The User Experiences Of The Future

Patrick Griffin writes "The way that we interact with technology is almost as important as what that technology does. Productivity has been improved greatly over the years as we've adapted ourselves and our tools to technological tasks. Just the same, the UI experience of most hardware and software often leaves novice users out in the cold. The site 'Smashing Magazine' has put together a presentation of 'some of the outstanding recent developments in the field of user experience design. Most techniques seem very futuristic, and are extremely impressive. Keep in mind: they might become ubiquitous over the next years.'"

Comments

Not sure 3D is always the best

[PIPBoy3000]

They really seem to be pushing 3D interfaces in the article. While that's neat and all, I suspect there's a reason not every book is a pop-up book. Flat, 2D representations of data are typically the most efficient for our brain and eyeballs. For entertainment and representing 3D data, it can make sense. I just don't plan on coding in 3D any time soon.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[TheSpoom]

I suspect we'll have 3D interfaces when it becomes cheap to manufacture displays that can actually project a 3D interface. Screw 2D projections of a 3D world, I want my VR!

Speaking of which, the future needs the following three Star Trek items to solve everything all at once:

• Teleporters (solves all transportation issues)
• Replicators (solves hunger)
• Holodeck (solves sexual ten... I mean, makes simulation much easier. Yes, that's it)

So seriously, science, it only took you like twenty years to catch up to the first Star Trek, what the hell?

*mumbles indistinctly about his flying car*

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[mikelieman]

I suspect we will find that the top percentile of expert users will instead eschew all the "innovations" and use a window manager like Ratpoison which presents each window as it's own FULL SCREEN entity, without lost real-estate to window borders, taskbars, and other widgets.

It's a Zen thing, you just wouldn't understand.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[jellomizer]

I am not sure about this 3d Technology. It is a good step in the right direction but the issue of the semi transparent images is still a real issue. Right now it looks really cool because it it like starwars... But for normal use it will get old fast. If it can make solid looking objects too then we may have a way to start a good interface.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Selfbain]

The Star Trek version of a teleporter is essentially a suicide booth. It rips you apart and then makes a copy on the other end. Do not want.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[jellomizer]

They all seem to work the same way... Which brings me to wonder.... If you configure a holodeck and cross reference it with a replicator. So you spend months or years in it eating holodeck food wich will work like real food while you are in the holodeck after a while you body and mass will become completely a holodeck creation, as your old cells die and new ones are created from virtual matter. So you then can save yourself on disk. Run backups of yourself incase you do something stupid. Or just turn yourself off for a couple of centuries until they can find a way to keep your projection in the real world. Or vice versa you have a holodeck character that you want to become real. You have them eat replicated food from real mass. After a while their bodies will become real and can leave the holodeck...

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[dave1791]

Never mind the fact that over the top physical desktop metaphors have never caught on in twenty years of being the "next thing".

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[TuringTest]

You wouldn't notice when you've been terminated, and the other copy would still think that HE is YOU. So how would you tell it? And why should you care?

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[jibster]

I humbly disagree with you. Our brains have clearly evolved for a 3D world. I believe the reason you believe 2D is more efficent is 3D has a very long history of not being done right. There's a good reason why that is. 3D is far more computationaly expensive than 2D and lacks a true 3D display and interaction device.

I offer as evidance the spring and plastic ball models of modules, and the skelitons in the doctors offices.

2D clearly has its place, but I expect 3D to start elbowing in on it as soon as the display\interaction and computational difficults are met.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Selfbain]

Arthur: I'd notice the difference. Zaphod: No you wouldn't, you'd be programmed not to.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[TuringTest]

presents each window as it's own FULL SCREEN entity, without lost real-estate to window borders, taskbars, and other widgets. It's a Zen thing, you just wouldn't understand. Actually, the real breakthrough in user experience would be an interface allowing that kind of 'zen' without needing to be an expert user. The Humane Interface was a step in the direction of such an interface, but its current proof-of-concept implementation is unfortunately not enough developed to live to expectations.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Rude Turnip]

"...as your old cells die and new ones are created from virtual matter."

That wouldn't necessarily work, as it's the holodeck projector that controls the molecular composition of the food (albeit simulated), not your digestive system. The most that would happen is that you'd crap out a force field, which would be interesting in and of itself.

Going the other way you suggest, from hologram to organic, actually sounds feasible.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[jo42]

Someone forgot the pointlesseyecandy (tagging beta) tag...

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[jythie]

I think part of the problem in these various usability debates is that a good UI for learning and bringing in newbies is not the most effective solution once one has greater needs.

This 'one size fits all' mentality is the issue. We need interfaces that scale from basic to advanced so the basic users doing get slammed with all the advanced stuff and advanced users don't find themselves without the tools they need to actually do their work.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[sgbett]

I do believe Professor Morairty already did (will do?) this ...!

http://stng.36el.com/st-tng/episodes/238.html

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[hey!]

Plus, we've already been down the road of user interface literalism -- it didn't go anywhere.

Last time it was the adoption of systems with graphical capabilities that lead us down the road; when people started getting VGA instead of text interfaces, people thought it would be oh-so-usable to use a graphical representation of a desktop for the desktop. We're in the same boat now with 3D.

The most useful UI ideas don't seem to have close real world analogs. The "window"? Where they have superficial real world counterparts, they don't behave at all like those counterparts ("folders").

It's not 3D that is questionable, it is literalism. I really like Project Looking Glass's "rotate window" technique, even though it makes no real world sense; the idea that a 2D construct like a window has a back side in a 3D environment is simply logical. Now find a way to make good conventional use of that space and you have a useful technique.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Lijemo]

How would we know it didn't happen this way:

How do you know you wouldn't just experience being painfully killed: poof, bye-bye, assume afterlife, nonexistence, or reincarnation, depending on your beliefs.

Meanwhile, the copy of you with all your memories (or, all from before the "teleporter") doesn't realize that you have experienced death-- or even that s/he isn't you but a copy. It would be the same to everyone you know-- they wouldn't be able to tell that you'd been replaced by a dopoulganger. Your replacement, not knowing any better, would assure everyone that the process was completely safe and painless, and that "you" came to the other end just fine.

The only person that would know the difference is you, except you're not around anymore to know or tell. You're dead.

I'm not sure how one would test a teleportation system to see whether the person going in actually experiences coming out at the other end, or whether the person going in experiences death, and a copy at the other end doesn't know the difference. Or at least, how one could test it and relay the results to others.

Then we can further complicate the question: suppose that you die due to reasons unrelated to teleportation. And you last used a teleporter about a year back, but the teleporter saved your "pattern"-- so your grieving loved ones are able to "recreate" you, exactly as you were when you came out the teleporter-- the only difference is that you'd be confused as to how a year had passed since you'd gone in, and everyone else has memories of you during that time that you didn't experience. Is that you? Or not?

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Creedo]

And why should you care?
Well, it might just be me, but I wouldn't want to be erased just to put a copy of me somewhere very quickly.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[TuringTest]

I think part of the problem in these various usability debates is that a good UI for learning and bringing in newbies is not the most effective solution once one has greater needs. True, but why not? Just because we don't know how to do it work, not because it is a bad idea.

That's why we need a breakthrough. A system both learnable for newbies and efficient for experts is the holy grial of user experience. It can't be done with current mainstream commercial toolkits (too based on the WIMP paradigm), but new technologies (like multitouch and gesture recognition) and new paradigms (like Programming By Example) could be the way to build such complex systems.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Bent Mind]

I can certainly see the holodeck as a boon to business. It would be nice to be able to virtually attend a meeting rather then drive across town, or crowd around a conference call. However, I suspect that the teleporter, and it's simpler cousin - replicators, are going to meet with a lot of resistance.

Having a device that can create goods out of basic materials that are locally available would kill the current economy. Granted, we would still have to pay for power and patented "Replicator" data designs. However, it would represent a major change in the world.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[AvitarX]

Arn't all those useless without a reactor capable of powering them?

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[vadim_t]

How about this? It looks pretty cool with the glasses.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[grumbel]

### Our brains have clearly evolved for a 3D world.

From where did you get that? Our movement is for most part pretty much limited to 2D (forward,backward,left,right are good, but up and down are heavily restricted), the earth is flat (at least from a human point of view) and there really isn't all that much true 3D in our daily lives. Sometimes we stuck a bunch of 2D things into a hierarchical structure, but thats as 3D as it ever gets. Our eyes of course also only see 2D view of the world, sure a little depth mixed in, but nothing close to full 3D.

If we would be build for 3D we wouldn't get dizzy when playing Descent, but quite frankly, most do.

There is of course also that little problem with interfaces: A bunch of papers spread before me allows me to easily grab exactly what I want with a single click, picking the right piece of paper from a stack is much harder, since I simply can't see what is in the stack. I only see a 2D projection of the stack and even a 3D display wouldn't change that.

That said, a little 3D does have its place, you do want have the ability to zoom-out, maybe add a little depth to see which Window is on top and such. But having to search for a Window that is hidden behind a stable of other Windows just isn't fun, but thats exactly what you get with 3D.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Z34107]

Then we can further complicate the question: suppose that you die due to reasons unrelated to teleportation. And you last used a teleporter about a year back, but the teleporter saved your "pattern"-- so your grieving loved ones are able to "recreate" you, exactly as you were when you came out the teleporter-- the only difference is that you'd be confused as to how a year had passed since you'd gone in, and everyone else has memories of you during that time that you didn't experience. Is that you? Or not?

Well, there was that one TNG episode where Scotty put himself into statis by loading himself into the transporter buffer of a crashed starship. Also, it's apparently a good way to keep coffee fresh, which I suppose is incredibly important because it's not like you can just replicate yourself a cup whenever you want.

What I don't get is why they never replicated people by "transporting" them from the buffer more than once.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[eggstasy]

Congratulations, you have just described what companies are doing with Second Life.
It's a holodeck. You can do anything with it, including meetings, classes, roleplay, whatever.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Anonymous Coward]

And perhaps one day, we can use all that technology to learn the mind-bending concept that it's means IT IS?

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Orange Crush]

I hate to break this to you, but this has already happened to you several times, albeit more gradually. Most (if not all) of your molecules have been replaced continuously throughout your life since you've been eating, drinking, breathing, sweating, shedding, growing, shrinking and using the bathroom (sorry, I didn't want to say "peeing and pooping" because it sounded to juven--well, shit).

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Reliant-1864]

holodecks are a mix of both. They use force fields and holograms to create optical illusions that look and feel real, but they can also use a replicator to create real matter, like food. If you ate food in a holodeck, you are eating real food. If you were to try and eat an optical illusion, the body would be unable to digest it. Optical illusions created by force fields are fake and can't leave the holodeck, but a replicated item can. Replication is also very energy intensive, so it's only used when needed (and it also closes a loophole when people leave the holodeck still wet)

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[jythie]

Unfortunately the two tend to be mutually exclusive.

When we look at all these slick 'intelligent' interfaces that are newbie oriented, they all hinge on the computer figuring out what the user 'intends' to do. They work because they wrap up and automate the common cases, but in doing so they inherently limit the possible functionality.

When one looks at these technologies, even things like Programming By Example, they are cases of automating the usage of the computer like an appliance. They tend to make life much more difficult for any task that requires digging into what the computer is actually doing or preforming any task the UI developer did not consider important. A good example would be comparing a file browser to command line interface... I have never seen a graphical browser that has even a small fraction of the capability of the command line, but they DO usually make the most common tasks much simpler.

The examples in the original article.... these UI technologies are all very 'pretty' and add in a nice 'ooh/ahh' element that will coax people to use computers and doing graphic related things, but they really do not add in much for say programmers, administrators, etc.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Flodis]

What I don't get is why they never replicated people by "transporting" them from the buffer more than once.

Yeah, me too... I'm pretty sure the extra in the red suit would appreciate it at least.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[jank1887]

and it's soooo close to actually being there...

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Nullav]

I can't see that being much of a problem unless the subject subscribes to dualism. Well, except in the 'resurrection' example, in which case it would be confusing as hell for the copy.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Rolgar]

Well, there was the episode where they found another Riker where he'd been successfully teleported out of a dangerous situation but a copy was accidentally left on the planet. Season 6, Episode 24, Second Chances

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[tommertron]

That's not true of your memory though. Your memory-containing neuron cells aren't replaced. When a neuron that contains memories dies, those memories are dead. It doesn't transfer them to new ones.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[somersault]

Also, if you have a cup of coffee and transport through the transporter do you lose all your caffeine? Replicators are meant to just be transporter technology that assembles food from basics held somewhere in the ship. Or at least that's what I read a few years ago, I'm not really a trekky any longer *hides*

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[peragrin]

That was just technobabble to give Riker an Evil twin.

