to do it, it is simply not worth it.

A big part of the Internet revolution is the lowering and reducing the net number of hurdles the average information user must jump over before they get what they want from the computer. If the number of hurdles only increases and each gets higher, then the Information revolution becomes nothing but a new form of cybernetic tyranny.