Slashdot Mirror
Tactile the Future of GUI?
aaronvegh writes "Slashdot readers have been griping a lot lately about the lack of an alternative to the desktop GUI. In his latest Alertbox column, Jakob Nielson (love him or hate him) is proposing that tactile, phsyical interfaces will be the next evolution in how we interact with machines. An interesting read, and a relief from the tired "the desktop GUI is dead, and we'll replace it with....uh....""
Does it even need to be said?
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
I won't take any advice on GUI design from a website that looks like THAT!
I see nothing in this article that shows what exactly a physical paradigm would do better than a desktop one. Truthfully, I don't think desktop when I'm on a box, it's just hierarchically organized folders. Which makes alot of sense to me.
that tactile, phsyical interfaces will be the next evolution in how we interact with machines.
:-)
what, like the abacus?
Last thing we will need though, is smell feedback. Lord knows what my trash bin smells like with the junk thats in there. And worse yet, my porn folder. Ewr....
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
That's all I'm asking. I don't want to "rub my junk" just to get my cursor moving.
I'm glad i stick with console. All we need now is a tactile console. Complete with 101 key 'interface' So i can push the correct buttons in correct order to run a command.
to get a directory all id need to push would be key labeled 'l' and key labeled 's'.
wow what a great innovation.
I don't want UI advice from a guy who keeps using bold on almost every sentence.
From reading the article, it appears they're more interested in tactile interfaces for non-PC devices. I really don't think this will affect the gui any time soon, too many people need to be able to see what they're doing.
It's easy to stand out when the general level of competence is so low.
I would love a GUI similar to the one used in Minority Report.
An alternative would be a simple OS interface similar which uses radial menus like those in Never Winter Nights.
I found a link in the article to be almost as interesting as the article itself. This is a link to Saul Greenberg's site at the University of Calgary where he has a collection of user interfaces, most of which have been designed by his students and include video examples. Here It Is
I've been using my Logitech iFeel mouse, which has tactile feedback, for over a year now. I like it a lot; it's reassuring that widgets in windows are "bumpy". I guess it's like moving to a real keyboard after having used a membrane keyboard. It even works in some games, most notably Black & White which actually had missions that would only appear with a force-feedback mouse.
But unfortunately, iFeel mice have been available for a long time now, but it doesn't seem like they're catching on. People don't seem to want to spend even the extra $20 or so for the feature.
My tactile feedback is a Logitech iFeel optical mouse, and it's surprisingly addictive.
Opening fire with a chain gun in UT is so much more fun when your mouse is actually thrumming along with the gun... I just wish more games supported it.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
...until PDA's have a tactile interface. I'd love to smack my PocketPC in the middle of a meeting and have it go 'WaaaaAAAaaaa!'.
You'd better be as good looking as Cruise. If everyone has to watch you waving your arms about all day long through a transparent screen you'd better not be ugly.
-- SIGFPE
I'm afraid that if Windows, for instance, were to become interactive in a physical sense that my computer usage would fluctuate seasonally. I mean, I can't very well have all those windows open when it's cold outside, now can I?
brrrrrrrrr
The angel in the oatmeal.
I think there are some important things to point out here. Microsoft may make things easier to use, but harder to understand. With all of the hand holding, wizards, and simply doing things for you, the end user is becoming less and less knowledgable about computers. They are becoming more and more educated about "The Microsoft Way".
Some say that Linux gui developers have yet to crack the gui solution. I say that Windows has failed to crack the Command Line Interface (CLI). Why is a graphical interface always seen as the evolutionary step? Hasn't the gui gone about as far as it can go? I think with our current technology, it has. Linux has a GUI and a CLI, both are powerful. Windows has a GUI and a hobbled CLI.
