Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Future of UI

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 91 posts

Re: The Future of UI

#61

Post by hernan7 »

bad_user wrote: post #46
DannoHung wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. Why did it take so long for touch screen interfaces to become huge when almost everyone loves them? On the other hand, why are command line interfaces still the most efficient way for experts to interact with a system?

> why are command line interfaces still the most efficient way for experts to interact with a system? That's an easy one to answer. It's for the same reason humans developed natural language by sounds emitted by vocal cords, with a pretty simple mechanism ... you've got a vocabulary of words that describe something, like an action, or an attribute or a physical object, and then you can mix them together to form phras…

Great post. You bring a tear to this old Unix hand's eye.

Re: The Future of UI

#62

Post by hernan7 »

jacobolus wrote: post #58
DannoHung wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. Why did it take so long for touch screen interfaces to become huge when almost everyone loves them? On the other hand, why are command line interfaces still the most efficient way for experts to interact with a system?

> why are command line interfaces still the most efficient way for experts to interact with a system? This is far from generally true. I defy you to make a command line interface for performing a piano concerto, painting a landscape, or flying an airplane.

Well, if we are talking about computer interfaces, the more sophisticated graphic and music programs have some kind of scripting capabilities. Think Photoshop, AutoCAD, C-Music...

If you are talking about computer vs non-computer interfaces, yes, you are not going to play a piano concert with a mouse either.

Re: The Future of UI

#63

Post by jacobolus »

hernan7 wrote: post #62
jacobolus wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why are command line interfaces still the most efficient way for experts to interact with a system? This is far from generally true. I defy you to make a command line interface for performing a piano concerto, painting a landscape, or flying an airplane.

Well, if we are talking about computer interfaces, the more sophisticated graphic and music programs have some kind of scripting capabilities. Think Photoshop, AutoCAD, C-Music... If you are talking about computer vs non-computer interfaces, yes, you are not going to play a piano concert with a mouse either.

Who said anything about a mouse? The three interfaces I was thinking about were (a) a piano (that is, the keys and pedals), (b) a brush, a canvas, and some tubes of paint, and (c) a joystick and a few walls of dials and switches and buttons.

If you want to put things directly in a computer, you probably want a digital piano keyboard, a graphics tablet, and a joystick + keyboard.

Scripting it is an alternative way to interact with, e.g., Photoshop, but you wouldn’t want to “paint” a digital picture by typing in some JavaScript to direct it.

Re: The Future of UI

#64

Post by jexe »

lkozma wrote: post #24
mechanical_fish wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that, like most of the things designed at the Media Lab, this was built to look really good in demos. The movements are big and inefficient so they will show up well on stage and on camera. In the real world the movements might be much more subtle. Certainly no broader than, say, American Sign Language, which is quite analogous to what we are reinventing here.

Sorry, I'm skeptical about that. The movements are big so that they will be captured and correctly interpreted by their pattern recognition system. I think they would not be able to detect very subtle movements like ASL. It is ingenious to claim that it was made artificially big and clumsy for the audience.

Not so sure that these huge gestures are necessary, depending on the technology - You can play games perfectly fine on the wii with little more than the flick of your wrist.

Re: The Future of UI

#65

Post by [deleted] »

andreyf wrote: post #35
hop wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their incentive is to make it look cool, wow an audience, and bring more grant money to the MIT Media Lab. Contrast this with a company that puts the pieces together and ships a useful product - like the iPad UI... I always thought crazy concept cars were a waste of time and resources for car companies. If they instead focused on massive in-house iteration (like Apple's 10-3-1 prototyping process), better cars would…

like the iPad UI Imagine a 60 inch iPad hanging on the wall of your kitchen. Imagine being able to point and gesture instead of touching. Want to watch a movie while cooking? Switch back to the cook-"book" app when it's time to add the next ingredient, then go back to your film.

[deleted]

Re: The Future of UI

#66

Post by elblanco »

watmough wrote: post #32
MikeCapone wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I always thought crazy concept cars were a waste of time and resources for car companies. If they instead focused on massive in-house iteration (like Apple's 10-3-1 prototyping process), better cars would be brought to market. Definitely. I've been watching the car industry for a few years now, and I'm still waiting for an "Apple" to emerge.

