Microsoft's "Pseudo-Transparent" and Fold-Up PCs

waderoush writes "At the CHI 2009 conference, which wrapped up yesterday in Boston, Microsoft researchers showed off two radical prototypes that push the boundaries of user interfaces. One was a 'pseudo-transparent' iPhone-like device called nanoTouch, which has a trackpad on the back rather than a traditional touch screen and gives visual feedback in the form of a simulated image of the user's finger (the effect is like looking straight through the device). The other was a folding dual-screen device called Codex that can switch automatically between landscape, portrait, collaborative, or competitive modes depending on its 'posture' or orientation. If Microsoft doesn't build such devices itself, 'somebody else will, so it's really important to understand what the issues are,' said researcher Ken Hinckley."

Comments

Gorilla Arm for the 21st Century

[AKAImBatman]

The nanoTouch is designed to be held by the edges in one hand while you operate the trackpad with the index finger of your other hand. The cleverest touch, so to speak, is that the device uses "pseudotransparency" to provide visual feedback--basically, the "cursor" is a life-size picture of a finger that tracks with the position of your actual finger, as if you were looking through the device with X-ray glasses.

I'm sure that will be hugely useful on a bus or train as I'm attempting to hold on to the railing with one hand, and use my device with the other. (I won't even mention usage in cars, because you're not supposed to be doing that. :-P)

Dear Microsoft, allow me to introduce you to the flaw in your scheme. Or should I say, two flaws?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposable_thumbs#Importance

NEXT!

Codex consists of a pair of OQO mini-tablet PCs, each with a 3-inch-by-5-inch screen, mounted in a hinged device with built-in sensors that can detect how the hinges are oriented. The sensors are important because Hinckley's whole concept is that a dual-screen device should be able to switch configurations on the fly depending on what "posture" it's in.

So it's a Nintendo DS with accelerometers? It's not that the idea is completely without merit, but I'm not sure how much it really pushes the envelope. And the example they gave of two people working across the table "battleship style" would not be something the unit could configure "reflexively" with its sensors as it cannot distinguish "tablet PC on table" from "book on table" from "battleship" modes. The user would still need to tell it what to do.

If Microsoft doesn't build such devices itself, 'somebody else will'

Well, I can guarantee that Microsoft won't build the devices. Innovation has never been their strong suit. Their usual M.O. is to wait until someone else demonstrates a good concept, then throw a ton of resources at making a better version. Once all competition is eliminated, the software or device stagnates. (No new ideas are being generated.)

Hinckley's comments strike me more as Microsoft trying to be prepared for anything new Apple might throw at them. A possibly reaction of sorts to the number of times they've been caught with their pants down. Except the problem is that these ideas seem kind of random with no clear focus on where they might be going. In result, Microsoft is going to miss the boat again when a competitor (not necessarily Apple) introduces Yet Another(TM) great advancement in interface technology.

Personally, I see a lot more promise in technologies like Siftables. Emerging new interface schemes that will be a core part of the next generation of user interfaces. The final product will probably look a lot different from the units we see today (much like touch screens evolved until we got devices like iPhones and DSes), but the core concept will be what drives the next generation.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is spending their time contemplating their collective navels. "Oh hey, look! Touchscreens and accelerometers are becoming industry standard! Those must be the next generation of technology!" No, that's what we call *THIS* generation.

Re:Gorilla Arm for the 21st Century

[Anonymous Coward]

If this had an apple logo on it you'd be standing in line to buy one.

Re:Gorilla Arm for the 21st Century

[Random BedHead Ed]

Allow me to pose a question to you: If Apple is built entirely on hype rather than substance, then how did they manage to convert so many former Apple haters to their cause? Maybe, just maybe Apple has earned support from the market by making superior products.

I don't know. I was watching a TV ad this week, and a pretty technically savvy guy named Giampaolo said Macs are just about aesthetics, not computing power.

Re:Gorilla Arm for the 21st Century

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not very kind of you to assume he must be a mindless Apple fanboy because he offers constructive criticism.

It doesn't mean he's an Apple fanboy, it's that he's clearly an anti-Microsoft fanboy. The "Microsoft is never innovative and always copies somebody else" argument is a slashdot catechism which literally means he'd be happier if it came from another company (maybe not any other company, but another company). Apple is the only other company he explicitly called out by name as being innovative (he also mentioned Siftables, which I might humbly suggest are also difficult to operate one-handed on a subway in its current form). Then he creates a strawman assertion attributed to Microsoft and snarks at it. It's entirely laid out before us that he'd be happier with it being Apple than Microsoft. Which is fine, but there's no pretending it isn't happening.

Aside from that, it is a little ridiculous that Microsoft won't produce these because Microsoft isn't innovative seems to imply that these things...made by Microsoft...are innovative. The innovation already happened here, and thus the problem is bugfixes/polish, mass-producing, and marketing these things; or there is no innovation, in which case Microsoft shouldn't have a problem producing them. It's self-contradictory, or at least missing a step -- maybe it's really that Microsoft is innovative but is too risk-averse to give the go-ahead to innovative products.

The other criticisms are of varying quality -- one-handed subway use is fair criticism, the opposable thumbs one might be valid but I think it's worth investigating whether it just presupposes some things about UI design from experience with touch UI designed for thumbs, but the DS with accelerometers argument is a red herring because it's missing the obvious hinge sensors (which the article explicitly mentions).

That's not at all to say that I think these things are going to come to pass. I worry about whether it's really more intuitive to touch something from behind than to just pull out a pen (which is definitely less fun than direct-touch), especially with a simulated finger that may not behave quite like my own and very probably doesn't look much like my fingers. And as for the dual-screen thing, I just don't think that's the optimal direction to go in. I mean, the collaborative/competitive aspect could be cool, but I'd hope the direction we steer would allow two independent devices to operate kind of like that. I guess what I'm saying is I'd like it to work more like the Siftables the GP mentioned. See, I'm not completely down on him :).

Slight Error In Summary

[elefantstn]

One was a 'pseudo-transparent' iPhone-like device called nanoTouch, which has a trackpad on the back rather than a traditional touch screen and gives visual feedback in the form of a simulated image of the user's finger (the effect is like looking straight through the device). The other was a folding dual-screen device called Codex that can switch automatically between landscape, portrait, collaborative, or competitive modes depending on its 'posture' or orientation.

The other was not called 'Codex,' but rather 'shuffleClassic.'

noitavonnI

[Chardish]

!tfosorciM ,sknahT !evitiutni yletelpmoc eb ot gniog si ecived eht fo edisrednu eht gnihcuoT

Hmmmmmm

[reidiq]

This is Microsoft's version of a 'Reach around'

Re:Link to vid

[EvanED]

Looks like Microsoft is actually starting to get serious about research...

"Starting to"? MSR is one of the biggest single contributors to CS research out there, and has been for a long time.

(Note that MSR is almost entirely distinct from what I typically call MS Corporate, which would include things like product research. Sometimes there will be something that moves from MSR to Corporate, like the SLAM work moving into the Static Driver Verifier, but MSR is still quite autonomous.)