<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Zooming Interfaces</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stuartsierra.com/2006/08/04/zooming-interfaces/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stuartsierra.com/2006/08/04/zooming-interfaces</link>
	<description>From programming to everything else</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:39:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Katie</title>
		<link>http://stuartsierra.com/2006/08/04/zooming-interfaces/comment-page-1#comment-331</link>
		<dc:creator>Katie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:28:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stuartsierra.com/2006/08/04/zooming-interfaces#comment-331</guid>
		<description>I agree. I really like the concept of zooming interfaces. However, the introduction to the first demo states that you would normally use right/left click to zoom in and out. How would that translate for the world of Mac (unless you purchase the 2-button mouse)?

Also, it seems very easy to get lost navigating in and out all over the page. Makes me a little dizzy almost. Granted, it&#039;s much faster than waiting for a new window to open, and much better than those times when you find out the link WON&#039;T open. You can be certain the information will be there with zooming interfaces. But, it still strikes me as an idea that&#039;s not quite finished yet. What if each document (or pic, or piece of data, or new page, etc) had it&#039;s OWN zoom option? Instead of the entire page moving forward, what if each individual part zoomed in/out when clicked on, while the rest of the page stayed stationary? For instance: Let&#039;s say there&#039;s a page of pictures. You could click on one picture to zoom in, but the rest would remain the same size behind it; until you zoomed in on them. 

As for the Dasher concept. I think that&#039;s brilliant. I especially appreciate that the program learns the common words of the user as it goes. After working for several years with people of all different disabilities, I&#039;ve come to understand the necessity of something like this for people who have great things to say, but don&#039;t have the luxury of easy communication. 
I don&#039;t quite understand the idea of the multiple colors behind the words/letters. But I suppose everyone remembers their letters differently. And I have heard that some people associate different letters with different colors. That&#039;s merely a guess though.  
All in all, as stated in the Dasher explanation, I can imagine that the program probablly really is &quot;just like learning to drive a car&quot;. Which isn&#039;t bad at all. It could be learned quickly and easily, and to the benefit of many, many people. 

Thoughts?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree. I really like the concept of zooming interfaces. However, the introduction to the first demo states that you would normally use right/left click to zoom in and out. How would that translate for the world of Mac (unless you purchase the 2-button mouse)?</p>
<p>Also, it seems very easy to get lost navigating in and out all over the page. Makes me a little dizzy almost. Granted, it&#8217;s much faster than waiting for a new window to open, and much better than those times when you find out the link WON&#8217;T open. You can be certain the information will be there with zooming interfaces. But, it still strikes me as an idea that&#8217;s not quite finished yet. What if each document (or pic, or piece of data, or new page, etc) had it&#8217;s OWN zoom option? Instead of the entire page moving forward, what if each individual part zoomed in/out when clicked on, while the rest of the page stayed stationary? For instance: Let&#8217;s say there&#8217;s a page of pictures. You could click on one picture to zoom in, but the rest would remain the same size behind it; until you zoomed in on them. </p>
<p>As for the Dasher concept. I think that&#8217;s brilliant. I especially appreciate that the program learns the common words of the user as it goes. After working for several years with people of all different disabilities, I&#8217;ve come to understand the necessity of something like this for people who have great things to say, but don&#8217;t have the luxury of easy communication.<br />
I don&#8217;t quite understand the idea of the multiple colors behind the words/letters. But I suppose everyone remembers their letters differently. And I have heard that some people associate different letters with different colors. That&#8217;s merely a guess though.<br />
All in all, as stated in the Dasher explanation, I can imagine that the program probablly really is &#8220;just like learning to drive a car&#8221;. Which isn&#8217;t bad at all. It could be learned quickly and easily, and to the benefit of many, many people. </p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

