A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design • Hacker News Board

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#91

Post by Riverbed » Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 5:38 AM UTC

joebadmo wrote: post #7

This was similar to my own reaction [0], that these concept videos don't look far enough forward. And, maybe because I'm just a born contrarian, as the world moves toward touch-based direct-manipulation paradigms, I've personally been moving toward a more tactile, indirect paradigm. I recently bought a mechanical-switch keyboard, for example, that I'm growing more and more fond of every day. I've also started looking…

There's the new tactile overlay for touchscreen keyboards:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/740785012/touchfire-the-...

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#92

Post by sounds » Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 5:52 AM UTC

losvedir wrote: post #46

Man, Bret Victor seems to have some of the most consistently interesting and inspiring articles I've seen. I suppose he's just pointing out one area of the future to think about, but I wish he'd mentioned other ideas. I think voice and language, in particular, have some of the most room to grow to make interfaces more intuitive. edit to add: Along this line, I've often wondered if it'd be worth learning Lojban to int…

Natural language does have room to grow.

Computers can probably learn English as soon as they have learned Lojban. (Does that make sense? Assume a program that can understand Lojban. Then write a program, in Lojban, that understands the basic English grammar and the major exceptions. Then add the ability to deduce minor exceptions.)

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#93

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 7:06 AM UTC

Semiapies wrote: post #75

I've read many versions of this rant, written under many different authors' names over the last thirty or more years. I'm waiting for the iteration of this rant - or even the actual UI some engineer's put together or some designer's rastubated - that shows that anyone involved has spent a single, solitary moment thinking about how a disabled person could use these interfaces. The next one will be the first one. The m…

[deleted]

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#94

Post by jacobolus » Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 7:07 AM UTC

psychotik wrote: post #50

aphyr wrote: post #13

The article focuses on "everyday object" manipulation, but he's right about technology too: there are a wealth of common HCI tools that glass cannot accommodate. - The textual keyboard remains one of the fastest methods of text entry. It can be used without looking, offers high bandwidth, affords both serial and chorded inputs, and works well for precise navigation in discrete spaces, like text, spreadsheets, sets of…

The Kinect is a great example of using the most expressive form of interaction we have - our entire body. It's the right idea. The latest updates even do facial recognition (identify muscle movement). Too bad it doesn't scale to smaller devices/cramped objects. I wonder how small kinect-like tech has to get before it makes its way into smart phones, etc. However, I think voice might be a more expressive medium there,…

The Kinect is a very cool input device, but it has a lot of the same problems as “pictures behind glass” touchscreens: in particular, it doesn't provide anything like the experience of manipulating real objects: texture, resistance, weight, &c.

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#95

Post by prawn » Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 7:13 AM UTC

mattiask wrote: post #62

Oki doki, so given plausible future technology let's try to brainstorm a solution that addresses the issue of tactility in interaction, I give you the ... drumroll KinBall (Kinectic ball). The Kinball would essentially be a wireless ball, like a small juggling sack (the smaller ones) that you could interact with to control devices. So the Kinball would have the following features * Gyroscope/acceleratometer so it kno…

You know, combine this with some sort of display (glasses, projection, implant) and you could be on the right track. That's my first thought.

Second one is about carrying this ball, how easy it might be to lose it. What if instead there were rings on middle fingers or even all fingers? Could handle a few of the things you mentioned.

Electronic handshakes just got a lot more literal.

Perhaps typing in the future would take the form of hand shapes/signals, akin to traditional signing for the deaf? Assuming voice input will not be able to completely replace it.

Maybe the future computer is a display in the form of an eyepiece, monocle or implant, finger rings as an input and then a processing component in pocket or within a belt?

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#96

Post by sravfeyn » Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 7:27 AM UTC

feral wrote: post #17

I just watched the video, and typed my reactions, as I had them; no idea if this will be of interest. * * * People still travel for meetings? By plane? Wait, someone is driving the car? Thats not very productive. There are bellhops? Why are there still bellhops in the future? What do they do? Why is the screen so small? Why have a screen, if you have those perfect augmented reality glasses? 'Creating reply interface'…

I had similar thoughts, but I guess the video's main emphasis is on User Interface which is highlighted most.

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#97

Post by mattiask » Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 7:37 AM UTC

prawn wrote: post #95

mattiask wrote: post #62

Oki doki, so given plausible future technology let's try to brainstorm a solution that addresses the issue of tactility in interaction, I give you the ... drumroll KinBall (Kinectic ball). The Kinball would essentially be a wireless ball, like a small juggling sack (the smaller ones) that you could interact with to control devices. So the Kinball would have the following features * Gyroscope/acceleratometer so it kno…

You know, combine this with some sort of display (glasses, projection, implant) and you could be on the right track. That's my first thought. Second one is about carrying this ball, how easy it might be to lose it. What if instead there were rings on middle fingers or even all fingers? Could handle a few of the things you mentioned. Electronic handshakes just got a lot more literal. Perhaps typing in the future would…

Well, it wouldn't be a solid ball since it would have to be able to be squeezed so if dropped it atleast shouldn't roll away, and contrary to most smartphones it would actually be able to handle being dropped quite well. Rings/camera/gestures (minority report) in general are of course interesting but I think the downside of that approach is no tactile feedback

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#98

Post by melissamiranda » Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 7:46 AM UTC

feral wrote: post #17

I just watched the video, and typed my reactions, as I had them; no idea if this will be of interest. * * * People still travel for meetings? By plane? Wait, someone is driving the car? Thats not very productive. There are bellhops? Why are there still bellhops in the future? What do they do? Why is the screen so small? Why have a screen, if you have those perfect augmented reality glasses? 'Creating reply interface'…

What struck me is how lonely the video felt. People hardly talked to each other. The only emotion exchanged between people was with the mom and daughter making apple pie, and that was through the screen.

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#99

Post by prawn » Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 8:03 AM UTC

mattiask wrote: post #97

prawn wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, combine this with some sort of display (glasses, projection, implant) and you could be on the right track. That's my first thought. Second one is about carrying this ball, how easy it might be to lose it. What if instead there were rings on middle fingers or even all fingers? Could handle a few of the things you mentioned. Electronic handshakes just got a lot more literal. Perhaps typing in the future would…

Well, it wouldn't be a solid ball since it would have to be able to be squeezed so if dropped it atleast shouldn't roll away, and contrary to most smartphones it would actually be able to handle being dropped quite well. Rings/camera/gestures (minority report) in general are of course interesting but I think the downside of that approach is no tactile feedback

That's true. What tactile feedback could a hackysack-size ball really give though besides perceived firmness?

If the finger rings were actually more like thimbles, could they impart some texture onto a finger tip? If you were brushing over a virtual surface, could they then give a sensation of texture? Raised on a page to denote a button, etc?

I really liked the OP's article, but found it frustrating stopping short of real suggestions and predictions - great opportunity to try to forecast where things could be in 10-15 years.

Re: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design

#100

Post by davmar » Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 8:11 AM UTC

Tsagadai wrote: post #88

ghurlman wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That research and engineering is already underway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHL5tJ9ja_w

That research is interesting but this was the sort of research I was thinking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkBh71zZKrM The plan seems to be to make more RGBZ CMOS chips (cameras with range sensors built in). Once the R&D is more available we will start seeing more than just Kinects and engineering improvements (like the Megapixel race to get more and more in smaller form factors).

tl;dw