When function *doesn't* define form

quote:

---

Original post by OrangyTang
Myself, I see alot of cool possibilities in intergrating electronics literally into peoples fingertips - video streaming into an overlay on your eyeball, interfaces not reliant on actual physical button presses etc.

---

No, thanks. I don't want to be a cyborg.

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but I'd like to see tents that don't take up much space when folded up (and light, too) so as to make multiday hikes easier, and still stand up to rain and wind. More so than they are right now.

[edited by - mtw on December 17, 2002 2:43:15 PM]

how about a computer shaped like half a sphere?

oh wait...

Cars, it would be cool to have all sorts of crazy looking cars.
Right now everything is just variations on a theme.

Jason Mickela
ICQ : 873518
Excuse my speling.

Vallejo Punk
The V-Town Have-Nots
Eskapo

"I don''t have to take this, I''m going to where I''m appreciated, my mom''s house"

quote:

---

Original post by mtw
No, thanks. I don''t want to be a cyborg.

---

If it means an improved lifestyle, it wouldn''t bother me.

heh, cyborg-esque things wasn''t what i really had in mind, but it probably depends on your definition of cyborg. A neat example would be those security tags, wave them vaugely at a door and it beeps and lets you enter - convinient, pretty secure but you''ve got to remember to carry it with you or you''re stuck. Now if that was a tiny(er) chip embedded in (say) your wrist, you''d never forget it, never loose it, and probably be even more secure. Much more convinient overall :D

Cars are an area for much improvement - for starters, why does everyone have to sit facing forwards? Saftey and functionality rule over asthetics Plenty of more interesting configurations to be thought of..

quote:

---

Original post by OrangyTang
The first computer wasn't designed to look good, it was designed to work.

---

Your basic premise is invalid. The casing of a computer is largely unrelated to the combinations of circuits which make it work. If you're going to make an analogy, make the correct one. The function of a computer is related to the form of its circuits.

quote:

---

If I may borrow a quote: "You're having problems with the wheel? How can you be? Its the simplest machine known to man?" "Alright mr smart arse, tell me what colour it should be."

---

It should be round, then it will work. Colour is irrelevant to the aspects of form which yield function.

quote:

---

So the question is: What would you like to see if function didn't define the shape of an object?

---

Function doesn't define the shape of an object.

[edited by - SabreMan on December 17, 2002 7:49:10 PM]

quote:

---

Now if that was a tiny(er) chip embedded in (say) your wrist, you''d never forget it, never loose it, and probably be even more secure. Much more convinient overall :

---

yeah, how convenient for a police state, they could just build small little scanners everywhere, and ... well you imagine the rest. A horrible vision of the future.

But ontopic: Please, please, pleeease, someone invent a notebook battery that gives me a week of operation without needing to recharge. Same for mobile phones, with one year standby time. Really well working speech recognition and program control would also be great, together with a little retinal projector you wear integrated with a headset: earpeace, mike, image projector (I know, already exists). The whole thing should be very lightweight. The computer itself is in your pocket, connected to the headset by a wireless data connection. The machine/human interface would be a voice control/eyeball tracking hybrid.

A week of operation? Hell, 15 hours would do it for me.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Flamebait of the week club! This weeks flamebait:
YOUR BIBLE IS FULL OF LIES!

Extreme Masterbation!

I''d reply to SabreMan''s post, but personally I get the impression he''s just trolling. If you''ve actually got a point to try and make, try expanding it to something other than ''Function doesn''t define the shape of an object''. Ok, maybe the computer was a slightly bad example, more obvious examples would be cars as mentioned above, or mobile phones which have progressed rapidly from being functional to funky.

Yann: Heh, battery life improvements seem to have plateued somewhat Although my main gripe with them is still mainly weight more than charge time. As you mention, much already exists, but unfortunatly no one seems to have brought the whole thing into a single system, probably because someones not thrown enough money at it yet...

If you want a lighter laptop, seal all the seams and fill it with hydrogen. It should fix your problem on multiple levels

I''ve always wanted to have night vision/thermal vision built into my eyes. That would be the greatest thing ever. You could be a regular JC Denton.
Speaking of batteries, one advance I''m super happy with are the new solar powered/kinetic powered watches. Especially Citizen. Never ever having to replace the battery is very nice, and they keep great time.

quote:

---

Original post by OrangyTang
I''d reply to SabreMan''s post, but personally I get the impression he''s just trolling.

---

Yes, my post couldn''t possibly have anything to do with your misunderstanding of the "form follows function" principle.

quote:

---

If you''ve actually got a point to try and make, try expanding it to something other than ''Function doesn''t define the shape of an object''.

---

There are two schools of thought relating to this. There''s "form follows function" and "function follows form". They are both really two sides of the same coin, which says that function and form are mutually intertwined.

quote:

---

Ok, maybe the computer was a slightly bad example, more obvious examples would be cars as mentioned above, or mobile phones which have progressed rapidly from being functional to funky.

