Live data from Hacker News

Are we stuck with the same Desktop UX forever? [video]

youtube.com

41–50 of 214 posts

Re: Are we stuck with the same Desktop UX forever? [video]

#41

For desktops, basically, yes. And that's OK. Take any other praxis that's reached the 'appliance' stage that you use in your daily life from washing machines, ovens, coffee makers, cars, smartphones, flip-phones, televisions, toilets, vacuums, microwaves, refrigerators, ranges, etc. It takes ~30 years to optimize the UX to make it "appliance-worthy" and then everything afterwards consists of edge-case features, perso…

All of the other examples you gave are products constrained by physical reality with a small set of countable use-cases. I don't think computer operating systems are simply mature appliance-like products that have been optimized down their current design. I think there is a lot of potential that hasn't been realized because the very few players in the operating system space have been been hill-climbing towards a loca…

To be precise, we're talking about "Desktop Computers" and not the more generic "information appliances".

For example, we're not remotely close to having a standardized "watch form-factor" appliance interface.

Physical reality is always a constraint. In this case, keyboard+display+speaker+mouse+arms-length-proximity+stationary. If you add/remove/alter _any_ of those 6 constraints, then there's plenty of room for innovation, but those constraints _define_ a desktop computer.

Re: Are we stuck with the same Desktop UX forever? [video]

#42
post #34
post #24

I enjoyed this talk, and I want to learn more about the concept of “learning loops” for interface design. Personally, I wish there were a champion of desktop usability like how Apple was in the 1980s and 1990s. I feel that Microsoft, Apple, and Google lost the plot in the 2010s due to two factors: (1) the rise of mobile and Web computing, and (2) the realization that software platforms are excellent platforms for mil…

It's because companies are no longer run by engineers. The MBAs and accountants are in charge and they could care less about making good products. At Microsoft, Satya Nadella has an engineering background, but it seems like he didn't spend much time as an engineer before getting an MBA and playing the management advancement game. Our industry isn't what it used to be and I'm not sure it ever could.

It's great to hear from someone who thinks these people still care! It has rarely been my experience, but I haven't been everywhere yet.

Re: Are we stuck with the same Desktop UX forever? [video]

#43
post #9

Are we stuck with the same toothbrush UX forever?

I can imagine some sort of car-wash-like partial mouth insertion interface (think "smart cleaner/retainer"), but it would be cost-prohibitive and, likely, not offer any appreciable cleaning benefits.

Re: Are we stuck with the same Desktop UX forever? [video]

#44
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, whittling down a stick is pretty much the same experience as using an electric toothbrush. Or those weird mouthguard things they have now. I don't think most people would find this degree of reduction helpful.

> Yes, whittling down a stick is pretty much the same experience as using an electric toothbrush Correct? I agree with this precisely but assume you’re writing it sarcastically From the point of view of the starting state of the mouth to the end state of the mouth the USER EXPERIENCE is the same: clean teeth The FORM FACTOR is different: Electric version means ONLY that I don’t move my arm “Most people” can’t do mult…

That’s just not what user experience means, two products having the same start and end state doesn’t mean the user experience is the same. Imagine two tools, one a CLI and one a GUI, which both let you do the same thing. Would you say that they by definition have the same user experience?

Re: Are we stuck with the same Desktop UX forever? [video]

#45
For the same reason we don't reinvent the wheel. Or perhaps, the same reason we don't constantly change things like a vehicle. It works well, and introducing something new means a learning curve that 99% of folks won't want to deal with, so at that point, you are designing something new for the other 1% of folks willing to tackle it. Unless it's an amazing concept, it won't take off.

Re: Are we stuck with the same Desktop UX forever? [video]

#46

Why didn't Star Trek ever tackle the big issues, like them constantly updating the LCARS interface every few episodes to make it better, or having Geordi La Forge re-writing the warp core controllers in Rust?

Man, I should hope that the warp core controllers on the USS Enterprise were not written in C.

On the other hand, if the writers of Star Trek The Next Generation were writing the show now, rather than 35-40 years ago - and therefore had a more expansive understanding of computer technology and were writing for an audience that could be relied upon to understand computers better than was actually the case - maybe there would've been more episodes involving dealing with the details of Future Sci-Fi Computer Systems in ways a programmer today might find recognizable.