It's almost as good as the separated at birth and hidden by his parents story.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[TuringTest]

When we look at all these slick 'intelligent' interfaces that are newbie oriented, they all hinge on the computer figuring out what the user 'intends' to do. Yes, as so is the core of what usability is about. Though, note that a really usable system MUST let the user override the inferred 'intent' when it's wrong.

They work because they wrap up and automate the common cases, but in doing so they inherently limit the possible functionality. The common cases MUST be fully automated. For the system to be efficient for experts, it must also automate the uncommon cases; there's nothing in that that prevents including a language for expressing both types of automation in the same interface. So the functionality is not inherently limited - the system wrapped for common cases could also be expanded, given that the system is open.

They tend to make life much more difficult for any task that requires digging into what the computer is actually doing or preforming any task the UI developer did not consider important. That's true for the current family of 'usable' interfaces, but you really should give a read to those examples I've linked (Archy and PBE). They are designed to expose what the computer is actually doing, but to expose it in a way that you don't need to be a computer engineer to understand it.

For example, Archy is nearer to a CLI than to a file browser (except for the fact that it doesn't use "files" but a different metaphor, a long sequence of text documents). It has all the possibilites of a command line (invoking arbitrary commands, retrieving and filtering the output of previous executions...) but in a much more user friendly environment.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[drpentode]

I hope it's not like a Xerox machine where you become a copy of a copy of a copy and your face is covered in smudges and your features are indiscernible because you've been copied too many times.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Truekaiser]

It's a urben legend that one doesn't re-grow new nurions.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[cayenne8]

"The Star Trek version of a teleporter is essentially a suicide booth. It rips you apart and then makes a copy on the other end. Do not want."

Ok Dr. McCoy....you're views on the transporter are VERY well known by now...

Let's move along now...

:-)

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[14erCleaner]

This discussion reminds me of "A Matter of Bandwidth" by Lauren Weinstein, which appeared in the April, 1999 CACM. A memorable section of that article:

Some early MT researchers had advocated omission of the final ``dissolution'' step in the teleportation process, citing various metaphysical concerns. However, the importance of avoiding the long-term continuance of both the source and target objects was clearly underscored in the infamous ``Thousand Clowns'' incident at the Bent Fork National Laboratory in 1979. For similar reasons, use of multicast protocols for teleportation is contraindicated except in highly specialized (and mostly classified) environments.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[q-the-impaler]

Reminds me of The Prestige, only in the movie, the duplicated subject had to be killed after the fact.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Orange Crush]

I'm no neuroscientist, but I'm of the understanding that individual neurons don't contain memories. Those are believed to be encoded through the vast interconnectedness of many individual neurons and when one neuron dies, the rest route around it so nothing is necessarily lost. Some new neurons are created throughout our adult lives and even a neuron that's been with you since birth will have had most of its molecules completely replaced several times. The original DNA molecule's probably still in there--but the water, salts, sugars, and proteins that make up just about everything else in a neuron are continuously replaced. All the electrons and neurochemicals making up all your memories, thoughts and personality are recycled and replaced.

If you could put *very tiny* "property of /name/" stickers on every atom in your newborn body, most would be gone now (having been replaced again and again).

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[eggnoglatte]

Expert user interfaces are poorly understood because it is exceedingly hard to do research on them. If you want to test a new interface for newbies, you just put together a prototype, grab some random people off the streat, and do a user study. If you wanted to do the same thing for experts, you would first have to to train them for weeks, possibly even months or years, and THEN do the study. Apart from this process being very expensive, you would be hard pressed to find subjects that are willing to put in that kind of time.

Personally, I find it quite likely that research will eventually confirm that keyboard interfaces are inherently more productive then window/mouse UIs for expert users: The bandwidth between user and machine is simply much higher than using the mouse. Yes, it requires a long training period, but in the end you can be much faster than with a GUI (except maybe for tasks that are inherently graphical).

So, if you want a unified novice/expert UI, it is going to be very difficult beyond just a GUI with keyboard shortcuts (and that approach does not utilize the full power of the keyboard).

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Anonymous Coward]

>This 'one size fits all' mentality is the issue. We need interfaces
>that scale from basic to advanced so the basic users doing get
>slammed with all the advanced stuff and advanced users don't find
>themselves without the tools they need to actually do their work.

So very true - so - where is this graphical thing merging the command line interface with some some buttons, side pane and scroll down list? I must admit, even I would sometimes use it.CTRL-R is nice, but a limitless graphical history with some learning capability as to the programs and my purpose would be great.

Of course, being a command line veteran - most of my screen area would probably be a terminal anyhow.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[VE3MTM]

If we would be build for 3D we wouldn't get dizzy when playing Descent, but quite frankly, most do.

When you develop a version of Descent that stimulates the inner ear to match the ship's motion, and people still get disoriented, then get back to me.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[eggnoglatte]

As the other response to your post explains, the evolution to work in 3D is not all that it is made out to be. In fact, most people are really bad in navigating in 3D, unless they have trained doing it in video games or as pilots. I attneded a conference once where the speaker was making that point. He asked the audience to point toward their hotel room (we were on the second floor of a hotel tower). Pretty much people were pointing all over the place, and these were graphics/UI people, who you'd expect to have some training in 3D.

There is another reason why 3D may not be all that great: what you actually see with your eyes is a 2D projection of the 3D world. If you lay out your information in 2D, you can make the best possible use of the screen area (so-called screen real estate). By contrast if you have a 3D display, some of your data will not be visible due to occlusion, and yet some of your screen real estate may be unused simply because of the way your current perspective projects geometry onto the screen. Hidden data is clearly a problem, as it potentially makes you overlook it, but also UI research has shown that good uses of screen real estate improves productivity for non-trivial tasks, so the wasted pixels in 3D representations are also problematic.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Anonymous Coward]

Replicators (solves hunger)

No, they don't. Or rather, they don't really solve it any more than we have now. We're currently quite capable of feeding every person on our planet. The reason people starve is political/economic/social, not technological. If we had replicators and today's politics/economics/culture, we'd still have starving people.

Holodeck (solves sexual ten...

One could say that prostitution also solves this problem, but our fearless leaders have outlawed it in most jurisdictions. Why do you think the holodeck would be any different?

So seriously, science, it only took you like twenty years to catch up to the first Star Trek, what the hell?

I don't see any transporters or warp engines or shields or artificial gravity generators or universal translators. What the hell are you smoking?

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Anonymous Coward]

This argument is ridiculous. If this were the case, you'd find yourself remarkably confused (and/or dizzy, disoriented) whenever you climbed a set of stairs to the second floor. Monkeys would have a difficult time escaping predators if they couldn't understand that the tree branches were above and out of reach. Fish would be likewise at a disadvantage if they were unable to realize that up means food and down means safety.

The dizziness experienced in 3d games for some people is not related to a lack of 3 dimensional spacial processing, but instead is thought to be a disconnect between the expected sensations of movement and the actual ones. I would suspect it is the opposite of seasickness you get when you go below deck -- where the environment seems to not be moving but your body can feel the motion -- in that you see a 3d world moving around you but you don't feel the forces you expect. In fact, this example may well be an argument against your point if you consider the dizziness comes from an enhanced grasp of your environment that is jarring with your actual experience.

Visual perception is perhaps best thought of as a 2 dimensional picture, but our understanding of that picture is completely 3 dimensional, otherwise a guy jumping behind a tree would be thought to be 'melding' with the tree. A paper in a stack is only un-selectable if you don't remember where it was when you put it there. Stacks are useful when storing related items in a sorted order such as numerical, alphabetical, or temporal -- the third dimension provides relative information allowing you to choose an item close to the desired item. In an alphabetical stack of business cards, I know that if I'm looking for Zimmer, I should look near the bottom of the stack; If I've been working on a project for 20 weeks, I know that my progress report for week 10 can be found about halfway down the pile. In fact, a 3 dimensional interface may be nearly ideal for working with file revisions, and I would not be surprised if, conceptually, this sort of 3rd dimensional thinking is used subconsciously even when presented with modern 2d screens.

I've used Beryl on my home system for some time, and have found the 3d pop-out feature to be invaluable for quickly selecting low-strata windows. It's not the only method that works, of course, but it does work.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Creedo]

Ah, but the crucial difference here is a continuity of consciousness. I'd have to problems with having my whole body replaced, as long as my consciousness is not erased. Even sleeping people have continuity.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[SCHecklerX]

Why does your post make me think of Calvin's transmogrifier?

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[grumbel]

### A paper in a stack is only un-selectable if you don't remember where it was when you put it there.

Thats the whole point why 3D interfaces suck. Your vision isn't 3D, its 2D+depths. In a full 3D interface you always end up having stuff hidden, invisible or otherwise in a place where its hard to reach or even now that its there.

### Stacks are useful when storing related items in a sorted order such as numerical, alphabetical, or tempora

Stacks are useful because the real world has physic limits, in a computer stacks are totally idiotic, because you don't have physical limits. A zoomable interface gives you all the space-saving of a stack *and* complete visibility of everything.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Parasome]

I read a thought experiment by, I think, Arthur C. Clarke that went something like this: suppose you're an astronaut, you are stranded on Mars with your spaceship wrecked, but your teleporter is still functional, so you can beam back home. Unfortunately, the part of the process that erases the original does not work. So you will return back to your loved ones and live happily ever after, and simultaneously die a miserable death alone on Mars.

Well...

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[geminidomino]

What was IBM thinking? Building thier HQ next to a flying penis factory... Yeesh, just to save a few bucks on the building lease?

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[edmicman]

Incremental backups would fix that right up!

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy oversimplification! What makes you think that memories are contained inside discrete neurons instead of networks of neurons? The brain is not a hard drive...

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[jjh37997]

You wouldn't notice when you've been terminated, and the other copy would still think that HE is YOU. So how would you tell it?

I wouldn't be able to tell because I'd be dead!

And why should you care?

Because I'd be dead!

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[jvkjvk]

I believe you are wrong.

Even in your simple example of the bunch of papers "in a stack" is 3D. Just because the Z axis is "heavily restricted" doesn't mean there isn't one. Our brains have clearly evolved for 3D because that is the world they evolved in!. Well, if you discount time, and use a spherical physicist.

Now, if we were in Flatland you could say our brains evolved for 2D but that does not appear to be the case (except for those possible higher level beings listening in, they would certainly see us in Flatland).

Our eyes of course also only see 2D view of the world, sure a little depth mixed in, but nothing close to full 3D. What? So, now you're saying that we don't see in "full 3D"??!? What, to you, is "full 3D"?

If we would be build for 3D we wouldn't get dizzy when playing Descent, but quite frankly, most do. Quite frankly, I believe this is because our brains have evolved for a 3D world. When the rest of the body's sensors don't match the visual input many people get dizzy. Because they are used to a 3D world, where changes in direction visually are matched by other cues, whether it be on the X, Y or Z planes.

It is interesting to note that players of PacMan don't get dizzy, even though that little yellow dot runs crazily through the maze. If our brains weren't evolved for a 3D world, one might expect many people to get dizzy from that game as well. As long as we're talking weird theories, and all.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[wed128]

That was kind of a spoiler (it was a pretty good film)

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[entrox]

Having a device that can create goods out of basic materials that are locally available would kill the current economy. Granted, we would still have to pay for power and patented "Replicator" data designs. However, it would represent a major change in the world.

Yeah right, just as having the ability to copy stuff killed the software and music economy. Oh what's that? You think you'd be allowed to freely replicate stuff? There'll be laws against copying physical goods that you didn't create, and there'll be license fees for everything else, you communist pig.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[GuyWithLag]

No single neuron holds any single memory. The process could be said to have holographic qualities, in that as neurons die, memory/thinking becomes fuzzier. And neurons, like most cells, do replace most of their molecules in the long term.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[LilMikey]

painfully killed: poof, bye-bye, assume afterlife

I would teleport myself a million times. Then me and my clones would take over heaven!

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[tommertron]

I guess that's what I was getting at. Not that a neuron holds a single memory, but that they hold parts of memories and and an individual neuron can't be replaced in whole when it dies with the same memory/thinking bits that the old one has (and in fact, I believe the body stops creating new neurons period after a while?).

Even though the cells replace most of their molecules over time, I'd still argue that it's different than the theoretical transporter, which essentially vaporizes your entire body, stores it as information, and then recreates it using available matter on the surface. Again, there's no way to fundamentally prove that the new person isn't just a copy and the old one is dead, but it seems pretty likely that that the original would be considered 'dead'. Still, it's a pretty mind-fucking hypothesis in a lot of ways.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Rallion]

Way to ruin the ending for everybody who hasn't seen it.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[maxwell demon]

painfully killed: poof, bye-bye, assume afterlife

I would teleport myself a million times. Then me and my clones would take over heaven! Well, if that's your plan, you'll probably take over hell instead.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[d34thm0nk3y]

They really seem to be pushing 3D interfaces in the article. While that's neat and all, I suspect there's a reason not every book is a pop-up book. Flat, 2D representations of data are typically the most efficient for our brain and eyeballs. For entertainment and representing 3D data, it can make sense. I just don't plan on coding in 3D any time soon.

