RSI, WIMPs and Pipes; What Next?

Tetard asks: "Long live the pipe! Since the `|' was invented by Doug McIlroy in 1973, has there ever been a more effective way of reusing tools and connecting data ? The mouse is a device of the Beatles era; Rather than try and provoke nostalgia in the older ones among us, I'm asking myself, as are others: when we don't try to reinvent the wheel, or at least improve it, why must we try and copy it every time ? Xerox PARC exposed us to WIMPs and we haven't done better: some innovation, some plastic surgery -- but no "paradigm shift" -- where's the creative destruction that will take us further ? Graphical component programming is turning us into click-happy bonobos^H^H^Hchimpanzees, as we fail to find new ways to manage and connect richer data streams. My web designer friends are damaged for life because of mice, and yet we persist... Where do we go from here ? If we ever invent the graphical pipe, let if have keyboard shortcuts." Yes, you've probably seen a similar question to this run by Ask Slashdot before, but this time I'm wondering if maybe we need new input devices before the WIMP paradigm is replaced with something better. Might any of you have ideas on what form these input devices might take?

For those interested, here are the previous stories that have handled this type of question:

• GUI Research - Is it Still Being Done?
• Pipes In GUI's?
• Pipes in GUI's? (Redux)

So what it will take to break us out of the WIMP box (or prison, depending on your bias), maybe new input devices would do it, but quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if a 3D interface might be another route (it would possibly spark interest in designing a new input device that would work better with 3D interfaces, or maybe data-gloves could serve this purpose?). Going on a limb, maybe this guy might just be the ticket.

Comments

Face Recognition

[Sludge]

With a sub-$100 webcam watching you, look at the point of the screen where you would click, and blink.

Are there lots of problems to doing this? Yes. Should that stop me from throwing out the idea? No.

Re:Face Recognition

[JanneM]

Except that the eye isn't all that accurate. You can generally get a resolution of about 1 degree, no more. It's because the fovea (the sharp area of the eye) is about 1.5 degrees, and the eye will skip around slightly all the time within that area (the visual system needs a bit of movement at all times).

You can probably do a decent interface using that kind of accuracy, but you won't be doing any kind of precision work.

/Janne

Re:Face Recognition

[sporty]

Until you sneeze and reboot your computer :)

WIMPs? Pipes?

[cperciva]

What do Weakly Interactive Massive Particles have to do with pipes?

You know what else?

[aiken_d]

We're still using *wheels* on our vehicles! I've got a nearly brand new car, and it's using 5,000 year old technology to get around? From Detroit to Stuttgart, automakers are clearly devoid of imagination!

Get over it -- sometimes it makes sense to stick with what works. A love of change for the sake of change is the one thing that unites geeks and fresh-out-of-school MBA's.

-b

New discussion site for post-WIMP interfaces

[Nooface]

This is exactly the topic of the new Slash site that I just set up at http://nooface.net. The goal of the site is to promote out-of-the-box thinking about truly next-generation user interfaces that are designed for new types of users and computing devices, and go beyond the WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointing Device) method that most current interfaces are based on.

Nooface
In Search of the Post-PC Interface

Why replace the current GUI paradigm?

[kurisuto]

I'm wondering if maybe we need new input devices before the WIMP paradigm is replaced with something better

This seems a bit like asking what it would take to replace the current way of driving a car (steering wheel, gas and pedal brakes, etc.) with something better. But the interface between humans and automobiles is pretty much a solved problem, and nobody seems to spend much time speculating on what a paradigm change in automobile control would be like.

There's a curious assumption which I've seen repeatedly-- namely, that a paradigm shift in human/computer interaction would be a good thing. Why, exactly? I see no reason to pursue a paradigm change for its own sake; I view it as a problem which has basically been solved for now, much as the problem of steering cars is a solved problem.

Re:Why replace the current GUI paradigm?

[tim_maroney]

There's a curious assumption which I've seen repeatedly-- namely, that a paradigm shift in human/computer interaction would be a good thing. Why, exactly?

That's an excellent question. By Kuhn's model of paradigm shifts, the shift must be preceded by a number of anomalies in the current paradigm. In command-line interfaces, the anomalies were numerous -- the need for constant relearning of old habits, the need for memorization, the ease of making errors, the computer being in control of the human rather than the other way around, etc. Eventually social factors caused the anomalies to be recognized as such, so that when a new paradigm was created, its values were widely recognized. Perfect recipe for a Kuhnian shift.

