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

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#81

Post by Osiris » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 4:47 AM UTC

brownjohnf wrote: post #77

burnte wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. The design of a hammer hasn't changed much in centuries because it's already designed well for its purpose. Same thing with sharks, I don't hear biologists say "there hasn't been much innovation in sharks for millions of years."

The design of a hammer has actually changed substantially over time. More recently, there's been a trend towards specialization in the framing hammer alone. 100 years ago most hammers looked like the classic hammers I remember from childhood: relatively small, sharply curved claws, a smooth face. As production framing exploded in the US after WWII, framers were pushing for more efficiency. The framing hammer got heav…

The think this supports the OPs argument that we're refining, not inventing. Everything you've said here is about refining, it's not a completely new way to attach materials together.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#82

Post by waheoo » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 4:49 AM UTC

brownjohnf wrote: post #77

burnte wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. The design of a hammer hasn't changed much in centuries because it's already designed well for its purpose. Same thing with sharks, I don't hear biologists say "there hasn't been much innovation in sharks for millions of years."

The design of a hammer has actually changed substantially over time. More recently, there's been a trend towards specialization in the framing hammer alone. 100 years ago most hammers looked like the classic hammers I remember from childhood: relatively small, sharply curved claws, a smooth face. As production framing exploded in the US after WWII, framers were pushing for more efficiency. The framing hammer got heav…

Right but a hammer is still a hammer right?

It's not like we're bashing nails with bricks and calling it an MVP replacement to the hammer.

What you described isn't innovation, its iteration.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#83

Post by brownjohnf » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 4:52 AM UTC

Osiris wrote: post #81

brownjohnf wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The design of a hammer has actually changed substantially over time. More recently, there's been a trend towards specialization in the framing hammer alone. 100 years ago most hammers looked like the classic hammers I remember from childhood: relatively small, sharply curved claws, a smooth face. As production framing exploded in the US after WWII, framers were pushing for more efficiency. The framing hammer got heav…

The think this supports the OPs argument that we're refining, not inventing. Everything you've said here is about refining, it's not a completely new way to attach materials together.

Yeah, probably should have clarified that I intended no comment on the OPs comment about innovation in computer UI. Just wanted to point out that there's actually a surprising amount of evolution in design of the hammer.

Something that seems to be so simple, and has existed for thousands of years, can still be made better. I'm not a professional carpenter, but I've used a hammer a lot to do things like framing, and can confirm that many of these innovations are meaningful in function, not just form.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#84

Post by anyfoo » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 5:01 AM UTC

suyash wrote: post #79

wruza wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is new proposal for a hammer, may I ask?

Ok, let's play do this imaginative exercise - Hammer looks simple but actually if you're few inches off while slamming it down, you can seriously injure yourself if you're holding the nails with your other hand. I'm sure we have all experienced that. How about a sensor that always drives the motion in the right location, it can be done by having sensors that feel your muscle twitches and angle then recalibrate using…

This is a parody, right?

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#85

Post by vvanders » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 5:04 AM UTC

suyash wrote: post #79

wruza wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is new proposal for a hammer, may I ask?

Ok, let's play do this imaginative exercise - Hammer looks simple but actually if you're few inches off while slamming it down, you can seriously injure yourself if you're holding the nails with your other hand. I'm sure we have all experienced that. How about a sensor that always drives the motion in the right location, it can be done by having sensors that feel your muscle twitches and angle then recalibrate using…

Or you could just put a magnet and a notch on the top of the hammer[1].

[1] https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb&q=hammer+nail+magnet&iax=imag...

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#86

Post by AngryData » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 5:06 AM UTC

suyash wrote: post #79

wruza wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is new proposal for a hammer, may I ask?

Ok, let's play do this imaginative exercise - Hammer looks simple but actually if you're few inches off while slamming it down, you can seriously injure yourself if you're holding the nails with your other hand. I'm sure we have all experienced that. How about a sensor that always drives the motion in the right location, it can be done by having sensors that feel your muscle twitches and angle then recalibrate using…

Many framing hammers have a nail set on top which is a t-shaped depression with a magnet in it to hold a nail. Set the nail on top, swing and set the nail int he wood up to half depth, then hit it two more times to finish nailing.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#87

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 5:08 AM UTC

amyjess wrote: post #38

> 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. Alternately, you can say that UX design stabilized on a known good pattern. This reminds me of how some people will refer to stable software projects that only receive…

[deleted]

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#88

Post by slmjkdbtl » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 5:09 AM UTC

amyjess wrote: post #38

> 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. Alternately, you can say that UX design stabilized on a known good pattern. This reminds me of how some people will refer to stable software projects that only receive…

Does anyone know any interesting attempts of alternative models to WIMP? Everytime I think about it WIMP just makes more sense to me (productivity wise), it's really hard to think outside the box for this one..

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#89

Post by burlesona » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 5:12 AM UTC

brownjohnf wrote: post #77

burnte wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. The design of a hammer hasn't changed much in centuries because it's already designed well for its purpose. Same thing with sharks, I don't hear biologists say "there hasn't been much innovation in sharks for millions of years."

The design of a hammer has actually changed substantially over time. More recently, there's been a trend towards specialization in the framing hammer alone. 100 years ago most hammers looked like the classic hammers I remember from childhood: relatively small, sharply curved claws, a smooth face. As production framing exploded in the US after WWII, framers were pushing for more efficiency. The framing hammer got heav…

I just want to say thank you for posting this. I had no idea about the evolution of hammers, and this little bit of depth from an unfamiliar domain brightened my day :)

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#90

Post by Razengan » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 5:19 AM UTC

brownjohnf wrote: post #77

burnte wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. The design of a hammer hasn't changed much in centuries because it's already designed well for its purpose. Same thing with sharks, I don't hear biologists say "there hasn't been much innovation in sharks for millions of years."

The design of a hammer has actually changed substantially over time. More recently, there's been a trend towards specialization in the framing hammer alone. 100 years ago most hammers looked like the classic hammers I remember from childhood: relatively small, sharply curved claws, a smooth face. As production framing exploded in the US after WWII, framers were pushing for more efficiency. The framing hammer got heav…

“Longer this, shorter that, better materials” is refinement, not “substantial redesign”.

The point is the essential form and function has remained the same for thousands of years. Knives, forks, spoons etc. are still knives, forks, spoons etc.