I doubt 2d is inherently more efficient for the brain/eyeballs. It is more efficient when you are stuck with a 2d display (think paper and monitors) though.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[MBGMorden]

Actually, the twin didn't become evil until much later on DS9 (and even then it was a half hearted "I want attention!" type evil).

The Riker episode there (sorry, can't remember the name) essentially proved that transporters simply make a copy of who they're transporting. They took 1 buffer and made 2 of him.

The situation with Scotty was much the same. Came out the same way 80 years later? He basically toasted himself (or that version - Scotty had been copied many times), and in the process tar gzip'd a copy into the computer hoping somebody would extract him later . . .

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[phantomcircuit]

Um copy, verify , kill.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[mochan_s]

There is an episode in DS9 where they create an army like that.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[grumbel]

### What, to you, is "full 3D"?

CAT scan and stuff like that. We however don't have a way to see through a stack of paper, so it would be rather pointless to organize stuff like that. You want a way to organize stuff that is easy to navigate and easy to get an overview over, most 3D interfaces do the exact opposite.

I mean just look at that BumpTop thing, having your documents be upside down, stacked on top of each other and bump into each other via physic engine doesn't exactly make anything easy. It makes a cute tech demo, but I wouldn't want to use such an interface outside say of a video game. Now compare that with Microsoft Seadragon, which is very simple and does nothing more then present you document/photos side by side and allows you to zoom. Its trivial to understand and yet gives you a very powerful way to navigate through tens of thousands of photos in a easy way.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[jibjibjib]

It is true that some neurons aren't replaced. The molecules making up those neurons still get replaced, though.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[timeOday]

Meh, we have a word for that around here: "fork."

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[jafac]

You'd think they would have tried this crap with a mouse, or a monkey, or something, hundreds of years prior, when the stuff was first invented.

God damned animal rights assholes.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[rizole]

This is /.. There is only one thing needed to solve the problem many around here need solving; a sonic shower.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[ubeee]

It is estimated that every 4 years there is no one single atom in our body that is still the same as 4 year ago. So it's not a molecules problem, it's more deep. Of course all of this changing is very gradual.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[bar-agent]

You are a crack-smoker. No offense. :)

Our movement is for most part pretty much limited to 2D (forward,backward,left,right are good, but up and down are heavily restricted)

Our position is limited to 2D, but our hands' movement is very 3D.

the earth is flat (at least from a human point of view)

The ground is flat, but the stuff around us includes cars and trees and stuff inside, behind, above, and below other things.

I only see a 2D projection of the stack and even a 3D display wouldn't change that.

Well, that's true. But stacks are solid. If you could build an interface with semi-transparent X-ray vision, we could use that. Or better, if you have the stack float up and arrange itself in a 3-D cube, with space between each item so you could see through to the other side like looking through tree branches, that would be awesome.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[jibster]

I don't know what universe you're living in but mine is 3D!

Seriously though, our brains are evolved for more than moving pseudo-2D object (your account of us) around your equally pseudo-2D world. We don't live in flatland.

Our brains know how to deal with objects we handle with our uniquely agile hands, this not only happens in 3D but also uses all degrees of freedom just like descent does. Where your descent argument has merit is that our heads do not handle all degrees of freedom well. That's true and a 3D model for a GUI must take this into account.

Regarding moving our heads around in all degree of freedom I would like to put you on notice that I was killer at descent and never once to my memory suffered dizziness. I would remind you that not long ago the brains of our forefathers were swinging around trees in all their 3D glory. I submit some of us may well be closer to these relatives than others.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[grumbel]

### Well, that's true. But stacks are solid. If you could build an interface with semi-transparent X-ray vision, we could use that.

That would lead to a bunch of gibberish, not to something usable or readable. Our eyes see 2D, its the brain that tries to guess the 3D back into the picture, we simply don't have a direct way to input 3D in our brain. And unless you fix that having a stack in a user interface isn't very helpful.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[grumbel]

### It is more efficient when you are stuck with a 2d display

The problem is that human eyeballs can only see 2D, thanks to having two of them you get a little depth into a picture, but if one object is behind another one you simply can't see it. You can add transparency into the mix and move the viewpoint around to find it, but you still end up with a hide&seek game that just doesn't work very efficiently. Just look at Apples Exposé, what do they do to give you an overview over your windows? They flatten the whole 3D window order to a flat 2D view where no window is hiding behind another one. No more hide&seek, you simply click the Window you want to have. Very intuitive and very quick and its really just a small glimpse at what 2D zoomable interfaces can do.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Anonymous Coward]

One science fiction writer already answered this:

"How does the software know what hardware it is running on?"

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[svunt]

We need interfaces that scale from basic to advanced...

You mean like Nero, with its basic and expert interfaces that you can toggle between with a click, or like FirstPagewith four interfaces from beginner to expert, or like the countless programs that have a wizard to walk beginners through while leaving a complex interface in place for advanced users? Plenty of gui designers are aware of the different needs of different users.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Kent Recal]

Oh and the worst part is, once the parent (on mars) dies, the
child copy will turn into a zombie!

*cue shaun of the dead soundtrack*

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[joeljkp]

From what I've heard, there are medicines that people can be given before they undergo painful procedures (like resetting a broken limb) that essentially block the short-term memory, making them immediately forget that the painful procedure ever happened. They will feel extreme pain for the few minutes it takes to do it, but immediately after, they won't realize anything had ever happened.

So you could ask, does it matter that they underwent the procedure, other than the fact that before it their limb was broken, and afterward their limb was set? If your old self died in the teleporter and your new self didn't remember, would it even matter outside of the moment it took for it to happen?

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really want to get into this debate, I recommend "Down and out in the Magic Kingdom". Freely available book by Corey Doctrow, check you local internet for it.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Thorgal]

Somebody, please have mercy and moderate the above as funny. Thank you.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[RMH101]

unless you're using Leopard

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[logixoul]

"Does he have any fear of the Doors?"
"Of course not. What an idea!" She was plainly startled.
"It's possible, Mrs. Hanshaw, it's possible. After all, when you stop to think of how a Door works it is rather a frightening thing, really. You step into a Door, and for an instant your atoms are converted into field-energies, transmitted to another part of space and reconverted into matter. For that instant you're not alive."
"I'm sure no one thinks of such things."

-- Isaac Asimov, "It's Such a Beautiful Day"

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Sabriel]

Based on the episodes I've seen, Star Trek transporters aren't the suicide booth kind (except when they fail).

* movie and episode where we see consciousness being retained during transport.
* episodes too numerous (for me) to count that mention "pattern buffers", "matter streams", "Heisenberg compensators", "confinement beams" and other such technobabble.

Although, given it seems you get the ultimate in deep probing, followed by being polymorphed into pseudo-goo, stored in the equivalent of a tube of toothpaste, squirted through space, and finally remotely poked and prodded back into your original form... despite the fact that it doesn't *technically* kill you, I can still see why Doctor McCoy hates the things. :)

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[tehcyder]

Well, it's not very useful talking about "thought experiments" when other posters here have already mentioned the actual experiences of various Star Trek characters.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Anonymous Coward]

Parfitt has an interesting argument on this.

The gist of it is that the only difference between destroy-and-copy teleportation and our day-to-day (or Planck Time-to-Planck Time) existences is that the distance involved breaks the illusion of continuity. A skeptical look at reality reveals that we have no more connection to ourself five minutes ago having walked the distance than having been copied over it- we have only our memories of a continuous experience to judge by.

Or to put in another way- the 'you' having your current thoughts is going to be gone and replaced by someone with your identity having the thoughts you would have in five minutes whether you copyport or not.

Of course, I've always found that argument doesn't so much make me okay with copyportation as make it impossible for me to sleep at night.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Fred_A]

How would we know it didn't happen this way:

How do you know you wouldn't just experience being painfully killed: poof, bye-bye, assume afterlife, nonexistence, or reincarnation, depending on your beliefs.

I doubt that what would happen would be a matter of personal belief... ;) but I disgress...

Meanwhile, the copy of you with all your memories (or, all from before the "teleporter") doesn't realize that you have experienced death-- or even that s/he isn't you but a copy. It would be the same to everyone you know-- they wouldn't be able to tell that you'd been replaced by a dopoulganger. Your replacement, not knowing any better, would assure everyone that the process was completely safe and painless, and that "you" came to the other end just fine.

The only person that would know the difference is you, except you're not around anymore to know or tell. You're dead.

If the system is designed to transmit data, then the person is indeed destroyed, if the system transmits matter (as in "wormhole" kind of thingie, except you'd come out whole except as badly mangled sub-particles) the person would presumably be the same.

My question with those teleporter things always was, what if the thing misfires and keeps the local copy ? How do you decide which is the right one ?

The question of "what makes an individual" has also been tackled many times in scifi, notably lately by Alastair Reynolds in his Revelation Space series (which you might want to take a look at if you haven't heard of it yet) where a few people have been scanned (destructively) into computer simulations. In his world, those simulations are considered akin to the same thing. The situation is quite similar to the teleportation scenario.

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[Fred_A]

Parfitt has an interesting argument on this.
[ ... ]
Or to put in another way- the 'you' having your current thoughts is going to be gone and replaced by someone with your identity having the thoughts you would have in five minutes whether you copyport or not. A similar argument was that "you do go to sleep at night with no guarantee that you're the same 'you' in the morning yet do so daily".

I still would have second thoughts before stepping into a teleport contraption. :)

Re:Not sure 3D is always the best

[q-the-impaler]

I didn't ruin the twist in the end.

Most Notable Difference...

[gillbates]

You'll be able to squeeze in a trip to Starbucks between reboots. And this in the early morning, rush hour traffic.

Seriously, the most problematic part about today's user experience is that the majority of the computers run Windows, and more slowly than they did 20 years ago. Sure, you get nice, pretty graphics, but when you're actually trying to get work done, you'd rather have a responsive machine.

Re:Most Notable Difference...

[capt.Hij]

I would have strongly disagreed with your sentiment a short time ago but have changed my mind recently. The things in the article looked like fun but will have a hard time being accepted.

The thing that changed my mind is that I had to install a machine with Vista on it, and it was my first experience with the new OS. The machine is a new dual core Intel with 1Gb of memory. It should be a screamer but is essentially the same as the 5 year old XP machine it replaced. The secretary who has to use the machine did not like it at all and wanted XP installed. To my shock the reason was not about any of the things that I thought were "important" but really just amounted to "its different."

I used to have high hopes for a world with linux desktops but that has been dashed. Too many people prefer the old and comfortable to the new and cool. Apple and MS have the right idea. Get'm while they are young, although the Wii does offer some glimmer of hope.

Re:Most Notable Difference...

[xSauronx]

When i began worked for a wISP earlier in the year i quickly moved from using windows on my laptop to Linux. Id always wanted to try it out (and i always loved multiple desktops!) so I jumped right in.

Something that is, to a lot of people, eye candy, proved very useful to me: the cube desktop. When in the field I didnt always have a place to put a mouse, and got very used to using the trackpoint on my thinkpad. With the desktop cube able to freely rotate, i could very quickly move away from what i was working on, grab and rotate to what i wanted to see and do it faster than using any other method.

As a bonus, it all runs VERY smooth on my T40, which is old by any standard with a 1.5ghz Pentium-M and a radeon 7500. I bumped the ram to 1.5gb and am more than happy with it, and the way the OS runs with any bells and whistles I care to turn on (this is with Ubuntu)

Re:Most Notable Difference...

[ByOhTek]

The latest and greatest Windows is typically slow and clunky, but all things considered, what alternative would you pick?

I ran Ubuntu on my notebook, next to FreeBSD and Windows XP. For responsiveness, it typically ran like this: FreeBSD/KDE > Windows > Kbuntu or Ubuntu >> Windows while virus scan was running.

Given that it usually isn't in windows, the last entry is required.

I wouldn't give the majority of users FreeBSD. There's MacOS, but my experiences with it (dual core Core2 cpu'ed machine), doesn't lead me to belive it is any faster than a Windows machine (then again, I usually turn off the fade in/out of menus in windows, which is the biggest delay in the UI I've found).

Basically, while I agree with your point in the case of Vista being the worst, the problem seems to persist throughout most operating systems that a normal user could use.