A great point, but car companies do iterate. The iteration just occurs over model years. Take the widely acclaimed Chevy Malibu as an example. This started off as a pretty cruddy GM, but now it's reputedly competitive with Japanese models. I'm sure that hard deadlines for production, very strict cost controls etc., conspire to impose a more rigid than agile process. Perhaps, take a look at UK car companies in the 50'…

They iterate even more out of the public eye. There are endless reams of concept art that never even made it to scale model clay. All of the major manufacturers have design houses staffed with people who's sole job is to draw neat looking car ideas. Eventually a few float to the top and they make scale models out of clay (or in this day and age on rapid prototype machines). And then those design studies may end up as full sized, half-car (lengthwise) mock-ups made out of clay. If they survive that, they may even get made into a pure, non-functional concept car like we see at trade shows. It the public reception is positive, they turn manufacturing engineers loose on the design and they cut out all the artistic junk that would cause the car to cost 4 times as much to make, and introduce safety devices and such that change the styling.....it might make it to a functional prototype at that point where they show it at next year's auto-show, if reception is still good, it'll probably make it into to production.

Re: The Future of UI

#67

Post by [deleted] »

RevRal wrote: post #6
est wrote: post #2

I saw similar demo from Microsoft Surface and MIT Sixth Sense

The thrilling potential of SixthSense technology: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/pranav_mistry_the_thrillin... I haven't seen the one by Microsoft. I really recommend watching this, it's pretty intense.

[deleted]

Re: The Future of UI

#68

Post by elblanco »

RevRal wrote: post #6
est wrote: post #2

I saw similar demo from Microsoft Surface and MIT Sixth Sense

The thrilling potential of SixthSense technology: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/pranav_mistry_the_thrillin... I haven't seen the one by Microsoft. I really recommend watching this, it's pretty intense.

I'd trade the projector for a pair of glasses with a transparent display.

The true power of this is really in the software.

It's amazing, stunning, work.

Re: The Future of UI

#69

Post by donw »

inimino wrote: post #49
fjabre wrote: post #42

Everybody seems to be stuck on hand gestures and arm movement for the future, but while this looks cool I wonder just how comfortable it is to keep you arms waving about like that for hours on end. Also, it's hard to argue that 3D is always superior to 2D when presenting information. In some cases 2D is more than sufficient. I also wonder why there isn't more talk about Brain–computer interfaces . It seems to me that…

Physical inactivity (sitting at your desk all day moving only your fingertips) is implicated in many of the health problems most hackers are likely to suffer from and eventually die from. I think many of us would welcome the opportunity to stand up and move around a bit while still getting our work accomplished, even if it wasn't the only interface we used. BCIs, on the other hand, would mean you can potentially fini…

I'm going to vote for no on that; at least for me, running takes a lot of focus, to the point where ditching the iPod helped me become a stronger runner. I had always run with music before, but I found that if I focused on the run itself, I could push myself harder.

Weightlifting and climbing work the same way, in my experience, and I can't imagine that my limited martial arts training would have been any better if I had something else to focus on other than not getting punched in the face.

Our society is obsessed with trying to do everything at once, rather than giving full focus to each activity in turn. Personally, I'd rather that technology reduce the busy work, so that we can focus more directly on each activity, rather than trying to amalgamate them together all the time.

Re: The Future of UI

#70

Post by angrycoder »

andreyf wrote: post #35
hop wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their incentive is to make it look cool, wow an audience, and bring more grant money to the MIT Media Lab. Contrast this with a company that puts the pieces together and ships a useful product - like the iPad UI... I always thought crazy concept cars were a waste of time and resources for car companies. If they instead focused on massive in-house iteration (like Apple's 10-3-1 prototyping process), better cars would…

like the iPad UI Imagine a 60 inch iPad hanging on the wall of your kitchen. Imagine being able to point and gesture instead of touching. Want to watch a movie while cooking? Switch back to the cook-"book" app when it's time to add the next ingredient, then go back to your film.

A 60 inch iPad I could see. But multitasking? Thats just crazy talk.
Post reply on HN