Slashdot Mirror
What Will The Future Desktop Interface Look Like?
b O b 1 9 19 A writes "The TechZone has an interesting article wondering where computer interfaces are going. They discuss some alternatives to the traditional desktop, and propose a framework in which future interface designs may be evaluated. From the article: 'The next 10 years will be a transitional phase for interface design. 3D rendering technologies already have a stable home in the entertainment, video game, simulation, and design sectors. Although 2D interfaces have dominated everything else, I expect we will start seeing more 3D incursions. Operating systems and applications are beginning to capitalize on what 3D has to offer. The precise nature of how and where 3D can best be incorporated is an open question, and a framework to evaluate these questions seems appropriate.'" Big-time ad alert. Set your ad and flashblockers to stun.
Current interfaces aren't 2D, they are 2.5D. There is a z-axis, it's just less immediately obvious than the x and y axes. Ever put one window on top of another? Yep, that's depth.
The reason why 3D interfaces aren't really that useful is that you really need a 3D input device to make use of it. But the trouble is, the way our bodies are built, it's very tiring to wave our hands around all day long. At least with a 2.5D interface, our hands are resting on something.
The other problem is that the value 3D provides over 2.5D is very small. What does it actually get us? We can already put things behind and in front of each other. We can already zoom in and out of structures. We can't rotate well - but that's not something that I think stops useful things from happening.
What we need aren't 3D interfaces, what we need are smarter interfaces. Not necessarily natural language processing, but simple stuff that works and is practical. Tab completion in UNIX shells is a good example. Intellisense in IDEs is another. Clippy is rumoured to have actually been useful in the lab, before it was hobbled for desktop computers. Spotlight is making things easier to find.
These are the kinds of interface enhancements that will be of most use, and they can come along piece-by-piece without anybody noticing, without needing new hardware, and without users being forced into a new paradigm.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
I think this is the key to future interface design: Not the virtual representation, so much as the interface devices. As long as we're restricted to a 2d mouse and a set of binary keys, the different metaphors for the software are moot.
Assuming we get something with positioning in all the dimensions of space (or at least, more than two degrees of freedom of mice) then you can start having interfaces which utilize those spaces.
Of course, right now we navigate 3d spaces in video games fairly effectively, but it's a full-concentration task, using both hands. Which is not exactly ideal for something you multitask in, perhaps? As well as containing the restrictions of a physical 3d world such as gravity etc. Perhaps descent would be a better model.
Just my thoughts off the cuff
There are many, many interface ideas out there; anyone who's attended a SIGCHI or similar conference can attest to just how many, how varied - and how weird - they can be.
However, it's getting pretty clear that the WIMP stuff we have really is pretty good. We hit upon something which while far from perfect still is reasonable. Other interface ideas need to be substantially better, and without serious flaws, and that is difficult to achieve.
Having a 3D component is a good example. There is little doubt that it will be used in _some_ form at some point in the future. It is also clear that getting it really right is not easy; so many projects have tried and failed already. When what we have is already pretty good, the bar is very high for mistakes, drawbacks and problems.
To connect back with some earlier desktop discussions recently, this is exactly why having a multitude of desktops is a good idea - not just two, but ten or more projects, all trying various ideas and directions. Chances are one of them at least will stumble upon a new, better way of doing something; a new, better way that the others then are free to copy and improve on. That is also why it is so important to have more than one toolkit - ultimately you are constrained to what the toolkit allows you to do, and thus you need more than one to take into different directions.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Just as was mentioned, 3D interfaces do not add a TON of detail because when it all comes down to it... we can only truely view things on a 2D level. I have experimented with some 3d desktop betas that are floating around the web, and I have not really found anything that gave me any advantage over the traditional interface. Adding screens, and using multiple destktops seems to make the most sens. The true future of desktop interfaces must focus on how we can interact with them. Thought control would be optimal, but even some gloves one could wear to control things could dramatically increase productivity. Screens in glasses (which are even cool now) have some great potential too. These have the advantage of privacy, and allow a much bigger display when everything is put in perspective. Ultimately the best display would be some sort of direct stream to the brain, just bypassing the eyes. Till we get to the point where we patch windows to our brains... (OH NO... BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH AGAIN!)... or now that I think if it... once we patch an OS other than windows to our brain we will only then be able to make the jump to an effective 3d environment, because then we dont have to worry about seeing the extra dimensions... we just comprehend them.
Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the annunciation of truth.
So what, your fourth dimention is time?
"OH SHIT, I can't access outlook, I've got to go back in time!"
But seriously though - look a few posts down - the person found some serious gripes with a 3d interface. Here are mine:
Ok, a 2d interface is immediately intuitive. 2D screen, 2D Mousepad, 2D interface. Simple. But with a 3+D interface, we lose intuitive-ness (and therefore efficiency) in the name of a more advanced system. Some people navigate quite well in 3D, sure, but try handing a copy of blender (or any other modeling software) to someone and get them to navigate in 3D. Challenge them to make a series of coencentric spheres, even. Even if they can do it, it becomes WORK. And no one wants to do more work then they have to.
On a lighter note, the Star-Trek allusion at the end of the post makes me agree with the first poster. As our computers get faster and faster, we'll probably end up interfacing with them in more intimate ways - I don't mean to say that we'll all become like the Borg or anything, but even improvements like voice control (subvocalization? Or is that just a bad SF tech...?) or touchscreens, or heck, almost ANYTHING else. The Mouse + Keyboard can hardly be the most efficient way to interact with our computer, methinks.
~Ruff_ilb
(Sorry for the horrible spelling.)
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
maybe we should replace the steering wheels and pedals of cars with trackballs.
I've seen far too many of these articles about how much better 3D interfaces are going to be, and no actual explanation of how it will make my work easier. Which is not surprising, because it won't. It's a solution in search of a problem.
I remember reading about "where interfaces will be in 5 or 10 years..." I also remember playing with those Apple demos of desktop and browser technologies from '96-'97.
Where are we now with Windows and Mac OS? Just refinements of what works or doesn't work from 10 years ago. In 2015 we'll be having the same articles and little will have changed.
let me put it to you this way, we navigate constantly in the real world through 3D, and never through 2D, so navigating a 3D interface using the conventions of our real world movement would be very intuitive i imagine. what needs to change in order for real progress to be made in the field of 3D interface design and concepts is for the tools we would use to interact with it to allow 3D movement. i'd like to one day be able to edit video and order files on my computer by motioning, grabbing and pointing with my hands, no gloves either.
2D is counter-intuitive to navigate, as anyone who has seen someone attempt to use a mouse and read the interface conventions we have all learnt to a seamless level for the first time will know. we just forget that once we've become experts in using it.
I introduce first to you the humble progress bar. A good progress bar does two things. It shows how far along something is (percentage complete) and it show that activity is taking place and your computer has not just frozen again.
So in days past when screen were primitive you simply had a row of dots appearing with maybe if your lucky the occasional 5% added to give something like ......5%........10%....
Add the capabilty for backspace and you usually got a little spinning character made up out of -\|/ to show action taking place. Some more advancement and you got a full bar like 0****5****10****15..| (work with me here this is hard to do in text)
But then GRAPHICS were added. YEAH. So now you could draw a bar slowly being filled (but for some reason loosing the activity indicator). Color was added and now you could make the bar turn from red to green.
2.5d add shadow effect to make the bar appear round. 3d and it can stand up like a real seperate bar on your screen.
And what is the freaking point? Well none. All of them did their work and clearly showed what was happening. Okay they became better looking but it gave no real advantage.
So are there other tasks that can benefit from better graphics? I think you have the following main type of jobs on a pc.
Yes I would like a 3d interface when I am manipulating or inspecting the relations between objects on my pc. But is this a common activity? Well I look up at the tabs of my opera browser. Current desktops already have a sort of 2.5d and perhaps my tabs would be clearer if tabs of new pages where "behind" the tabs they originated from. I arrived at this input screen by opening a new tab from the story page (helps me remember where I was when I am finished here) but this tab is at the end of the tabs not indicating that it has a relation with a tab almost at the beginning.