Even going back to my old K6-III machine (circa 1999, fairly high-end), Ubuntu doesn't perform significantly faster than XP. MacOS X on a circa '99 G3 Apple (also fairly high end model)? OK, I'll grant that as a bit faster than either above option.

I guess the point is, Windows isn't the only OS that is making things that are bloated and inefficient. Everyone is doing it, it seems, and if we want a fix, we have to look at EVERYONE.

Re:Most Notable Difference...

[Scootin159]

Of course you could make it to Starbucks in time... by then there should be one within 50 feet of any point on the planet.

Re:Most Notable Difference...

[cowscows]

The problem with something like desktop linux is that (for the average user) the changes either don't show enough immediate benefit to make relearning worth while, or don't offer enough of a difference to make the change interesting.

Using the Wii as an example as you did, the Wiimote is a pretty big change in how controllers work. Even if you don't see the potential of it right away, it's so different and a little bit wacky and so it's interesting enough that you want to give it a shot. But let's say that instead of using the Wiimote, Nintendo decided to use their gamecube controller design, but they mirrored the front of it so that the buttons were on the left and the stick/pad was on the right. And they backed up that decision with lots of testing that found it was more comfortable or something. It'd be a pretty significant change to controller design, but how well do you think it'd go over? I imagine it would be rather frustrating, and I think it'd be a tough sell convincing people that that change was worth retraining their thumbs.

Linux just isn't different enough from windows, at least not in ways that matter to an everyday person. All that backend stuff, command line stuff, none of that matters. At a desktop level, Linux doesn't really do anything significantly different than windows does, so why bother with it? Change for the sake of change isn't necessarily productive, old and comfortable often means efficient and cost effective. Apple has historically had the same problem competing against windows. I think there are a lot of ways that you can pretty decisively say that the MacOS has been easier to use, or more consistent, or more pleasant, etc. than its windows counterpart; but the differences have generally been a bunch of minor things. It's hard to get excited about a bunch of little things, unless they pertain to a subject that you already have a serious interest in. Most people don't have a serious interest in computer operating systems, so they don't care.

The big wrench in all of this is that things like malware have created a situation where there's a big difference, in that windows is far more likely to have very apparent problems than MacOS or Linux. Apple seems to be making an attempt to capitalize on that with advertising and such, but Linux unfortunately doesn't really have the same marketing budget.

Re:Most Notable Difference...

[heinousjay]

Yeah, go on believing computers are slower now than they are 20 years ago. Oh, you don't actually believe that, you were just lying to make an incorrect point? I never would have guessed.

Re:Most Notable Difference...

[geobeck]

You'll be able to squeeze in a trip to Starbucks between reboots.

I was just thinking along those lines the other day, as I was waiting for a Facebook page to load. I made a few personal websites back in the early days of HTML, and my philosophy was that if my page took longer than 5 seconds to load, the viewer would hit 'Back' and go somewhere else. Nowadays I always browse in multiple tabs so I don't have to sit idle while each page loads--which can take close to a minute.

I don't know what the user experience of the future will be like, but I guarantee it will involve many progress bars.*

*Probably the most ironically named item since Microsoft Works.

Re:Most Notable Difference...

[Anonymous Coward]

The secretary who has to use the machine did not like it at all and wanted XP installed. To my shock the reason was not about any of the things that I thought were "important" but really just amounted to "its different."

Weird. XP isn't very old. At some point, she had to make a radical leap to XP. Microsoft's captives are experiencing the same thing by staying entrenched, as they experience by switching (well, except for the ones who are still running MS-DOS 3.1).

Given that situation, it seems pretty easy to imagine a world where there are lots of people who see MS Vista as the same-old same-old and who don't want to switch to MS' next OS. I can see that world, but I don't see the steps in between. And that's even given that I've already witnessed (on the sidelines) the transition dozens of times. Just when did XP become "normal" and "old"?

How did someone get from Windows 95 to XP? Why not switch to KDE instead? It was a less radical leap. But somehow it got viewed as more radical. I'm so confused.

Re:Most Notable Difference...

[marcosdumay]

People don't like change, but most people will weight that against improved functionality. If you have a new design that is much better than the old one, it will be accepted. If your new design is just marginaly better (or even worse) than the old one, people won't change.

Changes will be evolutionary, not revolutionary

[Entropius]

The metaphors we're using now work pretty well, and UI changes in the future will probably consist more of refinements of these rather than totally new things, at least until and unless there is a major advance in display technology.

As an example of a well-engineered UI that can make otherwise extremely tedious tasks manageable: Google's Picasa photo manager. It manages to deal with huge amounts of data (3700x2600 jpg's or whatever 10MP comes out to, and 24MB RAW files), run quickly, and show you relevant stuff.

The 3D rotating super+tab screen for task switching in Compiz is another example of using extra computing power to show something useful.

Opera's introduction of mouse gestures is another good idea.

Re:Changes will be evolutionary, not revolutionary

[toppavak]

The metaphors we're using now work pretty well, and UI changes in the future will probably consist more of refinements of these rather than totally new things, at least until and unless there is a major advance in display technology.

This is why I feel that of the technologies displayed, multitouch has the potential to be the most pervasively applied. It's intuitive, it's useful- it's just plain cool. The bit in the demo with the digital camera and the phone represents the core of what kind of potential a technology like that has- provided said technology properly implements industry standards and doesn't seek to castrate features like that. Given Microsoft's track record with standards, its quite possible that this may be an issue that will have to be dealt with in the future, but we can hope it wont come to be.

Perhaps multitouch tables will spur the development and implementation of high throughput, short range and low power consumption wireless protocols? There's just something intrinsically cool about being able to share documents, images and videos just by setting my laptop down on said table and tossing those files around to various other devices.

Re:Changes will be evolutionary, not revolutionary

[bar-agent]

The metaphors we're using now work pretty well, and UI changes in the future will probably consist more of refinements of these rather than totally new things, at least until and unless there is a major advance in display technology.

I dunno. When you say metaphors, I think of windows, desktops, folders, menus. These things are abstracted and simplified versions of real things that were then taken in a new direction. Folders, for example, don't actually contain things. You don't physically open them to see what's inside, instead you double-click and a new window appears.

But look at the iPhone. It has scrolling lists, buttons, and switches that are less removed from the real thing. They are less metaphorical. The iPhone, and the technologies in the article, make me believe the future of UI is the end of metaphor, not its evolution.

Sadly true

[boristdog]

While I personally believe the new Windows Vista interface is clunky, confusing and generally annoying, many of my very non-tech-savvy friends think the new interface is great and easy to use.

Different strokes and all that.

Re:Sadly true

[DeeQ]

There is nothing wrong with the UI in vista. Other than the annoying sidebar (easy to turn off) The UI hardly differs from XP. In my networking class at college we were all able to get a copy of Vista for 5 dollars. Almost everyone there enjoyed using it and toying around with it. The reason I figure this is the case is because we are all young and not dead set on learning a new thing. Granted Vista maybe slow on older machines its lightning fast on my machine and my machine is hardly top of the line. I would love to know exactly oyu find confusing because there nothing confusing about the UI when compaired to the UI of XP. It just looks shiney now. Im under the impression most people that dislike vista so much have not given it enough of a chance. By no means am I saying its a great OS. Its just as good as XP, however it is still windows afterall.

Re:Sadly true

[ByOhTek]

The configuration of Explorer is quite different, it has more of an IE7 look and feel, much like XPs has more of an IE6 design.

I found it a bit annoying, but useable, until I got to the list-view interface, which does not handle multiple selection with the mouse, or drag and drop as smoothly as explorer in XP or 2003.

Re:Sadly true

[DeeQ]

I said Vista Not IE7, IE7 Is on XP as well. I personally use firefox.

Re:Sadly true

[ByOhTek]

I wasn't talking about IE7, I was talking about Explorer (the file manager in Windows).

I was using the IEs as reference points to what the designs looked like.

Re:Sadly true

[c_forq]

And the poster was talking about Explorer resembling IE7, not about using IE7 as a web browser. Not to be an ass, but try actually reading the posts of people who respond to you - especially if you are going to respond back to them.

Re:Sadly true

[boristdog]

Oh I agree, you can configure the Vista UI to work like XP, but out of the box I think it really blows. But not everyone thinks so.

Remember these are my NON-TECH-SAVVY friends. So who do you think has to work on their PCs when things go wrong? I have to reconfigure the UI (especially that totally f-d up start menu) so I can work on the damn things and then they get all whiney that I changed it. So I have to reset to default, then deal with reconfiguring again when things go wrong. Actually, things really haven't gone wrong, but sometimes the hoi-polloi get confused by error messages, or lose their picures because their camera software shoves them into some weird location, or they don't have a codec for some video...etc. You know how it is.

I guess I need to write a script that will convert the UI back and forth with one click. Gotta just be some stupid registry entries.

The greatest UI was the fax machine

[Gizzmonic]

A fax machine's UI is far more user friendly to novices and beginners alike. Is there some reason we don't design GUIs to mimic the fax machine? This, to me, is a substantial failing in modern UI design.

Re:The greatest UI was the fax machine

[spun]

A fax machine's UI is far more user friendly to novices and beginners alike. Is there some reason we don't design GUIs to mimic the fax machine? This, to me, is a substantial failing in modern UI design. Right, so you're sayng we'll have to dial 9 before we open or print any documents?

Re:The greatest UI was the fax machine

[khendron]

You're joking right? A fax machine's UI sucks. In my experience very few people, when faced with sending a fax for the first time, have managed to do so successfully. They always need help.

When you approach a fax machine, there is no obvious starting action to take. Do you dial first, or scan the pages first? Do you scan the pages one at a time, or can you put them down all at once? When you dial the number, there is no feedback that anything is happening. No sound of dialing, no sound of handshake. Just some cryptic messages like TX that mean absolutely nothing to a novice. Eventually the machine will spit out a page that, you hope, says somewhere on it STATUS: SUCCESS. If you do run into difficulty, you have to find the dead-tree manual to help you, because the messages on the little LCD display don't help much.

A fax machine's UI is about as user friendly as a linux shell without man pages.

Re:The greatest UI was the fax machine

[MontyApollo]

Not sure if you are joking or not, but a fax machine UI sucks for the beginner.

I think the more important point though is that people are novices/beginners for a very brief period of time. If the UI is geared towards the novice instead of the regular user, then productivity will suffer.

Re:The greatest UI was the fax machine

[Thanshin]

A fax machine's UI is far more user friendly to novices and beginners alike. Is there some reason we don't design GUIs to mimic the fax machine? This, to me, is a substantial failing in modern UI design. I design my GUIs following the breakthrough design of VCR programming.

Re:The greatest UI was the fax machine

[advocate_one]

Eventually the machine will spit out a page that, you hope, says somewhere on it STATUS: SUCCESS.

even after that you could have failed... I had the originals the wrong way up in the tray...... the recipient got seven sheets of blank paper with fax headers and footers on them...

Re:The greatest UI was the fax machine

[gregger]

No no, remember what IT said? The fax machine is a direct connection to an outside phone line because the PBX we have doesn't like it. So for every other phone, dial a 9, but not the fax!

On a side note, anyone notice that article's first sentence makes zero sense and the author can't seem to spell "dependent"? Perhaps in the future we'll go back to Shakespeare's rules of spelling.

TTFN

Re:The greatest UI was the fax machine

[c0zm0]

A fax machine's UI is about as user friendly as a linux shell without man pages.
That belongs on a thinkgeek T-shirt. I'd buy it -- nothing against any of the linux shells of course ;)

Re:The greatest UI was the fax machine

[jafac]

I dunno.

I never could make heads nor tails out of any frickin MAN pages.
I usually get along better with a few O'Reilly books, and Google.
Most MAN pages just make me want to slap the crap out of the person who wrote them.
(Hello? functional examples please?)

Re:The greatest UI was the fax machine

[roman_mir]

A breast is the most user friendly to novices and experts alike, why don't we design GUIs to mimic the breasts?

(oh, and your fax machine example sucks, it's just wrong, fax machines are terrible as UIs.)

Productivity improved?

[khendron]

"Productivity has been improved greatly over the years"

It has? Where is this increased productivity of which you speak?

I see people doing things differently than they did years ago, but I would hesitate to call it increased productivity.

Re:Productivity improved?

[Selfbain]

My ability to read slashdot at work has improved greatly over the years.

Re:Productivity improved?

[sseaman]

It has? Where is this increased productivity of which you speak? I'm pretty sure this can be more-or-less objectively quantified. I'm not an economist, but a quick Google search gives me quotes like:

One of the most impressive aspects of the current U.S. economy is the acceleration of productivity growth (that is, the increased output of goods and services per hour worked) that has prevailed since the mid-1990s.[1]

Money spent on computing technology delivers gains in worker productivity that are three to five times those of other investments, according to a study being published today.[2]

Of course, I'm at work right now, and I'm on /., so YMMV.

