21–30 of 214 posts
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).
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 r…
Cumbersome and slow with horrible failure recovery. Great if it works, huge pain in the ass if it doesn't. Useless for any visual task.
> head worn augmented reality
Completely useless if what you're doing doesn't involve "augmenting reality" (editing a text document), which probably describes most tasks that the average person is using a computer for.
> contact lenses
Effectively impossible to use for some portion of the population.
> head worn virtual reality
Completely isolates you from your surroundings (most people don't like that) and difficult to use for people who wear glasses. Nevermind that currently they're heavy, expensive, and not particularly portable.
> implanted sensors
That's going to be a very hard sell for the vast majority of people. Also pretty useless for what most people want to do with computers.
The reason these different form factors haven't caught on is because they're pretty shit right now and not even useful to most people.
The standard desktop environment isn't perfect, but it's good and versatile enough for what most people need to do with a computer.
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 combined with a persistent LLM intelligence layer, RAG and knowledge graphs could provide a powerful way to create, connect and manage content that breaks out of the standard document model.
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 milking users for cash via pushing ads and services upon a captive audience. To elaborate on the first point, UI elements from mobile and Web computing have been applied to desktops even when they are not effective, probably to save development costs, and probably since mobile and Web UI elements are seen as “modern” compared to an “old-fashioned” desktop. The result is a degraded desktop experience in 2025 compared to 2009 when Windows 7 and Snow Leopard were released. It’s hamburger windows, title bars becoming toolbars (making it harder to identify areas to drag windows), hidden scroll bars, and memory-hungry Electron apps galore, plus pushy notifications, nag screens, and ads for services.
I don’t foresee any innovation from Microsoft, Apple, or Google in desktop computing that doesn’t have strings attached for monetization purposes.
The open-source world is better positioned to make productive desktops, but without coordinated efforts, it seems like herding cats, and it seems that one must cobble together a system instead of having a system that works as coherently as the Mac or Windows.
With that said, I won’t be too negative. KDE and GNOME are consistent when sticking to Qt/GTK applications, respectively, and there are good desktop Linux distributions out there.
Are we stuck with the same toothbrush UX forever?
I feel like toothbrush UX has improved quite a bit.
On the positive side, my electronic toothbrush allows me to avoid excessive pressure via real-time green/red light.
On the negative side, it guilt trips me with a sad face emoji any time my brushing time is under 2 minutes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 multiplication in their head so I’m not looking to them to understand
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…
Not to be "that guy" but LCARS wasn't getting continuous UI updates because that would have cost the production team money and for TNG at least would have often required rebuilding physical sets. It does get updated between series because as part of setting the design language for that series.
And Geordi was shown constantly making improvements to the ship's systems because he had to be shown "doing engineer stuff."
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.