In the article and in the interview excerpts (from the now-defunct Feed site) Harlan Hugh makes the argument that an “associative interface” is the future of user interfaces for information management. While I agree with his intent, and like the results (I’m a happy customer of The Brain), I believe there’s an interesting reduction that’s taking place - which may obscure both where The Brain fits and where user-interfaces could go.
As with many computerized things, I’ve been frustrated with the commercial state of the art for software to manage information, especially personal information for quite some time. Let me provide some context to better explain. While I’m often challenged to explain what I do, I can say it involves doing all sorts of actions on information (e.g. creating, manipluating, reasoning with, etc.). Much of my effort is in support of goals in the domains of software engineering or psychology.
How to reconcile formal, agile & no processes in a software development environment? Previously in conflict, considered by some as irreconcilible Integrated using a model that accounts for development stages/levels. Fundamental pattern: learn the form to become formless
Based on the current state of the art with modeling tools today, there are a lot of potential improvements. What follows are a set of wishes or possibilities, completely based on my own biases and experience. All of these possibilities have are based on common themes of matching the way people think about and do their work, enabling more degrees of freedom in modeling languages and proceses both of which generally support the goal of making these tools more relevant and usable in many domains.
How can model driven architecture (MDA) be successful (or any approach where higher levels of abstraction are necessary) when software engineers are not yet settled in real OOD?