[1] [2]

Re:Productivity improved?

[kebes]

Where is this increased productivity of which you speak? I think it's easy to miss the increased productivity because our standards rise very quickly with enabling technologies.

For instance, I can sit down on my computer, grab dozens of scientific articles in a few minutes, write a summary of them, and have it typeset to publication-quality with a few clicks. I can then launch a professional-quality graphics art program to make a few figures. I then put it all together and send it to someone (who gets it within seconds).

The same operation would previously have taken much more time and money, not to mention specialist talent. (E.g. numerous trips to library, typing and re-typing a manuscript, hiring a graphic artist to make a figure, and mailing the finished product would have taken weeks of time, hundreds of dollars, etc.) And I haven't even mentioned things that are inherently compute-bound (e.g. how long would it take to run a complicated simulation today vs. ten years ago?).

In short, these technologies have enabled the individual to do things that previously only specialists could do, and have allowed everyone to complete their work faster than before. It's easy to dismiss this since the promised "additional free time" from increased productivity never materializes: instead we merely increase our standards of quantity and quality. Many people don't even see this as progress (e.g. many people would prefer handing off tasks like typing and typesetting to others, whereas nowadays the norm is for everyone to do this themselves).

Nevertheless, the net amount of "stuff" that a person produces (documents, designs, computations, admin tasks completed, etc.) has indeed increased in breadth, quantity and quality, due to the use of computers, networks, and our modern clever user-interfaces.

I, for one, am much more productive using a computer than I would be otherwise. And if anyone thinks that their computer isn't making them more productive, then I challenge them to try to complete daily tasks without it, and see how long/arduous things actually are without.

Re:Productivity improved?

[c_forq]

I know in my field computers have caused productivity to leap vast amounts, but we use most AS400 systems, and most all the office has thin-clients and VNC into the important stuff. Now I will give you that if we lose telephone or internet than the office grinds to a halt, and if the server goes down the warehouse can only work on already printed tickets, but those outages are rare and keep getting more scarce.

Re:Productivity improved?

[khendron]

You say "these technologies have enabled the individual to do things that previously only specialists could do, and have allowed everyone to complete their work faster than before."

That is not an example of being more productive,. Before these technologies existed, most people didn't *need* to do the things they now must do to complete their work.

Today I have a computer with a 3 GHz processor and 2 GB of RAM to help me do my job. When I first started my career, I used to time-share some processor time on a microVAX. Am I more productive today than I was when I graduated from University? I don't think so. In the end, my output is a computer program that does some sort of data processing. My program today might look fancier and be able to process more data in less time, but in the end it took me just as long to produce the program as it did years ago.

I know lots of very productive people who exist without ever directly using a computer.

Re:Productivity improved?

[pherthyl]

Your program from today is much more complex, does a hell of a lot more things, and, as you say, looks nicer. If you say you are taking just as long to produce it as the old program, then by definition, you are more productive. Your argument makes no sense. Just because the output in both cases is "a program" doesn't mean they are equivalent.

Re:Productivity improved?

[tist]

In short, these technologies have enabled the individual to do things that previously only specialists could do, and have allowed everyone to complete their work faster than before.

That's just the half of it. Now that you are more productive, you can do 10 of these jobs where you used to do just one. Most people think, "When I'm more productive I'll get my work done in less time." But that's not it. They just get to do more work and everyone has the ability to do more work so there is no net gain for anyone. "Everyone is special is just a way of saying no one is."

Re:Productivity improved?

[Mista2]

I think a classic case is middle management. Even 10 years a go a manager would have still had access to a secretary to help with typing, filing and administration. They would still have helped maintain a meeting schedule and other general jobs leaving a manager able to focus on management. Now I have a hard time getting a meeting with my manager because he has to do his own fling, and typing (painful to see the 10wpm single finger on each hand method still being used today) and maintain his own schedule on a Blackberry. But the "UI" interfaces are so simple, even a manager can use them 8) Myself, at home on my own computer I love the wobbly cube-y 3d goodness of Xgl and love having transparent window shadows and windows that burn up when you close them. However at work, I still use good old X11 because it's faster, and for real speed, I still use the command line and SSH shells.

Re:Productivity improved?

[khendron]

My argument is that just because something does more does not make it more productive. I'll have to resort to a car analogy. My car today can do a lot more than the car my parent's owned when I was growing up. It has power steering and ABS brakes. It has air conditioning. The radio can scan the airwaves automatically, looking for stations. Am I more comfortable in my car than in my parent's old car. Yes. Am I more productive? No. It still takes me the same amount of time to drive from point A to point B.

I am not dissing technology in general. It has greatly improved the quality of life of lots of people. And it does allow people to do a lot more stuff. But in my view a lot of that "more stuff" that you can do has nothing to do with productivity.

Re:Productivity improved?

[MBGMorden]

Am I more comfortable in my car than in my parent's old car. Yes. Am I more productive? No. It still takes me the same amount of time to drive from point A to point B. Car analogy doesn't work there, because transit time is limited by speed limits - an artificially imposed limitation. Computer processing time is not.

If my father had had a computer at my age, it would have likely been a Commodore 64 (ironically, when he was my age I was around and DID have that C64 ;)). At home my fastest computer is a Core 2 Duo 1.8ghz with 2gb of RAM. Which is going to get from point A to point B faster when the task is encoding a 2 hour video to MPEG-4?

Re:Productivity improved?

[WinterSolstice]

Better analogy -

When I document a complex system install for Unix (non-graphical) it takes me about as long as "script doc_for_install.txt" and "exit" plus the install.
I then spend about 15 minutes cleaning it up and making it presentable.

That same documentation for the same program installed on Windows requires nearly 50 screen shots that must be taken, clipped, fit into word, and then cleaned up. Plus the install, of course.

So for example, this week I did two docs - one for a customer running this install under Solaris, and one for a customer running it under Windows. The Unix docs took about 1 day (the install took about a day, too... so I was done with the docs early the next morning). The Windows docs took 3 days (the install took about a day, and I spent two additional days futzing with the gui docs... putting the little retarded red outlines on the buttons, etc.)

I'll take a simpler UI ANY day. Best is a KDE/Gnome type UI where I can have tons of simpler UIs.

As for computer speed - I think that I can do the docs for a CLI app in the same time on anything since an Apple II. The GUI docs, however, require at least a machine that can easily run the GUI, plus run remote desktop for the Windows box.

Re:Productivity improved?

[khendron]

Limitations in life, artificial or otherwise, are very very real. Just because I can send an email to my VP doesn't make him make decisions any faster. Just because I can conference people from all over the world into my meetings doesn't make the meetings happen any faster.

With you encoding an MPEG-4 example, you are again making the assumption that because you are able to do something today that you were not able to do before, you are more productive. That is not always the case.

Re:Productivity improved?

[MBGMorden]

Ok, real work, my job, productivity example. I work for a county government. I admin the systems that do land appraisals and tax billing. By entering the data on a new house when it's constructed, and keeping a few simple variables updated, the system automatically calculates the values en masse for nearly 100,000 properties. When tax billing season comes around, the values are exported to our billing system, a tax is automatically calculated based on the current millage rate, and our system starts spitting out printed tax bills that it automatically folds and stuffs into the envelopes. Our people just need to keep feeding it paper and envelopes. We can do the whole thing in under a week, then get to other matters.

That couldn't be done in that scale at that speed 50 years ago. As to your VP: zip back 125 years. There is no telephone. There is no email. He's 3 states away. You want him to make a decision it's going to at a minimum take a couple days for the snail mail to reach him. He might make his decision in a few hours (or even a week). Then for you to know what he decided it's gonna take a few days to come back. Regardless of how fast he decides, you still add in that not insignificant transit time.

It's easy to write off the increased efficiency, but only if you don't really look past the surface of the issue.

Missing option

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Where's Jeff Han's lightbox multi-touch stuff?

Kissable UI

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a kissable UI is the way of the future so that us Slashdotters can finally get some. Instead of a 'Submit' button, you have a "Make out with this picture of Jessica Alba to continue" screen.

Re:Kissable UI

[Thanshin]

I think a kissable UI is the way of the future so that us Slashdotters can finally get some. Instead of a 'Submit' button, you have a "Make out with this picture of Jessica Alba to continue" screen. So, when you see Jessica Alba, your first thought is "I'd like to kiss her". Hmmm interesting.

We'll have to try next with Scarlet Johanson and see what UI we can come up with.

Re:Kissable UI

[Anonymous Coward]

But then the problem would be that some idiot script kiddie would change out all of the pictures for Rosie O' Donnell

No Mention of Touch Feedback?

[imstanny]

What about Touch Feedback?

Ticker symbols IMMR and NVNT.OB (Novint Falcon sold @ CompUSA and supports Half-Life) come to mind.

Re:No Mention of Touch Feedback?

[Jeremy Erwin]

Ticker symbols?
Is this some super-libertarian way of looking at the world? "If it hasn't gone public, it doesn't exist"?

Re:No Mention of Touch Feedback?

[imstanny]

Actually, Jeremy, I was too lazy to type the full name of the companies.

I really don't see what Libertarianism has anything to do with ticker symbols, it's like me calling someone a Darwinist when they use C++ code on their response.

~sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm disappointed by the lack of info on augmented/mediated reality type displays. That's the real future of the UI. Something you can take with you, not a table.

Re:~sigh

[c_forq]

I have to agree, I personally thought the coolest part of the Minority Report computer interface was the little portable screens. I wish that when I brought my PDA near my desktop that it would augment the desktop screen, instead of just "syncing" the two times. For example if I could work it out so that when linked via bluetooth that my PDA became a display of unread e-mail messages, system information, or a music remote control or something like that I would be ecstatic. That is the future that I am most excited about.

The experience is in the details

[TuringTest]

Those futuristic FX barely have to do with what the final user get as 'experience'. The real experience is about the feelings of the user.

Unfortunately, the most common feelings provoked by today's interfaces are anger and frustration. That's because the interface is littered with rough/unpolished edges, and because software is designed as a bag full of (unrelated) features - instead of as a mean to achieve an end - the process to actually use a feature is rarely taken into the design, not to say tested with users to test it and debug it with the user using it.

A really good development in user experience would be a way to force programmers to follow
this kind of advice.

Re:The experience is in the details

[steelfood]

That doesn't really mean anything...

What do people expect? A programmer expects something different from a layman. A person familiar with a certain mapping of symbol to action will expect something different from a person familiar with a different mapping.

At the end of the day, we have to go back to the beginning, when everyone's expectations are roughly the same. That is to say, we have to go back to how we would expect something to happen before we learned through trial and error that things don't always happen the way we expect.

Think like children, but don't dumb down the interface to a childish one; abstract the concepts and apply it to the UI.

The largest problem with today's UI is that there's nothing that reproduces the basics of human interfacing. The keyboard as an interface is terrible, as we typically visualize spatially in two dimensions and temporally in one (not three spatial dimensions--we learn to draw before learning how to mold with clay), while the keyboard provides a spatially one-dimensional and temporally one-dimension interface. Using the keyboard for navigation is completely unnatural, which is why people prefer MS Word (WYSIWYG) over console emacs over vim.

So the mouse is a step up from the keyboard in terms of interface. But we're still restricted to one mouse doing one thing at a time, when we're naturally inclined to using two hands to do the majority of what we want to do (there are notable exceptions, like writing, drawing, wiping our asses, etc.). So even with the mouse, we're still forcing ourselves into an unnatural state of mind.

Multi-touch interfaces seem so much more intuitive for this reason, because we're suddenly able to use both of our hands to do things. Ideally, that's what we want--two actors for our two hands. And we want the actions of those actors to reflect what we'd do with our hands in the real world.

But any more and things will get problematic again. Besides a few things that require more than two actors (like playing an instrument), two is the limit. Any more, and it'll require learning again (like learning how to play an instrument).

Re:The experience is in the details

[TuringTest]

The good thing about computers is that we can redefine what doing a task requires. In your 'playing an instrument' example, thanks to computers it only requires one finger (to press the 'play' key of your MP3). With a two hands interface, a damn whole lot of tasks that are clumsy with a mouse will feel natural again (zooming?).

Also, thanks that the computer remembers state, complex tasks may be decomposed into simpler ones, each one requiring just a simple interaction (again with a music example, that would be using a music tracker to compose a tune, instead of playing it real-time with an orchestra).

