Tactile the Future of GUI? 268
aaronvegh writes "Slashdot readers have been griping a lot lately about the lack of an alternative to the desktop GUI. In his latest Alertbox column, Jakob Nielson (love him or hate him) is proposing that tactile, phsyical interfaces will be the next evolution in how we interact with machines. An interesting read, and a relief from the tired "the desktop GUI is dead, and we'll replace it with....uh....""
As always, the porn industry is there first... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:As always, the porn industry is there first... (Score:1)
Re:As always, the porn industry is there first... (Score:2)
But, I like the idea that I can give my machine the birdy in anger, and it will react. I is not just for traffic anymore.
Re:As always, the porn industry is there first... (Score:2)
For porn? Never mind. I will leave that research to somebody else.
Re:As always, the porn industry is there first... (Score:2)
You can see a video of it about 2/3rds of the way down the page here [thesync.com]. Scary stuff!
Re:As always, the porn industry is there first... (Score:2)
Jesus CHRIST (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Jesus CHRIST (Score:1, Funny)
You have to close your eyes and run your mouse all over the screen. Feels great, doesn't it?
Re:Jesus CHRIST (Score:4, Insightful)
Does seem to be the general trend, though... there was a
Re:Jesus CHRIST (Score:2)
Choosing a functional wife is much better for the species as a whole than choosing a pretty one who can't produce offsring. It's called natural selection
I do see, however, your point. UseIt.com isn't HIDEOUS though... and thus I find it perfectly functional, more so than many "pretty" or "flashy" sites.
Re:Jesus CHRIST (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Jesus CHRIST (Score:2)
http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/feb02.asp
As the article points out, Veranda was specifically designed for viewing on computer screens, and it doesn't read any slower.
As far as the web site is concerned, it isn't very flashy. I don't know that I really like the look. Who gives a shit? Jakob Nielsen is one of the best know experts in the world usability today. He is not a artist or a Photoshop hack. If you had read his books (or any others by Tog, Cooper or Krug) you would know that the difference between a usability expert and a graphics designer is every bit as strong as the difference between a lumberjack and a circus clown.
What is broken with the Desktop idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What is broken with the Desktop idea? (Score:1, Insightful)
This isn't stupidity. Hierarchical folders make sense to IT professionals, and by the principal of exposure and familiarity, became the dominant paradigm. But there is nothing itrinsically obvious or usable about hierarchical categories of information.
People make use of information by context and familiarity, not hierarchical ontologies.
Re:What is broken with the Desktop idea? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing that seems to get crowded for non-"IT Professionals" that I know is the Desktop, which is a horrible place to be able to put files, in my opinion. The desktop should be relegated to program/page links, and the special document/media folders.
Re:What is broken with the Desktop idea? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What is broken with the Desktop idea? (Score:2)
Human beings remember things spatially. They remember that they put the pen near the keyboard or the keys are on a short green table near the front door.
I agree that creating "My Documents" and "My Media" was a great idea. Since we cannot remove the shackles of the hierarchical file structure between windows versions, the best we can do is 'suggest' to the user where they might put some of their files. But keep in mind; this was just a training tool to get the user to think more like the computer (not the other way around).
Of course, no one has come up with a truly practical way of getting the computer to store information in a manor useful to human beings (at least without loosing all the advantages of a computer).
Re:What is broken with the Desktop idea? (Score:2)
When you tell your wife where the phone bill is, you tell her 'top left hand dawer of my desk'. But in your mind, do you think of it that way? Most people imagine the desk, the drawer, the fact that it sticks when you open it and the color of the envelopes inside. They then translate that into something more suitable for communication: 'top left-hand drawer'.
When you use your remote... do you think 'volumne - up'? Or do you just know to press the button just to right of your thumb?
Re:What is broken with the Desktop idea? (Score:2)
>See how all the files are usually stuck in one huge folder?
Yes, and that's usually the result of ignorance, not organization. Most users at that level of competence that I've seen have no notion of hierarchical folders, or the distinction between files and folders. They see the menu item "My Documents" in the Start menu, and that's the only place they know where to look for their files; they click on it and magically a window with all their documents opens up, without them even being aware that they're actually looking at the contents of a folder. If an application opens the Save dialog by default in the "My Documents" folder, then they'll be fine, otherwise they'll never find those saved documents again--unless they've mastered the art of "File|Open..." to get to documents.