What are the anomalies today which would force a change in the paradigm? Serious question, not rhetorical. For starters, I'd say Gelernter's new project is an attempt to rectify some anomalies which have not yet attained social recognition as anomalies.

Tim

Re:NLP

[JanneM]

Nope. It will have a role in niche applications, but I don't see it ever being the dominant method of interaction. A couple of reasons:

Imagine a large room full of office workers. Now, imagine the same room with every worker talking to his wordprocessor or spreadsheet, trying to make him or herself heard over all the others, getting irritated and fatigued because of the constant noise of everybody else talking to their computers.

Imagine trying to do some work in an airport or on an airplane. Now, imagine trying to do the work using your voice _without_ other people hearing the budget details for your company or hearing the steamy endearments you will be mailing to your spouse.

Imagine talking. Now, imagine constantly talking all day, every day. Some actors and singers get permanent damage to their vocal cords - and they've had professional coaching and access to medical services. It could become RSI for your throat.

/Janne

Gross motion v. fine motion

[www.sorehands.com]

Part of the problem is with fine motion control v. gross motion control.

Add a touch screeen so that when it comes to window selection less fine manipulation, you can use the large muscles of the arm and shoulder, then use the mouse for the finer that you cannot get with a touch screen.

The more important aspect is the comfort and the breaks. No matter what mechanism is used, trauma can accumulate over time. You need time to allow the body to recover from that trauma.

3D Environments will lead to change

[Bonker]

The real problem with computer software advancement is that its all very firmly based in 2D land. WIMP environments are about as eficient as you can get. Even assuming that you can wrap your work habits around something as 'next-gen' as 'The Brain', you're still stuck in 2D land.

The real advance that will open innovation (real innovation and not some corporation's twisted idea of it) is the beginning of a 3D workstation environment.

We already have the primatives for this kind of environment in games like Unreal, Q3A, and Black and White. Assuming that we implement a 'graphical pipe' that will work for a truly 3D application system, ie: Allow 3D applications to pass information back and forth between each other semi-effortlessly, this will ignite a new 'interface revolution' similiar to what we experienced as a result of Xerox's early WIMP system and the first versions of Apple's MacOS.

Once programs and applications can truly be represented as 'objects' in a 3D environment, we'll end up with something like the 'God' interface in Black and White, where processes are represented by animated people and files are represented as other objects. Tasks best handled in 2-D such as composition, coding, or painting will still be easy to handle, but tasks best performed in 3-D such as file management, database management, and even some advanced programming tasks like linking and compiling files, will take place in a representational environment. Imagine opening up your HDD and pouring objects into it, then sorting them into containers based on type, as you would sort files into directories.

Eventually, I see us moving into something like Stephenson's 'Street' metaphor for shared environments.

Along with these advances, will come new interfaces. I think that eye-tracking cameras have the biggest potential, but we keep coming back to the data-glove in one form or the other. I know CADesigners who still have an old Nintendo powerglove hacked for basic 3D manipution tasks. We're also probably going to see a renaissance of 'body tracker' devices that will track human motion via sonar or laser. Any one of these has the potential to vastly reduce RSI injuries.

The real trick in jumping from 2D to 3D is reverse compatibility. All the shells I've seen that attempt 3D interaction do it badly. Even then, they fail completely when faced with most of the tasks we do on a daily basis, like write or paint. I think we're going to have to use 'easels' or something similiar. In Cowboy Bebop, Radical Edward's computing environment is shown as a multitude of 2D windows hovering around her in 3D space. This wouldn't be that hard to do, really.

Navigation will be the true challenge for any 3D application designer. It will be that itch to scratch that will spawn new, inventive input and coding ideas.

Re:3D Environments will lead to change

[Mr. Sketch]

This would be good, but it would require a 3d interface. I think the only way to truly do a 3d environment is for it to exist in the physical world. Any 3d interface on a 2d screen will become kludgy pretty quick. The best way to do a fully 3d interface is to put in in the real world. Imagine if your desk *WAS* the computer. The desktop *WAS* your actual desktop. You open your draw to see 'real' manilla folders with names on the tabs for your documents and thumbing through them to find the financial report you were working on, 'grabbing' it and pulling it out and it appears on your desktop for you to work with. You open up another draw and see pens, pencils, markers highlighters, etc that you then 'grab' to select what you want to start writing with. You could just slide your hand across the desktop to move documents out of the way and tab or 'grab' a document that was 'under' the one you were working on and it comes to the top and you can begin working on that one.

