191–200 of 325 posts
The screen is right there but you want me to not touch the screen to interact.
Google finally ships a research project in a real product and people don’t seem to understand the usefulness. Human nature for some reason often devolves to “what’s the point?” Here’s the 2015 announcement. There’s a lot of potential. Maybe we’d all benefit from “imagine what’s now possible “ https://youtu.be/0QNiZfSsPc0
It's really cool and innovative technology, but I also struggle to see the point for the common user. If this were a computer monitor or projector screen, sure. But my phone is pretty much always in my hand if it's being used in any way. If it's already in my hand, what do I gain from this? I can see how it'd be very useful for people who mount their phones on some sort of distant stand. But I feel like that's pretty…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the one and only suggestion so far that makes sense. It would be nice when cooking. If I was sitting in a bus/train/plane/concert/ , there is no chance in hell I am waving my hands at a phone. I would even feel silly doing it at home.
You can extend this to mechanics/technicians. Manipulating a large screen when your hands are full of grease.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fifteen Million Merits is one of their episodes that's not about the future at all, the way I read it. More of an allegory about now (or, now in 2011, anyway).
That's an interesting take that I could completely see now. When I watched it, I guess I took it more at face value, that in the future when everything is automated, only celebrities and 'power generators' will exist, and of course the rest of the stuff like unskippable ads and in-your-face pornography.
Those demoted aren't dragged away crying. Our protagonist does property damage without apparent censure (one is left to suppose the screens get replaced, eventually, while he's out, maybe or maybe not with a charge to his merit account, similar to the way "detritus" is taken care of).
This is why I don't think there's much room for ambiguity re: whether the outdoors at the end is real. If it's not then that's undercutting what's been the key theme of the rest of the episode, of timid acquiescence to a very gently coercive system. If it's real then that's the punch line of the whole thing—these people could just leave, and they don't because of some combination of social norms, fear of the unknown, fear of losing what (pointedly crappy and meaningless—the avatar skins and such) comforts they have, and (one may assume) some soft but effective persuasion techniques that might come up if they tried. Since assuming it's the latter is consistent with the rest of the episode and makes it much stronger, it doesn't make much sense that it'd be anything else or even be deliberately left ambiguous (why?).
It's all about how control and how a "trapped" state can occur absent anyone waving guns around. With more than a little commentary on social class, celebrity, electronic entertainment, and the hollowness of participation in an economic system and society heavy on alienation (the bikes), along the way.
[EDIT] I just skimmed the first few minutes again because I remembered there being a whole thing about fruit, and not only that, the opening's full of cartoony imagery of the green outdoors. The outdoors at the end is definitely intended to be real, not fake or even ambiguous, unless we assume incompetence on the part of the creators. It's the antithesis of the wholly false, not-even-trying-to-look-real outdoors scenes that are all over the beginning, which did leave room to wonder what the world's like outside this environment—the ending gives us the answer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>there is absolutely nothing that replaces physical buttons, encoders, sliders and toggles Even space, versatility, & cost aside, there are definitely tasks that a touch screen does better. Using a map with a touch screen is incredibly intuitive compared to a mouse. (I cannot imagine using sliders or other "physical" interfaces) >A physical button guarantees that the action was performed by the means of feedback So y…
> Using a map with a touch screen is incredibly intuitive compared to a mouse. (I cannot imagine using sliders or other "physical" interfaces) What sort of map use you have in mind? I find panning (drag+move) and zooming (mousewheel) maps with the mouse very intuitive.
Consumers need to boycott this stuff. This chip has one purpose: surveillance. All the "features" on this press release are contrived and useless, but they are hoping it's shiny enough that we like it and want it.
Why do consumers "need" to boycott this stuff? I want this stuff, and I want it cheap and readily available -- and hopefully more advanced over time. The "features" on this press release look useful to me as a start to something much better later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose Tinder-style rapid decision apps might excel with a touch screen. Infinite scrollable timelines are certainly built for touchscreens, though I can’t think the last time I asked for one.... 99% of the time the reason I put up with touch screens is so I don’t have to sit at my desk.
OTOH, a physical keyboard is vastly preferable over a touch screen one.
It is a nice piece of technology. It is a 60Ghz millimeter-wave radar. It is a privacy nightmare. It is already shipped. Radar uses electromagnetic waves (like Wifi but higher frequency) so it can go through walls, and even typical range for gesture recognition is less than meter, It probably can go at least 10 times as far by boosting the gain of the amplifier, it is not constrained like a theremin would be because…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. If I'm so close to a phone, why would I swipe in the air? I also believe that making those Soli actions requires more muscle energy compared to tapping the screen with one finger.
"Requires more muscle energy" seems like such a weird metric to base design decisions around but if we start the phone in similar states for both, ie laying on a table, I have a hard time believing they're going to be that different.