Jef Raskin's Humane Interface Released

cold wolf writes "With a new site layout and information, the Raskin Center has also just released Archy (formally known at The Humane Interface). It is currently in Alpha phase and Windows only, as an executable."

Comments

Capital letters?

[AtariAmarok]

Shouldn't a proper Archy interface has no capital letters at all?

Anyway, I had enough of the whole cockroaches-in-the-computer thing when I lived in Brooklyn for a while. It gets old pretty fast.

Archy: An Introduction

[smittyoneeach]

Imagine a system where you can send email, write a book, make calculations, manipulate pictures, navigate the Web -- do whatever you want to do anytime at all, without having to switch in and out of applications. Imagine a system that never loses your work or buries it in a maze of folders, a system that doesn't wrestle with you on your way to getting something done, a system that effortlessly boosts your speed and productivity by 20 percent or more.
That's Archy. It's the answer to a host of problems that have made you mistrust, and at times hate your computer. Up until now, you've blamed yourself when your computer went off the rails. Guess what? You were right and your computer was wrong.
For two decades now, the graphical user interface -- or "GUI" (pronounced "GOO-ey") -- has been the de facto standard for human-computer interaction. But researchers have known for a long time that GUIs are inherently flawed. Nevertheless, this gooey environment has reigned supreme for so long that we've come to accept it as normal and necessary. Up until now we've had no choice.
Now we do.
In his book, The Humane Interface, Jef Raskin -- creator of the Macintosh project at Apple -- said, "Creating an interface is much like building a house: If you don't get the foundations right, no amount of decorating can fix the resulting structure."
When Jef began designing Archy, he didn't try to tweak or tinker with the GUI interface. He didn't try to decorate it. He cleared the blackboard and built a system from the ground up, giving prime consideration to the latest scientific research on human cognition.
The result is a new user interface that looks and feels completely different. Where your current computer still demands that you conform to its way of doing things, Archy adapts to your way of doing things, the humane way.
The principles behind Archy's design are applicable to all kinds of information appliances and the machines that depend on them. Today that includes aircraft, automobiles, scientific instruments, and industrial machinery. In this sense, Archy Alpha Release 1 is the beginning of a movement. Our long-range goal is a world where enlightened user interface design -- taking account of our limitations and taking advantage of our natural abilities -- becomes the standard. Our first product demonstrates that computers can add ease, convenience, power, and efficiency to our lives without adding to the list of our frustrations.

Does Tufts use it?

(")Revolutionary(") Ideas

[pavon]

Sweet, I'm going to have to boot into windows when I get windows when I get home to try this out again. I have been following this project from the sidelines for a while now ever since I read his book, and have to admit to being a little giddy about seeing it actually getting somewhere.

I know that they popular trend on slashdot is to love or hate ideas and people, and that is what most of the posts will be about, but my opinion of Raskin has never been one of idol worship or supreme cynicism of anything visionary. I (false)started grad school a couple of years ago, with all sorts of ideas about how to make computing environments better, more pleasant more powerful, only to find that all my "revolutionary ideas" had already been thought of before, sometimes decades ago, and have sat on the shelf ever since. There was really no fundamental research for me to do - all the ideas had already been thought of, and were waiting for someone to do the grunt work of turning them into a practical working system. I became very disillusioned with what I was doing at school - the whole program seemed like a big sham - everyone pretended as if they were doing meaningful research but not one thesis seemed to be anything more than BS. Because of that, and other personal reasons, I dropped out after one semester.

Raskin was one of many of the researchers who ideas I latched onto. I don't know if I agree with all of his ideas, but really want to seem them attempted in something more than a simple proof-of-concept. Universities are not interested in practical grunt work - even if it is pushing the boarders. The huge amount of risk involved in creating an operating environment to compete with MS, not to mention the fact that the ideas are still just ideas, means that no one would dare take this on as a business venture. It seems that the open source community is really the entity most capable of doing projects like this.

Right now the project has mainly focused on the text-editing portion of Raskins ideas, which while interesting, are for the most part a known quantity - they are an incremental improvements on the ideas used in the Canon Cat. What I am really interested in is how they can be expanded to a system environment. For those that haven't read about him, he talks about a computing environment where there are no applications, just documents and tools that act on documents. This would create an incredible amount of flexibility, as is effectively bringing the Unix philosophy to the GUI world. Or alternately it takes the plug-in, undo and scripting functionality that the most powerful applications have and bringing it to the system level, so that everything has those features "for free", and they all interoperate for free, since you don't have a bunch of applications each with their own different, incompatible and likely proprietary methods. You now just have the core document objects, and a bunch of small tools that interface the document object. Apple's CoreData also has me really interested as it seems to implement many of the technical requirements that I have concluded such a system will need.

