Slashdot Mirror
The Next Computer Interface
BoarderPhreak was among the several readers who pointed out "an interesting article on the various alternatives to storing your files using a 'desktop' metaphor" at TechReview.com. "New styles like time-indexing, 3D sphere ala SGI's file manager, and even a 3D virtual 'task gallery' from Microsoft. Screenshots available in the article." All of these have been floating around for a while; hopefully soon some radically different interfaces will actually gain widespread acceptance.
I think you are missing the point of the article. Basically, Google does one thing - searches the internet. You only have to type in one box and click one button. So, of course the interface, which is uncluttered and intuitive, works fine. The article is about systems that involve thousands of files, and how to allow humans to manage large amounts of information. You make arguments like people will lose information in a 3D system. Well, people are already losing in formation in their 2D system, so this argument is fairly weak. In fact, being overwhelmed with directories, file systems and storage is exactly what these people are combatting with their research. Our current system is far from effective, and if they can come up with something better, then great. Personally, I find the idea of sitting in front a box and typing to access information to be ludicrous and backward. We should stop trying to perfect the GUI and move on to the next step in computer integration. The fact that you have to take a course to understand how to use a PC indicagtes that our current interpretation of PC'S is failing. You don't have to take a course to use your fridge, and computers need to be that integrated in our lives.
- If This Peace Is Fictious, I Shall Destroy It
In the end, the only way any of these are going to replace the desktop metaphor is if they can be shown to be better then the desktop. All of these fail at that task.
Although the idea of chronological storage is intriguing, and will work well for small groups of files, it breaks down completely once the user starts manipulating many files. This can be mitigated by storing them hierarchically, but this then ceases to offer much advantage over a desktop list view that's sorted reverse-chronologically by date.
3-D has two main disadvantages, both stemming from this notion of "space" as a way of managing files, as opposed to a flat "surface". The first is speed. Because there is more area (or, to be more accurate, volume) to navigate, the user has to spend more time looking for stuff. Second, as the article points out, things become easier to lose in 3-D space. You can alleviate some of this if you add the notion of "hallways" and "rooms" in which to organize things, but if you do, then you're still thinking in hierarchical terms, and that puts you right back on the Desktop.
Then, there's that funky sphere idea. Somewhat less of a problem than true 3-D, because you're still dealing with only one surface rather than a space Less easy to lose things. However, with all the spinning and zooming that you'd need to do, you lose speed, big time.
Microsoft's task-oriented stuff just doesn't work out. It's well-suited to carrying out actions, but not for organizing files. You just get dumped onto the Desktop.
It's true that the desktop metaphor has its flaws. In fact, truth be told, it's pretty bad. But it's like democracy in that regard: the only thing worse is everything else we've come up with so far.
3D may be the next dimension to graphic designers, but has nothing to do with file organization and structure.
Currently, disk contents are arranged in a nested heirarchy. This fits nicely into a desktop-folder-file metaphor. Each file may be enclosed in one folder (which may be enclosed in more folders) which is contained by the desktop. A 1-1-...-1 relationship. Aliases are currently used to sidestep this structure and randomly access files outside of this struture.
It seems to me the next step is a relational file system. In this system, the physical location of a file is mostly irrelevant. Just like in a relational database, all files may be displayed by search criteria. An OS would have default views which would show "all user created data", "all system applications", etc. Each view is merely a database report which could be further refined.
A XML-ish standard structure for embedding attributes about each file (metadata) would be very useful. File type, creator, preferred editor, preferred viewer, and other user defined attributes, as well as some content-based indexing would make this possible. Users could have their own file system views based on search criteria of file attributes. It would then be trivial to view "all html documents containing meeting notes from last week" (files matching 3 attributes).
Files would no longer merely be viewable by heirarchial location, although you could still view by directory structure for maintenance, housekeeping, and organization.
Window management is another big deal I'd like to resolve. Layering of windows places the burden of managing the display on the user. Why can't my OS handle much of that for me?
