Computing with exerciseDavidCooper wrote:
eekee wrote:
Display is an issue.
I'm surprised there still isn't something simple that lets you flip down a lens and mirror in front of one or both eyes with the screen(s) kept horizontal - this could then become the screen for all your cameras, phones, computers and TVs, although you'd have to have some alternative way of doing touch. Ideally it would also have a camera on it to show the view ahead so that you can merge the two inputs and see your computer screen semi-transparent with the world ahead of you also visible. The technology needed for this has been around in video camera viewfinders for decades.
Yeah. I'm quite sure semi-transparency would work better than a camera, but otherwise, yes. I'd forgotten about video camera viewfinders. In my steampunk days, I wanted to mix steampunk style with cyberpunk tech, including flip-down screens over my glasses.
But I couldn't get anything done in those days.
Android supports USB pointing devices, but when I last tried it, many apps required pinch for zoom. You'd need a capacitative touchpad of some sort. I don't like them, so I thought about a pair of thumbsticks: you would move either one for normal pointer movement, or both in opposite directions for pinch. But I think it might move the pointer before the pinch. That could be "solved" with heuristics, but I don't like heuristics at all. I'm looking for ways to do without them.
I wonder if command-line zoom commands with an overlayed grid would be good. There's a scene in Blade Runner where a picture is overlaid with a 4x4 grid on a computer screen, and the detective says something like, "Select sector 1 0, and Zoom." The selected square then fills the screen. I'll have to try it.
DavidCooper wrote:
Quote:
Instead of a screen, audio is an option.
It would be good if we could get together some binary blobs that people can add to their operating systems to provide basic speech synthesis compactly and some form of speech recognition that could at least replicate keyboard input without the keyboard. I've recently had a go at speech synthesis using JavaScript and Web Audio where I built all the vowels needed for English out of ten sine waves on the harmonic sequence, plus sounds like s and sh using modified sine waves with randomly adjusted frequency, as well as click consonants where there's a silence followed by a very short fricative or sibilant. This leads to very compact code, although you obviously need something like HD Audio too (which again could potentially be put together as a binary blob).
Cool!
I was aware you don't need very many sounds. And I recall espeak which, together with portaudio, wasn't very large at all. You really don't need hardware support. I recall a "mod tracker" resampling and mixing 16 channels perfectly under MS-DOS on a 10MHz 286. There wasn't even a Gravis Ultrasound in sight. (The "GUS" was the one sound card capable of doing all that in hardware in that era.) Multitasking makes the job harder by messing with timing, but simple buffering fixes the problems if you don't need instant response. Real-time operating system facilities would also help. But anyway, resampling for different frequencies is the tricky part. Mixing same-frequency samples is just multiplication (scaling) followed by addition of each sample.
Incidentally, espeak is clear but has a little flaw: It makes a quiet, breathy "glurr" under certain words. After many hours of listening with excellent-quality headphones, I found I could no longer ignore the creepiness of it.
I'll never forget the good or the bad of espeak!
DavidCooper wrote:
Quote:
But having written all that about wearables, I don't understand how they would be more environmentally friendly. Surely, you could generate power with the treadmill of a walking desk.
I assumed they were all powered. If some aren't and it's still practical to type while using them, then that that would solve my immediate problem. I'd like to be able to try one before buying it though as sending things back is really awkward.
Oh of course, I forgot how treadmills work. Looking it up, I see they use rather a lot of power. Hmm... you could move an unpowered treadmill by pushing against a band strung between the side rails, but I guess the force would have to be light or it wouldn't be comfortable. Given the power drawn by normal treadmills, I suppose an unpowered one would be like walking uphill. It could be easier if it didn't have a belt, but that raises a lot of other issues.
You know, rotating mechanisms can be very low-friction...
No, I don't think very many people would want to install 4.5m hamster wheels!
Perhaps there's an alternative to treadmills. An electric bicycle is enough to keep my legs in working order, admittedly with the exception of my feet. Environmentally, stationary cycles can and have been used to generate power. For computing, an arrangement like a reclining bike would leave your hands free while you pedal. Alternatively, a conventional cycling exercise machine could be fitted with a chording keyboard and a thumbstick on the handlebars. I've cycled enough to know it's feasible if you don't have to steer and brake.
The touble with cycling is the lack of flexing of the feet. I massage my feet occasionally, but I can feel when they need it. It's my understanding that DVT appears without warning.
DavidCooper wrote:
Quote:
I'm glad you're getting better.
I'm already feeling better from my diabetes with just a little care for my diet.
Thanks, and I wish you the best with your health issue too.
Thanks.
DavidCooper wrote:
Quote:
Edit: I forgot to note my thoughts on programming with a small screen. I didn't find any really wonderful ideas, only trying to figure out how various languages would work with flowing text because that gets more on the screen. I think Forth could work quite well if the start of each definition is colorized. "Plain English" obviously could, although its authors prefer one sentence per line. Oh huh... now I remember your machine code editor already makes maximal use of the screen, David.
You can manage surprisingly well with very little screen. One of my recent projects is a JavaScript keyboard program and text editor for multilingual input, but I've also built a JavaScript layout for writing code in a similar way to the ZX Spectrum (whole word per key, or entire template programs and functions). I've attached a photo of it. The small part of the screen used to display the program you write with it is big enough to do the job, although it's a lot more comfortable to use the whole screen when trying to find your way around it. (I use the virtual hexagon keyboard in combination with the physical keyboard as a way of reducing repetitive strain injury issues.)
I just feel cramped with a small screen, but it's really due to a variety issues including eyesight. I'm fine when coding Forth in 64x16 character blocks, so long as the text is clear. Perhaps I can reorganize other data to suit small pages too.
But I think I may have made a bit of a mistake in even mentioning small screens. HUD screens must be physically small, but when projected into our vision they become very large. I have some problems with my tolerance for overly sharp pixels and overly blurry antialiasing, but I'd be fine with a moderate resolution screen which isn't magnified too much, or of course a very high-res screen if I can get one.
Changing input devices is a good way to avoid RSI, I think. That hex keyboard is cool. I used one on my tablet for a while. I loved it, but it was unmaintained.