> Lisa/Jack: 'can actually you patent a language? Isnt this a patent > for a dictionary?' > > Yup and yup, but there's more than one way to skin a cat. This > patent would seem to make it difficult for users to learn an > alternative language if it comes with a non-infringing but hokey > dictionary design.
Once again, please tell me how this patent limit the development of a
robust, open pattern language for gestures? Although Apple clearly
has certain gestures picked out for early adoption, these are not the
meat of the patent, which describes a series of designs "merely" for
the presentation and maintenance of gesture preferences.
> My argument is that while we sit here on verge of a new interaction > paradigm, we can go segmented & closed or with a universal language & > differentiate on good design.
I think that gestures are in the same state as keyboard shortcuts in
the mid-80s. Everyone has a different approach, and no one is willing
to settling on The One True Pattern just yet. It'll come down to
which gesture set is used on the device(s) that gain market dominance.
Actually, strike that.
The core of the first universal gesture language will be the _default
set_ provided by the OS for the first popular general-use computer
equipped with multi-touch. That core set will be enshrined as a
formal standard much, much later. Not a chance in hell that the
International Interaction Design Cabal is going to get a chance to
define a standard early in the game (more's the pity).
> I believe the entity that defines the first universally adopted > language will reap greater rewards in the long term.
Should we _really_ get into that whole emacs/vi thing? };->
> Let me turn your question around. We are going to have a > multitouch gesture language for the foreseeable future. How does a > closed language benefit Apple?
It doesn't, and the patent doesn't suggest anything of the sort.
Quite the reverse, as it indicates Apple intends to provide quite
robust support for user-defined gestures and gesture strings.
BTW, one thing we as interaction designers need to nail down early on
-- if it hasn't already been done by some previous master of the art
-- is the language to describe the individual aspects of gestures and
of gesture sequences.
The language in the Apple patent that sparked this thread leans
heavily on musical terms, but is this in fact the best way of framing
discussion of gestures? Are there _other_ commonly-understood domain
vocabularies that could be adapted as a "handier" set of conceptual