Live data from Hacker News

The Cooper Journal: The best interface is no interface

cooper.com

11–20 of 36 posts

Re: The Cooper Journal: The best interface is no interface

#11
post #9

I'm curious just how far down the rabiit hole you can take this philosiphy. Just how many APIs and programming interfaces and other interaction points of a computer can be eliminated or automated away or even made to adapt to user preferences? What would this mean for the divide between the Operating System and its Applications?

Slippery Slope arguments are logically fallacious. It's about knowing the product's true purpose and using good judgement. It's about following good design principles, such as Dieter Rams's ten principles for good design: https://www.vitsoe.com/gb/about/good-design.

Re: The Cooper Journal: The best interface is no interface

#12
post #7
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, I liked the article. He's right in that visual UI should only be looked at after everything possible has been gleaned from process. As for TVs, I think most who are designing the interfaces are still stuck "inside the box". They need to take a couple steps back and learn how modern people use the interfaces. This is one of the main reasons I dropped cable and now feed my TV from a web-connected PC. The cab…

My grandfather, a regular country man, is horrorized by the amount of choices he has. Nowadays there is a remote for the TV with a lot of buttons, another for the video decoder, with more buttons, and another for the radio, with yes, more buttons. He was used to have a machine which worked upon being switched on. The TV had buttons labeled 1-10 for the ten channels. The radio only needed a dial and a volume slider. H…

My grandparents always lament how complicated things are these days. They too just want a simple 1-10 and on/off remote. These do exist, but I keep reminding them why it's not possible for them: they have cable. And a DVR. And a DVD player. And a sound bar.

In the days of simple on/off TVs, these didn't exist. I know they're not going to give up the Food Network, ESPN, Nickelodeon for the great-grandkids, CSI, etc. Things are more complicated now for a reason. When there were only 3 channels, you only needed one remote with 10 buttons on it. I agree that interfaces have gotten out of control (I can enter the menu on my TV without the remote, but I can't exit it?), but the reality is, you get features or you get simplicity. There's no way to control 3 or 4 disparate systems with all their capabilities with only 10 buttons and no on-screen interface.

Re: The Cooper Journal: The best interface is no interface

#13
post #9

I'm curious just how far down the rabiit hole you can take this philosiphy. Just how many APIs and programming interfaces and other interaction points of a computer can be eliminated or automated away or even made to adapt to user preferences? What would this mean for the divide between the Operating System and its Applications?

Pretty far. Imagine one day not having a remote for your tv at all, and just looking at a certain spot(camera) on the TV saying, "TV, turn on" "next channel, next channel" "louder".

That would completely eliminate the need for a UI or menu or remote.

Re: The Cooper Journal: The best interface is no interface

#14
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My grandfather, a regular country man, is horrorized by the amount of choices he has. Nowadays there is a remote for the TV with a lot of buttons, another for the video decoder, with more buttons, and another for the radio, with yes, more buttons. He was used to have a machine which worked upon being switched on. The TV had buttons labeled 1-10 for the ten channels. The radio only needed a dial and a volume slider. H…

My grandparents always lament how complicated things are these days. They too just want a simple 1-10 and on/off remote. These do exist, but I keep reminding them why it's not possible for them: they have cable. And a DVR. And a DVD player. And a sound bar. In the days of simple on/off TVs, these didn't exist. I know they're not going to give up the Food Network, ESPN, Nickelodeon for the great-grandkids, CSI, etc. T…

How about ten (or so) nice big buttons with OLED key caps? I've used rather remarkably simple smart remotes in the past; their only real problem being that they used resistive, early-generation LCD touch screens, which are not great from a tactile perspective. A simple, clearly labelled remote that's capable of changing context beats the heck out of three or four devices with dozens of tiny, poorly-labelled rubber chicklets.

Re: The Cooper Journal: The best interface is no interface

#18
I think the main problem is that programs are designed by programmers who think that the users are idiots. Programs designed for programmers have a much leaner interface.

e.g. think about accounting applications:

You had trained data typists in the 60s, who typed the accounting records in a format, that can be directly processed in a batch oriented way.

You had 3270 terminals in the 70s, for trained typists, to enter the accounting data into a form, that was producing the records to be processed in a batch oriented way.

User interfaces become more interactive in the 80s, applications become personal, and there was no batch oriented processing anymore.

Most accounting software requires the use of the mouse now, so its no longer possible to use them for a trained typist, who prefers that her fingers stays on keyboard.

Lets step back:

My own home grown accounting software is written AWK. Its parsing a plain text in a markdown like syntax, and producing all papers I need for tax and accounting with a single "make". Calling ":wmake" is F2 in VI for me. The complete accounting system is 88 lines for invoices, 128 lines for monthly tax, 168 lines for annual tax. Its pure batch oriented, requires no database, and I'm using my preferred interface, the VI editor.

Re: The Cooper Journal: The best interface is no interface

#19
post #2

At first I thought I would read a rant about current user interfaces, but the article turned out to be well thought, smartly written and, above all, it doesn't discuss interfaces _per se_. It goes up a meta level and proposes eliminating interfaces everywhere, because instead of helping people, they hinder the interaction. During the first few lines I had to convince myself that it is actually a good idea, but they a…

I would like to understand why you think being able to tweet from your fridge is a good idea.

Re: The Cooper Journal: The best interface is no interface

#20

Apparently the best page is blank without JavaScript enabled, too.

This isn't too far from the truth! I make extensive use of dotjs[1] to inject my own CSS rules into web sites that I use frequently. ~65% of what I do is simply hiding useless divs/ads/flash and removing background colors, with the other 35% being mostly typographic tweaks (`line-height` and `font-size` being popular candidates here).

[1]: http://defunkt.io/dotjs/

Post reply on HN