This level of competence is something you want to train users AWAY from, not something you want to accept as a reasonable status quo. In fact, once you teach beginners the notion of folders, you usually see them eagerly warming to the concept and going through a period of excessive folder creation and use. The moral of the story is that the behavior of most computer users is usually not the result of a best-practices analysis.
Re:What is broken with the Desktop idea? (Score:2)
I think trees run out of gas when things pass a complexity threashold. I would like to see more set-based interfaces:
http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/sets1.htm
A database is a nice start. Plus, it would allow one to build their own interfaces easier since database-related front-end tools are common. You don't have to learn a specific OS API, you only need to see the schema (hopefully documented). It is quicker to grok (good) schemas than API's, IMO. This is one reason (among many) that I don't like OOP.
Re:What is broken with the Desktop idea? (Score:2)
Efficient? How is visiting 30 subdirecties because we have to pick one aspect to split folders on "efficient"? I would rather have the machine chug away than me (which it does not have to do much of if indexed properly).
Are you suggesting wy *stay* with simple-minded structures because more flexible ones are too slow????
Assembler fan, must be.
(* and you have a hard time comprehending sets seperately from database entries. *)
Google is pretty-much a set-based and graph-based search system. Would you rather have the web be *only* hierarchized?
(* Your rational as to why you don't like object-oriented programming is indicative that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. *)
Brilliant counter-point! You are so full of facts and info. BTW, have you stopped beating your head with that heavy stick yet?
oop.ismad.com
Re:What is broken with the Desktop idea? (Score:2)
Limited uses (Score:1)
What.. (Score:5, Funny)
what, like the abacus?
Smell (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Smell (Score:2)
You mean RATML? (Score:1)
RealAroma(R) introduces a whole new dimension to the man/machine interface game. The dimension of smell. With the RealAroma Drive(TM), and RATML (SM) (Real Aroma Text Markup Language) you can share smells in real time, over the Internet, with olfactory buddies all over the globe. Because all smell conversion is done locally in the RealAroma Drive(C) itself, bandwidth requirements are extremely low and even users of embarassing 14.4k baud modems can enjoy the odors you concoct.
This all seems so futuristic and fantastical? It is, but the fantastic future has arrived. Our patented 3-Vile(TM) System allows us to precisely control the amount and "flavor" of each and every smell. And because it's digital, you can sniff your favorite smell anytime with the click of a mouse. Teamed up with the RATML protocol, you can now communicate with smell, just as you do with words, pitures and sounds. Here are some of the features:
- Long-Lasting, "no residue" Formula
- Modern Design
- SCSI Interface
- Firewall Support
- Open Architecture
Be sure to see the Developers' Page [realaroma.com]Re:Smell-O-Vision (Score:2)
Re:Smell (Score:2)
Besides, I would HATE to smell the tricks that spammers would use to get your attention. If you think pop-up ads are obnoxious, imagine a pop-up smell-ad for a "Skunk Works II" book.
The only use for most guys [1] that I can envision (or ensmellen?) is a game with smoky battle smells, maybe with swamp and forrest smells to add to the game "aura".
[1] Odd fetishes excluded.
Re:Smell (Score:2)
Re:Smell (Score:2)
It did? Which nutrition book are you using?
Besides, taste and smell are kinda different issues. Nobody has proposed remote tasting yet.
Re:Smell (Score:2)
Re:Smell (Score:2)
Re:Smell (Score:2)
Insert ObTeledildonics reference... (Score:1)
Just dont make it a phallic symbol (Score:2)
Stubborn old me (Score:1, Funny)
GUI dead? (Score:2, Funny)
to get a directory all id need to push would be key labeled 'l' and key labeled 's'.
wow what a great innovation.
Re:GUI dead? (Score:1)
and if you need to duplicate something, type 'g' 'p' 'm' and 'enter' to run this special command that allows the use of a 3 button 'attachment' with 'ball bearing' or 'laser' bottom.
