41–50 of 91 posts
Sure, it looks cool, but it appears to require a lot of slow and inefficient physical movement to accomplish the most basic of tasks. Imagine a bunch of cubical works sitting at their desktops waving their arms around trying to navigate their computer's file system :-)
Here's a video demo of Project Natal in use that looks exhausting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm0KKa6wACQ
I also wonder why there isn't more talk about Brain–computer interfaces. It seems to me that the most natural UI is one that can be navigated just by thinking. It might be little Borg-like but I can't imagine HCI going in any other direction long-term.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interfac...
Sure, it looks cool, but it appears to require a lot of slow and inefficient physical movement to accomplish the most basic of tasks. Imagine a bunch of cubical works sitting at their desktops waving their arms around trying to navigate their computer's file system :-)
Here's a video demo of Project Natal in use that looks exhausting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm0KKa6wACQ
Everybody seems to be stuck on hand gestures and arm movement for the future, but while this looks cool I wonder just how comfortable it is to keep you arms waving about like that for hours on end. Also, it's hard to argue that 3D is always superior to 2D when presenting information. In some cases 2D is more than sufficient. I also wonder why there isn't more talk about Brain–computer interfaces . It seems to me that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I'm skeptical about that. The movements are big so that they will be captured and correctly interpreted by their pattern recognition system. I think they would not be able to detect very subtle movements like ASL. It is ingenious to claim that it was made artificially big and clumsy for the audience.
I think you mean disingenuous.
These new UI concepts are always awe inspiring, but what is really the benefit of using them? One of the most popular demonstrations is browsing through a bunch of photos on a huge screen with large gestures. While this looks quite impressive it's inaccurate when performing specific tasks (e.g. the color-selection planes in the video), the gestures are limited and you have to learn somewhat unintuitive ones apart fro…
I don't know. Why did it take so long for touch screen interfaces to become huge when almost everyone loves them? On the other hand, why are command line interfaces still the most efficient way for experts to interact with a system?
That's an easy one to answer.
It's for the same reason humans developed natural language by sounds emitted by vocal cords, with a pretty simple mechanism ... you've got a vocabulary of words that describe something, like an action, or an attribute or a physical object, and then you can mix them together to form phrases, with multiple phrases used to describe entire plots.
So you're not limited in any way, being able to communicate designs, strategies, emotions, just with words ... and the combinations you can come up with are infinite, the more you talk and write, the more skilled you get in communicating.
It was the most efficient way it could happen ... there's only so much you can describe with hand gestures without the movements becoming unintuitive.
So it is with command-line interfaces ... you've got commands you can issue perfectly described by words. And you can mix and match them however you like in totally unpredictable ways.
It's not natural language, but it's a lot closer then graphical interfaces. And a lot of the work programmers or sysadmins do is just story-telling. Personally I don't see any way around that unless we are talking about very limited niches.
The question is why don't normal people do it? Well, 10 years ago very few people could type. Now 12 year-old teenagers do it efficiently, and typing on a computer is quickly replacing hand-writing. I believe that in the future most people will be familiar with a programming language / CLI interface (while also having more advanced graphical interfaces).
Sooner or later everyone will for the same reason humans learned how to speak ... evolution didn't favor those who didn't. And learning a natural language is the hardest thing humans do ... we just don't notice it anymore since we're learning it since birth and it's in our genes already.
He kind of fumbles on the question of "what is the killer app?" You'd think it would be on the tip of his tongue considering how long hes been working on this... That said, there really needs to be more open source software to enable this front. I think we will really see some innovation once a hacker can take a $10 webcam and and open source lib and start creating software with these types of user interfaces.
Edit to say: In fact, he's an intelligent and well-versed enough guy that I'm sort of puzzled by this remark. Does anyone know what Mr Underkoffler means when he says that networks weren't around then? I think he must have something different in mind than I do.
Everybody seems to be stuck on hand gestures and arm movement for the future, but while this looks cool I wonder just how comfortable it is to keep you arms waving about like that for hours on end. Also, it's hard to argue that 3D is always superior to 2D when presenting information. In some cases 2D is more than sufficient. I also wonder why there isn't more talk about Brain–computer interfaces . It seems to me that…
BCIs, on the other hand, would mean you can potentially finish that software module, or at least read your email, while simultaneously going for a run ...as long as you don't run into a tree or the road.
"We didn't have networks at all at the time of the MacIntosh's introduction." Seriously? Seems like that estimation might be about fifteen years off to me. Edit to say: In fact, he's an intelligent and well-versed enough guy that I'm sort of puzzled by this remark. Does anyone know what Mr Underkoffler means when he says that networks weren't around then? I think he must have something different in mind than I do.