My other half keeps reminding me that all the attempts at wonderful unified systems have failed, and that it is ugly systems that are good at gluing together disparate, but existing technologies that succeed. But I don't care. I still would like to see it tried even if it does fail.

Re:(")Revolutionary(") Ideas

[pavon]

Yeah, Linux on the desktop follows the same basic WIMP model just like Windows and Mac OS. The problems are not exclusive to Linux. There are tons of "redundant" applications for windows each of which with its own selection of features, and incompatable ways of doing things. It is just more visable in Linux Systems, because alternate applications have more possibility of being used, unlike in Windows and Mac where a one appication became the dominant defacto-standard for each task, for economic and interoperability reasons related to the proprietary nature of the applications.

Which does bring up something that I think I've commented on before. Even the open source community is not perfecly suited for this kind of project because it is very much a cathederal type project (that will hopefully create a bazaar environment when done). It will requires a level of cooperation and integration that is difficult to achieve in a situation where the standard operation procedure is to just implement what you think with improve the project, and if the project maintainers disagree then call them Nazis :)

Karma Whoring and Lazy Linking

[fm6]

It'd be easier to just send us to the Archy Introduction instead of copying the entire page onto Slashdot.

And that link should have been in the story itself, instead of a link to the download page. You want to read something about a program before you go to all the hassle of downloading and installing it.

Trying it out now

[snorklewacker]

First impressions: really awful.

Forward and back arrows do what you expect. Up and down scroll the screen. Page up and down do nothing.

The mouse, of course, does nothing at all.

Keys you expect to repeat don't. That triple-tap thing holds firm for everything. Even backspace. Even the arrow keys.

Tildes and backticks are impossible to type, they've become control characters.

The cursor blinks frantically and distractingly in not one, but two colors.

To access help, you have to hold down capslock while you type.

I stopped there. Guess it needs a little more time in the oven, but so far it's flying in the face of usability.

Re:Trying it out now

[TuringTest]

First impressions: really awful.
I find it different, but really interesting. Much better that any other GUI used only with keyboard. *Those* are awful.


# Forward and back arrows do what you expect. Up and down scroll the screen. Page up and down do nothing.
I wrote to Brad Lauster just two days ago on this very point, and he was quite open to commentary. Main movement is supposed to be done through text search, but maybe page up/down will be implemented. Remember that this is in very alpha stage.


# The mouse, of course, does nothing at all.
The mouse will be used for graphic manipulation and navigation in the zooming interface. For text processing, it uses the keyboard. This is the main point that makes habit forming possible.


# Keys you expect to repeat don't. That triple-tap thing holds firm for everything. Even backspace. Even the arrow keys.
All keys do repeat, thank you very much. You have to tap it three times, not press and wait until it repeats. This avoids the error of having autorepeat when you don't want it, and is faster when you do.


# Tildes and backticks are impossible to type, they've become control characters.
This program is a prototype. The final product is suposed to run under dedicated hardware (a special keyboard). Afaik- there is a USB "LeapBar" extension for current keyboards.


# The cursor blinks frantically and distractingly in not one, but two colors.
Maybe you could file a usability bug report? This project is being user-tested. If it is annoying, it will be removed.


# To access help, you have to hold down capslock while you type.
The LeapBar will have a dedicated Command key.
With the zooming interface you could simply "zoom out" until you see the Help section.
And yes, the textual interface is designed for good typists - that's not strange, since it's supposed for advanced text manipulation.


I stopped there. Guess it needs a little more time in the oven, but so far it's flying in the face of usability.
No, its only strange because you have to learn it from scratch. Is not more difficult than a current WIMP "point-and-click" interface is for novice users. Actually it's easier - more consistent, more simple, you don't have to think what you want to do in advance.

Re:Trying it out now

[nate nice]

"Tildes and backticks are impossible to type, they've become control characters"

Hmm, it's going to be hard (even harder I should say) to write C++ programs that don't have memory leaks now.

Re:Trying it out now

[snorklewacker]

Is not more difficult than a current WIMP "point-and-click" interface is for novice users. Actually it's easier - more consistent, more simple, you don't have to think what you want to do in advance.

So let me get this straight: it requires special hardware to navigate properly and fails to follow conventions that have been around since electric typewriters themselves, and you're telling me that I am the one that doesn't get it?

Your arrogance makes me sad, because it will condemn this whole project to irrelevance, sinking whatever good it did have to offer along with it.

Re:Trying it out now

[brunes69]

No, its only strange because you have to learn it from scratch. Is not more difficult than a current WIMP "point-and-click" interface is for novice users. Actually it's easier - more consistent, more simple, you don't have to think what you want to do in advance.

