Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 214 posts

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

#141

Post by Telaneo »

ryandrake wrote: post #139
vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have heard a big factor is that a lot of the newer devs don’t really use desktop OS outside of work. So for them developing a desktop OS is more of an abstract project like for me developing software for medical devices which I never use myself.

I’ve never understood the idea of a software developer who doesn’t use a computer outside of development. Who are these people?

People who got into software development not because they enjoy working with computers, but rather because it pays well. Outside of work, they're the same as any other casual who's got a phone as their primary computing device.

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

#142

Post by Telaneo »

d3Xt3r wrote: post #69
amelius wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Most likely because this was a star ship (or space station) with a limited number of personnel, all of whom have fixed duties that need to be done. You simply can't afford to waste your time away in holodecks. The people we saw on screen most of the time also held important positions on the ship (especially the bridge, or engineering) and you can't expect them to just waste significant chunks of time. Also, don't for…

Also, holodecks are limited in number. Voyager had two, and during one episode where the plot point was that they were in an area of space with literally nothing, the holodecks were in such high demand they had to schedule time there so everybody got a bit each. With Voyager having 150~ people onboard, I can easily imagine that sucking. The Enterprise had more holodecks (4-6~?), but with around 1000 people onboard, if they were in the same situation of there being nothing to do, the Holodecks would probably have been equally crowded.

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

#143

Post by stephenlf »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #123
jhhh wrote: post #72

I understand the desire to want to fix user pain points. There are plenty to choose from. I think the problem is that most of the UI changes don't seem to fix any particular issue I have. They are just different, and when some changes do create even more problems there's never any configuration to disable them. You're trying to create a perfect, coherent system for everyone absent the ability to configure it to our l…

> He even mentioned how unpopular making things configurable is in the UI community. Inability to imagine someone might have different idea about what's useful is general plague of UI/UX industry. And there seem to be zero care given to usage by user that have to use the app longer than 30 seconds a day. Productivity vs learning time curve is basically flat, and low, with exception being pretty much "the tools made b…

Convention over configuration is a powerful idea. Most people don’t want to twiddle with configs. The power user approach is the way to go.

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

#144

Post by Telaneo »

SoftTalker wrote: post #101
sprash wrote: post #21

Unpopular take: Windows 95 was the peak of Desktop UX. GUI elements were easily distinguishable from content and there was 100% consistency down to the last little detail (e.g. right click always gave you a meaningful context menu). The innovations after that are tiny in comparison and more opinionated (things like macos making the taskbar obsolete with the introduction of Exposé).

I would say Windows 2000 Pro, but that really wasn't too different from Windows 95. The OS was much better though, being based on NT.

I don't think it's a stretch to call it the UI language of 95, while 2000 just adds more functionality within the bounds of that framework. Add in the Win7 search bar in the start menu, and the OS not crashing, you haven't really done anything of note with the UI beyond staying within its framework. It'll still be a Win95 UI.

Meanwhile, WinXP started to fiddle with the foundation of that framework, sometimes maybe for the better, sometimes maybe for the worse. Vista did the same. 7 mostly didn't and instead mostly fixed what Vista broke, while 8 tried to throw the whole thing out.

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

#145

Post by gldrk »

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #114
vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 80s and 90s there was much more idealism than now. There were also more low hanging fruit to develop software that makes people’s lives better. There was also less investor money floating around so it was more important to appeal to end users. To me it seems tech has devolved into a big money making scheme with only the minimum necessary actual technology and innovation.

I would agree that it was different, but I also think this may be history viewed through rose-tinted glasses somewhat. > There were also more low hanging fruit to develop software that makes people’s lives better. In principle, maybe. In practice, you had to pay for everything. Open source or free software was not widely available. So, the profit motive was there. The conditions didn’t exist yet for the profit model…

>In practice, you had to pay for everything.

As a private individual, you didn't actually have to pay for anything once you got an Internet connection. Most countries never even tried enforcing copyright laws against small fish. DRM was barely a thing and was easily broken within days by l33t teenagers.

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

#146

Post by 3v1n0 »

ryandrake wrote: post #137
PunchyHamster wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He even mentioned how unpopular making things configurable is in the UI community. Inability to imagine someone might have different idea about what's useful is general plague of UI/UX industry. And there seem to be zero care given to usage by user that have to use the app longer than 30 seconds a day. Productivity vs learning time curve is basically flat, and low, with exception being pretty much "the tools made b…

Back in the 90s, you had a setting for everything! It was glorious. This trend of deliberately not making things configurable is the worst, and we can’t seem to escape it because artists are in charge of the UI rather than human interaction professionals. App designers need to understand that their opinions on how the app should look and work are just that: opinions. Opinions they should keep to themselves.

Try to maintain the whole matrix or possibilities then you tell me...

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

#147

Post by compressedgas »

mattkevan wrote: post #23

Really interesting. Going to have to watch in detail. I’m in the process of designing an os interface that tries to move beyond the current desktop metaphor or the mobile grid of apps. Instead it’s going to use ‘frames’ of content that are acted on by capabilities that provide functionality. Very much inspired by Newton OS, HyperCard and the early, pre-Web thinking around hypermedia. A newton-like content soup combin…

Reminds me of Yuzuru Tanaka's Meme Media and Meme Market Architectures (2003) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/047172307X

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

#148

Post by calmbonsai »

pegasus wrote: post #73
calmbonsai wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inno…

That's just the thing, desktops computers have always been in an important way the antithesis of a specialized appliance, a materialization of Turing's dream of the Universal Machine. It's only in recent years that this universality has come under threat, in the name of safety.

I wouldn't save the driver is "safety". It's happened that a few highly-specialized symbolic manipulation tasks now have enough market value such that they can demand highly specialized UX to optimize task performance.

One classic example is the "Bloomberg Box": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Terminal which has been around since the late '80s.

You can also see this from the reverse (analog -> digital) in the evolution of hospital patient life-sign monitors and the classic "6 pack" of gauges used in both aviation and automobiles.

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

#149

Post by calmbonsai »

mrob wrote: post #57
calmbonsai wrote: post #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, perso…

I can think of two big improvements to desktop GUIs: 1. Incremental narrowing for all selection tasks like the Helm [0] extension for Emacs. Whenever there is a list of choices, all choices should be displayed, and this list should be filterable in real time by typing. This should go further than what Helm provides, e.g. you should be able to filter a partially filtered list in a different way. No matter how complex…

I use Emacs as my daily-driver so point well taken wrt incremental drill-down though I'd argue that's not just a "desktop thing". You see that in the Contacts manager of every smartphone.

I see "mouse gestures" as merely an incremental evolution for desktops.

Low latency capacitive touch-screens with gesture controls were, however, revolutionary for mobile devices and dashboards in vehicles.

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

#150

Post by aoeusnth1 »

taskforcegemini wrote: post #104
porkbrain wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Text selection used to be frustrating on mobile for me too until Google fixed it with OCR. I get to just hold a button briefly and then can immediately select an area of the screen to scan text from, with a consistent UX. Like a screenshot but for text.

They are using OCR for selecting plain text?

It's possible to use the Gemini "ask me about this screen" to OCR the selected area of the screenshot. I guess that might be more efficient in some contexts then trying to use the native text select.
Post reply on HN