Live data from Hacker News

A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

worrydream.com

31–40 of 156 posts

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#31
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…

"""these concept videos don't look far enough forward."""

If you look at any 'visions of the future' from the last 150 years, their visions retrospectively look silly and naive. From a forward looking perspective, though, would a true vision of the future make sense to a person seeing it? Maybe a clunky 'TV + rotary telephone' 60's vision of videophones would be more understandable/realistic/visionary than the sight of an iphone with a forward facing camera...?

Incremental steps...there's no point in looking too far forward or you wont get anywhere.

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#32

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…

It'd also be fairly hard to convey haptic interaction.

More fundamentally, it seems to me like there's no point in showing us something, even if it's achievable, if we have no frame of reference for understanding it, or believing that it's possible. 'Visions' aren't really visions if we can't imagine it happening. Seeing Avatar didn't make me go "wow...one day", seeing this video does.

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#33
I feel like I have just undergone a major epiphany. And just after the epiphany, I realized that pretty much the exact same content is hiding as one of those relatively insignificant background world-building details baked into Neal Stephenson's _Anathem_.

And in the non-fiction realm, Wii-mote and Kinect devices. We've totally got the beginnings of tactile, full-body interface technology that's just as reconfigurable and programmable as pictures under glass.

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#34

Love the effort put into the presentation of this blog post. Although I personally love all the shiny finger gestures, must agree that this "vision" is only a sexy marketing trick and contains very little actual innovation, and probably even less actual innovation that Microsoft will actually build in the near future, or the long future. As per the abundance of motors skills that we have, it would indeed be lovely to…

Why single out Microsoft? Isn't everyone working on these problems now?

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#35
post #10

When you rescale the human body in proportion to how much of the brain is concerned with each part, you end up with this: http://www.jwz.org/blog/2004/12/sensory-homunculus/ The hands are huge because so much of your brain is devoted to skillfully moving and precisely sensing things with your hands. Your hands are basically the focus of the human body in interacting with the environment around it. This explains how m…

You're going to want to add an NSFW to that link. I glanced at it while on my work computer and was not pleased to find male parts on the 3d model.

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#36
post #10

When you rescale the human body in proportion to how much of the brain is concerned with each part, you end up with this: http://www.jwz.org/blog/2004/12/sensory-homunculus/ The hands are huge because so much of your brain is devoted to skillfully moving and precisely sensing things with your hands. Your hands are basically the focus of the human body in interacting with the environment around it. This explains how m…

You're going to want to add an NSFW to that link. I glanced at it while on my work computer and was not pleased to find male parts on the 3d model.

God forbid a model of a human being should actually resemble a human being...

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#37

This post would make a lot stronger case if it didn't use an eye-bleeding, small gray font.

What are you talking about?

The basic text -- 12 px Arial? -- is pretty standard. I'm sure I'm not the only person who read it without issue.

But what's more -- unlike most things I read online -- this essay even has text that's much bigger!, darker!, blue-er!, and illustration-y! where appropriate.

That's perhaps the most snide, trollish, unimportant pot shot I've ever seen here. Don't blame the author because your own display resolution is apparently too fine to support your eyesight.

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#38
Another major problem with "research visions" like this is that they portray a thoroughly "bourgeois" future. We know already that in order for every human on this planet to have basic needs taken care of, highly consumptive 1st world lifestyles like the one portrayed in the video will need to be replaced. If you've ever built anything, you'll know that it takes an immense amount of resources to obtain that kind of polish. I know that some designers like clean, shiny things, but perpetuating the meme that the future won't be characterized by rough-edges is escapist if not simply irresponsible. If we don't imagine a future for ourselves that involves patterns of behavior that are conducive to conservation of resources and supply-chain+community resilience, then I'm afraid that the only people using tools other than shovels and guns will be a super-elite living in fortified micro-cities (so perhaps it's accurate after all).

Some more silly videos:

- Nokia (w/ AR goggles): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4pDf7m2UPE

- Cisco Songdo City: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1x9qU-Sav8 (this one's real!)

For those sympathetic to the argument of the OP, you may be interested in Bill Buxton's papers on bi-manual interaction. Bill is a huge (and early) proponent of this point of view (that computer interfaces should make full use of the capabilities of the human body): http://www.billbuxton.com/papers.html#anchor1442822

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#39
I think I disagree with the rant.

It's a little inconsistant as well. On the one hand, he argues that Pictures behind glass isn't where we should be heading, and instead we should come up with better visions, as an example he uses the someone who came up with the original idea for a "goddamn ipad"...

But wait, didn't he just say pictures behind glass was a bad model to work towards?

Personally I think if we could implement a fraction of the things in that vision video, the world would be a better place for it. If some of the things don't work, or the interaction feels wrong... we can always change the vision.

The Apple Knowledge Navigator doesn't resemble the iPhone at all... But it was/is a good vision to work towards.

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#40
post #38

Another major problem with "research visions" like this is that they portray a thoroughly "bourgeois" future. We know already that in order for every human on this planet to have basic needs taken care of, highly consumptive 1st world lifestyles like the one portrayed in the video will need to be replaced. If you've ever built anything, you'll know that it takes an immense amount of resources to obtain that kind of p…

Wise words of Bruce Sterling in "Shaping Things" (MIT Press):

"We need to understand technology with a depth of maturity that mankind has never shown before. We need to stop fussing over mere decade-long "Ages" and realize that there are only three basic kinds of "technology" truly worthy of civilized use. None one them are entirely possible yet.

1. The first kind, and likely the most sensible one, is technology that can eventually rot and go away all by itself. Its materials and processes are biodegradable, so it's an auto-recycling technology. The natural environment can do this kind of work for itself, while also producing complicated forests, grasslands and coral reefs, so, someday, an artificial environment ought to be able to biomimetically mimic that achievement. This doesn't mean merely using available "natural materials" that we repurpose from crops or wilderness. It means room-temperature industrial assembly without toxins. [...]

2. The second kind of technology is monumental. These are artifacts deliberately built to outlast the passage of time. This is very hard to do and much over-estimated. Many objects we consider timeless monuments, such as the Great Pyramid and the Roman Colosseum, are in fact ruins. They no longer serve their original purposes: a royal tomb and a giant urban playground, and they no longer look remotely like the did when their original builders finally dusted off their hands and demanded their pay. Bat at least these "monuments" don't crumble unpredictably, leach into the water table and emit carcinogens while they offgas. [...]

3. The last kind of decent technology is the kind I have tried to haltingly describe here. It's a fully documented, trackable, searchable technology. This whirring, ultra-buzzy technology can keep track of all its moving parts and, when its time inevitably comes, it would have the grace and power to turn itself in at the gates of the junkyard and suffer itself to be mindfully pulled apart. It's a toy box for inventive, meddlesome humankind that can put its own toys neatly and safely away. [...]"

Full quotation here: http://msutherl.net/txt/3kindsoftech.txt

Post reply on HN