Statements:

​

I find don't like using HTML. Modern standards for web development are based on a one-way, statically typed (as in kind) markup language which was hardly ever designed to meet the needs of a high-tech interactive media system. I think the Internet needs to be rebuilt and re-envisioned from scratch. I built this site using the Wix Web editor. Sue me. Are Web documents anagolous to paper documents? If not then why are designers expected to be congizant of the  design needs of a system which is meant for simple document markup when presentationally the system is more similar to cinema, graphic design, or painting? This is especially challenging in in the domain of interactive media.

​

As far as designing websites goes I'd rather implement a Docker container with the necessary display and progamming elements preserved on than a simple server-client model with PHP or the like. Having grown up in the 2000's I'm really not that big of a fan of the LAMP model or simple Client-Server models in general. For the most part I like all of its composite parts but the stack itself leaves something to be desired. I don't like the idea of coordinating large databases to handle simple tasks. I think storing credit card information is insane. Isn't there an API for Google Wallet? Haven't financial institutions created APIs for secure, cryptographically sound storage of sensitive financial information on user's devices rather than remotely? 

​

If I wanted to keep my friend's (I like to think of my user's as friends) credit card information safe then logically I would try to avoid creating unneeded copies of that information. I would also try to avoid putting that information where they themselves cannot faithfully audit its safety. 

​

Semantic HTML doesn't address the problem. In a way it just re-states the terms of the things in familiar bounds-- What good is </p> really? Ok. We'll design in semantic terms. We'll remember that HTML is a markup language. What then? We still have to somehow create immersive, interactive materials on top of of a system that's typical use case is related to filing paperwork. All that's been changed is now we know where we stand on the issue of using tags to describe presentational elements. Now we use CSS to describe these elements-- except we don't. We use some arbitrary combination of Javascript and CSS into tricking the browser into displaying what we want. I hate to say this but I'm beginning to miss Flash and Java applets.

​

I envision a future system where the design element might be totally separated from the creation of digital, online materials and a genetic algorithm or a learning algorithm will automatically find some presentation model of the design that efficiently runs and displays it in relation to its context without the designer needing to be aware of these mechanism's inner workings. This mechanism might change itself based on context or display needs.

​

Video games are for children. The Bible says, "you must become like little children again." Something to think about. I think immersive interactive environments could be like playgrounds for adults. I don't think anyone's really split this open yet. I think the future social hub will be some combination of a Holodeck, a church, and an interactive Art installation. I think these don't exist yet because for the most part because the world of art is currently devoid of a substant spiritual component.  

​

I don't like Javascript for reasons relating to the above but the amount of libraries for the thing and it's C-like nature makes it an obvious choice for prototyping. I do like three.js and Processing a lot especially because of their accessibly across a wide range of net enabled platforms. I like working with Cython. I really, really dig Elixer-Erlang although I'm still in the midst of learning its inner workings. I think WhatsApp is brill. I think functional programming has yet to see its hay-day but I'm not one of those people that's going to evangelize about how amazing Common Lisp actually is. (It is though)

​

On the flip side I think Object Oriented Design (ooooooop(s)) has seen its hay-day. Usually a class model system derived from the real world or even a, "theoretical" world results in some perplexing situations. Problems emerge as developers can't inherently intuit the class-model system his team-mate has in mind while the system is being designed.  Is rectangle a subclass of square or is it the reverse? I think the problem is less pronounced when Design Patterns are introduced. I think some developers think they're doing OOP when they're really just doing functional programming with arbitrary class indentifers restricting the scope of if their functions. 

​

There isn't going to be a year of the Linux Desktop because Linux is a god-awful desktop operating system for anyone that isn't a developer or a goddamned research scientist. Nice try Ubuntu.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​