6 ms·

I really hate the corner of the tech industry that takes old ideas and renames them and then goes "hey look at this new trendy idea I thought of!". Just becaus

by TrevorJ 11y ago

I really hate the corner of the tech industry that takes old ideas and renames them and then goes "hey look at this new trendy idea I thought of!". Just because you move the user interface off the screen and into physical space doesn't make it "Zero UI". People have been designing ways to interface with machines in physical space ever since somebody figured out how to put a handle on a rock and make it a hammer.

betenoire 11y ago
it's not even a good name. If something has no user interface, then it has no way for a user to interface with it (ie no control over it). Voice is an interface. This is pixel-centric, and has nothing to do with a lack of a UI.
- cobralibre 11y ago
  It does seem like "Zero GUI" would have better conveyed the key idea.
- willlma 11y ago
  Goodman > [i]s the first to admit that the Zero UI name isn't meant to be taken literally. "It's really meant to be a provocation," Goodman admits. "There are always going to be user interfaces in some form of another, but this is about getting away from thinking about everything in terms of screens."
  - betenoire 11y ago
    Just because the author admits it, doesn't mean it's not a valid criticism. Zero-GUI (as suggested above) works just as well. In fact, better because it leads into the idea of exploring _different types_ of UIs.
aikah 11y ago
> I really hate the corner of the tech industry that takes old ideas and renames them and then goes "hey look at this new trendy idea I thought of!". It is more out of ignorance than anything else. User Interface never necessary meant "screen". It is just that the author knows nothing about the subject he is talking about and only writes that stuff because of a "buzzword" that sounds good, he has a very narrow definition of the word User Interface at first place, which makes his definition wrong. A bit like the "No Server" folks who think that there is no server just because they are not managing it themselves and just uploading a js file somewhere on AWS ...
derefr 11y ago
I don't think it's supposed to be a "trendy new idea", but rather a name to give a handle to a current trend. When someone designs a "smart" device by just sticking a touchscreen on it, there should be a term you can use to admonish them for probably not considering the current space of interaction models.
woah 11y ago
I could have left this comment on a number of comments here. These are an ugly artifact of hn's eagerness to call bullshit on anything and everything. "Zero UI" is a convenient shorthand for saying "interactions with technology not involving a traditional 2d box-based user interface. Zero UI is a lot quicker to say. That's what words are all about. You have a problem with language? Go debunk something that actually needs to be debunked instead of leaving one of the same 10 crabby, predictable comments that are already in this thread. I have no clue if "zero ui" is actually a good thing or whatever, but I know that your comment and the rest like it add nothing new to the conversation.
- stonogo 11y ago
  Usage evolves naturally. This is some idiot's attempt at branding, and doesn't deserve a free pass just because you feel like arguing to tone.
- TrevorJ 11y ago
  I understand what you are getting at, but technology and complexity expand at an extraordinary rate in our world, thus reinventing new terms for old ideas is not an innocuous thing, it does real harm. It silo's people and ideas that should be cross pollinating. It raises the barrier to entry to newcomers, and probably worst of all it feeds into the cult of 'newness' where no idea or concept is worth learning if it's older than say, 12 months ago. I'm not being crabby, I'm pointing out that there are over a 100 years of research and knowledge that are useful to help solve these problems which tend to get thrown out when you decide to invent a new term for things that exist already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_factors_and_ergonomics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_factors_and_ergonomics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction_design#3D_Physical_objects_or_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction_design#3D_Physical... The interactions we have with technology are far worse than they should be, by and large and I believe that a good portion of the reason is that rather than standing on the shoulders of those who've gone before us, we become seduced instead by new and unpolished ideas, never stopping to let the old ones inform us. I think this is part of the reason our tools for creating things with computers still aren't as useful (in my opinion) and intuitive as this software (from 1963): https://youtu.be/57wj8diYpgY?t=176 https://youtu.be/57wj8diYpgY?t=176 And if new ideas are good, they won't be harmed by a crabby comment or two, they will be improved upon and become stronger as a result. Anyhow, I hope that at least communicates a little better the intent behind my comment. In any case, I appreciate the feedback so thank you for taking the time to comment.