Re:The experience is in the details

[chthonicdaemon]

You say "...people prefer MS Word (WYSIWYG) over console emacs over vim." when in this crowd at least, this is not true. I belabour the point because I firmly believe that the most efficient interface for many things is not necessarily the easiest to learn or the easiest to use. Familiar routes feel faster than new ones which may be faster. People may feel like they aren't making progress when in fact they are. I feel more productive in Emacs than Word -- Unfortunately I have no solid evidence that I am, as it's so damn difficult to quantify.

This is where everything breaks down. People believe that the 'real world' is somehow the optimal environment just because we grew up there. I am more mathematically inclined and see very little of the abstractions that I love so much in the 'real world'. I see more of it in code. I see no way that that would suit everyone. So where does that leave us? No 'optimal' interface.

Re:The experience is in the details

[kylehase]

I read part of the page in the link and one part stood out and not just because it's in big bold type:

A user interface is well-designed when the program behaves exactly how the user thought it would.

The problem with this statement is that our behavioral expectations are developed from our experiences. If we've only experienced bad UI, our expected behavior will be that of the bad UI.

Sometimes it's immediately clear that the new UI is more intuitive but othertimes it takes a while to realize how much better a new UI is simply because we are still expecting the old behavior.

Re:The experience is in the details

[cerberusss]

No 'optimal' interface.

You are mistaken. I stare at the raw bytes. That is the optimal interface. I must do so to be happy. :D

Nerromancer's Cyberspace

[lobiusmoop]

What I'd really like to see coming in my lifetime is a fully immersive cyberspace-like interface, but done via direct neural stimulaton/reception through some kind of cranium socket.
  I've seen on a TV programme a while back very simple versions of this implemented already, enabling a blind man to 'see' numbers via electrodes surgically implanted in his visual cortex. It would be amazing to scale it up to the full simstim thing as in Neuromancer though.

Re:Nerromancer's Cyberspace

[Anonymous Coward]

hey mate. I like your thinking.

I'm actually in the process of trying to get something like that off the ground.

I came up with a new video game system that has something like that. It's like the Wii, but with neural interface availablity.

If you've seen .Hack then its something like that, only a bit different. It has wii-esque controls that are compatible with any game system. you have sensor pads on your legs and your arms. so if your character has to walk, then in reality your legs move to simulate walking, if your character has to kneel, jump, or whatever then you do that. Those sensors also respond to your characters getting hit. so if your character gets shot at, you feel a sensor response, dulled though, so that you don't notice it that much. the neural interface part is for the head only. You have a VR helmet that you see everything through, and that is connected to the controls.

again. this is only a design in the process of my brain, but if I had the funds, and corporate backing, I could create a prototype.

The only thing I'd be worried about is the neural interface.

Love the icon!

[hellfire]

This is completely off topic, but I love how the icon for a user interface story here is the original apple mouse. You know... a mouse with one button? I hope all you one-button bashers get really bent over that, too! That is just too ironic :)

Re:Love the icon!

[Jeremy Erwin]

Imagine yourself in the year 1984. Would you know how to use that second mouse button?

Re:Love the icon!

[edremy]

And I hate it. Why?

Back around 85, i tried to teach my girlfriend (now wife) to use a mouse. She simply could not double click reliably- she would click and in the process nudge the mouse, moving the icon and cancelling the double click. I saw this from other folks as well back then- it was very hard for a lot of people to learn. Utterly horrible design. Then you get into the contortions needed to do simple actions with only one button. Will the file move or copy when you drag it? "Well, it depends on if the target folder is on another volume" Bad design. How do you get info on a file? Single click+apple-I? Yeah, that's a winner.

Now do it with a RMB click. RMB->Open RMB->Copy RMB->Move RMB->Properties. Consistent, easy. Indeed, you can see what options are even available with one context-sensitive click, rather than select and scrub through menus until you find it.

"But you don't get confused with one button!" Bull- folks back then were used to dealing with much more complicated interfaces. My wife is totally non-technical and doesn't get along well with computers, but was perfectly capable of writing WP5.1 for DOS macros. It wasn't confusion- it was simple muscle learning that was the issue. Right click was a lot easier to learn than "Select and look through menus" or even double click.

Re:Love the icon!

[Foerstner]

The original SRI mouse (Engelbart, et al, mid-1960's) had one button. By 1968, it had three buttons. Only the left button was used in conjunction with pointing. The other two buttons were used to confirm and cancel actions.

In 1974, at Xerox PARC, I implemented a prototype of the Gypsy text editor that introduced drag-select and needed only one button. (The final version of Gypsy, 1975, which I developed with Tim Mott, used all three buttons because they were there.)

Apple's mouse first appeared on the Lisa. If we had been designing the Lisa for power users, we may have provided at least two buttons. But 99%+ of our target customers were new to mouse use at that time--new, in fact, to computer use. In our 1980 usability tests, we observed significant button confusion. "Which button?" "Oops, wrong button." Or worse, the wrong thing happening without knowing why. We also observed that users paused before clicking to think about which button to click. This not only slowed them down, it took their minds off the task and made them think about the tool.

--Larry Tesler
Manager, Lisa Applications and User Interface, 1980-82

(Poster has no relationship to the author.)

Re:Love the icon!

[edremy]

I've actually used a derivative of the Xerox system in the quote above- I did my postdoc at Xerox XRCC. It is *very* different from the system used by either Apple or Microsoft- it was not context sensitive pop-up menus, it really was "This button selects, this confirms, this cancels" It sucked. (Well, it was revolutionary in ~1975, but by 1995 it was waaay behind the times)

The quote above is discussing the bad way of doing things, not RMB context sensitive pop up menus. There is no button confusion then- you get instant visual feedback about the action you just took. It's not anywhere near as hard to confuse.

Compare apples to apples and let's try again.

Re:Love the icon!

[Foerstner]

The quote above is discussing the bad way of doing things, not RMB context sensitive pop up menus.
True, which was the only purpose anyone had come up with for secondary mouse buttons in the early '80s, which is the time period he (and you) were referring to. Context menus came later...I forget whether OS/2 or X11 introduced them first...I suspect the latter....

There is no button confusion then- you get instant visual feedback about the action you just took. It's not anywhere near as hard to confuse.
Six months of sitting next to the phone support guys last year suggests otherwise to me. It appears that a shocking number of computer owners aren't even aware that their mouse has a second button. They actually have to be told to look down at it, and once they've discovered it, they have to be told explicitly which button to use from then on.

The Cheoptics360

[Mononoke]

Am I the only one who sees that this is nothing more than a giant four-sided heads-up display?

Re:The Cheoptics360

[Saige]

I was trying to figure out if it actually displayed in 3D, or was just the same 2D image visible in all directions. Not that the latter isn't of value, it's just not as much of a breakthrough.

Considering they never made a point of showing "look, it's 3D", I'm assuming it's not.

Sorry, not much here to improve productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA: (with personal observations)

Future For Gamers: Cheoptics360(TM) ... n/a for me
reactable ... looks cool, but not sure how this will make me more productive
Multi-Touch ... i don't really work by puching items around on a table all day. so not much help for me.
Microsoft Surface ... i don't really work by pushing items around on a wall all day either. so not much help for me.
Photosynth ... not sure hand jesters will help me either. except flipping of some person, place, thing or OS.
BumpTop ... might be nice if it had video to it, but then the DRM issue would pop up.
Further References ... n/a for me

RTA for yourself might work for you...

User experience

[Alioth]

AAArrrgh. User experience.

I don't want a user experience. If I'm having a "user experience", then the application or operating system is getting in my way. I want the OS or app to melt into the background so I hardly think that I'm using it.

Re:User experience

[jythie]

Well put.

This is actually a good example of why I like OSX (running with most of the silly stuff turned off). It stays the expletive out of my way and makes an efficient task switcher. Outside booting, launching the apps I want, and switching between them, I basicly do not interact with it. Which is nice.

Re:User experience

[Vegeta99]

If you are not operating the OS or application, what is it that you are operating?

Re:User experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly - the catch is identifying the right user experience and letting the end user get on with the task at hand. I don't want to experience a spreadsheet - I want to balance my checkbook.

Keep in mind: they might not

[dpbsmith]

"Keep in mind: they might become ubiquitous over the next years."

Why should I keep that in mind? Do I need to prepare myself mentally to compete in the brave new world? Do I need to worry that people who keep in mind that these interfaces might become ubiquitous will become so much better at operating computers than me that I'll become unemployable? Where can I find a community college course on how to play 3D video games?

But, but, but: the fear factor. They might become ubiquitous over the next years. Maybe. And then again, maybe not.

What if I back the wrong horse? What if I budget three hours a day to do exercises to hone my spatial perception skills to a scalpel-like edge, only to find that the real winners are those who anticipated the rise of olfaction-based user interfaces?

Well, gotta go... time to do my PL/I programming exercises. PL/I, it's the wave of the future, y'know.

Not desktops!

[ThirdPrize]

This is why Moores Law was such an important thing. It may not have any noticable effect on the desktop but just think that a major company could do twice as much processing each year than it could do the year before. Amazon could handle twice as many orders, the Tax peole find twice as many tax dodgers, etc. While not every company upgrades every machine it owns every year, it has a knock on effect. If Intel stopped increasing CPU power then the economy would grind to a status quo.

My thoughts on User Interface Design

[hey!]

It would be a good thing.

(user interface techniques don't count as design)

*sigh* more balls of crystal

[sm62704]

I'd be willing to bet this article will be proven wrong. No, I did not RTFA. Where's that Randi guy?

Pressure simulation.

[Thanshin]

What all human-machine interaction lack is pressure simulation. Even the ugliest virtual reality, with some way of opposing the user's movement would allow the creation of virtual objects.

Porn industry alone could finance the investigation and development, and then everybody would be able to use the technology.

However, apart from some experimentation with oil spheres, I don't think there are feasible options yet.

So, stop with the multitouch already. We've not used more than one finger to paint since we were 2. Start the pressure investigation and give us a better virtual reality.

Re:Pressure simulation.

[grumbel]

### However, apart from some experimentation with oil spheres, I don't think there are feasible options yet.

Actually there is, haptic devices are used quite a lot in the gaming industry, i.e. you see them in every second making-of video of a game. Now these aren't consumer items due to price, but the hardware is there.

Increased productivity

[dpbsmith]

Oh, goodness. How can you even ask the question?

Would you believe it changed the whole basis of financial economics: everyone now "get it" that the value of stock is independent of whether the company is doing anything useful or making a profit?

Would you believe it created the dot-com revolution?

Would you believe it sparked the endless bull market and gave ordinary Americans access to the secret of wealth without work?

Would you believe it created 401(k)s growing at 20% per year and has made the average worker so resplendently rich that he couldn't care whether wages are flat?

Would you believe nobody really needs Social Security any more?

Would you believe that my used copy of "Dow 36000" is a steal at just $37.22 plus $7.95 shipping?

Ick. Glam substitutes for usability

[Geoffrey.landis]

The article isn't about user interfaces that make the interface actually more usable, it seems to be entirely about interfaces that are flashy and glamorous-- eye candy (and maybe, to a small extent, touch candy.) The main problem with user interfaces today is that they are bafflingly opaque-- about the only way to learn most user interfaces is to just press all the buttons in sequence and see what they do. I hate glitz; I want function. Has anybody actually ever though about figuring out what users actually need to do, and make the things that they do most the ones that are easy?

...well, maybe I'm just crotchety because the DVD player just broke, only weeks after I finally got out most of the remote's cryptic functions learned. (The button with the diamond does this, and the button with the square plus a straight line does that, and the circle with a line through it does this... is anybody else disconcerted that, after two thousand years of refining the phonetic alphabet, in less than one generation we seem to have gone back to hieroglyphics?)

Cheoptics...

[PinkyDead]

Change the way you look at Porn.

Take Microsofts surface

[SmallFurryCreature]

They link to a review of it, so here is my own. We accept for the moment that it will ONLY work with MS software and MS approved hardware.

I put my MS approved camera on the surface, up pops a enormous windows telling me I got to agree to a eula (exactly what happens when you access MS media player for the first time), it then finally allows me to download the photo's. I then try to put them on my Zune 2.0, OOPS cannot do that, the camera is digital and zune only accepts analog (Zune 2.0 doesn't allow the uploading of movies captured with a digitial tv tuner, only analog tuners)

Starting to get the picture? ALl these things sound nice when you just see the pre-scripted demo, but when it comes to real life, well, it all just breaks down. Especially when it comes to Microsoft.

Same thing with multi-touch screens, very nice, but how much software will be written to make use of it when so few people will have such a screen? I remember that System Shock ages ago had support for 3D helmets, it was a hot topic back then and one that never happened. SS was one of the few games to support such systems, the others wisely did not bother since nobody had such helmets and because few games supported them, what was the point in getting one.

