Photoshop and Directness

During our discussion of direct manipulation interfaces today we cited Photoshop frequently as an example of a direct interface. I view Photoshop as one of the most direct interfaces; it simulates specific artistic functions in a way that is incredibly convincing. It does so in a way where even describing the act of painting in Photoshop as a metaphor for painting seems odd. This is because it so closely resembles the physical act due to its directness.

We contrasted this highly direct act with the notion of generating art using a programming language. These seem to exist at the opposite ends of the directness continuum in many important ways. But, I don’t think that they are utilized differently as a result of the directness. Rather it seems that the real difference is the amount of precision and automatization that they afford.

Photoshop relies primarily on the model world metaphor and programming relies on the conversational metaphor. Because of this we tend to use each for certain types of tasks–Photoshop for tasks where feedback is beneficial and programming where precision and automatization is necessary. But, if we could produce an arbitrarily high degree of precision through a direct manipulation interface, or we could automate action through a direct manipulation interface would we? I’m curious what people think and what they think a high granularity direct interface that can automate tasks might look like? Or does this already exist in some forms?

~ by jaredmunsell on November 10, 2007.