The best interface is no interface • Hacker News Board

Re: The best interface is no interface

#81

Post by spc476 » Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 10:20 AM UTC

Lagged2Death wrote: post #74

jrajav wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't you want to own a Roombamower that could automatically mow your lawn after a few times around manually? Or a microwave that could recognize types of food with an internal camera, and suggest optimal cooking times based on total times you've done in the past? Maybe you'd rather stick with what you're comfortable with right now, but don't count out great ideas that you might not have thought of yet.

Wouldn't you want to own a Roombamower that could automatically mow your lawn after a few times around manually? If a Roomba vacuum can vacuum the house without training, why would I have to bother training a lawn mower? Shouldn't it work without training? Or a microwave that could recognize types of food with an internal camera, and suggest optimal cooking times based on total times you've done in the past? "I see y…

I doubt the Roombamower would work that well without training. The Roomba is constrained by the walls, so it can just move about randomly without problem (except for stairs---unless it has a sensor to detect its about to tumble down a flight of stairs, you might need to "wall off" the stairs).

However, where I currently live, there are no such constraints for a Roombamower. There is no fence between our yard and the neighbor to the south. There is a fence between us and the north neighbor, but only in the backyard. The driveway isn't a good border because we still have a portion of our yard on the "far side" of the driveway (so the Roombamower can safely cross the driveway to keep mowing), but it shouldn't venture out into the street (no curb---and no sidewalk (another rant) to worry about). I'm not terribly concerned about our back property line as that's a nearly impenetrable thicket of native plant life (Florida, if you are curious).

In our situation, we would need to somehow inform the Roombamower the extent of our yard.

As far as the microwave goes, I can barely operate ours (and here I am, programming computers for a living) and would prefer two dials---power (linear scale is fine) and time (logarithmic would probably work nicely for this).

Re: The best interface is no interface

#82

Post by spc476 » Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 10:28 AM UTC

ricardobeat wrote: post #69

tetha wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am wondering if the unix shell is the no UI approach to the first problem. The unix shell doesn't provide a discoverable, nice interface. On the other hand, it is a minimalist interface which caters the task "Manipulate files in a multitude of ways" very well.

A CLI is not graphical, but still a user interface - and a very opaque one, you can't use it at all without any prior knowledge. It's the complete opposite of the ideal interface in this context.

I've found the CLI on Cisco routers (and some other, non-Cisco routers) to be very discoverable. At any point, you can type a '?' (even on a half-typed command) and get a list of commands/options with descriptions. Okay, it's a summary, and it helps to have some context, but it's not opaque as a Unix command line.

Then there was Lotus, which (at the time it was written) driven by a text-based command line. Type '/', and the cursor would drop to the penultimate line; a list of valid commands/options would appear on the bottom line. You could either type the command/option, or use the arrow/tab keys to select it. And as you typed, the bottom line would change to always list valid options (or a description of what to type next, like "(type a number)").

Heck, even VMS had an extensive help system available at the command line (type 'help'---it was interactive). Please don't judge all CLIs by Unix and MS-DOS.

Don't judge all CLIs by Unix or MS-DOS.

Re: The best interface is no interface

#83

Post by bergie » Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 11:16 AM UTC

jbrennan wrote: post #35

fatbird wrote: post #26

I have two criticisms of the article: 1. Every story is a 'just so' story where the way the system works is exactly the way the user wants the system to work. Great, it's like putting a button front and center on your app and the user wants to push that button and look! It's right there! Awesome. Except I don't want to push that button, I want to push the other button that's now hidden away because the designer is st…

>2. Using AI is a "step 2: ???" solution, and the flaw with it is best exemplified by the columnist who bought a pregnancy book for a pregnant friend on Amazon Flaws like this might exist right now, but that's really a "bug". It's a failure on our part (the software designers and engineers) to build a system that actually works for the human . So sometimes when we try to make our software smart, it ends up being [mad…

Bret Victor's The Magic Ink gives some good starting points for applying context to make software smarter: http://worrydream.com/MagicInk/

Re: The best interface is no interface

#84

Post by Proleps » Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 1:19 PM UTC

I don't like the idea of AI and a computer in everything I own. Who stores/owns all that information? It also seems like a completely unnecessary security risk(people spying on you by hacking into your fridge :P).