I applied at Apple for a senior UI design position several years prior to OSX , presented many of these ideas in the interview, and was told, in essence, they were more interested in animated widgets than reinventing the desktop. Now Apple has undermined use of metadata in OSX. It's sad to see a company once so keen in user interface to take a step backward, instead of some forward direction.
It's also sad to read about such crap as in this article being presented as the next step. Geesh. What a maroon! I've been hearing about 3D interfaces since at least 1990 and have yet to see one with any promise. At best they are eye candy. At worst, they are a counter-intuitive kludge from forcing a concept onto functional need. (Ahem. It flows the other way, fellas...)
-c!
"You have liberated me from thought."
When he said text was 2d, I belive he was referring to it that was because it is only symbolic in 2d. You can make it 3d and give it depth yeah, but take your now 3d letter, turn it 90 degrees, what is it?
You're not wrong. However, we must also remember that fridges don't take a minute to turn the light on and let you have access to your foodstuffs. You could reply that fridges are on the whole time, but if you leave the PC on the whole time, who pays the electricity bill? /bad thing/.
PC/human interaction is vastly different from real-world physical interactions in many ways. Trying to force them into being analogous is often a
The future lies in places like the Xerox PARC of old, and in usability labs, where people can simply brainstorm interface ideas, and fitness/evolution will take care of the rest.
Note, however, that there _isn't_ a single solution. People have many different prefered ways of arranging data not just in their head, but externally too.
THL.
Keeping
After looking through the site, it reminds me a bit of Ted Nelson's ZigZag, only with a much prettier user interface.
ZigZag basically lets you set up arbitrary "axes" of meaning and drop nodes on them. Any node can contain anything, and be a member of any number of axes. All axes are orthogonal to all other axes. The user interface lets you move along any axis from any node. Thus, information is locally coherent but, if you step back, it's a rat's nest.
For example, for organizing things on your computer, you might create an axis named "Games," and link Quake, Starcraft, and Solitaire to it. Solitaire is published by Micros~1, so you might also set up a Micros~1 axis, which contains Solitaire, IE, Word, Excel, Outlook, etc. Solitaire would be a member of both "Games" and "Micros~1", but not of the "Network-aware" axis, which would contain Quake, Starcraft, IE, Outlook, etc.
ZigZag is very primitive right now, but the concept is very intriguing. Written in Perl and runs under Linux. Check it out.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
I have been using a curious environment called 'Spag' for some time.
It just takes text, pictures and graphics and doesn't use the concept of files - only information.
It's early in it's development but I think this direction is interesting...
check it out...at Freshmeat
http://freshmeat.net/projects/spag/
The problem isn't the desktop metaphor at all--it's that we're trying to use our personal computers for tasks they weren't meant to perform. Peel those tasks away to specialized devices--music to MP3 players, films to movie players, news and information to specialized readers--and you've solved the desktop metaphor problem. Each device will evolve its own best interface, depending on its specialized use.
I can't really see how this person is supposed to be seen as 'forward-thinking'. I mean, just how many various failed 'appliances' have we seen offered at discount/clearout, with X number of Linux hacks in recent months? For the current time, appliances have been tried and have been found wanting.
Another snippit: ;)
You could verbally ask your Web browser to go to CNN Online. While you're there, the browser might observe where you look on the page and offer pages with related content for viewing--in theory making it virtually effortless to get what you want from your computer at all times without having to stop at the desktop.And at the same time, make it virtually effortless to get what we don't want. You think pop-ups are bad now, imagine it they did things if you just look at the buggers ("the user is looking at the icon, therefor he/she has an interest in the product!"). Only one good thing I could see from it: the replacement for click-through banner ads. Advertising is for getting the attention of the consumer, in getting the company's/product's name/image/whatever out there for people to look at (think billboards, magazine/newspaper spreads, television spots, they don't require any action comparable to a banner ad 'click-through'). Just imagine what would happen to all those companies if they had to pay site owners 'per eye view' of their ads, for the site owner renting out part of their space for the ad.
My Big Brother can beat up your Big Brother any day!
There's no wrong way, to eat a Rhesus...