Live data from Hacker News

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

youtube.com

11–20 of 214 posts

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

#11

You know, sometimes things just work. They get whittled way at until we end up with a very refined endpoint. Just look at cell phones. Black rectangles as far as the eye can see. For good reason. I'm not saying don't explore new avenues ( foldables, etc. ), but it's perfectly fine to come to settle into a metaphor that just works.

The Windows 95-XP taskbar is good. Everything else has been downhill.

I use Trinity Desktop on Linux because it's basically the same as the Windows 95-XP taskbar interface, and has no plans to change.

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

#12
The computer form factor hasn’t changed since the mainframe: look into a screen for where to give input, select visual icons via a pointer, type text via keyboard into a text entry box, hit an action button, recieve result, repeat

it’s just all gotten miniaturized

Humans have outright rejected all other possible computer form factors presented to them to date including:

Purely NLP with no screen

head worn augmented reality

contact lenses,

head worn virtual reality

implanted touch sensors

etc…

Every other possible form factor gets shit on, on this website and in every other technology newspaper.

This is despite almost a century of a attempts at doing all those and making zero progress in sustained consumer penetration.

Had people liked those form factors they would’ve been invested in them early on, such that they would develop the same way the laptops and iPads and iPhones and desktops have evolved.

However nobody’s even interested at any type of scale in the early days of AR for example.

I have a litany of augmented and virtual reality devices scattered around my home and work that are incredibly compelling technology - but are totally seen as straight up dogshit from the consumer perspective.

Like everything it’s not a machine problem, it’s a human people in society problem

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

#13

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?

Because it’s a fantasy space opera show that has nothing to do with reality

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

#14
post #9

Are we stuck with the same toothbrush UX forever?

I feel like toothbrush UX has improved quite a bit.

Toothbrush UX is the same today as it was when we were hunter gatherers: use an abrasive tool to ablate plaque from the teeth and gums without removing enamel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMuTG6fOMCg

The variety of form factors offered are the only difference

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

#15

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?

Because, something that a lot of tech-obsessed Trek fans never seem to really come to terms with, is that Trek didn't fetishize technology.

In the Trek universe, LCARS wasn't getting continuous UI updates because they would have advanced, culturally, to a point where they recognized that continuous UI updates are frustrating for users. They would have invested the time and research effort required to better understand the right kind of interface for the given devices, and then... just built that. And, sure, it probably would get updates from time to time, but nothing like the way we do things now.

Because the way we do things now is immature. It's driven often by individual developers' needs to leave their fingerprints on something, to be able to say, "this project is now MY project", to be able to use it as a portfolio item that helps them get a bigger paycheck in the future.

Likewise, Geordi was regularly shown to be making constant improvements to the ship's systems. If I remember right, some of his designs were picked up by Starfleet and integrated into other ships. He took risks, too, like experimental propulsion upgrades. But, each time, it was an upgrade in service of better meeting some present or future mission objective. Geordi might have rewritten some software modules in whatever counted as a "language" in that universe at some point, but if he had done so, he would have done extensive testing and tried very hard to do it in a way that wouldn't've disrupted ship operations, and he would only do so if it gained some kind of improvement that directly impacted the success or safety of the whole ship.

Really cool technology is a key component of the Trek universe, but Trek isn't about technology. It's about people. Technology is just a thing that's in the background, and, sometimes, becomes a part of the story -- when it impacts some people in the story.

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

#16

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?

Because, something that a lot of tech-obsessed Trek fans never seem to really come to terms with, is that Trek didn't fetishize technology. In the Trek universe, LCARS wasn't getting continuous UI updates because they would have advanced, culturally, to a point where they recognized that continuous UI updates are frustrating for users. They would have invested the time and research effort required to better understan…

I still wonder why not everybody was lingering in the holodeck all the time.

(equivalent of people being glued to their smartphones today)

(Related) This is one explanation for the Fermi paradox: Alien species may isolate themselves in virtual worlds

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

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

#17

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?

Because, something that a lot of tech-obsessed Trek fans never seem to really come to terms with, is that Trek didn't fetishize technology. In the Trek universe, LCARS wasn't getting continuous UI updates because they would have advanced, culturally, to a point where they recognized that continuous UI updates are frustrating for users. They would have invested the time and research effort required to better understan…

Isn't it probably just that they don't really have money in Star Trek so there is no contract promising amazing advances in the LCARS if we just pay this person or company to revamp it? If someone has money to be made from something they will always want to convince you the new thing is what you need.

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

#18
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, personalization, or regulatory compliance.

Desktop Computers are no exception.

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

#19

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?

Because, something that a lot of tech-obsessed Trek fans never seem to really come to terms with, is that Trek didn't fetishize technology. In the Trek universe, LCARS wasn't getting continuous UI updates because they would have advanced, culturally, to a point where they recognized that continuous UI updates are frustrating for users. They would have invested the time and research effort required to better understan…

Most of Trek's tech is just a way to move the story along. Transporters were introduced to avoid having to land a shuttle. Warp drive is just a way to get to the next story. Communicators relay plot points.

Stories which focus on them as technology are nearly always boring. "Oh no the transporter broke... Yay we fixed it".

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

#20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like toothbrush UX has improved quite a bit.

Toothbrush UX is the same today as it was when we were hunter gatherers: use an abrasive tool to ablate plaque from the teeth and gums without removing enamel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMuTG6fOMCg The variety of form factors offered are the only difference

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.

Post reply on HN