Bad taste (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bad taste (Score:2)
Get a clue. I wish more sites would follow his lead.
Re:Bad taste (Score:2)
If you want that level of control over how web pages appear, create a user style sheet [squarefree.com]. You can even use a bookmarklet to apply your styles to a specific site rather than all sites and without restarting your browser. This rule makes <strong> appear as italics rather than bold:
strong { font-weight: inherit; font-style: italic; }
I think including "how should <strong> appear?" in UI prefs would be confusing. First, it's geeky because it involves specific HTML tags. Second, most sites use <b> when they mean <strong>, and prefs that work 20% of the time (or even 80% of the time) are usually not good. Third, misguided web designers might start intentionally using <b> when they mean <strong>, just like they specify text and background colors as black on white for simple pages where the user's preferred colors would work fine.
GUI (Score:1)
Re:GUI (Score:1)
The problem won't be technological,
imagine 25 persons in an open office all talking to there computer at the same time.
Re:GUI (Score:1)
Pen systems... (Score:1)
Not what you think... (Score:4, Informative)
Minority report (Score:3, Interesting)
An alternative would be a simple OS interface similar which uses radial menus like those in Never Winter Nights.
Re:Minority report (Score:2)
Imagine DRM with this... (Score:1, Funny)
Do you metamod? (Score:2)
Link to examples... (Score:5, Informative)
iFeel mouse (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been using my Logitech iFeel mouse, which has tactile feedback, for over a year now. I like it a lot; it's reassuring that widgets in windows are "bumpy". I guess it's like moving to a real keyboard after having used a membrane keyboard. It even works in some games, most notably Black & White which actually had missions that would only appear with a force-feedback mouse.
But unfortunately, iFeel mice have been available for a long time now, but it doesn't seem like they're catching on. People don't seem to want to spend even the extra $20 or so for the feature.
Re:iFeel mouse (Score:2)
Heh, imagine if they vibrated the keyboard. It'd fall off the table after a while. THe monitor would just cause an earthquake.. especially with those 21" monitors.
Re:iFeel mouse (Score:2)
Re:iFeel mouse (Score:2)
Anyway, it's still not really in the same league as the proposed "tactile feedback OS". It simply enhances your existing GUI with an extra touch.
Personally, I think the text interfaces and GUIs are here to stay until A.I. and voice recognition mature to the point where we can simply talk to our computers and hear voice responses back. Star Trek has the right idea.
People strive to work with their PC the same way they communicate in everyday life. Since the technology limitations prevented us from chatting with our PC like we would another person, we opted for our other preferred method of communcation - reading/writing/typing.
Any other proprosed "new interfaces" are too alien to our usual modes of communications, so they won't ever catch on. Humans use the sense of touch as additional feedback that corresponds with a primary means of information retreival (sight or sound). Touch as an interface itself is only acceptable to blind people, who are forced to use touch as a substitute.
Re:iFeel mouse (Score:2)
Re:iFeel mouse (Score:2)
Yeah, justdeals are sleazebag shippers, advertising low prices and inflating shipping. They have a pretty crappy online reputation regarding shipping and dealing with defective items as well. I ordered from them just once, and it took them over two weeks to even ship the item. But for some items it's worth it anyway (like my Proxim wireless card: $12/card, $40 for the access point, can't be beat).
Also, these mice aren't really $1, since you can't amortize the high shipping cost by buying a bunch at once; each one will cost $11 to ship.
Re:iFeel mouse (Score:2)
Of course, I use those all the time, and I used justdeals knowing full well that the shipping was a racket, but some items are so cheap (especially discontinued products) that you still come out on top.
Price. (Score:1, Interesting)
http://nanomuscle.bigstep.com/:
"25 for $900"
Lies.
got something you can tactile right here (Score:1, Funny)
Did you know you can drive north or south in any direction? It's true!
Barney? (Score:1)
I can't wait... (Score:2)
Doesn't exactly apply to the desktop computer. (Score:1)
> You control the computer by doing what you want (to
> play peek-a-boo) instead of asking the computer to
> do it.