People talk about the next generation GUI. No. Talk about the next generation interface. See, the GUI was made simple because the people using computers were new to them. Do you think that will always be the case? Can you picture living without automobiles? How about telephones? Electricity? It can be done, but we are of the generation(s) that take these thing for granted because they have always been a part of our lives. The people who had to transition from not having these things to using them on a daily basis were uncomfortable with them. This is happening with computers. When I grew up, there were no computers. I transitioned OK, I went into the field. My siblings did not. Kids today are growing up with them, so computers are not foreign objects. They won't need the hand-holding OS, they aren't afraid of the machines. (Show them a record, or an 8-track tape if you want to see fear and confusion) :-)
People always talk about making the interface simpler. I think that the interface will not become simpler, it will become a little more complex, simply becase it won't need to be simple anymore. This is just my theory, and I hope I live to see it become reality.
I also understand the need to look for the "next great thing", but I don't think we have properly used the interfaces we currently have (GUI with CLI). Although the interface in Minority Report was pretty cool, throw a CLI on there and use the gloves with a virtual keyboard, and you are in business.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
and we'll replace it with.....bash! bwahahahaha
-----------------------------------------
Remove the Greed which plagues mankind.
The Sony Aibo has a tactile, physical interface. You train the little dog and cat robots by rubbing and tapping them in various places, or by showing them their big red ball. It's not very effective, although some people think it's fun.
I think it's a neat idea, but you have the problem of people's haptic abilities (i.e. sense of touch) worsening as they get older. A touch-driven interface might really suck for some elderly person already trying to get a grip on computers in general.
Not that interfaces that use sight or sound will be invulnerable to aging-related isses, but it is something to keep in mind.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Why are gestures all of a sudden popular? Opera has them, and I accidentally closed all my windows. Black & White had them but they were the worst part of the game, I could never get a spell to cast right. We've got a keyboard with 102 "gestures" on it sitting in front of nearly every computer. Make use of those instead!
Travis
Your eyes have millions of receptors. When you see something like a screen, most of them are actively processing the screen. That is HUGE bandwidth. You are used to using it because your brain is processing vision constantly, so is very accurate.
A tactile interface would rely on a few hundred receptors on a handful of fingers. (pun intended) Unless you read braile, your fingers aren't that sensitive. Your fingers aren't used to being used as a primary interface, and is therefore not that accurate.
Aural (sound) interfaces are much better because they have a significant bandwidth (not as high as vision, but better than touch) and we are used to using them. That's part of why the two most-required output interfaces are a monitor and speakers.
Input interfaces are the same. The best way we have for output is our tongue (seriously), second is our hands. So our two preferred input interfaces should logially be voice and hand. We are used to typing, and always dream of the ultimate speech-control interface. Or you could go to a tongue interface, but I wouldn't want my co-developers to share it.
So as far as User Interfaces go, I think we should strive for better GUIs that can be augmented with sound and tactile feedback.
Just some thoughts.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
The difference between a CLI and a GUI are, really, baggage from a prior generation of systems that should be discarded.
A future interface will be graphical because that allows for more immediate and intuitive use of information. I can know, at a fraction of a glance, that I have Groupwise, Mozilla, and Winamp loaded as "user applications," as well as a working iFolder, netshield, & a couple of other background apps.
The biggest improvement for this will be keyboard integration. I want to push a button (windows key or equivalent) and have a "command area" pop up, which is designed to work with the GUI.
Take the Windows setup and add anything & everything that the Linux CLIs have that it doesn't. Then rework the entire thing from the ground up, remembering that the CLI will work *always* with the GUI, and a user should be able to do everything with the CLI.
A generation after this, and we can replace the command area with voice recognition. The voice subsystem will just feed commands into where the CLI goes, and it'll work exactly as we imagined it would as kids.
concerning mice: using a mouse is terribly inefficient. The only thing it has going for it is that it is universal. I can use it to point (badly), draw (badly), write (very badly) - just about anything in 2-D.
