3 ms·

Hmm, you're right about keyboards. My gut still says that learning a new interface is an unlikely thing to expect of consumers, but it'll obviously need more th

Hmm, you're right about keyboards. My gut still says that learning a new interface is an unlikely thing to expect of consumers, but it'll obviously need more thought. My issue certainly isn't with interfaces being easier for all things, I was challenging that this benefited in any substantial situation at all, but I'll concede my point until and unless I refine my argument about people being unwilling to invest effort in a new interface.

anonytrary 9y ago
The same could have been (and was) said about the personal computer in the 70s! While this exact wristband may not replace keyboards, I think biological interfaces are definitely worth researching. All it takes is a kid creating a beautiful painting or piece of music with a new tool to start the snowball effect. That said, the theremin was a new musical interface and didn't ever take off because it produced a strange sound quality and did not map well to preexisting human motions. Furthermore, music creation was already well understood. Indeed, machines need to be built for the human, not the other way around. I think it's a trade off between two terms: how easy the interface is to learn and what it enables us to do. For (a contrived) example, an interface which allows humans to teleport will be learned regardless of how steep the learning curve is. Teleportation is a "zero to one" technology, it more or less competes with nothing. A new kind of keyboard on the other hand, must compete with the existing solution for keyboards, so it must be easy to learn, otherwise there would be no incentive to switch.