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

121–130 of 156 posts

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#121

Post by ObscureScience »

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..

A command-based interface is one alternative, either a text box or voice control (Siri/Cortana/Alexa,Google assistant etc.). But it's always something you sacrifice. In that case I think it's overview, especially when multi tasking. Another is full screen applications, pretty much what we have on phones and tablets. Accessable VR/AR might open up new models.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#122

Post by a_t48 »

capnahab wrote: post #102
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…

Noted. What has been stable for a long time and remains frustratingly static and unrefined is the field of surgcial instruments. There are a few exceptions but most haven't changed in the 20years I have been a surgeon. The regulatory costs of developing new instruments and intertia of manufacturers doesnt help. Once a manufacturer gains a market share they try and keep by not innovating which keeps their deveopment c…

I don't suppose you'd count something like the da Vinci robots as a step forward? I got to try out a demo unit once (on a dummy! not on a real human), really cool stuff. I'm really glad I tried it _after_ I had my laparoscopic appendectomy - it was somehow a little terrifying how clumsy it felt holding the "regular" tools used, compared to using the robot.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#123

Post by Siira »

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…

They are local maxima for normal people. No reason to believe better global maxima don’t exist, or that they can’t be improved to work better for more people (e.g., better accessibility features).

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#124

Post by Siira »

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…

GUIs are also fundamentally more expressive for some types of work, e.g., Photoshop.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#125

Post by IgorPartola »

tacitusarc wrote: post #104
Osiris wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It may be splitting hairs, but I think certain changes to hammers must qualify as invention, certainly, including the crosshatch innovation, the material science involved for both fiberglass and titanium handles, and the improved weight distribution. It's not clear to me what would be considered a complete reimagining of the hammer, as a hammer is such a broad category of tool. Is a mallet a hammer? When I smack some…

A slide hammer, a dead blow hammer, a flooring hammer, a nail gun, a staple gun, liquid nails/glue, screws and a screw driver (powered or not), a jackhammer, a power chisel.

If the idea behind a hammer is to use the momentum of a relatively large mass to drive a relatively small mass into a material, then the idea of a piece of steel on a handle is just the simplest thing you can manufacture as admittedly a versatile one but not necessarily the best one. If your task as the user is to join two materials together then hammer and nail won’t necessarily even look like hammer and nail (glue, screws). If the goal is to separate material like you might with a chisel, depending on the material you might not be using a manual hammer but something that looks very different, like a saw, a file, a jackhammer, etc.

What the person who mentioned the evolution of framing hammers is pointing out refinement of the hammer as it is. Creating a tool better suited to the user’s task is closer to what TFA is about.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#126

Post by simonh »

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…

That’s a really good counter example because it’s still easily and immediately recognisable as a hammer. Anyone picking it up knows how to use it without even thinking about it. In fact they might not even concously notice the changes and how they improve the tool except that it seems better. That’s great incremental UX improvement.

A lot of the critics of lack of innovation in computer UX design don’t want incremental improvements of the existing building blocks of modern UIs, they want to tear it all down and start from scratch. They want VR interfaces, Jeff Raskins The Humane Environment, Button-less UI, etc. They don't care about better hammers, they want nail screwdrivers or handle-less hammers.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#127

Post by thrower123 »

vvanders wrote: post #85
suyash wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I've never yet managed to use that thing without pinging the nail across the room.

Which does explain why OSHA says you have to wear safety glasses when nailing.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#128

Post by capnahab »

a_t48 wrote: post #122
capnahab wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Noted. What has been stable for a long time and remains frustratingly static and unrefined is the field of surgcial instruments. There are a few exceptions but most haven't changed in the 20years I have been a surgeon. The regulatory costs of developing new instruments and intertia of manufacturers doesnt help. Once a manufacturer gains a market share they try and keep by not innovating which keeps their deveopment c…

I don't suppose you'd count something like the da Vinci robots as a step forward? I got to try out a demo unit once (on a dummy! not on a real human), really cool stuff. I'm really glad I tried it _after_ I had my laparoscopic appendectomy - it was somehow a little terrifying how clumsy it felt holding the "regular" tools used, compared to using the robot.

Yes, tho they have been around now for about 20y, are big (no good for eg neurosurgery, ent) and cost $2m. You don't need that for lap appendicectomy, - just a better scope, and a good surgeon. Robots have no advantage over human dexterity. They have a few niche roles eg where we can't get our hands in eg the prostate.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#129

Post by sergeykish »

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…

Just look at browsers — no more status bar, title bar reused for tabs or controls, hidden menu bar.

Web does not value menus and window manipulations either. I don't get it too, tiling window manager optimizes geometry, multiple desktops available by shortcut.

Shell is a manual mode of automation tool. It stores history, I can easily call previous command, combine several commands into new one.

Re: The Anti-Mac User Interface (1996)

#130

Post by jpttsn »

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.

Digression risk: Unless we count human evolution as “learning” I’d disagree: some “metaphors” are surely innate. A snake is scary to babies who have not learned it’s dangerous. Symmetry is beautiful to an untrained eye. Design should be informed also by our innate traits; refrain from taking the “blank slate” idea at face value.
Post reply on HN