I think this is the problem with TED-talk style Interaction Design. More in line with hollywood, than grounded in reality. We all know its nice to hold stuff, but that technology just isn't ready yet.
A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design
61–70 of 156 posts
Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design
#62Oki doki, so given plausible future technology let's try to brainstorm a solution that addresses the issue of tactility in interaction, I give you the ... drumroll KinBall (Kinectic ball). The Kinball would essentially be a wireless ball, like a small juggling sack (the smaller ones) that you could interact with to control devices.
So the Kinball would have the following features
* Gyroscope/acceleratometer so it knows which side is up and how fast it's being moved and where it is.
* Sensors so it can feel where it's being squeezed/pressed and how hard
* Some kind of detecting mechanism for when two balls (cough) are touching each other. * Ability to vibrate in different frequencies and also only partially on different parts of the ball
So with a device like that you now would have to come up with a gesture language, some ideas
* If the future allows it, ability to change color
* Holding the ball and moving the thumb over it is "cursor mode, pressing in that mode would be clicking (and you could "click" and hold for submenus )
* Similarily swiping your tumb over the ball would be the swipe gesture
* Pinch-squeeze could be a specific gesture, perhaps combined with a gesture (like spritzing cookies :)
* If you hold the ball in the whole hand and move it from your chest and forward you could simulate resistance by varying the frequency of the vibrating to "feel" interface element
* you could roll the ball in your hand forwards and backwards, for instance for scrolling
* Double the balls, double the fun. With two balls you could perhaps do interesting things with the distance between them and again simulate resistance by vibrating the balls as you bring them closer to each other
* Social balling, you could touch someone elses ball (ahem) to transfer info, files etc
* You could have the ball on your desk and it could change color or pulse in different colors for different notifications.
This kind of interface would have some interesting features. You get tactile feedback and most gestures are pretty natural. You don't have to get smudge marks on your screens. The ball is pretty discrete and hardly visible in your hand. Heck with a headset (for getting information, like reading smss) you could just get away with a ball and the headset and skip the device altogether for some scenarios.
On the other hand it's another accessory you can lose and a ball in your pants might not be the best form factor.
Anyways, if Apple introduces the iBall you know where you read it first
Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design
#63The 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…
Yes – what this ultimately comes down to is the question of malleability of interface versus specificity of interface.
Capacitive touch screens offer an incredible amount of malleability compared to what we're used to in the history of user interfaces. Within two dimensions, there's simply no limit to what we can do with them. They can be reconfigured infinitely, and yet that infinity is of a low cardinality compared to the infinite number of possible user interfaces.
This difference in cardinality tricks us into thinking it can do anything.
As you say, there are still many applications for which purpose-built interfaces are vastly preferable. Until some sort of science-fiction nano-structure can increase the cardinality of the solution space, the application of malleable interfaces will have distinct limits.
Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design
#64I can't help but think that the success of the iPhone and iPad has caused a big step back in usability among devices that try to copy them. Two similar examples: Garmin's newer aircraft GPS units have touch screens instead of knobs and buttons. The iPad has proven very popular among pilots. I can see why Garmin would decide that "touch is the future." But, while I'm flying an airplane, for my money I'd rather have kn…
This is very interesting, and relevant since I just found out the air traffic control display at the local airport in my hometown has been replaced with, to quote one guy, "a big ipad"
They're up in the air about it because now, instead of knobs and switches, informed by paper maps and pencils, they've got this fancy, 'high-tech' touch screen display - 3x5 feet of shiny glass.
There was a minor storm in a teacup about it, because it leads to a much greater potential for accidents, bad landings and congestion (it's a very busy airport)- but because it cost millions, nobody can go back to good ol' pencil, paper and brain.
Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design
#65The 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…
And one more thing, voice control. Apple has a knack for refining old ideas and making it mainstream. Voice controlled computing has been available for years. Perhaps in the future many of the computer interactions for the non techie consumer will accomplished without using their fingers, swiping.
For me, voice control became refined and mainstream when I told my android phone "Navigate to " and it automatically pulled up Google Maps and started turn-by-turn navigation. (Over a year ago.)
But I don't really think voice control is going to be very useful except in situations where hands are too busy doing something else.
Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design
#66Great article!
I'm not too worried because I think voice manipulation (Siri, others) is as natural as hand manipulation and one at which digital devices will become more adept in the coming years.
Voice control and speaking interfaces, backed up by visual ones would completely overcome the concerns raised here.
Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design
#67Disclaimer: I used to work in the group that produced this video.
You have to remember, that while the "wow" factor (to some folks) is the screens and form factors, this video is made by a group in Office - the things they're really researching and trying to demonstrate is the vision of how your personal information and your "work" information (i.e. your social circles, your coworkers, your job) interact with each other.
How can context really be used effectively with productivity in an office setting? Context is this huge term here - device form factor, the people you're with, the things you're doing, where you're at; there is a ton of information available to apps / services now about who you are, what you're doing, etc - what are scenarios in which that information is actually combined and put to good use?
They really should've made the Director's Commentary to go along with this, there's a lot of research and data behind this video along with the special effects.
Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Kinect is a great example of using the most expressive form of interaction we have - our entire body. It's the right idea. The latest updates even do facial recognition (identify muscle movement). Too bad it doesn't scale to smaller devices/cramped objects. I wonder how small kinect-like tech has to get before it makes its way into smart phones, etc. However, I think voice might be a more expressive medium there,…
I think Kinects/distance detectors are still very young technology. Imagine how far it could be pushed with just engineering. A very high resolution detector could identify facial expressions, smiles, grimaces, smirks, a whole gamut of emotional inputs. Push the resolution even higher and you could use iris movements to zoom in and out based on what the user is trying to look at. Voice control was omitted from the vi…
That research and engineering is already underway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHL5tJ9ja_w
Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design
#69"Rant" may not have been the best word choice for the article title. I got the impression that designers shouldn't be so closed minded in futuristic thinking that may or may not be that far away. And I agree with him. Nor did I realize this until reading this excellent post.
Thanks for a great read.
Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design
#70I would submit that part of the problem is that nobody really has a clue how to use your hands. Are we going to have a thingy for every subtask that we want to do? Are our computer workstations going to resemble carpenter workbenches? Probably not, if for no other reason that lack of cost effectiveness. We've got something like the Wiimote as pretty much the epitome of hand-based interaction, but it's not very precis…
Similarly, how would we use touch feedback? If physics and technology was no objection, would you want your phone to have more mass and inertia when you turn it when it has more email, and be less massive when you've read it?
If you could simulate sloshing water in a glass, what general infomanipulation would map well to that feeling?
What sort of mapping is there between hand manipulation and "next song" or "post Facebook status"?