I am really wick of this argument - namely, because there *are* no users anymore who don't know the WIMP interface. It is what everyone in the world has used for the past 30 years to control their PC. The ship has sailed guys - seriously. The mouse has drawbacks, but not enough to justify the cost required to adopt a non-WIMP interface - and there is always a cost. Even if you are somehow a novice who has never used a WIMP interface before (who is this again? Two year olds are using WIMP these days...) you would still be at a disadvantage, because even if you were marginally more productive with this interface, the fact that you are now incompatible with the rest of the world makes it not worth it. It like someone coming along today proclaiming they have a great new interface for driving a car, that uses something other than a wheel. It doesn't matter *how* good the idea is, or how simple the UI is - the cost to adopt is too great.

Short of whenever we get direct brain manipulation, it is highly doubtful that there is ever going to be any major use of a non-WIMP interface in computing, ever.

Mixed first impressions

[n1ywb]

First of all, don't complain about how it's not what you're used to because THATS THE FARKING POINT! It's supposed to be revolutionary! Forget what you think you know and approach Archy with an open mind, for crying out loud!

I do and have done a LOT of typing and I would welcome a powerful text editing system consistant accross platforms that combines the best of all worlds and I think this has a LOT of potential.

The biggest disappointment for me is the non-free license. It's only free for non-commercial use. That's pretty much means it will never go anywhere, IMO. If it was GPL'ed or BSD'ed, then I think it would have a chance.

No tilde? Kiss file access goodbye.

[AtariAmarok]

"Tildes and backticks are impossible to type, they've become control characters"

No tilde????? That makes it pretty much useless for Windows file access, with all the c:\progra~1, etc. That's a huge mistake for something that is starting out on the windows platform.

Re:Why?

[ConceptJunkie]

The web has helped set UI development back 15 years (better graphics and faster machines have done the rest, at least in the Windows world). Something like Archy would eventually encompass the web as part of the data you can work with.

I don't think you're thinking big enough.

Re:Why?

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

Hmm. Interesting. I always thought the point of technology was not to create the most perfect product out there, but to create a product that users would feel comfortable with.

While theoretically, UI development may have been set back, users are comfortable with the web. Therefore, that is the way technology should progress, i.e. working for the user, not getting the user to work with the product.

I believe that is the motto of Archy itself.

Is it really as useless as you say?

[AtariAmarok]

"Archy doesn't even use files in the conventional sense so your argument is sophomoric"

Is it really as utterly useless as you say? No files means you can't use it with email attachments (which are files) or digital cameras (which create picture files)....to name two common uses of files. Any so-called "revolutionary" OS idea that is incompatible with such ubiquitous and useful things as email and digital cameras will "go away" for sure.

Re:AppleDoc rehashed?

[pavon]

I think I am correct in assuming that you are referring to the OpenDoc system, which both Apple and IBM worked on.

This project shares several technical similarities with OpenDoc but it has a significantly different goal. The purpose of the OpenDoc system (and OLE, COM, ActiveX, .NET, KDE KParts, and GNOME Bonobo after it) was to reduce duplicate effort on the behalf of programmers by implementing high level document objects which could be easily reused in applications. This would mean that similar tasks in different applications would be done the same way, because they were using the same code, but you would still have applications.

Now if this method of programming became widespread, applications would basically just be a bunch of documents object glued together with extra features added - commands and tools that operate on the document object. This project would do away with applications all together, by creating a system framework and graphical shell that provides the "glue" that applications used to. To compare the difference consider a library written in C vs. a set of UNIX command line tools. Both implement the same functionality, both can be save the programmer time in implementing a task, and both can be flexibly combined to do new things. However to you the C library you have to be a programmer, and have to create a library write a full program with its own interface, and finite feature set. With the command line tools, you can right a full program with them (a shell script), but you can also issue the commands in real-time from the shell. With the C library, you have to do extra work to make the application extendable (your own plug-in system), with the command line tools, the ability to add new commands and recombine them in new ways is built into the shell.

The UNIX shell has limitations though. Its interface and framework (stdin, stdout, pipes, redirect) is primarily useful for filtering documents, not for interactively editing them. Which is why all the unix editors are basically monolithic applications (with their own plug-in and scripting systems).

The goal of this project to make an operating environment that is more pleasant and powerful to use. It intends to do so by making a graphical shell and system framework that will allow for the developer to make software that consists purely of documents and tools that operate on documents, with no applications to wall things off.

I hope this explanation is useful - it is a bit abstract, but the details could fill an entire book. In fact they did :)

From The FAQ

[Goo.cc]

Q. Is Archy an application or an OS?

A. Archy doesn't quite fit into the traditional mold of either an application or an operating system. It is an application in that it runs on top of your current operating system, but it is more than that. It's also like an operating system in that it provides a framework for issuing commands.