This would require a lot of holography and motion tracking, touch sensors, etc, but it would be the ultimate in 3d interfaces. It would avoid klunky HUDs and gloves, etc that just detract from the actual work. You could even bring up a keyboard on the desktop and use that instead of a virtual pen or pencil.

3d interfaces would be nice, but on a 2d display I think it's best to stick with a 2d interface.

Graphical Pipes

[EnglishTim]

There are several programs out there that make use of graphical pipes - Maya, Eddie, Shake, grphedit (DirectShow graph editor) to name but a few.

The nice thing about graphical pipes is the ability to easily and transparently connect several forms of data to one node. With command line pipes, you've effectively only got one input and output.

What would be needed would be graphical terminal programs (built into the OS, or at least window manager) for connecting these things together, Oh, and a standardized way of defining input and output types - I dunno - would MIME work there?

I expect somebody can point us at a project that has already done this?

NLP != Voice Recognition

[Greyfox]

A lot of people think NLP implies voice recognition and to a large extent that's true, but it also means being able to communicate with your computer using plain english sentences. Difficult because English is so damn ambiguous (Note to self: Perhaps Klingon would be a better place to start...) Still, if I want to tell my computer, "Book the least expensive flight from Denver to Miami on the 23rd of this month." I should be able to say that to the computer or type it and have the computer understand what I'm telling it to do. I should also be able to modify my command to specify times or airline or both and my computer should be smart enough to say "There's a flight for $100 less 5 minutes earlier than the timeframe you specified. Would that be acceptable?"

That sort of thing will be the wave of the future, and it will mean that apps will have to be smarter and communicate a lot more than they do today. My personal agent should reside on my local machine, not the network, and should watch out for my personal privacy. It should divulge only what is necessary to others in order to perform the commands that I give it. It should be flexible and configurable, but I should never have to configure it; it should learn what I like by how I interact with it.

Several large companies have been working toward this holy grail for years, but thus far not even common voice recognition much less NLP has emerged from their research. Sure there are some voice recognition packages out there, but there's very little integration, and AFAIK nothing at all in the NLP arena. We could start working toward the level of integration that would be a necessary foundation for a lot of this stuff, but I don't know that you could get the necessary level of cooperation in ANY software development community.

We need Star Trek interfaces

[AKAImBatman]

No, I'm serious. Computers should be working for us, not against us. Today, we don't give a computer a task and ask it to complete it, we instead worry about interfacing with it. The interface should be natural and change depending on what you are doing. Let's go through this using Star Trek (TNG) as our baseline:

Computers should have voice recognition for general tasks such as environment management and collabertion. The crew uses this to dim the lights for example.

Computers should have keypad interfaces for general reading and writing. You'll notice the workstation on Picard's desk for exactly this purpose.

Computers should have remote/networked interfaces for passing sneaker-net info. This means datapads and remote voice uplinks. (Hold on captain, I'll email the info to your chair! Yeah, right.)

Computers should be able to present information in the most efficient way possible. This doesn't mean the prettiest, but instead it means dynamic graphical/audio interfaces. These interfaces must be easy to create and use. This means that the readouts might one moment be tracking the progress of Warp plasma then next moment display starcharts of the ship's course.

All of this makes the Star Trek interface very useful and is quite possible with current technology. However, there is one thing that really makes it easy to use:

Computers must be able to automatically analyze, process, and display any information. Filters should be able to be applied automatically. Artifical intelligence should be able to translate speech from any language to any language and add new patterns without reprogramming. Answers to theoriretcal questions should be able to be answered given a current set of information on a subject. Information should be able to be retrieved and stored no matter what the format and new formats should be able to be analyzed and added to the database.

This is much more difficult due to the fact that computers today have a very monolithic nature. Pipes are a good example of dynamic linkage of programs, yet at the same time are very primitive. They require a great deal of operator understanding of the information in order to use.

What if we could build layers of software on top of layers of software, which are then again used to build greater layers of software? This would require that we accept standard functionality at each level of the layering process and then allow people to write ever simpler code due to this great deal of layering. Why should anyone be required to rewrite a quicksort once it has been written?