by TrevorJ 11y ago

betenoire 11y ago

it's not even a good name. If something has no user interface, then it has no way for a user to interface with it (ie no control over it). Voice is an interface. This is pixel-centric, and has nothing to do with a lack of a UI.

cobralibre 11y ago
It does seem like "Zero GUI" would have better conveyed the key idea.
willlma 11y ago
Goodman > [i]s the first to admit that the Zero UI name isn't meant to be taken literally. "It's really meant to be a provocation," Goodman admits. "There are always going to be user interfaces in some form of another, but this is about getting away from thinking about everything in terms of screens."
- betenoire 11y ago
  Just because the author admits it, doesn't mean it's not a valid criticism. Zero-GUI (as suggested above) works just as well. In fact, better because it leads into the idea of exploring _different types_ of UIs.

aikah 11y ago

> I really hate the corner of the tech industry that takes old ideas and renames them and then goes "hey look at this new trendy idea I thought of!". It is more out of ignorance than anything else. User Interface never necessary meant "screen". It is just that the author knows nothing about the subject he is talking about and only writes that stuff because of a "buzzword" that sounds good, he has a very narrow definition of the word User Interface at first place, which makes his definition wrong. A bit like the "No Server" folks who think that there is no server just because they are not managing it themselves and just uploading a js file somewhere on AWS ...

derefr 11y ago

I don't think it's supposed to be a "trendy new idea", but rather a name to give a handle to a current trend. When someone designs a "smart" device by just sticking a touchscreen on it, there should be a term you can use to admonish them for probably not considering the current space of interaction models.

woah 11y ago

I could have left this comment on a number of comments here. These are an ugly artifact of hn's eagerness to call bullshit on anything and everything. "Zero UI" is a convenient shorthand for saying "interactions with technology not involving a traditional 2d box-based user interface. Zero UI is a lot quicker to say. That's what words are all about. You have a problem with language? Go debunk something that actually needs to be debunked instead of leaving one of the same 10 crabby, predictable comments that are already in this thread. I have no clue if "zero ui" is actually a good thing or whatever, but I know that your comment and the rest like it add nothing new to the conversation.

stonogo 11y ago
Usage evolves naturally. This is some idiot's attempt at branding, and doesn't deserve a free pass just because you feel like arguing to tone.
TrevorJ 11y ago
I understand what you are getting at, but technology and complexity expand at an extraordinary rate in our world, thus reinventing new terms for old ideas is not an innocuous thing, it does real harm. It silo's people and ideas that should be cross pollinating. It raises the barrier to entry to newcomers, and probably worst of all it feeds into the cult of 'newness' where no idea or concept is worth learning if it's older than say, 12 months ago. I'm not being crabby, I'm pointing out that there are over a 100 years of research and knowledge that are useful to help solve these problems which tend to get thrown out when you decide to invent a new term for things that exist already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_factors_and_ergonomics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_factors_and_ergonomics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction_design#3D_Physical_objects_or_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction_design#3D_Physical... The interactions we have with technology are far worse than they should be, by and large and I believe that a good portion of the reason is that rather than standing on the shoulders of those who've gone before us, we become seduced instead by new and unpolished ideas, never stopping to let the old ones inform us. I think this is part of the reason our tools for creating things with computers still aren't as useful (in my opinion) and intuitive as this software (from 1963): https://youtu.be/57wj8diYpgY?t=176 https://youtu.be/57wj8diYpgY?t=176 And if new ideas are good, they won't be harmed by a crabby comment or two, they will be improved upon and become stronger as a result. Anyhow, I hope that at least communicates a little better the intent behind my comment. In any case, I appreciate the feedback so thank you for taking the time to comment.