|
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 03:45 AM EDT |
Everything you say is absolutely true, but completely false. There is not an
interface in an auto used for 'driving'.
You mention the phrase 'accepted interface' and the word 'convention'. Those are
ideas used by humans for the implementation of autos and the driving of autos.
The auto would be unmoved... unconcerned by having the accelerator on the roof
and the steering wheel under the hood. All the functions would still work just
as well. Humans implement autos to match the idea or concept of the 'accepted
interface' for the human driver. It's an idea used for function implementation.
Abiding by that user convention for the selection, sequence and organisation of
the 'driving control functions' that is key for the human action of 'driving' is
ever so wise. The auto does not care. There is no additional 'interface' applied
to different classes of functional access in order for the implementation to
comply with human concepts and ideas for driving controls.
Now, all we need is for an 'accepted interface' for the wretched car radio
control class. All the radio functions work just fine. This human has no concept
of how the radio control interface provides some of the more obscure features.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|