Still with me? Another example. My music collection has a lot of soundtracks. Trying to organize it completly is a nightmare. Especially if I also want to organize it by genre (so I can easily switch depending on mood). Luckily I am on linux so I can use symlinks so an album can be both in
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Preview screenshots of Vista beta are circulating here:1 3.html
http://www.unitedti.org/lofiversion/index.php/t41
You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!
People don't work like that though. Do you think the LASIK industry is predicated on people liking wearing glasses? They do a good job of hiding my broken nose.
You know what I'd really like? The same interface I have now, on a 30" LCD that costs $1000. Hell, make that three of them. I'm using three 17" LCDs right now and two notebook computers next to me. What does joe sixpack want bad? a 60" plasma TV.
That I suspect is what the future will bring.
You want my predictions for 10 years?
Great big, high resolution displays, and probably several of them.
A wireless keyboard sitting in front of that display.
A wireless mouse sitting right next to it.
Next to that monster display will be a pad of engineering paper, and a pencil.
A big plasma TV on the wall, perhaps displaying video conferencing.
No guarantees on where the computer is - probably nowhere to be seen.
Perhaps a PDA or remote storage device capable of wireless networking.
That's the future. What's on the screen will probably look very much like what is there now.
..don't panic
The most obvious example I can think of is writing. Using syllabaries or ideograms is clearly not as good a technology as using an alphabet. The learning curve is vastly worse, the total number of symbols that must be memorized is orders of magnitude higher, etc., etc.
And yet a pretty high percentage of people in the world today read and write in languages that do not use alphabetic writing. Japanese or Cantonese readers/writers are not going to switch to an alphabet anytime soon, despite its many advantages, because of the sheer cultural and historical weight behind their current approach.
I don't know if we're at that point with computer interfaces yet, but the longer we go the harder it is going to be to get people away from GUIs using WIMP. Even non-PC tools now use this metaphor for UI - for example, your cell phone probably has some basic WIMP approach. If some 'innovative' new 3D tool just makes this prettier, well, that will be nice, but it won't really change anything much. If it really changes things, it may not succeed even if it's a clearly better technology, because so many people are getting locked into our current approach.
I can't help but notice that this kind of inertia is what keeps IT shops from migrating to Linux. It's clearly a vastly superior tool in every way to Windows. Ten years ago the switch might have been easier, if Linux had been readier. But now, IT is much more tightly coupled into corporate infrastructures, and there is a lot more inertia to be overcome for such a dramatic change. (Even if the change is for the better.)
One thing that technology geeks like us forget is that, for almost everyone else, the technology is just a tool, not an end in itself. It has to fit into the overall picture. Changing something (office suite, operating system, interface approach, whatever) is really tough for most people, even if the end result is that the change is for the better. Us geeks think that change (buzzword: 'innovation') is automatically good, but for most people it is automatically bad. The change has provide something so vastly better in their opinion that they will put up with change.
3D? Okay, visualize trying to find a real piece of paper in a box in a 20,000 SQFT warehourse. Now, if you want to wander around a virtual 3D space doing the same thing like a rat in a maze looking for the cheese, feel free.
So, to my mind, 3D organizational spaces are the wrong direction. Spotlight and Google Desktop are the first steps in the right direction. Why should I have to organize my work and documents into trees of folders and project hierarchies? Why add keywords when the computer should understand context? Shouldn't the computer be able to do that kind of scut work?
Picture the perfect assistant. "Donna, find that claims letter I sent to Bob last week... no... no... yeah that one. Scroll down... down... okay. It's approved. Attach the current spreadsheet and forward it to Dave. Oh, and let me know if he has any changes."
Now, picture "Donna" as your automated, computerized, super-assistant, with whom you can communicate by voice from anywhere, anytime.