However, when I watch myself aim for instance for that 5mm x 20mm area in most apps that says "File", I realise that fast as it is, it actually represents an effort - it requires appreciable hand-eye coordination. This is not really a problem (at least not for me), but it is an unnecessary annoyance - it should be effortless. It's also the reason I learn about 20+ keyboard shortcuts as soon as possible for every app I know I'm going to be using 2+ times a week. I always Alt-Tab through my apps on Windows, and if I want to see the running apps, I unhide the autohidden startbar with the Windows key, rather than the mouse.
My favourite apps are the ones where I don't have the touch the mouse at all. Although there are some exceptions: mouse gestures in Opera are great, mainly because they require hardly any hand-eye coordination - the pointer just has to be somewhere in the window I want to do something with. Same with wheeled mice - successful, because it requires far less effort putting the pointer somewhere in a windows and "wheeling" up/down, rather than aiming for the proper section of a 5 mm scrollbar.
Having said all that - this is just one element of modern GUIs, notably interesting because it's both so successful and so bad.
yes, we have no bananas
don't flame me, as i am not proselytizing this idea, i am merely proposing it for consideration:
the "Microsoft Way" GUI is like the QWERTY Keyboard.
that is, it is certainly not the best keyboard, but it is what everyone learns to use, and expects to use, and so gets locked into the staus quo in a very unshakeable way.
the dvorak keyboard is obviously superior, but few use it, as few are exposed to it, and few are able to switch easily or with much readily available support and compatibility.
you could probably say much the same about alternative GUIs or alternatives to the GUI at all, for much the same reason.
i think we are all chained to a mouse and a keyboard and a taskbar and hierarchical folders for a long time to come, as this modality is pretty strongly entrenched into the computer using experience.
i like the time-based desktop idea, where everything is based on a timeline you can flip forward and backward to and from to the present... David Gelernter's idea... but what chance does it have against entrenched thinking? the human mind is inflexible once it is indoctrinated into a certain way of dealing with things, and there is also a social/ cultural inertia against change which is hard to shake. just ask us americans to use obviously superior metric units of measure, for example.
i am not saying this is a good thing, i am merely suggesting that this concept of acceptance inertia has to be taken into consideration when thinking about alternatives to the "Microsoft Way" GUI, unless you are comfortable talking about marginal applications only.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
A tactile interface is not graphical (you could have both, but in principle, they're different). It's not a GUI, and therefore, I don't think it will replace the GUI, it will supplement it. I don't see why there shouldn't be room enough in this town for both of them.
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
A mention of "tactile" and "box" in the same sentence, and no-one has commented on this? ;)
There is only one thing to say, and that is that I think that tactile boxes are the way of the future.
Ooer.
I think the better approach to looking at usability is not to focus on different types of media through which we can communicate with the computer, but to focus on levels of abstraction and simplification. For the moment, many tasks that we use computers for involved some pretty low level formatting. Half of the work of setting up a spreadsheet involves fiddling around with cell formatting, and a large chunk of my writing time is spent tweaking the output format or entering data into bibliographic databases so that the computer can format them. Going down to the nitty-gritty details at the lower level of abstraction should rarely be necessary.
I actually think that the command line is a good idea, but currently command lines are too low level, require understanding too much jargon, and commands typically do only single atomic actions. An ideal command would be along the lines of "Find all articles about discourse analysis and Usenet in peer reviewed journals in the last five years."
You want to use the best method of communication regardless of context or direction of information flow. Saying that a CLI or speaking is better for requesting information is simplistic. My classic example is file selection: for selecting files by pattern, a CLI will always be much quicker than any other method (short of telepathy I guess), while selecting a distinct set of files that don't conform to any naming or date pattern will always be much quicker visually and by pointing at them. In the real world, requirements are usually combinations of both, so the ideal solution would be a combination of both input methods.
Dvorak is not superior - here is one article that disputes the notion that Dvorak is superior
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
While we're at it can get get of the $#(*&@#$ qwerty keyboards. How annoying is that? If RSI truely exists it because my hands have to be yogic fliers to find all the keys located in the silliest of places.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
The reason why the mouse requires so much effort on Windows is that Microsoft (and by extension, most windows programmers) make UI's that take a lot of power away from the mouse.