I can make a game around the logitech G15 keyboard that makes the device indispensible to play, but I would be really hurting my changes of selling the game.

All these devices are intresting enough, but destined to remain obscure simply because people won't be buying them unless their is a killer application for it, and nobody will build such an application until there is a larger installed base.

Back in '87...

[denzacar]

Yeah I remember back in 1987, Vista used to boot much faster on my C64.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I retort...

[z4pp4]

http://www.bigjohntoiletseat.com/
Its not about the flash whiz-bang, its about making something existing more usable, practical, and simpler.

Logical conclusion... Web 3.0?

[Anonymous Coward]

New technologies have wide-ranging effects beyond their initial application. When the internet first became public, who could have predicted sophisticated systems like MySpace and Wikipedia?

So what wider effects will these technologies have on society? I can see horrendous negatives like the Terminatorization of already nasty military robots. And amazing positives like the extension of the metagovernment into a pseudo-virtual space.

Re:Logical conclusion... Web 3.0?

[Anonymous Coward]

Killbots controlled by multitouch? That would be interesting...
"Touch here to be killed by an electric charge. Touch here to access your e-mail. Touch here to to be killed by a blade. Touch here..."

I know why he likes fax machines

[Brett Buck]

He also considers VI to be the greatest advance in productivity since the invention of assembly code and the acoustically-coupled modem.

          Brett

For most database schemas, 3D is better

[crovira]

I feel for people who are still trying to make sense of their database schemas without explicit Relationships and in 2D.

I developed a schema and source code parsing technique for detecting Relationships in a well normalized database and then took the output of that (750+ Tables & 1,200+ Relationships) and developed 3D (VRML) presentation techniques to let me SEE the Tables and Relationships.)

I've used it to see the Tables and Relationships in other clients' databases as well. It's a very useful technique for analyzing the structure of financial databases.

I've even blogged about it. (http://oirc.blogspot.com/)

I'm now well rid of the whole mess (disease has sort of changed my perspective, [that's why I podcast now,]) but you're welcome to the idea.

The best UI is the one you can't see

[petes_PoV]

All these "futuristic" interfaces fall foul of the "flying car" effect. In the past people expected that by now (well, by about 1980) we'd all have given up out automobiles for flying cars. These UIs are the computing equivalent - they take our current limited experiences and extrapolate them.

In practice anything that involves waving your arms around, a la Minority report will be the fastest way to get tired arms ever invented. So that's the Reactible, Multi-touch and Microsoft surface out of the running. Imaging doing that for an 8 hour shift in your datacentre. Completely impractical, but like flying cars, looks great to the uninformed.

Let's face it, typing is quicker than mousing - you've got 110 keys at your disposal instead of just 2 (or up to 5 - wow wee!!!) and the limitation is the number you can press is limited by the numberof fingers you can manipulate at once - not the numebr of things you can press. Just try writing a letter by mouse clicks. Typing is even quicker than speaking - especially when you have to go back and change the phonetically (sorry fonetically) spelled words that come out.

Personally, all I want from a UI is one that doesn't steal focus from my window to pop-up a "Shall I delete all your files Y / n" just when I think I'm, going to hit in a text window. It should keep the clutter off my screen and just show me the stuff I want. Aeroglass is nowhere near this (and probably going in the wrong direction anyway - far too complicated). Let's just keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler.

Re:The best UI is the one you can't see

[AndrewNeo]

Ever heard of a virtual keyboard?

Re:The best UI is the one you can't see

[Anonymous Coward]

Just try writing a letter by mouse clicks.

Uh huh. Try drawing a picture with the keyboard.

Re:The best UI is the one you can't see

[maxume]

Sometimes it is nice not to have to know anything(or very much...) prior to getting something done. This is where a mouse/menu based gui is pretty nice. Other times, it is nice to be able to get things done as quickly as possible. For things that aren't inherently visual, this usually means the keyboard. We don't need one simple interface, we need customizable interfaces that people can pick up and carry with them, so they don't need to learn a bunch of new stuff just to use a different computer.

Getting enough people to stop thinking that their way is the best way for everyone might take awhile.

Re:The best UI is the one you can't see

[ELProphet]

Star Trek.

The LCARS interface, designed by Michael Okuda for TNG, is really a vision of what I would like to see. A large touch area that dynamically updates (intelligently - eg, the way I specify) its touch areas based on state. The keyboard in front of me takes most input, but I can touch specific areas on the screen for more esoteric actions - buttons, tabs, anything I'd normally "click" on. I can move my finger much faster and more precisely than my mouse, and I can type faster on a regularly sized keyboard than I can write, or text. So, take what works well (my hand) and put it closer to what I work with (the image). Multi-touch then becomes very useful, but not so ueber-expressive, a la "surface" or the others.

The only issue I have with LCARS as seen on-screen is the use of numbers instead of icons or text to convey information (but that's a trivial issue).

Re:The best UI is the one you can't see

[nine-times]

I think the main mistake people make in looking at these interfaces is looking for something to replace the keyboard. In reality, keyboards are extremely efficient methods of text-input, and I don't expect they'll be replaced anytime soon. Even speech-recognition isn't as simple and efficient as typing unless you're doing it for specific tasks.

And that's where these new input methods could potentially shine: in specific tasks. I don't think computer programmers will be using multi-touch for entering text, for example. It won't be all that great for for general-purpose computing. But for specialized systems, kiosks, and various control panels? Sure. I wouldn't be surprised to see multitouch-screens on PCs so that users could sort their files "by hand" or rotate their photos manually.

So I wouldn't be surprised if these things became very useful, but I just wouldn't expect them to replace a good keyboard and mouse for general computing, at least not anytime soon.

Re:The best UI is the one you can't see

[petes_PoV]

Uh huh. Try drawing a picture with the keyboard

heh, try drawing a picture with a mouse!

Re:The best UI is the one you can't see

[akirapill]

In practice anything that involves waving your arms around, a la Minority report will be the fastest way to get tired arms ever invented. So that's the Reactable, Multi-touch and Microsoft surface out of the running. But then it all depends on the use case, doesn't it? Take the reactable. Modular synthesizers (the big old analog moog ones) are still the most elegant and enjoyable interfaces for synthetic sound design around, if you disregard their lack digital niceties (like say, memory). The benefit hands-on control over a host of parameters is why musicians and engineers like me shell out for the over-priced video game controllers passed off as "control interfaces" to control our audio software because having a big set of real knobs in front of you saves a million headaches over the mouse-and-keyboard approach. The Microsoft surface is an answer in search of a question because it doesn't offer a huge advantage over a traditional desktop. However for artists and musicians research in this area is great because it removes barriers to creativity. Don't get me wrong, the Reactable is certainly a toy, but I'd like to see where this kind of UI development goes in the future, say as a open control surface for 3rd party software.

Re:The best UI is the one you can't see

[bar-agent]

Well, seems to me that for selection and drawing, touch interfaces trump mouse and keyboard. For many (not all) games, controllers trump touch and keyboard. For writing, keyboards trump mouse and touch.

Basically, the mouse loses all around. Touch is teh awesome. Keyboards are good to go. Game controllers are still in the running, but falling behind.

And for displays, well, anything 2-D can do, 3-D can do better. Because 3-D can do 2-D.

Re:The best UI is the one you can't see

[owlstead]

"Let's face it, typing is quicker than mousing - you've got 110 keys at your disposal instead of just 2"

Don't be daft. Are you telling me that you are using the keyboard to browse the internet? Or are you using the mouse to copy letter to letter from an on screen alphabet?

Of course not; the input device must be linked to use. And I can imagine multi-touch screens have their use without too many problems. You could use them for keyboard simulation if you would wanted to (since you seem to display some keyboard fetish ;).

Re:The best UI is the one you can't see

[jafac]

The main problem with speech recognition is that we need a new spoken language.

Yes - we can devise software that can listen and discern words as they are spoken - but sometimes, software can't figure out things like homonyms, etc. Spoken language has ambiguities that written language does not. The keyboard bridges that gap. (even though when we enter human language in via a keyboard, the computer still has a hard time trying to figure out the meaning of the content - beyond just a few words at a time). There is no UNAMBIGUOUS map between a spoken human language, and ideas or concepts.

This is what programming languages are for. They are an unambiguous (hopefully) map between written language and a concept or idea (ie. the programming logic). But there's still ambiguity at the spoken-to-written interface. (with the limited sets we're talking about - I'm sure that a spoken programming language could be "done" - quite easily; just constrain the grammar).

What I have often thought of as a solution to the "portable devices are too small for a keyboard" problem, is the invention of a new language - and that's what Graffiti (Palm) was. That's what Greg Bear came up with in his book, Eon too, with the "Pict" language (not spoken, but rather, visual). But speech recognition has another problem. Local Privacy. You can't enter a private email into your device vocally, in a public area, without others overhearing. You CAN type a message semi privately.

I'm not sure what the "answer" is for portable-device data entry. Seems it will probably have to be some kind of telpathic (or cybernetic) interface - to translate thought directly into a message (for a messaging application - or data for authoring, etc.) on the device.

Re:The best UI is the one you can't see

[nine-times]

Speech recognition actually has more problems than that. For one, it's difficult to be sure about intent. Even when they put something like saying, "Computer!" before each command, you have to make sure you don't tell your friend, "Don't say 'Computer! delete this file.'" Do you see what I mean? Also, what about creative writing? Like when you want purposeful misspellings (Get a brain moran!), unusual punctuation-- like anyone would use such things, or choosing to employ whitespace in unusual ways. What about programming and writing symbols and such?

Or more simply, what about situations where you might just want an array of buttons? Like when you're playing video games or doing video editing, where you might want, say, 100 buttons laid out in front of you, each used for a specific function. What are you going to use then?

Sorry, but keyboards are *extremely* efficient for text input and computer control. Speech recognition can be useful for some certain specific uses, but it's not a good keyboard replacement until you can build an AI smart enough to inuit the intent of your speech, and not just interpret what words you're using.

*hand waving*

[Foerstner]

No, it's not. There has been at least one episode that shows that, from the point of view of the transported person, consciousness is continuous.

The treknobabble explanation has something to do with quantum mechanics, which, as every sci-fi fan knows, is magic.

Tag: Vaporware

[writermike]

Ahhh, "vaporware." It's the tag that dismisses everything in record time.

I don't understand what some folks would have these research centers do. Not work on new GUIs? Why not? Remember, many things never left PARC's labs. Some of it did and even more of it went into the current crop of GUIs that we have today. (One can debate on the ethics behind how the ideas made it out of PARC.) All of that research, even the stuff that didn't work, helped to achieve a better, more polished end-result.

And, of course, our current GUIs aren't necessarily the "best," but they're what works generally for now. So, we should continue to look for new and better ways to interface with technology. Yep, some of it will be horrible, some won't work at all, and some will be announced but turn out little more than vapor. But everything (including the failures) will lead to the next better thing.

oblig

[Anonymous Coward]

PC Load Letter?!? What the fuck does that mean??

Ableton Live, Tablets

[AnomaliesAndrew]

Anybody that's toyed around with Ableton Live will tell you that it departs significantly from most of the standard UI conventions, but what it replaces them with very quickly becomes far more efficient at navigating project files, and I don't see them abandoning this approach anytime soon.

Re:Ableton Live, Tablets

[akirapill]

Techno legend Ritchie Hawtin's custom Ableton controller: http://www.doepfer.de/Controller_Hawtin.htm

Re:Ick. Glam substitutes for usability

[JasterBobaMereel]

the article lists 6 examples which amount to

      3D - Won't work yet outside the lab, same as the last 10 years ...?
      Touch Screen - 3 times - available now - not futuristic?
      Photosynth - Can't see why this is a "user interface" ? It's a nice app but can't see the point?
      Bumptop - 3D ish, I have seen many similar fall by the wayside ?

Not sure pay scale is always the best

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think part of the problem in these various usability debates is that a good UI for learning and bringing in newbies is not the most effective solution once one has greater needs."

Newbies can have the same amount of needs. They just don't know how much of your solution will encompass their needs.

"This 'one size fits all' mentality is the issue."

What should scale? The task or the interface?

Most Notable Difference-Nerds!...and everyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

"Seriously, the most problematic part about today's user experience is that the majority of the computers run Windows, and more slowly than they did 20 years ago. Sure, you get nice, pretty graphics, but when you're actually trying to get work done, you'd rather have a responsive machine."