Hmmmmm.... funny, but I thought the whole idea of computers were that you ask them to do stuff and they do it.
In fact, this whole article makes little sense and I find it hard to define what the point of the article actually is.
Seasonal usage (Score:2)
brrrrrrrrr
Why is GUI considered the future? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think there are some important things to point out here. Microsoft may make things easier to use, but harder to understand. With all of the hand holding, wizards, and simply doing things for you, the end user is becoming less and less knowledgable about computers. They are becoming more and more educated about "The Microsoft Way".
Some say that Linux gui developers have yet to crack the gui solution. I say that Windows has failed to crack the Command Line Interface (CLI). Why is a graphical interface always seen as the evolutionary step? Hasn't the gui gone about as far as it can go? I think with our current technology, it has. Linux has a GUI and a CLI, both are powerful. Windows has a GUI and a hobbled CLI.
People talk about the next generation GUI. No. Talk about the next generation interface. See, the GUI was made simple because the people using computers were new to them. Do you think that will always be the case? Can you picture living without automobiles? How about telephones? Electricity? It can be done, but we are of the generation(s) that take these thing for granted because they have always been a part of our lives. The people who had to transition from not having these things to using them on a daily basis were uncomfortable with them. This is happening with computers. When I grew up, there were no computers. I transitioned OK, I went into the field. My siblings did not. Kids today are growing up with them, so computers are not foreign objects. They won't need the hand-holding OS, they aren't afraid of the machines. (Show them a record, or an 8-track tape if you want to see fear and confusion) :-)
People always talk about making the interface simpler. I think that the interface will not become simpler, it will become a little more complex, simply becase it won't need to be simple anymore. This is just my theory, and I hope I live to see it become reality.
I also understand the need to look for the "next great thing", but I don't think we have properly used the interfaces we currently have (GUI with CLI). Although the interface in Minority Report was pretty cool, throw a CLI on there and use the gloves with a virtual keyboard, and you are in business.
The argument hobbles both (Score:4, Interesting)
A future interface will be graphical because that allows for more immediate and intuitive use of information. I can know, at a fraction of a glance, that I have Groupwise, Mozilla, and Winamp loaded as "user applications," as well as a working iFolder, netshield, & a couple of other background apps.
The biggest improvement for this will be keyboard integration. I want to push a button (windows key or equivalent) and have a "command area" pop up, which is designed to work with the GUI.
Take the Windows setup and add anything & everything that the Linux CLIs have that it doesn't. Then rework the entire thing from the ground up, remembering that the CLI will work *always* with the GUI, and a user should be able to do everything with the CLI.
A generation after this, and we can replace the command area with voice recognition. The voice subsystem will just feed commands into where the CLI goes, and it'll work exactly as we imagined it would as kids.
Re:The argument hobbles both (Score:2)
I've never understood pure CLI advocates, myself. Just a few days ago I was over at a friend's house, & opened up his laptop, which was running Linux and had lost its IP address. He tried *three* different commands before giving up; were this windows, one simple command would have sufficed, and if one didn't work, trying it a different way wouldn't have helped.
Litte bits like this make it harder and harder to justify the work to repartition my HDD and "try out" Linux. *sigh*
Re:Why is GUI considered the future? (Score:2)
Before the desktop GUI, computers could only be sold to those who could understand and use the CLI.
Today, computers can only sold to those who can understand and use the CLI or the GUI.
Tactile interfaces will be implemented to enable the industry to sell computers to people who don't "get" the CLI or the GUI. Just as the GUI traded functionality for easy of use, the TUI will be less functional than the GUI.
Consider the MS Barney doll discussed in the article. The next version will be a "full computer" -- shake his hand to open your email application (shake it again to send your email when you're done dictating it). Poke him in the eye launch a text-to-speech Web browser. Kick him in the crotch to hear your privacy options. Those are all the options these people need, so the doll works perfectly for them as a cuddly, familiar interface.
Re:Why is GUI considered the future? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is EXACTLY my point. Right now, this is true for new users. In the next generation or two, there won't be NEW users. Everyone will be a user. It won't need to be made ONLY simple. Right now, with Linux, you have a choice between GUI and CLI. IMO, the interface needs to be a meld between the two. The GUI and CLI are both Interfaces to the OS. They each have their limitations, but the complement each other well. By saying the "future" is a GUI limits you. Maybe not on slashdot, but most other places computer users believe the Interface to be the OS.
