Re:Autocomplete as an Interface (2015)
by oneeyedpigeon on Thursday January 16, 2020 @12:20PM
(#22066612)
> No one would design an autocomplete for written language
Er... that happens all the time: various word processors, text messaging, etc. Even Google's autocomplete (which is a rare example of autocomplete being really good) is essentially this.
Re:Autocomplete as an Interface (2015)
by seanmcdirmid on Thursday January 16, 2020 @12:37PM
(#22066806)
Ya, I should have written it differently. These aren’t the same things, really. One is about discoverability and the other is about handling input method deficiency. I remember auto completion being really great when using T9 to text on old Nokia handsets, but not because I didn’t know what words I could write.
The right word for that would be code completion or more specific brandings of intellisense, which is completely different from things like T9.
Perhaps not hierarchical namespaces, but there is the knowledge that 'next word must be a verb', 'that verb requires an object', etc.
Re:Autocomplete as an Interface (2015)
by seanmcdirmid on Thursday January 16, 2020 @11:50AM
(#22066260)
There is, but the space is vast for those. A better analogy might be a possessive, like the King’s crown, or perhaps an operation, the president’s impeachment. But we usually use language to communicate, not to design and build, so you aren’t gaining much when you already know what was done or to be done and are just communicating that. Instead, think of auto completion as a planning aide to help you remember what things have and can do.
The right word for that would be code completion or more specific brandings of intellisense, which is completely different from things like T9.
What autocomplete has enabled are deep and broad namespaces in programming languages that do support such a concept. Yes, you are definitely correct that the massive namespaces designed today are only possible because of autocomplete: libraries can cram in more functionality because developers will be able to use autocomplete to find it. But what’s the alternative? Less functionality in the libraries so they can be used with autocomplete turned off? There is some merit to that point of view, but simplification can only go so far before you are just missing things you wanted to use in some niche use case.