The first and best key we have today is the Java class file format. Class files are allowed to layer on top of others by nature. The computer can pull apart the structure and investigate the usefullness of a class for a specific function. With enough layers, the computer can make extremely intelligent decisions automatically. Witness JINI.

So here is my challenge to every programmer/newbie/manager/hardware designer in existance. Stop trying to focus on how we can optimize or tweak each individual computer function so that you gain temporary marketshare, outperform your competitor, or push your political agenda. Instead, begin pushing for hard standards in the industry. Don't worry if they have the "highest performance" or if they have the "coolest widgets". Instead worry if they have the best design, if they are technically "right" for the task at hand. Stop worrying about making languages that allow you to produce specific functionality in fewer lines of code, and worry about producing the highest level of quality.

Many people will find this a hard pill to swallow, but the end result will most certainly be worth it.

Re:We need Star Trek interfaces

[slamb]

Artifical intelligence should be able to translate speech from any language to any language and add new patterns without reprogramming.

Oh, okay. I'll have that for you tomorrow.

I'm really tired of people making these dramatic statements that are all but impossible to realize. There are people who have spent their careers trying to do what you mentioned in that paragraph, and they've gotten nowhere, because the task is so enormously complex. Translating from one language involves taking one set of nonsensical rules and ambiguities and replacing them with another. It can not be done without a complete understand of what is being translated. That's...hard, to make the understatement of the year.

What if we could build layers of software on top of layers of software, which are then again used to build greater layers of software? This would require that we accept standard functionality at each level of the layering process and then allow people to write ever simpler code due to this great deal of layering. Why should anyone be required to rewrite a quicksort once it has been written?

There are already so many levels of complexity in any piece of software that it's completely insane. Your idea is nothing new. Here's a partial list of the layers involved in a Java Virtual Machine I'm sure I am leaving many things out, putting them in a bad order, etc.:

1. Gates. Operations on ones and zeros.
2. Hardware components. I'm sure there are layers I am leaving out here and much more descriptive ways to say this...but I have only a token knowledge of these layers.
3. The instruction set architecture of the machine. Already a huge step up, this is a layer at which I can (slowly and painfully) produce useful software.
4. Assemblers. They take somewhat human-readable code and generate machine code from it. (Ever had to do this by hand? Not fun.)
5. High-level programming languages. They take relatively abstract concepts like loops, functions, etc. and create assembler from them.
6. Operating systems. (At this point, the "layers" metaphor shows its imperfections...high-level programming languages and operating system functionality are orthogonal, meaning they abstract different things. My order is arbitrary.) They make it possible to access devices in abstract ways, plus a million other useful things for software.
7. The core library. (libc on C-based machines.) Makes system calls to the operating system easier. Implements stuff common to lots and lots of programs.
8. Other libraries. There's actually many layers hidden here. For example, on UNIX, libxpm depends on libXt which depends on libX11 which depends on libm which depends on libc.
9. Various other processes, like the X11 server. These interact with client-side libraries through communication primitives provided by the operating system layer and made more accessible by the libc layer.
10. The Brahm GC. (For Kaffe. I don't know what GC Sun's VM uses or where exactly it fits in.) This makes memory allocation easier.
11. C-side Java support stuff. Part of the String class implementation, for example.
12. The virtual machine. Implements a completely different instruction set.
13. Java-side support libraries. A lot of the java.lang stuff, for example.
14. More Java-side support libraries. GUI stuff. This depends on stuff below. Extend to arbitrary depth.
15. Your code.

My point? Layering software is nothing new. If you want to add a layer, say so, but don't pretend it's a new concept.

So here is my challenge to every programmer/newbie/manager/hardware designer in existance. Stop trying to focus on how we can optimize or tweak each individual computer function so that you gain temporary marketshare, outperform your competitor, or push your political agenda. Instead, begin pushing for hard standards in the industry.

You know, I really hate it when people push for other people to make dramatic changes I suspect they don't understand (evidence: above) and use the word "we". It's entirely inappropriate.

Stop worrying about making languages that allow you to produce specific functionality in fewer lines of code, and worry about producing the highest level of quality

The language is one of those layers you advocated. The language itself is a piece of software to be reused. You suggested people add layers to make things possible with simpler code, and this is one way to do it. Don't knock it.