Why always an either/or choice? (Score:2)
Re:Why is GUI considered the future? (Score:2)
Re:Why is GUI considered the future? (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with what you say, but computers are different than most tools. They are multi-purpose. The basics of a car are the same - they get you from place to place. Computers are getting more complex, in that they can do so many different things. The interface cannot get simpler, unless the function gets simpler.
Otherwise development would be going backwards. You weren't intentionally trolling, but man you're out of touch with the average computer-using Joe.
That was my point about electricity, etc that I think you missed. Once the technology, or thing, becomes so ingrained in society, a product loses it's novelty. People were initially afraid/excited about telephones, electricity, cars, refrigeration, etc. Once it evolved to where it was a standard, normal thing, the magic was gone and people could start using it. Electricity was used originally for light, but now we rely on it for many many things. Computers will be the same. But again, they are more complex, they aren't simple, single-purpose things. Therefore, I think their interfaces will need to be made more complex in order to tap the power out of them. The average Joe computer user won't be the same type of person anymore. In order to tap into the potential power of computers, you either have to simplify their function (then you can simplify the interface) or make the interface more complex but powerful. What may seem complex to us today will be standard for users in 25 years. (again, only if the computer is kept as a multi-function thing)
Re:Why is GUI considered the future? (Score:2)
Jason's Rule #1: Any sufficiently mature application develops a CLI. It is necessary for scripting and automation. MS has even gone to Wscript which would give the knowledgable CLI access to most everything on the machine.
Jason's Rule #2: The less you change input devices, the more efficient you will be. The movement from keyboard to mouse is currently the greatest waster of productivity. A study undertaken by several newspapers found that most typo's (from touch typists) came within 15 keystrokes of moving from the mouse to the keyboard.
Jason's Rule #3: Simple to use, simple uses. The UI for a word processor is very different from the UI for an MP3 player. Now, we have iPod's wich are extrememly user friendly MP3 players. We also have standalone word processors. The iPod has what, 4 buttons?? Now design a word processor with those 4 buttons.
A computer runs both. Any UI that does great working with a word processor will be complex for an MP3 player, and the reverse is also true.
Jason's Rule #4: Any sufficiently useful application or method will be marketed as a standalone hardware based device.
Right now, you could get WebTV, an Archos MP3 player, and a playstation and satisfy most home computer users needs, for less than the price of a PC. This will only become more commonplace. I doubt if anyone will even be using a "computer" as we know it. They will have organizers, MP# players, etc.
The real key is to not allow legislation cripple what can be done by a standalone piece of consumer electronics, this will only lead to the PC being a necessity for using all of these devices. (Like it is today.)
Ho Hum.
Re:A new interface won't help (Score:2)
Re:A new interface won't help (Score:2)
This is where computers are different that all other appliances - they can do more than one thing. Microwaves do one thing. VCRs can do two things (record/playback). TVs do one thing. They all have simple interfaces, and yet some people still can't use a VCR. The interface to computers CANNOT get simpler if it keeps doing more and more complex things. Either the computer has to do a simple task (ala tivo) or people have to learn more complex interfaces. It can happen, it will just take a generation or two.
Re:A new interface won't help (Score:2)
No, a microwave has one function - it heats things. The range of ways it does this function varies. Same with VCRs. In essence, it records and plays back video cassettes. Sure, I can change the channels, but I could do that without my VCR. The reason I have it is to record/playback.
In essense, what is the function of a computer? There is no single answer to that question.
The Desktop GUI is dead (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Desktop GUI is dead (Score:2)
$ ls
Oh what a relief it is!
The Aibo (Score:2)
The Backlash against Jakob Nielsen and What it Tea (Score:2)
"Unfortunately, Nielsen's pronouncements have all too often been like a restaurant critic insisting we should all eat only a McDonald's, since after all it's the most efficient restaurant around."
