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.

7 of 339 comments (clear)

  1. Whatever works best with the... by arrrrg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    device that lets you move onscreen objects by just thinking about it. We can do a brain-controled 2-d cursor easily now, better stuff will be on the way soon.

    1. Re:Whatever works best with the... by Baddas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

    2. Re:Whatever works best with the... by lotrtrotk · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yess!! Soon I'll be able to browse for pr0n hands free =D

    3. Re:Whatever works best with the... by rpdillon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Hopefully in the future I'll still be able to say by CptPicard · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a UNIX system! I know this!

    --
    I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
  3. Complete Article Summary (if slashdotted) by mybecq · · Score: 5, Funny

    Page 1 through 5
    [ A d .. A d . l i n k ]
    [ Ad ] A [ a d s .com ]
    [ AD ] r
    [ Ad ] t i c l [ A ]
    [ AD ] e [ AD ][ D ]
    [ Ad ] T e x t
    [ AD ] 1,2,3,4,5
    [ A D mediaplex.net ][ AD ]


    PS. My eyes have stopped hurting now.

  4. Absolutely, positively the wrong metaphor. by shmlco · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Flat screens of documents are just fine. We just need smarter organizational and retrieval tools.

    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.