[pwinnski]

You could double or quadruple the number of pixels, and it wouldn't make any difference in how much information humans comprehend easily. You would be using more computing power and more memory to deliver the same amount of useful information less efficiently.

A "proper GUI" is rarely better than a well-designed TUI for communicating textual information, IMO. And the TUI constraints keep the failure-states for badly-designed UI tightly bound, unlike GUI constraints.

[gf000]

What about a map, or an image? We can surely agree that humans can take in a lot more information than a readable letter-grid allows, depending on the type of information.

[pwinnski]

Sure, of course sometimes an image conveys things better than a thousand words. But a very large percentage of what most people do with computers is primarily text, with more images in ads than useful content. By and large GUIs don't use images to convey information better, they just make text worse.

Modern terminal software supports displaying images, for what it's worth.

[gf000]

> Modern terminal software supports displaying images, for what it's worth.

In a worse, and dramatically overcomplicated way. Like it's kind of funny that largely the same people that is all for this supposed ultra minimalism would be celebrating a Rube Goldberg way of doing graphical interfaces? (Because in the end it is a graphical interface).

[pwinnski]

Sorry for the late response; it's been a busy week.

As a user, I don't care how complicated is the means of displaying images in a terminal session. I would only want to do so when I'm deep in a text-oriented context and there is a suddenly a need for an image. Not a chart or a graph, but an actual image. As a user, whatever contortions are necessary at that point are fine, because it's an unusual circumstance.

I hope that makes sense.