The example most relevant to your post is the pull-down "File" menu. When they copied apple (or tried to), microsoft changed the location of the pull-down menu bar from the top of the screen (like on a mac) to the window of each respective application. With Apple's way, you can't possibly vertically overshoot the menu bar; with Microsoft's way, not only is it possible to overshoot the menubar horizontally, but you have to watch out for overshooting the menubar vertically as well. Putting it simply, a menu at the top of a screen has faster mouse access times than a menu on a window. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but it is a result of something called Fitts' Law, which states that the time to access a target is a function of the target's distance and it's size. For more information on Fitts' Law, check out this article on usability guru Bruce Tognizzini's website.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Hmmm... I wonder what a segfault would feel like?
Even proposing to take this guy and what he promotes for granted is so utterly bizare I can't help my self but laugh. Really, to me Cowboy Neal and Jacob Nielsen are on the same team.
... because lot's of people will use it so it's good ... because lots of... you get the point)
I mean, look at his site!
Honestly now, chosing MySQL over Firebird on performance principles or stating that Linux is easier for a newbie than Windows is one thing, and pass if you are a slashdotter.
But calling this guy with his sad and sorry excuse for a website the king of web usability is so gawdforesaken lame you wouldn't believe it.
I very much believe Jacob Nielsen and David Siegel (the other king of the web - the guy who 'invented' (ROTFL) spacer gifs) came to fame very much the same way. They started out early enough with gathering minions around them which provided links to each other and back to them - the so called 'other very good web experts'. Sewing a rumor that fed itself to full size. Just like the Windows 95 craze in times of OS/2 ('it's good
No folks, really, trust me, this is NOT your metier. Calling this guy a webdesigner with a clue is like calling Bill Gates a fair buisnesspartner and a supplier of good software. And makes anyone calling him that a greater clown than even this Nielsen guy himself.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
This is where computers are different that all other appliances - they can do more than one thing. Microwaves do one thing. VCRs can do two things (record/playback). TVs do one thing. They all have simple interfaces, and yet some people still can't use a VCR. The interface to computers CANNOT get simpler if it keeps doing more and more complex things. Either the computer has to do a simple task (ala tivo) or people have to learn more complex interfaces. It can happen, it will just take a generation or two.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
You kind of outlined my point, except that I don't think that this generation is stupid or lazy. The people who "get" computers use them well, and will advance them. The people who don't need that hand-holding interface. The education you speak of will happen, but it will happen naturally. It just takes time.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
In the case of metal machining a lot of feedback is in the form of sound and vision, which we certainly can do now - or tactile feedback in the form of resistance to motion (which is a bit harder to implement without mice squashing fingers). However, I find it hard to type without audible and tactile feedback (that interface in the final fantasy movie would be a pain to use without putting your hand all of the way through the controls).
I can just see the next version of a GUI - instead of annoying greyed out menu items you have a window in the way which you can't move no matter how hard you push!
No? Then STFU.
No, a microwave has one function - it heats things. The range of ways it does this function varies. Same with VCRs. In essence, it records and plays back video cassettes. Sure, I can change the channels, but I could do that without my VCR. The reason I have it is to record/playback.
In essense, what is the function of a computer? There is no single answer to that question.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
That's the future of interfaces. Holograms that pretend they are tactile objects, but are dynamic and appropriately fitted for the task at hand. For example, manipulating a laser to target in 3D space gives you a sphere-like interface with rotating cuffs. Watching Aki Ross work on Gray in one of the earlier scenes really made sense. Adaptive buttons and switches based on the task will also be possible.
The best we can do is retry the classics (buttons, switches, levers, etc). These sorts of interfaces will just make the old way much more adaptable for a million tasks.
Why bother.