The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#11

Post by chrismsimpson » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 12:40 AM UTC

aetherspawn wrote: post #4

I think that using a bookcase that can be spatially ordered (in 2 dimensions) would be a really interesting concept for an operating system. Applications and files alike, filed on the same bookshelf. A very easy metaphor that makes it easy to explain how computers work, but also locate files that you use often (perhaps by size, shape, colour and location) without using the part of your brain that processes language.…

Didn't the GNOME project try this in the mid 2000's? For me, that was peak GNOME: the 2.x series.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#12

Post by bfirsh » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 12:41 AM UTC

This inspired some of our design principles in the CLI Guidelines: https://clig.dev/

The CLI is the opposite of the Mac in a lot of ways -- reality instead of metaphors, remember and type instead of see and point, make it a conversation, and so on.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#13

Post by kleer001 » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 12:53 AM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #5

All metaphors are learned. Given that technology tend to replace things from the manual physical world these metaphors makes a lot of sense as they help humans transition. Over time new concepts emerge which are based on metaphors native to the digital space and understood by the new generations.

> All metaphors are learned.

The really good ones are learned early and are highly conserved across time and culture.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#14

Post by xnyan » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 12:56 AM UTC

bfirsh wrote: post #12

This inspired some of our design principles in the CLI Guidelines: https://clig.dev/ The CLI is the opposite of the Mac in a lot of ways -- reality instead of metaphors, remember and type instead of see and point, make it a conversation, and so on.

>Because people don’t understand what computing is about, they think they have it in the iPhone, and that illusion is as bad as the illusion that ‘Guitar Hero’ is the same as a real guitar.”

For me, this was the signal that this as a "if only people used computers like I personally think they should" pieces. I know lots of people who play guitar hero, lots of people who play real guitars, and some who play both (me for one, mediocrely in both cases). I have met zero people who think guitar hero = guitar. They are different things that serve different needs.

I use a cli to compute all day, every day. Can't imagine using computers without one. I have no empirical proof of this, but I would be willing to wager the deed to my house that the vast majority of users, having been explained what a cli is, the benefits of it, and how to use it, would chose to never use a CLI again. It's not what they want, it's what other people want and it's a myopic view of what computing is.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#15

Post by reidjs » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 12:58 AM UTC

On other OS designs: “ They are navigationally cumbersome, asking users to go to the "other end of town" to pick up their email from the Post Office” Made me laugh, it seems silly now, but that’s a pretty creative way of describing what’s going on.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#16

Post by moron4hire » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:01 AM UTC

> At recent user interface conferences, several speakers have lamented that the human interface is stuck. We seem to have settled on the WIMP (windows, icons, menus, pointer) model, and there is very little real innovation in interface design anymore.

Ooof, and here we are, 25 years later, with an intervening opportunity to completely redefine HCI (smartphones), and it's still basically all WIMP.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#17

Post by core-questions » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:07 AM UTC

chrismsimpson wrote: post #11

aetherspawn wrote: post #4

I think that using a bookcase that can be spatially ordered (in 2 dimensions) would be a really interesting concept for an operating system. Applications and files alike, filed on the same bookshelf. A very easy metaphor that makes it easy to explain how computers work, but also locate files that you use often (perhaps by size, shape, colour and location) without using the part of your brain that processes language.…

Didn't the GNOME project try this in the mid 2000's? For me, that was peak GNOME: the 2.x series.

Yes, Gnome 2.x was very usable. Have you tried MATE? It's just Gnome 2 continued.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#18

Post by varenc » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:11 AM UTC

xnyan wrote: post #14

bfirsh wrote: post #12

This inspired some of our design principles in the CLI Guidelines: https://clig.dev/ The CLI is the opposite of the Mac in a lot of ways -- reality instead of metaphors, remember and type instead of see and point, make it a conversation, and so on.

>Because people don’t understand what computing is about, they think they have it in the iPhone, and that illusion is as bad as the illusion that ‘Guitar Hero’ is the same as a real guitar.” For me, this was the signal that this as a "if only people used computers like I personally think they should" pieces. I know lots of people who play guitar hero, lots of people who play real guitars, and some who play both (me f…

I believe Alan Kay is saying that while people know Guitar Hero isn't real guitar, they don't know that using an iPhone isn't "what computing is about". Here's the full quote from him:

  If people could understand what computing was about, the iPhone would not be a bad thing. But because people don’t understand what computing is about, they think they have it in the iPhone, and that illusion is as bad as the illusion that Guitar Hero is the same as a real guitar. That’s the simple long and the short of it.

  What’s interesting is, the computational ability of an iPhone is far beyond what we need to do good computing. What you wind up with is something that has enough stuff on it and is connected to enough stuff, so it seems like the entire thing.

https://www.fastcompany.com/40435064/what-alan-kay-thinks-ab...

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#19

Post by mxcrossb » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:17 AM UTC

reidjs wrote: post #15

On other OS designs: “ They are navigationally cumbersome, asking users to go to the "other end of town" to pick up their email from the Post Office” Made me laugh, it seems silly now, but that’s a pretty creative way of describing what’s going on.

When I was a kid, I remember the Max my family owned have several different UIs you could enter in to. I think maybe the idea was that some of them were more kid friendly? When I saw those pictures in the article it took me back to that time.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#20

Post by Dahoon » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:17 AM UTC

xnyan wrote: post #14

bfirsh wrote: post #12

This inspired some of our design principles in the CLI Guidelines: https://clig.dev/ The CLI is the opposite of the Mac in a lot of ways -- reality instead of metaphors, remember and type instead of see and point, make it a conversation, and so on.

>Because people don’t understand what computing is about, they think they have it in the iPhone, and that illusion is as bad as the illusion that ‘Guitar Hero’ is the same as a real guitar.” For me, this was the signal that this as a "if only people used computers like I personally think they should" pieces. I know lots of people who play guitar hero, lots of people who play real guitars, and some who play both (me f…

>I have met zero people who think guitar hero = guitar

You are agreeing with the quote more than you are disagreeing. It specifically says that thinking guitar hero = guitar is an illusion, just like iPhone = computing.