So, uh, you recreated Emacs?

Bingo!

[TuringTest]

It's the same concept of Emacs. Must be good, since Emacs is considered by programmers as one of the best development environments.

The main benefit of Archy over Emacs is that it has been engineered with ease of use in mind, not just ease to extend.

Re:Why?

[TuringTest]

The fact is that as we try to sync computing to the real-world, we're creating false hopes that the "stuff" in the computer will work like stuff in the real world.
That's where Archy is useful - it doesn't try to imitate nothing in the real world, it just looks like a computer. It allows to manage streams of data in a highly efficient way. Of course, you will have to learn it before you can use it (thankfully, the interface is very easy to learn).

The construction of analogies (desktop, files, etc) was good in the 90s to educate people, but now it's time to largely deprecate it.

Re:AppleDoc rehashed?

[n1ywb]

Don't forget the Xerox PARC Alto before ALL of those. Alto was highly document-centric.

Integrated applications -- This industry buzzword has been used to describe many things; here it means that text, graphics, tables, and mathematical formulae are all edited inside documents. In many other systems, different types of content are edited in separate application windows and then cut/pasted together. For example: a MacDraw drawing put into a Microsoft Word or Aldus PageMaker document can no longer be edited; rather, the original must be re-edited with MacDraw and then substituted for the old drawing in the document.

Not even Star is fully integrated in the sense used here. For example, though the original structured graphics editor, the new one (see History of Star Development, below), and the table and formula editors all operate inside text files, spreadsheets and freehand drawings are currently edited in separate application windows and transferred into documents, where they are no longer fully editable.

Re:Why?

[AtariAmarok]

"The construction of analogies (desktop, files, etc) was good in the 90s to educate people, but now it's time to largely deprecate it."

Yet, files are a lot more intuitive and easier to deal with. As someone once said, "a book is a book!". In the e-world, a book is best represented as a file (ebook), not a mushy structure. The same is true of pictures.

There are a lot of other things in Archy that are a lot worse than the "tried and true" methods which have developed over time because they work. The "you don't have to save" is a problem. It does not make things easier, it just replaces save commands with much-more-confusing "undos". "Better be much more careful when you type that letter! It is automatically saving, and you will have to use a tedious undo feature to undo any mistakes you might have made".

Other problems include enforcing someone's "morality" at the expense of the user's preference. Their principle of " giving you only one way to accomplish a task" only works if you happen to prefer that one way. Flexibility is much friendlier.

Under their "Train of Thought" part, they list 5 bullet items of problems with the non-Archy approach. The first two have already been pretty much solved on the Mac and in sophisticated office suites. The third, about someone's dialog box, is just a problem that happens sometimes in poorly designed programs. #4 (multiple ways to do things) is a strength, not a problem. #5 is more complicated: sometimes there is a very good reason for the commands to do different things, and sometimes there is not.

Archy = pogo stick. Usual GUI = bicycle.

[AtariAmarok]

"So let me get this straight: it requires special hardware to navigate properly and fails to follow conventions that have been around since electric typewriters themselves, and you're telling me that I am the one that doesn't get it?"

Give it up. It is like arguing with the idiot who commutes to work on a pogo stick who keeps insisting "but it IS better than your bicycle!!!". Part of the reason this analogy is so apt is that you will hardly find anyone using Archy ever, and hardly find anyone using a pogo stick.

Re:Archy = pogo stick. Usual GUI = bicycle.

[AtariAmarok]

"That's the whole point of Archy, using your keyboard is a lot faster than fussing around with a mouse. Therefore my analogy is sound."

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Mature UI's that have had to muster the "real world" of being tested against users take this into account. They offer a mix of mouse and keyboard. They also take into account user preferences: some users want to do things differently than other users. Archy even has a principle against this: they want to straightjacket the users into doing it just one way.

"Step away from the mouse" might be good advice for some users, but not for all. A UI must take into account these different preferences.

Re:Archy = pogo stick. Usual GUI = bicycle.

[AtariAmarok]

"Sorry, I'm an objective realist when it comes to user interfaces. One method must be better than another"

Sorry, I am not completely up on my UI objectivism. Time to attempt to read those old Ayn Rand masterpieces "The Fountainmouse" and "Linus Shrugged".

Re:Why?

[eraserewind]

The web has helped set UI development back 15 years

If the web is so bad, why can everyone and their dog can surf it, but the family expert gets called in to do anything related to a using a UI application.

Re:Why?

[AtariAmarok]

"The web has helped set UI development back 15 years"

You might be onto something if you replaced the word "back" with "ahead".