The solution is a lot simpler, don't make me use a computer for everything. I can open my car with my key, Pay using money(or even a bank or credit card).

Twitter in you're car and Apps on the fridge only exist because of the App hype. I don't think they will last.

Re: The best interface is no interface

#85

Post by DanBC » Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 1:46 PM UTC

ricardobeat wrote: post #69

tetha wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am wondering if the unix shell is the no UI approach to the first problem. The unix shell doesn't provide a discoverable, nice interface. On the other hand, it is a minimalist interface which caters the task "Manipulate files in a multitude of ways" very well.

A CLI is not graphical, but still a user interface - and a very opaque one, you can't use it at all without any prior knowledge. It's the complete opposite of the ideal interface in this context.

But isn't that the point?

Being presented with a blue screen in WordPerfect is a minimal interface, but to do anything you have to learn how to use it. You have to learn how to get the menus up and etc.

And while good design is important, and tends to reduce interface clutter, it's also important to let users have easy access to the stuff they need.

Reducing the interface to what users need is a tricky skill, and risks angering power users. (Google dropping + to force inclusion is a notable example.)

Re: The best interface is no interface

#86

Post by DanBC » Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 1:48 PM UTC

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #50

DenisM wrote: post #36

I found the article somewhat light on useful examples; however the premise is very interesting, so I would like to bring a couple of my own examples to the table : In a restaurant named "The Herb Farm" in Seattle area you don't pay when you eat, you pay before the dinner, when making a reservation by phone (the menu is prix-fixe). So when you're done eating you just walk out - no waiting for the check, no computing t…

Your first example doesn't make sense to me. Why is the restaurant optimizing for the leaving experience? They should be optimizing for the eating experience. Like deciding to get an extra appetizer because the people you're with got one that looks really good. Or deciding to break your diet and get the dessert anyways.

Turning tables is important for some restaurants, more so than getting an extra appetiser or dessert.

Re: The best interface is no interface

#87

Post by jasonlotito » Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 2:27 PM UTC

fatbird wrote: post #26

I have two criticisms of the article: 1. Every story is a 'just so' story where the way the system works is exactly the way the user wants the system to work. Great, it's like putting a button front and center on your app and the user wants to push that button and look! It's right there! Awesome. Except I don't want to push that button, I want to push the other button that's now hidden away because the designer is st…

1. What if I don't want my car to unlock when I approach it?

Disable it and choose to use the smart phone app. They are not mutually exclusive, and you've already used services just like this. Automatic doors that open as you approach them at a store? And when they aren't powered, you can still open them manually. Bad implementations won't open if they aren't powered.

2. it is best exemplified

If that's your best example, I feel bad. It's merely a flaw in the system, easily resolved. It's the powered door that won't open without power.

Designing these intelligent interactions is not easy. And dealing with exceptions is challenging. They are, after all, exceptions. But don't assume that designing these interactions should account for every exception. Rather, it should make normal easy and make exceptional resolvable.

Re: The best interface is no interface

#88

Post by camtarn » Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 2:28 PM UTC

fatbird wrote: post #38

jbrennan wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>2. Using AI is a "step 2: ???" solution, and the flaw with it is best exemplified by the columnist who bought a pregnancy book for a pregnant friend on Amazon Flaws like this might exist right now, but that's really a "bug". It's a failure on our part (the software designers and engineers) to build a system that actually works for the human . So sometimes when we try to make our software smart, it ends up being [mad…

Doesn't "provide better context" just push the problem one turtle away? How could I communicate to the website that the item for which I'm shopping is for a friend, not for me, and that I don't want the current actions to figure into future adaptive behaviour? Perhaps a checkbox? But now we're adding interface, which we were trying to eliminate in the first place. I suggest that this is an intractable problem just be…

The funny thing is, in Amazon's case, there are multiple ways to do that - tell the website you're buying something as a gift during checkout, or when you get bad recommendations, click 'fix this recommendation'. Of course, even though I work there * , I never remember to do the former, and usually can't be bothered to do the latter ... and I reckon the majority of people don't know that either option exists (in a couple of cases I've even had people ask me why the option didn't exist!)

