4 ms·
Yeah. The way I think of this is, let's start from (my subjective) aesthetic first principles. Take an abstract human body, and look at its poses and movements:
by firasd 10y ago
Yeah. The way I think of this is, let's start from (my subjective) aesthetic first principles. Take an abstract human body, and look at its poses and movements: standing, sitting (and other forms of resting), walking, running.
A smartphone is a complete failure from that perspective: looking down and pecking at a screen? No way. Now, holding and looking at something is a natural enough movement, but chronically craning your neck down with such focus and duration? I doubt it. A smartwatch is a bit more natural, but to bring up subjective aesthetics again, I'm not too comfortable with the concept of adults wearing digital watches.
Google Glass was a step in the right direction in my opinion--you can interact with a UI while looking straight ahead--but as you said, the camera and other aspects weirded people out (there may be a future in contact lenses with similar tech?) Voice interfaces like Alexa are definitely in line with my view.
- mpbm 10y agoI don't think it's about the pose. It's about attention. To interact with a system we have to focus on it and that means we have to take our focus off of everything else. Computers are notoriously bad at understanding us if we aren't focused on them exclusively. That's why so many people are trying to get voice interaction right. It's the most natural way to split our attention. A lot of this IoT nonsense is trying to discover a few corner cases where computers can do sensible things without a human needing to specifically focus on them. Like automatically reordering cereal, or unlocking your phone when you get close, or adjusting the temperature when you leave the house.