---

The same difference applies. Have you ever designed a computer circuit? If you have, then you''ll know the design of the housing for the entire system is unrelated to the design of the circuits it comprises, which I believe is what you are using as the basis for your claim. However, it''s an invalid premise, since you are claiming that the form of the case follows from the function of the circuits, which is not the argument a "form follows function" advocate would make. The real argument regarding computers would be that the form of the circuits follow the function that they must perform. Your quote about the wheel also provided good fodder for illustrating the converse: that function follows form.

All I''m pointing out to you is that you are misrepresenting the "form follows function" school of thought. I''m sorry you interpret that as trolling.

quote:

---

Have you ever designed a computer circuit? If you have, then you''ll know the design of the housing for the entire system is unrelated to the design of the circuits it comprises,

---

This is incorrect, esp. for tighly packed devices. If you design circuits, then you have to take several aspects of the intendent housing into account. Simple examples are the position of interface elements, such as LCD, keypads, etc. Most of the time, those are directly soldered or even interated into the PCB. This again will influence the positioning of the individual elements of the circuit, because of connection and physical limitations (eg. maximum connection length, inductivity and parasite capacities between PCB layers, etc). Another example would be a mobile phone: the circuit is composed of several subsystems, that are tighly packed together. But due to physical limitations, the high frequency part must not interfere with the CPU part (frequency interferences). But the housing needs the antenna on the top side, the LCD in the middle, the keypad underneath. All this needs to be taken into account, while designing the circuit boards.

Actually, when designing the PCB layout for a device, the first elements that get positioned on the PCB are interface elements, so that the shape of the housing can be taken into account.

quote:

---

Original post by Yann L
This is incorrect, esp. for tighly packed devices.

---

I think we''re talking about different aspects of the same thing. I''m talking about the initial design of a component, and you''re talking about arranging components into a system. That''s tangential to the point I was making, which was itself a tangent, so I won''t drag this out any further. My sole point is that "The first computer wasn''t designed to look good, it was designed to work" is not evidence that "form follows function".

I dont know about you guys, but whenever anything that reminds me of 1984 is developed/implemented I get very scared. I personally will never allow a chip to be put into my body, I would rather die than live in a society where the government would have that kind of control of me.



"There is no dark side of the moon really,
As a matter of fact, its all dark."

I don''t like the idea of having things implanted in the General Public, but putting tracking devices in rapists and people charged with child abuse things wouldn''t phase me a bit.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Flamebait of the week club! This weeks flamebait:
YOUR BIBLE IS FULL OF LIES!

Extreme Masterbation!

quote:

---

Original post by SabreMan
I think we''re talking about different aspects of the same thing. I''m talking about the initial design of a component, and you''re talking about arranging components into a system. That''s tangential to the point I was making, which was itself a tangent, so I won''t drag this out any further.

---

OK. But even in the initial circuit planning phase, some components might or might not be usable, or schematics need to be changed because of physical limitation of the housing. Eg. how much space is there for the battery ? How much power/voltage can this small/weird shaped battery provide ? This will influence the circuit design. Heat dissipation is another consideration, esp. for devices such as notebooks.

quote:

---

Original post by SabreMan
My sole point is that "The first computer wasn''t designed to look good, it was designed to work" is not evidence that "form follows function".

---

Your point is valid, if a device has technically reached a point where manufacturers will invest more into design than into functionality. Eg. mobile phones. Unfortunately, weird and stupid phone shapes seem to be more important than functionality. But, a counterexample would be air or spacecraft: We have not yet reached the point, where intended use (it has to fly) is independent of the housing. In this case, form and function are highly tied together: A cubic airplane would not fly. I think it can be expressed like this: the more mechanics are involved into the primary function of a device, the more the shape is important. A fully electronic device is not really functionally coupled to it''s housing.

quote:

---

OK. But even in the initial circuit planning phase, some components might or might not be usable, or schematics need to be changed because of physical limitation of the housing. Eg. how much space is there for the battery ? How much power/voltage can this small/weird shaped battery provide ? This will influence the circuit design. Heat dissipation is another consideration, esp. for devices such as notebooks.

---

This is my point - that current technical limitations impose restrictions, but as a product matures more time can be spent on asthetics. Even if a designer wanted a cubic plane, it couldn''t be done at present time. The original post was, what could be good if said limitations were much less of an issue?

quote:

---

Original post by OrangyTang
Cars are an area for much improvement - for starters, why does everyone have to sit facing forwards?

---

A lot of people don''t like sitting backwards, because it feels unnatural (some people even complain about feeling sick). Maybe that''s just because everyone is used to facing forward, but I notice that the backwards-facing seats on buses/trains always fill up last.

Anyway, what I''d like to see extremely large computer screens - I''m talking screens which actually makes up your entire desk, and maybe even extends on to the wall behind. Or maybe if you had display devices embedded into your cornea, you could have a "screen size" which was infinite - it''d just display different areas, depending on the direction you were facing and you''re eye position. You''d have to add sensors into your hands so you could interact with the screen, but that''d be really cool.

You could extend it in so many ways. For example, if you''re driving, you could overlay arrows over your actual visiion which tell you which streets to turn into or whatever.

If I had my way, I''d have all of you shot!

---

codeka.com - Just click it.