Live with a program like Spotlight for a while, and you start to find yourself bypassing the Finder and Desktop and folders altogether. What's needed is a better way to communicate (voice), and a system smart enough to know who Bob is, who Dave is, what a claims letter is, understands "last week" as a variable period, and can put it all together.
Yeah, it's the Star Trek interface.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
I'm not sure I agree with this. In games (and movies) there is a natural tendency to move towards an illusion of 3 dimensions because the goal of those media is immersion: to make you feel as if you are "there". 3D is a natural way to go, since we tend to perceive the world in 3D. Of course, it is an unnatural act, because we choose to display those immersive environments on a 2D screen, so we naturally experience some sheer during transition.
But, with a computer operating environement, I simply don't see the attraction. The environment of a computer is not in the business of being immersive, or distracting you from reality. It is in the business of making information available to you as quickly and accurately as possible. This goal does not particularly lend itself to 3D - as long as we have had langauge, it has always been expressed in 2D, whether it be carved or painted on walls of caves, chiseled into stone, brushed onto papyrus, or printed on newsprint. Even now, as I type this, I do so onto a 2D digital "paper" that is my LCD monitor. Would 3D lend any additional utility? I can't think of any.
I attended JavaOne last May and went to a session on Looking Glass, Sun's 3D desktop environment. As much as it was attractive, it didn't really add a whole lot to everyday tasks. Sure, they could represent a filesystem in 3D, but it wasn't really any more efficient than midnight commander. You can "fold" away windows to the side of the display, rotating them back into the monitor to get them "out of the way", but it essentially boils down to window shading, only horizontally, rather than vertically.
Of course, there are exceptions. Sun demonstrated a music program where you could add instruments to a song as tracks, and control their volume and balance by moving them in 3D in relation to your real life speakers. To make something softer, you could move it further "into" the monitor. To make it only audible on the left speaker, you could move it to the left side of the screen. Quite novel, but certainly not an application that necessitates a 3D "desktop" environment. It could just as well be run as a standalone program in Windows, Linux, or Mac as they are today.
So while I agree that if we were to have a 3D desktop, it would be nice to have a 3D input device, neither seem to add much utility. Personally, I'm stunned that the multi-desktop (virtual desktop) navigation system hasn't made more inroads. I'm addicted to it in KDE, and Windows' powertool feels like a cheap hack by comparison. I'm stunned that neither Windows nor Mac come with it by default. Mac uses Expose, which strikes me as a complex work around to achieve a similar effect. In the future, I think we'll use other subtle advancements like virtual desktops to extend the functionaility of the user interface in ways that allow us to *organize* the information as we access and use it, rather than displaying it in some drastically different way, like a 3D desktop.
Both of you are misleaded, thinking as programmers. The concept of abstraction is totally foreign to the average user (at least when related to task automation). Also average users don't need universal programmability - just "good-enough" one. They would have little use for whole Turing completeness.
No, the silver bullet are related to direct manipulation (removing abstraction and simplifying input) and programming by example (again removing abstraction, and simplifying depuration). I should know, I'm a researcher in the End-user Development field.
Natural language? Yes, that might help to some extent - but only until the first "gotcha", due to the inherent ambiguity, ruins the completion of the supposedly automated task.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
What a horrible article. This guy sounded as if he had no idea what he was talking about.
... However, once you hit three dimensions, all configurations are possible without crossings. Adding a fourth or fifth doesn't have any further beneficial effect. Admittedly there is some hand-waving going on here; but the result has implications for some possible interface designs; and it points to using three dimensions.
If you draw a bunch of dots on a piece of paper you will not be able to draw lines joining the dots in all possible configurations unless the lines cross (given some sufficiently large number of dots. I think 5 might do it).
You think five might do it? Try four. Why don't you think a little longer until you know.
I've heard the assertion that adding a single extra dimension doesn't buy you much organizational power and that the added navigational complexity isn't worth it.
1. N dots in two dimensions have lines that cross
2. N dots in three dimensions do not have lines that cross
=>
Three dimensions is better for organizing!
I have no idea where that came from. What a non-argument.