However, the argument that multitasking on computers is bad because humans can’t multitask is flawed. It uses the word «multitasking» in two different ways, but implies that the two kinds of multitasking are somehow the same thing. They’re not: a task (or an app) on a computer, and a task performed by a human don’t map to each other one-to-one. In fact, a single task performed by a human can easily make use of several applications running concurrently on a computer.
For example, right now, I’m typing this text in Notational Velocity, and I’m looking at the New York Times in a browser. The computer is showing me two windows at the same time. It is multitasking. I, however, am not. I’m absolutely focused on writing this essay. In fact, the computer’s multitasking is precisely what allows me to focus on writing my essay. I can type text into this window while looking at the Times article in another window without being forced to interrupt my task, and consciously switch between apps.
Great insight. See also: multiple windows.
Software is streamlined by defining and supporting predetermined workflows. The tradeoff is that flexibility and composablity suffers.
When needs are simple or common, a single app with monolithic presentation is ideal. As programmers and designers, our task over the next decade is to figure out how to make straightforward software that also seamlessly steps up to larger roles.
