I think you're thinking too much about how things are now and how they've always been, rather than where they can ultimately go.
Consider a time when there really isn't much distinction between your VCR, TV, computer, even your normal household appliances for routine tasks like cleaning & cooking.
It's not terribly far off, the 'computer' as we know it as a stand-alone appliance will eventually become obsolete, rather our homes will likely be a complex network of integrated appliances for entertainment, productivity, etc.
It's not only possible to design a simple interface that provides intuitive control over several functions, it's absolutely essential to improving the quality of life of society as a whole, which is the ultimate goal for most technology. (whether or not that's for a highly specific task or a broad range of functioning).
I'm also talking about the evolution of technology down the road, like 25-50-100 years.
How soon we get there is up to how we improve UIs & hardware now.
that's where the challenges come in for those of us who design interfaces.:)
it's difficult to base how people in the future will involve technology in their daily lives, and understand what kind of hardware/appliances will likely be designed to make the process of using a computer as routine as using your toaster oven or washing your clothes.
or possibly even completely integrated home computer/entertainment centers that adapt and learn how to function around their user's needs.
on another note, Microwaves don't only do one thing, they have several ranges of functioning, such as defrosting, timed/power settings, individual food settings, date & time functions. Same with VCRs, *much* broader range of function that simply record/playback.
that same train of thought applies to your example of computers, sure your computer can do all sorts of things, but most people spend 90% of their time using an e-mail program, IM program or word processing/office type of application (not an exact statistic, but more to illustrate the point). Just because they don't use the full range of functionality, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And so the challenge becomes building interfaces that adapt to the users needs, rather than forcing the user to adapt to the device.
It's not hard to imagine a time in the future where your microwave and refrigerator/freezer are linked together, and physically capable of transferring materials from one to the other, either for cooking or storage
"People spend $3000( That's canadian dollars, eh) on a computer, and therefore expect it to work with absolutely ZERO effort on their part. They ignore any or all visual prompts or warnings. They will completely ignore any on-screen instructions that are presented to them."
That's part of the overall trend of computers becoming more of a household appliance than the l33t tools of the trade that are known only to the priviledged computer classes.
As an example, people pay $12,000-$25,000 for a car. They expect the car to work properly and make their lives easier. They don't expect to be required to have a comprehensive knowledge of auto mechanics to keep it running.
Or another example, your friendly microwave. Could you imagine the consequences if an advanced knowledge of electrical engineering were required to get it to work properly?
This is where improvements in UI design are critical, for society to move forward towards a state where our lives are increasingly integrated with technology, our effort should be focused on being productive, not on the tools that make us productive.
I often wonder how much Nielsen really gets out and is aware of what actual users are doing, and what interfaces are in place and commonly used.
example:
"Gestural interfaces have largely vanished, except for obscure virtual reality research and a sprinkling of gestures in long-gone pen-based systems like the Apple Newton and the Go tablet."
Quick poll: how many of you use PDAs like a Palm, Handspring, iPaq, whatever...
How many of you were using them when the Newton first came out?
The 'gestural interface', as he's describing it, has became much more prevalent as the numbers of PDAs in actual people's hands has increased.
Also, the 'death of the GUI' is probably the most erroneous claim in this article. GUIs, as a means of interacting with and finding information are here to stay. It's the nature of these displays that we can see changing, from the traditional computer/television screen all the way up to fancy holographic interfaces like we saw in Minority Report, or even interfaces that are projected directly on our retinas.
The onset of tactile input devices is exciting, but it certainly doesn't herald the fall of traditional human interface guidelines.
Oh.. and Microsoft's Barney was nothing compared to an innovative talking bear from the 80s called Teddy Ruxpin.
But I guess it's all about who's paying your bills.:)
Slashdot Mirror
that site is actually for the upcoming Tron 2.0 video game, i think...
I think you're thinking too much about how things are now and how they've always been, rather than where they can ultimately go.
Consider a time when there really isn't much distinction between your VCR, TV, computer, even your normal household appliances for routine tasks like cleaning & cooking.
It's not terribly far off, the 'computer' as we know it as a stand-alone appliance will eventually become obsolete, rather our homes will likely be a complex network of integrated appliances for entertainment, productivity, etc.
It's not only possible to design a simple interface that provides intuitive control over several functions, it's absolutely essential to improving the quality of life of society as a whole, which is the ultimate goal for most technology. (whether or not that's for a highly specific task or a broad range of functioning).
I'm also talking about the evolution of technology down the road, like 25-50-100 years.
How soon we get there is up to how we improve UIs & hardware now.
that's where the challenges come in for those of us who design interfaces. :)
it's difficult to base how people in the future will involve technology in their daily lives, and understand what kind of hardware/appliances will likely be designed to make the process of using a computer as routine as using your toaster oven or washing your clothes.
or possibly even completely integrated home computer/entertainment centers that adapt and learn how to function around their user's needs.
on another note, Microwaves don't only do one thing, they have several ranges of functioning, such as defrosting, timed/power settings, individual food settings, date & time functions. Same with VCRs, *much* broader range of function that simply record/playback.
that same train of thought applies to your example of computers, sure your computer can do all sorts of things, but most people spend 90% of their time using an e-mail program, IM program or word processing/office type of application (not an exact statistic, but more to illustrate the point). Just because they don't use the full range of functionality, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And so the challenge becomes building interfaces that adapt to the users needs, rather than forcing the user to adapt to the device.
It's not hard to imagine a time in the future where your microwave and refrigerator/freezer are linked together, and physically capable of transferring materials from one to the other, either for cooking or storage
"People spend $3000( That's canadian dollars, eh) on a computer, and therefore expect it to work with absolutely ZERO effort on their part. They ignore any or all visual prompts or warnings. They will completely ignore any on-screen instructions that are presented to them."
That's part of the overall trend of computers becoming more of a household appliance than the l33t tools of the trade that are known only to the priviledged computer classes.
As an example, people pay $12,000-$25,000 for a car. They expect the car to work properly and make their lives easier. They don't expect to be required to have a comprehensive knowledge of auto mechanics to keep it running.
Or another example, your friendly microwave. Could you imagine the consequences if an advanced knowledge of electrical engineering were required to get it to work properly?
This is where improvements in UI design are critical, for society to move forward towards a state where our lives are increasingly integrated with technology, our effort should be focused on being productive, not on the tools that make us productive.
I often wonder how much Nielsen really gets out and is aware of what actual users are doing, and what interfaces are in place and commonly used.
example:
"Gestural interfaces have largely vanished, except for obscure virtual reality research and a sprinkling of gestures in long-gone pen-based systems like the Apple Newton and the Go tablet."
Quick poll: how many of you use PDAs like a Palm, Handspring, iPaq, whatever...
How many of you were using them when the Newton first came out?
The 'gestural interface', as he's describing it, has became much more prevalent as the numbers of PDAs in actual people's hands has increased.
Also, the 'death of the GUI' is probably the most erroneous claim in this article. GUIs, as a means of interacting with and finding information are here to stay. It's the nature of these displays that we can see changing, from the traditional computer/television screen all the way up to fancy holographic interfaces like we saw in Minority Report, or even interfaces that are projected directly on our retinas.
The onset of tactile input devices is exciting, but it certainly doesn't herald the fall of traditional human interface guidelines.
Oh.. and Microsoft's Barney was nothing compared to an innovative talking bear from the 80s called Teddy Ruxpin.
But I guess it's all about who's paying your bills. :)