"A personal thorn in my side his been his insistence that blue is - and will forever be - the only appropriate colour for links. Now I have a background in graphic design and I know numerous ways to make clear something's a link. No, I don't have academic research to prove this, but I've got many a successful site. But yet, I still have to deal with business decision-makers who believe Nielsen has "proved" this point."
"Part of Nielsen's narrow viewpoint I suspect is the result of a trap it's easy for "experts in the field" to fall into. Whatever clients Nielsen sees nowadays probably hired him because they agree with his views and their problems are suited for his approach. So he likely sees only sites that are compatible with his worldview."
Accesibility issues with touch (Score:2)
Not that interfaces that use sight or sound will be invulnerable to aging-related isses, but it is something to keep in mind.
Gestures (Score:2)
Travis
Not Enough Bandwidth (Score:5, Interesting)
Your eyes have millions of receptors. When you see something like a screen, most of them are actively processing the screen. That is HUGE bandwidth. You are used to using it because your brain is processing vision constantly, so is very accurate.
A tactile interface would rely on a few hundred receptors on a handful of fingers. (pun intended) Unless you read braile, your fingers aren't that sensitive. Your fingers aren't used to being used as a primary interface, and is therefore not that accurate.
Aural (sound) interfaces are much better because they have a significant bandwidth (not as high as vision, but better than touch) and we are used to using them. That's part of why the two most-required output interfaces are a monitor and speakers.
Input interfaces are the same. The best way we have for output is our tongue (seriously), second is our hands. So our two preferred input interfaces should logially be voice and hand. We are used to typing, and always dream of the ultimate speech-control interface. Or you could go to a tongue interface [acm.org], but I wouldn't want my co-developers to share it.
So as far as User Interfaces go, I think we should strive for better GUIs that can be augmented with sound and tactile feedback.
Just some thoughts.
Re:Not Enough Bandwidth (Score:2)
It's also silly to focus exclusively on nerve bandwidth. Just think of the amount of information we have stored in our brains about the physical world around us. If an interface played on that information, then it gets the benefit of evolutionarily perfected compression over that nerve bandwidth.
Of course, you're right, we'd have to be morons to forgo the GUI for an exclusively tactile UI, but that's not what the author is talking about at all. He's talking about integrating visual, aural, and tactile stimulus. Done correctly, it'd be awful close to a perfect UI.
Mouse: an often overlooked issue (Score:5, Insightful)
However, when I watch myself aim for instance for that 5mm x 20mm area in most apps that says "File", I realise that fast as it is, it actually represents an effort - it requires appreciable hand-eye coordination. This is not really a problem (at least not for me), but it is an unnecessary annoyance - it should be effortless. It's also the reason I learn about 20+ keyboard shortcuts as soon as possible for every app I know I'm going to be using 2+ times a week. I always Alt-Tab through my apps on Windows, and if I want to see the running apps, I unhide the autohidden startbar with the Windows key, rather than the mouse.
My favourite apps are the ones where I don't have the touch the mouse at all. Although there are some exceptions: mouse gestures in Opera are great, mainly because they require hardly any hand-eye coordination - the pointer just has to be somewhere in the window I want to do something with. Same with wheeled mice - successful, because it requires far less effort putting the pointer somewhere in a windows and "wheeling" up/down, rather than aiming for the proper section of a 5 mm scrollbar.
Having said all that - this is just one element of modern GUIs, notably interesting because it's both so successful and so bad.
Breaking Fitts' Law--M$ made the mouse slow (Score:3, Interesting)
The example most relevant to your post is the pull-down "File" menu. When they copied apple (or tried to), microsoft changed the location of the pull-down menu bar from the top of the screen (like on a mac) to the window of each respective application. With Apple's way, you can't possibly vertically overshoot the menu bar; with Microsoft's way, not only is it possible to overshoot the menubar horizontally, but you have to watch out for overshooting the menubar vertically as well. Putting it simply, a menu at the top of a screen has faster mouse access times than a menu on a window. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but it is a result of something called Fitts' Law, which states that the time to access a target is a function of the target's distance and it's size. For more information on Fitts' Law, check out this article [asktog.com] on usability guru Bruce Tognizzini's website.
