Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

41 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. Not sure 3D is always the best by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not sure 3D is always the best by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Funny
      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*

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    2. Re:Not sure 3D is always the best by mikelieman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    3. Re:Not sure 3D is always the best by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Not sure 3D is always the best by Selfbain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Well, it has never been successfully tested.
    5. Re:Not sure 3D is always the best by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      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...

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Not sure 3D is always the best by TuringTest · · Score: 5, Funny

      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?

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    7. Re:Not sure 3D is always the best by jibster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Not sure 3D is always the best by Selfbain · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      Well, it has never been successfully tested.
    9. Re:Not sure 3D is always the best by TuringTest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.
      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    10. Re:Not sure 3D is always the best by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:Not sure 3D is always the best by Lijemo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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?

    12. Re:Not sure 3D is always the best by grumbel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ### 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.

    13. Re:Not sure 3D is always the best by Z34107 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    14. Re:Not sure 3D is always the best by jythie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    15. Re:Not sure 3D is always the best by Rolgar · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

    16. Re:Not sure 3D is always the best by TuringTest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.
      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    17. Re:Not sure 3D is always the best by Orange+Crush · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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).

    18. Re:Not sure 3D is always the best by Parasome · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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...

    19. Re:Not sure 3D is always the best by jibster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  2. Most Notable Difference... by gillbates · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:Most Notable Difference... by capt.Hij · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Most Notable Difference... by ByOhTek · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    3. Re:Most Notable Difference... by cowscows · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    4. Re:Most Notable Difference... by geobeck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
  3. Changes will be evolutionary, not revolutionary by Entropius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:The greatest UI was the fax machine by spun · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?
    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  5. The experience is in the details by TuringTest · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
  6. Re:Productivity improved? by Selfbain · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    --
    Well, it has never been successfully tested.
  7. Re:The greatest UI was the fax machine by khendron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
  8. User experience by Alioth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Keep in mind: they might not by dpbsmith · · Score: 2, Funny

    "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.

  10. Re:Productivity improved? by kebes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  11. My thoughts on User Interface Design by hey! · · Score: 2, Funny

    It would be a good thing.

    (user interface techniques don't count as design)

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  12. Re:The greatest UI was the fax machine by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
  13. Ick. Glam substitutes for usability by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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?)

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  14. Take Microsofts surface by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  15. The best UI is the one you can't see by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:The best UI is the one you can't see by AndrewNeo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ever heard of a virtual keyboard?

    2. Re:The best UI is the one you can't see by ELProphet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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).

  16. these go the wrong way by cliffski · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games