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

The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

nngroup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 156 posts

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#91

Post by Nition »

burnte wrote: post #46
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…

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."

On the other hand, sometimes it's just that people get so used to something, they don't take a close look at how it could be improved. Bows stayed much the same for centuries until the compound bow appeared in the 1960s.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#92

Post by neokrish »

burnte wrote: post #46
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…

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 hammer analogy has its limitations here. When the task is simple (hitting a nail), a simple and good design lasts. When the task(s) is/are complicated, depend on context, are tied to human understanding, knowledge or training in using machines, then design could benefit from both refinements as well as radical and creative thinking. I also don’t think that just because we have a good design, even for a hammer, we should stop people from challenging norms and thinking in bold ways. Here’s a contrasting example to hammers - chairs. The objective is simple, to sit on it. The design innovations still continue to this day, on how a chair can be structured. There have been interpretations of chairs that challenge the very notion that chairs need legs.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#93

Post by blasdel »

joezydeco wrote: post #33

I was always intrigued by the Starfire project mentioned here. The concept video from Sun is definitely peak 90s, but some of the things inside have finally come true 20 years later. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9OKcKisUrY

Now Tayne, I can get into: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maAFcEU6atk

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#94

Post by paulryanrogers »

neokrish wrote: post #92
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 hammer analogy has its limitations here. When the task is simple (hitting a nail), a simple and good design lasts. When the task(s) is/are complicated, depend on context, are tied to human understanding, knowledge or training in using machines, then design could benefit from both refinements as well as radical and creative thinking. I also don’t think that just because we have a good design, even for a hammer, we…

And yet being a shorter person I still have to hunt far and wide for a chair that doesn't leave my feet dangling or cut into my thighs. Lately I've taken to cutting things down or upcycling to get a reasonable fit.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#95

Post by aasasd »

Jef Raskin—who led the Macintosh project for the first year (though apparently the design was changed further later on)—worked afterwards on a concept that incorporated typed-in natural-language commands. In his Archy, commands were part of an unorthodox GUI system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archy

Archy clearly hails from the eighties when it was still imaginable to change users' workflow with desktop computers—that users would type a command while holding a special key (also apparently the author wasn't a touch typist).

The commands feature, isolated, was later adapted by Jef's son Aza Raskin, first as Enso (if I'm not mistaken), and then as a Firefox extension Ubiquity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquity_(Firefox)

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#96

Post by catchmeifyoucan »

wruza wrote: post #56
suyash wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider myself one of those people who would comment about the design of hammer being stuck and more people should, that is how we innovate. The real world is always changing and evolving with time, so are technologies be it for computers - UI that allowed for the desktop GUI paradigm in the 90's to today where Alexa, Siri can help us do lot of those tasks just by commanding over voice. We need to certainly move o…

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

But can’t you just question the need for a hammer in the first place. You don’t need one if you don’t have nails. You don’t need nails if you find a better way to fasten things. That’s the job to be done. Soo instead of a better hammer, let’s get rid of the nails. And with it goes the entire industry.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#97

Post by paulryanrogers »

svat wrote: post #76

My favourite part of this article (disclosure: I've made almost this exact comment before elsewhere): > The see-and-point principle states that users interact with the computer by pointing at the objects they can see on the screen. It's as if we have thrown away a million years of evolution, lost our facility with expressive language, and been reduced to pointing at objects in the immediate environment. Mouse buttons…

For output graphics can express a lot of complexity quickly. Consider a text vs graphical adventure for example.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#98

Post by [deleted] »

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.…

[deleted]

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#99

Post by SilasX »

slmjkdbtl wrote: post #88
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..

Instead of pointer, you can do keyboard-everything, which some UX enhancements go for, like the browser extension Tridactyl.

If you look at a lot of interfaces that are built for a specialized power user (e.g. cashiers), they avoid pointers and have keys for everything. Also, AutoCAD, the last I used it, looked to be centered around command-line primacy.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#100

Post by grey-area »

slmjkdbtl wrote: post #88
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..

Speech, Neural lace, AR or VR.

I imagine the next revolution in UI will be because our computers change form and present in a completely different way, for example a virtual assistant that lives in the cloud and talks to you via AR visualisations and plain old speech.

Revolutions are not usually a reworking of the dominant mode but a displacement to another medium - e.g. iphone replacing computers for many people.

Post reply on HN