Heck, maybe this is in fact the case for the recently-written episodes of Star Trek coming out in the past few years (that seem to be much less popular than TNG, probably because the entire media environment around broadcast television has changed drastically since TNG was made). Someone who writes for television today is more likely to have had the experience of taking a Python class in middle school than anyone writing for television decades ago (before Python existed), and maybe something of that experience might make it into an episode of television sci-fi.

As an additional point, my recollection is that the LCARS interface did in fact look slightly different over time - in early TNG seasons it was more orange-y, and in later seasons/Voyager/the TNG movies it generally had more of a purple tinge. Maybe we can attribute this in-universe to a Federation-wide UX redesign (imagine throwing in a scene where Barclay and La Forge are walking down a corridor having a friendly argument about whether the new redesign is better or worse immediately before a Red Alert that starts the main plot of the episode!). From a television production standpoint, we can attribute this to things like "the set designers were actually trying to suggest the passage of time and technology changing in the context of the show", or "the set designers wanted to have fun making a new thing" or "over the period of time that the 80s/90s incarnations of Star Trek were being made, television VFX technology itself was advancing rapidly and people wanted to try out new things that were not previously possible" - all of which have implications for real-world technology as well as fake television sci-fi technology.

Re: Are we stuck with the same Desktop UX forever? [video]

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, whittling down a stick is pretty much the same experience as using an electric toothbrush Correct? I agree with this precisely but assume you’re writing it sarcastically From the point of view of the starting state of the mouth to the end state of the mouth the USER EXPERIENCE is the same: clean teeth The FORM FACTOR is different: Electric version means ONLY that I don’t move my arm “Most people” can’t do mult…

That’s just not what user experience means, two products having the same start and end state doesn’t mean the user experience is the same. Imagine two tools, one a CLI and one a GUI, which both let you do the same thing. Would you say that they by definition have the same user experience?

If you drew both brushing processes as a UML diagram the variance would be trivial

Now compare that variance to the variance options given with machine and computing UX options

you’ll see clearly that one (toothbrushing) is less than one stdev different in steps and components for the median use case and one (computing) is nearly infinite variance (no stable stdev) between median use case steps and components.

The fact that the latter state space manifold is available but the action space is constrained inside a local minima is an indictment on the capacity for action space traversal by humans.

This is reflected again with what is a point action space (physically ablate plaque with abrasive) in the possible state space of teeth cleaning for example: chemical only/non ablative, replace teeth entirely every month, remove teeth and eat paste, etc…

So yes I collapsed that complexity into calling it “UX” which classically can be described via UML

Re: Are we stuck with the same Desktop UX forever? [video]

#48
Desktop is dead. Gamers will move to consoles and Valve-like platforms. Rest of productivity is done on a single window browser anyway. Llms will accelerate this

Coders are the only ones who still should be interested in desktop UX, but even in that segment many just need a terminal window.

Re: Are we stuck with the same Desktop UX forever? [video]

#49

Desktop is dead. Gamers will move to consoles and Valve-like platforms. Rest of productivity is done on a single window browser anyway. Llms will accelerate this Coders are the only ones who still should be interested in desktop UX, but even in that segment many just need a terminal window.

For content consumption sure.

For content creation though, desktop still rules.

Re: Are we stuck with the same Desktop UX forever? [video]

#50

Desktop is dead. Gamers will move to consoles and Valve-like platforms. Rest of productivity is done on a single window browser anyway. Llms will accelerate this Coders are the only ones who still should be interested in desktop UX, but even in that segment many just need a terminal window.

Is it dead because people don’t want the desktop, or is it dead because Big Tech won’t invest in the desktop beyond what’s necessary for their business?

Whether intentional or not, it seems like the trend is increasingly locked-down devices running locked-down software, and I’m also disturbed by the prospect of Big Tech gobbling up hardware (see the RAM shortage, for example), making it unaffordable for regular people, and then renting this hardware back to us in the form of cloud services.

It’s disturbing and I wish we could stop this.

Post reply on HN