Re:Breaking Fitts' Law--M$ made the mouse slow (Score:2)
hard road for alternatives to the status quo (Score:2)
the "Microsoft Way" GUI is like the QWERTY Keyboard.
that is, it is certainly not the best keyboard, but it is what everyone learns to use, and expects to use, and so gets locked into the staus quo in a very unshakeable way.
the dvorak keyboard is obviously superior, but few use it, as few are exposed to it, and few are able to switch easily or with much readily available support and compatibility.
you could probably say much the same about alternative GUIs or alternatives to the GUI at all, for much the same reason.
i think we are all chained to a mouse and a keyboard and a taskbar and hierarchical folders for a long time to come, as this modality is pretty strongly entrenched into the computer using experience.
i like the time-based desktop idea, where everything is based on a timeline you can flip forward and backward to and from to the present... David Gelernter's idea... but what chance does it have against entrenched thinking? the human mind is inflexible once it is indoctrinated into a certain way of dealing with things, and there is also a social/ cultural inertia against change which is hard to shake. just ask us americans to use obviously superior metric units of measure, for example.
i am not saying this is a good thing, i am merely suggesting that this concept of acceptance inertia has to be taken into consideration when thinking about alternatives to the "Microsoft Way" GUI, unless you are comfortable talking about marginal applications only.
OT - Dvorak is not superior (Score:2)
Re:OT - Dvorak is not superior (Score:3, Insightful)
Not future of GUI - a totally different animal (Score:2)
A tactile interface is not graphical (you could have both, but in principle, they're different). It's not a GUI, and therefore, I don't think it will replace the GUI, it will supplement it. I don't see why there shouldn't be room enough in this town for both of them.
Surely not! (Score:2)
There is only one thing to say, and that is that I think that tactile boxes are the way of the future.
Ooer.
Abstraction more important than the interface? (Score:2, Interesting)
I actually think that the command line is a good idea, but currently command lines are too low level, require understanding too much jargon, and commands typically do only single atomic actions. An ideal command would be along the lines of "Find all articles about discourse analysis and Usenet in peer reviewed journals in the last five years."
I don't have three hands! (Score:2)
While we're at it can get get of the $#(*&@#$ qwerty keyboards. How annoying is that? If RSI truely exists it because my hands have to be yogic fliers to find all the keys located in the silliest of places.
I wonder... (Score:2)
Is this Jacob Nielsen hype'n'talk really real? (Score:2)
I mean, look at his site [useit.com]!
Honestly now, chosing MySQL over Firebird on performance principles or stating that Linux is easier for a newbie than Windows is one thing, and pass if you are a slashdotter.
But calling this guy with his sad and sorry excuse for a website the king of web usability is so gawdforesaken lame you wouldn't believe it.
I very much believe Jacob Nielsen and David Siegel (the other king of the web - the guy who 'invented' (ROTFL) spacer gifs) came to fame very much the same way. They started out early enough with gathering minions around them which provided links to each other and back to them - the so called 'other very good web experts'. Sewing a rumor that fed itself to full size. Just like the Windows 95 craze in times of OS/2 ('it's good
No folks, really, trust me, this is NOT your metier. Calling this guy a webdesigner with a clue is like calling Bill Gates a fair buisnesspartner and a supplier of good software. And makes anyone calling him that a greater clown than even this Nielsen guy himself.
Meanwhile, in the physical world ... (Score:2)
In the case of metal machining a lot of feedback is in the form of sound and vision, which we certainly can do now - or tactile feedback in the form of resistance to motion (which is a bit harder to implement without mice squashing fingers). However, I find it hard to type without audible and tactile feedback (that interface in the final fantasy movie would be a pain to use without putting your hand all of the way through the controls).
I can just see the next version of a GUI - instead of annoying greyed out menu items you have a window in the way which you can't move no matter how hard you push!
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (Score:2)
The best we can do is retry the classics (buttons, switches, levers, etc). These sorts of interfaces will just make the old way much more adaptable for a million tasks.
Re:uh, tactile? (Score:2)
Opening fire with a chain gun in UT is so much more fun when your mouse is actually thrumming along with the gun... I just wish more games supported it.