"I dont believe the clickless interface is trying to make the user convey less information,"
This is a matter of information theory. It is an objective fact that only moving a mouse provides less information than a mouse that can also click. That is also why using this inferface is slower than using a conventional interface; you have to convey the same number of bits, but you have a smaller bandwidth to do it in. It is also, now that I think about it, a relatively decent explanation of why I consider this demoware; cutting down the bandwidth from human to computer certainly does have the effect of simplifying the interface, but only by slowing the user down and constraining the amount of information that can be extracted from the user. Throw this interface at a real problem with even more bits needing to be extracted from the user and the problems and slowdown will only compound. I don't think that most of us are looking to be slowed down.
In that entire paragraph, only that last sentence is opinion. The rest is a very simple application of information theory.
If you feel like you have to argue with that fact, I suggest brushing up on your information theory first. I'm not kidding about the objective fact bit. If you'd like to argue that interfaces should be based on reducing the amount of information extracted from the user, feel free, that is a conceivable argument, but it certainly flies in the face of experience and current interface developments.
(By the way, why am I being so harsh? It's education, albeit more for the audience than anybody else. Liking this interface as art is great, heck even I think it's sort of cool that way, but thinking it's actually a useful revolution is a sign that you are applying very weak thought processes to the idea, and it's helpful to see things like the simple application of information theory to the topic.)
"In that entire paragraph, only that last sentence is opinion. The rest is a very simple application of information theory."
urm, only the first sentence is an "objective fact", the rest is your opinion and fuzzy attempts at reasoning, if you are going to patronise, please be right.
while its true that the interface is sending less information, its entirely your opinion that there is not enough information already being sent by the user to determine what exactly they want to do.
thousands of people have installed mouse gesture plugins, the xbox natal project looks to be an entirely gesture driven, the idea that this type of interface is pie in the sky "art", as opposed to a useful experiment is well, wrong.
I usually wouldnt mind discussing this more but you have pretty much put me off any further conversation.
and please note I said "worthwhile experiment", not "revolutionary"
This is a matter of information theory. It is an objective fact that only moving a mouse provides less information than a mouse that can also click. That is also why using this inferface is slower than using a conventional interface; you have to convey the same number of bits, but you have a smaller bandwidth to do it in. It is also, now that I think about it, a relatively decent explanation of why I consider this demoware; cutting down the bandwidth from human to computer certainly does have the effect of simplifying the interface, but only by slowing the user down and constraining the amount of information that can be extracted from the user. Throw this interface at a real problem with even more bits needing to be extracted from the user and the problems and slowdown will only compound. I don't think that most of us are looking to be slowed down.
In that entire paragraph, only that last sentence is opinion. The rest is a very simple application of information theory.
If you feel like you have to argue with that fact, I suggest brushing up on your information theory first. I'm not kidding about the objective fact bit. If you'd like to argue that interfaces should be based on reducing the amount of information extracted from the user, feel free, that is a conceivable argument, but it certainly flies in the face of experience and current interface developments.
(By the way, why am I being so harsh? It's education, albeit more for the audience than anybody else. Liking this interface as art is great, heck even I think it's sort of cool that way, but thinking it's actually a useful revolution is a sign that you are applying very weak thought processes to the idea, and it's helpful to see things like the simple application of information theory to the topic.)