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

A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

worrydream.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 156 posts

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#21

Post by joebadmo »

notatoad wrote: post #12

the problem with revolutionary user interfaces is that nobody knows how to use them. when you see a "picture under glass" of a piano keyboard, you know that in order to make noise you tap the keys. if your interface is a minor incremental change from the status quo, it doesn't require education. this vision of the future isn't just cool, it's relatable . anybody can look at the products displayed there and think "hey…

I'm not sure that the benefit of making things intuitive or easy to learn is worth the cost of limiting the technology.

Calculus is less intuitive, harder to learn than arithmetic, but it's much more powerful.

Can't we reboot our interfaces, start with a large but consistent vocabulary, and remove limits instead of imposing more of them upon the altar of immediate and complete understanding?

http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/9325300749/a-different-kind-o...

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#22

Post by bglusman »

joebadmo wrote: post #7

This was similar to my own reaction [0], that these concept videos don't look far enough forward. And, maybe because I'm just a born contrarian, as the world moves toward touch-based direct-manipulation paradigms, I've personally been moving toward a more tactile, indirect paradigm. I recently bought a mechanical-switch keyboard, for example, that I'm growing more and more fond of every day. I've also started looking…

Excellent point on the skeuomorphism, though I'm not sure what the alternative is. He mainly focuses on all these things we don't have to learn to know how to use, but for any kind of sophisticated functionality I think some learning will be required and it's more about making it flexible and easy to learn, and utilizing additional channels for information in both directions.

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#23

Post by togasystems »

potatolicious wrote: post #9
togasystems wrote: post #6

What about the rest of our capabilities using our other senses (sound, smell, taste)? Does anybody think that we will incorporate them into future interfaces more?

Sound probably. But I doubt smell and taste would ever play large roles in UI design - it isn't a huge part of how we interact with the world aside from the obvious bits about eating.

Smell is an interesting one. Memory along with visual is tied to smells. A lot of UI is based off of memory recognition. It would neat to see a UI based off of smell (i.e. smell flowers if hit right button)

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#24

Post by aphyr »

joebadmo wrote: post #19
aphyr wrote: post #13

The article focuses on "everyday object" manipulation, but he's right about technology too: there are a wealth of common HCI tools that glass cannot accommodate. - The textual keyboard remains one of the fastest methods of text entry. It can be used without looking, offers high bandwidth, affords both serial and chorded inputs, and works well for precise navigation in discrete spaces, like text, spreadsheets, sets of…

Insightful. It seems to me that the touchscreen, because of the reconfigurability you point out, is the lowest common denominator of input. It makes a lot of sense for a highly portable device, because you can pack many configurations into a small device. I guess what I lament is the richness or input resolution you give up. And if general computing trends more toward this lowest common denominator, we're faced with…

You're absolutely right: it is a spatial resolution problem. There are only so many distinct targets for a finger on a given surface.

Part of the reason we're seeing so many finger-oriented glass interfaces is because it lets us sweep the resolution issue under the rug: capacitative sensing just isn't that good yet. However, I expect that in the next twenty years we'll be able to offer affordable glass with both display and touch resolution equivalent to ink/paper. The stylus could conceivably make a return; it'd be the natural successor to Wacom's devices, and could conceivably play a role in replacing scratch paper. We still have to solve the texture problem, but I doubt that's insurmountable.

I'd also be willing to bet on digital whiteboards (or tabletops). They suck currently, but there's no reason we can't have large-format, medium-resolution collaborative writing surfaces. It's an established workflow for corporate meetings, theoretical physics, software planning etc., and has obvious extensions: copy/paste, save-restore, colorize, resize/move, etc.

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#25

Post by cfn »

notatoad wrote: post #12

the problem with revolutionary user interfaces is that nobody knows how to use them. when you see a "picture under glass" of a piano keyboard, you know that in order to make noise you tap the keys. if your interface is a minor incremental change from the status quo, it doesn't require education. this vision of the future isn't just cool, it's relatable . anybody can look at the products displayed there and think "hey…

We can learn what we don't understand. To use a current example, in modern user interfaces there are two types of metaphors: the ones you can deduce by looking at them (a push button affords to be pushed) and the ones you learn (clicking underlined words was not obvious not so long ago).

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#26

Post by joebadmo »

bglusman wrote: post #22
joebadmo wrote: post #7

This was similar to my own reaction [0], that these concept videos don't look far enough forward. And, maybe because I'm just a born contrarian, as the world moves toward touch-based direct-manipulation paradigms, I've personally been moving toward a more tactile, indirect paradigm. I recently bought a mechanical-switch keyboard, for example, that I'm growing more and more fond of every day. I've also started looking…

Excellent point on the skeuomorphism, though I'm not sure what the alternative is. He mainly focuses on all these things we don't have to learn to know how to use, but for any kind of sophisticated functionality I think some learning will be required and it's more about making it flexible and easy to learn, and utilizing additional channels for information in both directions.

Me from another thread:

I'm not sure that the benefit of making things intuitive or easy to learn is worth the cost of limiting the technology.

Calculus is less intuitive, harder to learn than arithmetic, but it's much more powerful.

Can't we reboot our interfaces, start with a large but consistent vocabulary, and remove limits instead of imposing more of them upon the altar of immediate and complete understanding?

http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/9325300749/a-different-kind-o...

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#27

Post by joebadmo »

aphyr wrote: post #24
joebadmo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insightful. It seems to me that the touchscreen, because of the reconfigurability you point out, is the lowest common denominator of input. It makes a lot of sense for a highly portable device, because you can pack many configurations into a small device. I guess what I lament is the richness or input resolution you give up. And if general computing trends more toward this lowest common denominator, we're faced with…

You're absolutely right: it is a spatial resolution problem. There are only so many distinct targets for a finger on a given surface. Part of the reason we're seeing so many finger-oriented glass interfaces is because it lets us sweep the resolution issue under the rug: capacitative sensing just isn't that good yet. However, I expect that in the next twenty years we'll be able to offer affordable glass with both disp…

Hm. If we're blue-skying, I'd say the ergonomic issues of a direct manipulation UI are still very bad.

I prefer an indirect manipulation paradigm for two reasons: 1. Ergonomics; 2. Abstraction.

I think the abstraction that digital media give/force on us is powerful and frees us from physical limitations.

Collaborative stuff is less limited in a fully digital medium, because 'people' can occupy the same space and see content from the same perspective.

I guess what I'm saying is I'd prefer to see dedicated output device (monitor/glasses/retina laser?) and a dedicated, robust, tactile input device. Like a keyboard.

http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/9325300749/a-different-kind-o...

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#29

Post by enjalot »

notatoad wrote: post #12

the problem with revolutionary user interfaces is that nobody knows how to use them. when you see a "picture under glass" of a piano keyboard, you know that in order to make noise you tap the keys. if your interface is a minor incremental change from the status quo, it doesn't require education. this vision of the future isn't just cool, it's relatable . anybody can look at the products displayed there and think "hey…

Not only that, but you might not be able to see the interfaces of the future. A couple that come to mind:

mind reading interfaces (ECG Headsets)

camera based (like the kinect)

fabric sensors

Not to mention the leaps that machine learning will bring. As we have more and more semantic interfaces with technology things that seem magical now will soon be routine.

What this article does inspire for me is the need for better 3D prototyping with home 3D printers and CNC machines. These are the tools you need to come up with better touch interfaces, not yet another SDK. I think we will see more and more of those as well, so here's hoping for a brighter future for interaction design!

Post reply on HN