Live data from Hacker News

A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

worrydream.com

71–80 of 156 posts

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#71

Disclaimer: 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 ot…

Are the research and data publicly available?

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#72
post #71

Disclaimer: 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 ot…

Are the research and data publicly available?

Not all of it, it's very much a synthesis of different sources; some are public, some are MSR papers, some isn't publicly available

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

That would be so cool! I bet it would also be useful for educational software. You load up the chem program for the first time in months, and immediately smell your studying chem smell, lets say hazelnut coffee, and the memories start flowing back.

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#74
I agree that we need more vision to expand our capabilities.

But I would add that all of our senses are ripe for innovations in interaction. There are things we have yet to accomplish in terms of audio and sight, and even smell. Our fingers get in the way when we use a touch screen-- will there be a system powerful enough to track my eye position to the point where it can assist navigation?

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#75
I've read many versions of this rant, written under many different authors' names over the last thirty or more years.

I'm waiting for the iteration of this rant - or even the actual UI some engineer's put together or some designer's rastubated - that shows that anyone involved has spent a single, solitary moment thinking about how a disabled person could use these interfaces. The next one will be the first one.

The more of the range of human ability an interface requires, the more human disability becomes a barrier to use it. What's so exciting about a future that shuts out people because they don't have the full range of action that some twit thought would be cool to make gratuitous use of?

No, contra Victor's ignorance, every human being does not in fact have hands or feet or normally-capable versions thereof.

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#76
post #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 imp…

I dont really get your point. He was an UX engineer at Apple. He probably was involved with the "goddamn ipad". He is not critizicing the Interface Method perse, since it is probably the best we can do right now given the size constraints and technological capabilities we have right now. What he says however is that the long run, pictures behind the glass cannot be the solution. Or better said: shouldnt be.

I know who he is and where he's worked. But authority != always right

The vision held a lot more than just swiping on glass, there were spacially aware devices, proximity networking, augmented reality... But that's not vision worthy... because the ipad already exists!?

People are talking like, if you get a vision wrong (at the start) the whole journey is pointless. I'm saying, we can always change the things that don't work. If interacting with glass stops working out... we can ditch that for something better.

Just like the iPhone/iPad doesn't fold in the middle (like the knowledge navigator vision presented).

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#77
post #49
post #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 imp…

You are taking that first bit out of context. H is pretty clear in the article what he means. He believes that pictures behind glass are a transitionary phase and not something we should work toward, because we already have them. The Dynabook was a vision of the iPad but it was a vision someone had 40 years ago. His point is that Alan Kay's vision truly was visionary in that he saw a future interface that did not com…

As I said in my other response, there is a lot in that video that is visionary. Alan Kay's drawing had a keyboard in it... That's not visionary... he's just copying the typewriter - what a stupid vision!?

Augmented reality, Proximity networking, transparent computers, visual recognition, AI, interfacing with the kitchen... seriously we are saying "Not visionary" because there are glass interfaces with hands swiping on them...

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two counterpoints: 1) "targets" are a part of tactile interfaces, in touch interfaces we may shed the need for accurate targets (i.e. gestures can be made anywhere on a screen) 2) Confidence that comes from the physical response from tactile systems may just be an anachronism after a decade or two of built up trust in touchscreen systems

So, Ipads for navigation displays in a cockpit - great idea. But, would you really like your pilot to trust that an airplane is descending because Siri said it was? Don't think so.

You're being snarky about Siri for some reason. But what you describe is in fact similar to the Ground Proximity Warning System, a feature of modern aircraft. When the computer announces "pull up! pull up! terrain!" you can be certain the pilot pays heed.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_proximity_warning_system

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#79
http://www.blurbpoint.com/directory-submission-service.php Directory Submission Service Directory submission service is the best option for improve your website rank in the search engines, simplest way to get quality incoming links and improve your overall traffic.

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would counter those sentiments with the ZuneHD experience. Most people haven't used one, but touch isn't vision focused. With the Zune in my pocket, I can unlock, skip a track, stop, play, change the volume (on the screen, not a rocker on the side). I can also try to shuffle/unshuffle, but that isn't as easy. I was actually amazed that Apple completely missed the ability to use touch when you weren't looking at the…

They didn't completely miss it - go to settings, general, accessibility, and you can enable voiceover which reads anything you touch out loud and makes you double click to activate, so you can navigate without sight. It's terrible if you want a hardware button to skip a track, but it's usable for basically any iOS app with standard UI controls - including web browsing - which a hardware button isn't. I've never seen…

The Apple earphones that come with the iphone/ipod have hardware to skip a track. Single Click Pause, Double click skip forward, triple click skip back.
Post reply on HN