It's a pretty good case study: even though the UI is there, front and center (the 'fix this' link is usually right underneath recommendations), it doesn't get used because most users would rather do 'Step 1: get good recommendations' rather than 'Step 1: get mixed-quality recommendations; Step 2: take action to improve recommendations; Step 3: get good recommendations'.

* And, of course (standard disclaimer) I don't speak for or represent Amazon in any way...

Re: The best interface is no interface

#89

Post by jasonlotito » Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 2:41 PM UTC

gbog wrote: post #77

jbrennan wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>2. Using AI is a "step 2: ???" solution, and the flaw with it is best exemplified by the columnist who bought a pregnancy book for a pregnant friend on Amazon Flaws like this might exist right now, but that's really a "bug". It's a failure on our part (the software designers and engineers) to build a system that actually works for the human . So sometimes when we try to make our software smart, it ends up being [mad…

>> the columnist who bought a pregnancy book for a pregnant friend on Amazo > that's really a "bug" This thinking worries me a lot, especially when applied to what Google is heading for. So now many people are removing all buttons and settings, because they think that every button or setting is a failure to guess the user's need. The epitome of this move it probably Google Now, and I fear it is going to fail or to st…

> the world is much less predictable than we think it is

I don't know anyone who thinks the world is predictable. Anyone. Your problem is scope. The world is not predictable. But small pieces are. And the world is made up of many, many small pieces. The challenge is discovering those small pieces. Not all are obvious.

And those pieces which we have discovered we can predict at a reasonable level, we ignore.

Take automatic doors at the entrance of stores. We approach the entrance, the door recognizes this, and the doors open. This is predication. We are predicting that someone approaching in a particular area will most likely want to enter the store, so we prepare by opening the door. This isn't 100%, but it's an overwhelmingly effective prediction.

> Who did like this when a teenager?

I'm not a teenager anymore though, so your reasoning doesn't follow. Your upset that if you are lost, and you want to find your way back, Google will, maybe, tell you?

Seems like your problem is personal, and frankly, a bit selfish. It's easily solved by not using the tools that you do no want to use.

Re: The best interface is no interface

#90

Post by jasonlotito » Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 2:47 PM UTC

fatbird wrote: post #38

jbrennan wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>2. Using AI is a "step 2: ???" solution, and the flaw with it is best exemplified by the columnist who bought a pregnancy book for a pregnant friend on Amazon Flaws like this might exist right now, but that's really a "bug". It's a failure on our part (the software designers and engineers) to build a system that actually works for the human . So sometimes when we try to make our software smart, it ends up being [mad…

Doesn't "provide better context" just push the problem one turtle away? How could I communicate to the website that the item for which I'm shopping is for a friend, not for me, and that I don't want the current actions to figure into future adaptive behaviour? Perhaps a checkbox? But now we're adding interface, which we were trying to eliminate in the first place. I suggest that this is an intractable problem just be…

> But now we're adding interface, which we were trying to eliminate in the first place.

camtarn already explains how you make this part of the natural interface. I'm going to address the apparent confusion you have in assuming that in removing the interface, you do not need to eliminate it. For example, in the article, the discussion about approaching the car should open the door does not mean that you remove the interface of lock and key.

> An appropriate solution in a certain set of cases, but nothing like a general solution for all.

And the article isn't advocating for the removal of all UIs. It even goes on to advocate certain UIs. Don't just read the headline. Take a few minutes and consider what's being said.