The problem with the "blame Microsoft" game is contained in one word...Apple. Not only is it the number two OS, but it's users experience blows away the "slower than" argument. So yes one can have "pretty graphics" and a responsive machine and yet here we are still debating the user experience. Guess we'll have to find something else to blame.

these go the wrong way

[cliffski]

Trying to build a 3D interface that will 'simplify' our storage of data is just bollocks.
I know where pretty much everything on my PC is. All my documents live in a sensible directory structure, and even if I lsoe one, I can do a desktop search.
In the real world, I'm very confused. where is that letter? is it on my desk? in the desk drawer? downstairs on the bookcase? did I leave it in the car? in a kitchen drawer maybe? is that it? is it upside down? I don't recognise it without a filename...

My simple 2D desktop filing system is better than my real life one. don't try and make things worse just so we all need a 3D card to list our documents.

#1 request: affordable, large displays

[aero6dof]

Forget 3D, multi-touch, or any other UI change -- get me more screen space first. I'm just ready for our computer desktops to actually have physical desktop sized displays. Repeated studies and surveys say that multiple monitors or larger monitors increase productivity.

Oh and maybe bring back the "turbo" button and put it on the mouse to acutally cross all that screen space...

AAAAA-MEN brother!

[Uksi]

I RTFA'd and it's basically a list of new input device methods. Big deal. You can put the flyest multi-touch interface on Windows, and while you can move the windows around with both your hands, you will still get pissed off that you get interrupted in the middle of your browsing session with "Do you want to remember this password?" (Firefox), that you can't undo that "transfer shares" action in Quicken, that setting up automated backups in Windows is still hard, and using them to recover is harder.

None of these get solved with all the fancy new shit in the TFA.

One of the most important UI advancements is UNDO. It is an old feature, but it's surprisingly missing from so many apps (being a developer, it's not so surprising to me though). So as far as I'm concerned, one of the key improvements in usability of the 21st century would be more apps getting Undo functionality on all the actions.

The truth is that designing the entire user experience well (not just pretty) is a difficult task. It's difficult to make things simple and effortless. And whether you're commanding that user experience via a plain old keyboard and mouse or a Minority-style hand-manipulation screen is a really small part of the equation.

Missing one big assumption here ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all assuming that we still use PCs instead of, say, cell phones as our data retrieval and manipulation hardware. In the long run ultra-portable devices make more sense for personal use. PCs might be relegated to public-use terminals where you manipulate the data on your "phone".

Just sayin'.

Re:Ick. Glam substitutes for usability

[grumbel]

### Touch Screen - 3 times - available now - not futuristic?

While available, multi-touchscreens are still pretty rare, most touch screens only support a single click at once, which limits what you can do a lot, i.e. zooming and rotation is trivial with two touch points, but very cumbersome with just a single one. Also multi-user stuff on a single large surface just can't work with just a single touch interface. Last not least single-touch is a thing that has dominating interface design for decades (you only have one mouse pointer) and this will likely change sooner or later.

### Photosynth - Can't see why this is a "user interface"?

Its an interface because it completly changes the way you navigate 2D photos. Instead of looking at them side by side, you end up navigating around the place that they represent, that quite a huge jump, especially when you not only navigate your own photos, but navigate around something like all of flickr with billions of photos. Give it a few years and we might end up with a Google-earth like thing, just with the whole world in 3D.

how about connecting brain to PC ?

[nerdyalien]

Even though this article mainly talks about 2D, 3D interfaces, let me bring this idea.

In the 21st century, digital age... I think most of us still heavily involved in typing something on the computer. It could be anything from writing report on a word processing software to writing email on gmail to posting something here in /.

Wouldn't it be nice if we can get a connection between brain and computer.. so, instead of typing OR narrating.. we just can silently command the PC what to type. I find this is extrmely convenient and efficient rather taking time and energy to type/narrat ideas on to the computer. Furthremore, I think we lose most of our instantaneous ideas comes into our mind while we are typing (at least, that's the case for me).

Am I insanely wishful here??

iDie

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the home buttons are:

Text
Calendar
Photos
Camera
Painful Death
Stocks
Maps
Weather
Clock
Calculator
Notes
Quick Death
Settings

You don't need Touch Feedback

[Anderu67]

I hear KDE 5 will have a "Focus follows mind" option which should be good enough

Interface of the Future

[input.expert]

What has hindered the development of advanced scalable interfaces is the use of the standard stand-alone keyboard and mouse.

The repetitive hand movement from keyboard to mouse is a waste of time, energy, and frustrating.

User focus and workflow are interrupted when the hand moves from keyboard to mouse.

The keyboard of the future integrates the pointing function and performance of an optical mouse with an optimized keyboard layout, where the Delete, Backspace, and Esc keys have been located closer to the home row.

The user can point, click, type, and scroll instantly and in any order.

When the user has total control of the computer screen from the home row with an integrated keyboard/pointer, the battle between gui and cli goes away.

The gui cli can coexist on the same screen without the user having to move their hand to a mouse to use the gui.

The gui cli interface is the interface of the future. This was not possible before the development of the keyboard of the future, an integrated keyboard/pointer.

I have been using, developing, and perfecting advanced integrated keyboard/pointers for 3 years and have found that there is nothing that can perform as well as an integrated keyboard/pointer.

It dominates all other keyboards and mice in performance, productivity, and comfort..

I am writing a paper on the keyboard of the future for part of my Phd requirement and hope to present it next year.

I am also working on the interface of the future and find that the possibilities of an integrated gui cli interface are very exciting.

The interface of the future allows the user complete customization of the interface to the abilities and experience of the user.

The user interface is completely customizable and scalable from the novice to the expert.

With the keyboard of the future and interface of the future, the user becomes one with the computer.

From the "father of the perfect keyboard"

Re:Interface of the Future

[gauauu]

You started off making a lot of sense, and having me totally agree with you.

Why did you have to end up sounding like zombo.com?

great astroturf

[m2943]

A lot of those technologies have been proposed over and over again: multitouch, 3D direct manipulation, etc. For the most part, they are solutions in search of a problem.

The EULA will be slightly different

[KWTm]

Good point. One thing I would add:

I put my MS approved camera on the surface, up pops a enormous windows telling me I got to agree to a eula (exactly what happens when you access MS media player for the first time)

Actually, what would happen is that a small window pops up with a EULA (End User License Agreement). You can scroll through it, but you can't copy&paste it. Three years later, after someone finally transcribes the EULA by hand, the EULA is discovered to be the length of a small novel.

Star Trek Magic

[Pfhorrest]

Speaking of which, the future needs the following three Star Trek items to solve everything all at once:
Teleporters (solves all transportation issues)
Replicators (solves hunger)
Holodeck (solves sexual ten... I mean, makes simulation much easier. Yes, that's it) Which are really all just applications of the same core technologies: perfect observation, matter/energy conversion, and perfect manipulation. Convert energy into matter and perfectly manipulate it into whatever form you want? Replicator. Perfectly observe something, convert it to energy, and elsewhere convert energy into matter and manipulate it into the exact form you observed? Transporter. And the holodeck is really nothing but a lot of fancy replication going on on the fly (and some cheaper parlour tricks for the lower-LOD parts of the scene). (Ok, there's a fourth technology going on here too: the holodeck also has a lot of really fancy AI).

The problem is that while matter/energy conversion may theoretically be possible, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle renders perfect observation and perfect manipulation impossible even in theory. So while we may in the future be able to roughly approximate the sort of magic that goes on in Star Trek, unless we discover that our understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe is seriously (not just a little bit) off, then we'll never have those sorts of technologies, and nobody ever will.

You're right though, that if we could do that, it would truly solve absolutely everything. If you can do what it takes to run a holodeck, you have the ability to manipulate the physical world as easily as we manipulate virtual worlds, and if anything is "sufficiently advanced technology" (i.e. indistinguishable from magic), that is.

Remember the gorilla arm!

[nthcolumnist]

I like the 3D Desktop but I have a lot more than thirty files. M$ Surface is just the Space Invader table that used to be in pubs before you were all born. Lay it flat Bill - its still crap. The File says: gorilla arm: n. The side-effect that destroyed touch-screens as a mainstream input technology despite a promising start in the early 1980s. It seems the designers of all those {spiffy} touch-menu systems failed to notice that humans aren't designed to hold their arms in front of their faces making small motions. After more than a very few selections, the arm begins to feel sore, cramped, and oversized; hence `gorilla arm'. This is now considered a classic cautionary tale to human-factors designers; "Remember the gorilla arm!" is shorthand for "How is this going to fly in *real* use?".

Re:Remember the gorilla arm!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how I felt about the Wii's controller, the first few times I played. After that, I was fine with it. I have a feeling that multitouch and related technologies get a bad rap because of that very reason - it's unfamiliar and people don't bother trying to use it casually, instead testing it briefly and then dismissing it. If you used nothing but multitouch your whole life and were introduced to keyboard-and-mouse interfaces, you might have similar objections. "That's a horrific idea! You have to move your hand back and forth from the mouse to the keyboard, and you can only click in one place at once. It'll never catch on."

Do newbs exist? why cater to them?

[mathx]

Isnt the percentage of peopel who've never used a computer almost 0 now? If it's not, do we even care about these people? Why do we cater to newbs? Learning to drive a car takes alot of learning to get it down pat so why arent we writing articles ad nauseam about making cars simpler to drive?

We dont, we just expect people to learn, and that's that. Why should using a device thats far more complex and capable than a car be SIMPLER than a car to use? Why not
encourage people to LEARN something?

Perhaps its part of the greater American (and Canadian, where im from...) gestalt, about how everything in life should be done FOR you and require no learning, engagement, critical thought or expertise.

Ratpoison ftw indeed! (or my nearly equivalently hacked fvwm1 config I developed in 1993 and havent modified much since...)

diePhone

[Anonymous Coward]

I think diePhone is a better name for it.

Cube Islands

[vacantskies9]

Does anybody remember that sweet 3D interface the girl used in Jurassic Park to lock the doors and protect them from the dinosaurs? Yeah.

Re:Cube Islands

[mortarn]

"It's a UNIX system!"

Actually, it's IRIX running FSN.
There's an open source clone called FSV.

The Transporter

[nounderscores]

I guess you'd have to learn to think like a dinosaur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_Like_a_Dinosaur

Re:Ick. Glam substitutes for usability

[JasterBobaMereel]

The three devices listed, two are available now and are not multi-touch one is imminent and is ...

And I still can't see the point of Photosynth - it's not a user interface? It's a program that stitches photos together this has been available for years? what is new about it, and in what way is it an interface? If it's an interface what is it an interface to? an app that stitches photos together???

Re:Ick. Glam substitutes for usability

[grumbel]

### If it's an interface what is it an interface to?

Its an interface to *huge* collection of photos. The app goes way beyond just stitching photos, it recreates the 3D environment. That *completly* changes the way you can navigate photos. Instead of just looking at photos you can walk through the virtual city, recreated from the photos. Yes, it still uses the mouse and the keyboard, but it completly changes the way you access your data and that is what user interfaces do.

Re:Ick. Glam substitutes for usability

[JasterBobaMereel]

Nope still don't see the point? But maybe that's just not the way I use photos ...?

I tend not to take photos of things, but take photos because they look nice

Re:Ick. Glam substitutes for usability

[grumbel]

As said, Photosynth isn't much interesting for your own photos alone, since you likely won't have enough to make it interesting, but for stuff like Flickr, where you have billions of photos. Without a tool like Photosynth you simply don't have a good way to navigate them. With Photosynth on the other side you can navigate them by exploring the place they represent. In addition the photos automatically get tagged and enriched by information, because the information no longer is attached to a single photo alone, but to the thing that the photograph displays. So if somebody adds info on the Eiffel tower, all photos showing the Eiffel tower will have that information and that will change the way we handle photos quite a bit.

Re:Ick. Glam substitutes for usability

[JasterBobaMereel]

I'm betting that if it's automatic it will label all pictures of the Blackpool tower "the Eiffel Tower" since they look very similar ... If it's not automatic then it will not happen ....

It'll be a case of "So that's what that looks like" ... "Well actually no it looks nothing like that..."

Re:Ick. Glam substitutes for usability

[grumbel]

### I'm betting that if it's automatic it will label all pictures of the Blackpool tower "the Eiffel Tower" since they look very similar ...

Have a look at the Photosynth demo again, the software doesn't just look for 'similar' pictures, it reconstruct the exact point and angle at which a picture was taken and in turn is able to construct a full 3D model of the scene. So just 'similar' isn't enough to fit in. The software can of course still be "wrong", i.e. it allows you for example to zoom from a poster of the Eiffel tower into the Eiffel tower itself, but that really isn't wrong, its actually kind of clever. How good the software would perform on random picture collections that aren't pre-sorted we of course have to wait an see, but the possibility to go to a close up picture of some object in an image just by clicking on that object sounds quite fantastic, it simply removes the 'border' from one picture to another and allows you to smoothly travel through a series of pictures.