4 ms·

It always takes a few decades for UIs to catch up with new hardware. We still don't really understand how to design touch UIs yet. We basically just squish WIMP

It always takes a few decades for UIs to catch up with new hardware. We still don't really understand how to design touch UIs yet. We basically just squish WIMP interfaces a little so you can fat finger them. There has been no radical reimaging of UI toolkits for touch yet. The software industry is so crippled by finance thinking right now anyway, everything research-y moves extra slow anyway. We're in the second dark age of UI. People are doing weird pointless stuff in VR UI right now, so I think that might be where the ideas get worked out. That's how it worked before, we got out of the WIMP stagnation because a whole new paradigm (hypertext) emerged.

dieterrams 8y ago
I'm not sure why you'd expect a radical reimagining of UI for touch. Touch UIs look largely the same as WIMP UIs because there isn't a radically better way of presenting information and affordances on a screen.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  How do you know? Have you interacted with many professional UI designers? They almost universally have no time, they are forced to rush out mediocre work on a strict timetable.
  - dieterrams 8y ago
    I have a design background myself, and frankly, you're not going to do much better for flat screen-based UIs than buttons, scrubbers, tables, lists, scrollviews, etc. This has little to do with touch, and everything to do with 2D design for screens. Better/worse design will depend on how these idioms are used/organized, rather than a radical rethink of those idioms. That's not to say there aren't good undiscovered idioms for 2D UIs, but there's no shortage of designers trying to find them, especially outside of their dayjob. Designers love trying to invent new and novel ways to interact. It is, however, actually an advantage for touch UIs that they aren't radically different from WIMP, because users don't have to learn a completely different UI, at least in terms of visual organization/affordance. You can also bet the Apple designers/engineers who were prototyping iOS UI idioms before the iPhone was released explored a range of different idioms, and they continue to do so.

dieterrams 8y ago

I'm not sure why you'd expect a radical reimagining of UI for touch. Touch UIs look largely the same as WIMP UIs because there isn't a radically better way of presenting information and affordances on a screen.

erikpukinskis 8y ago
How do you know? Have you interacted with many professional UI designers? They almost universally have no time, they are forced to rush out mediocre work on a strict timetable.
- dieterrams 8y ago
  I have a design background myself, and frankly, you're not going to do much better for flat screen-based UIs than buttons, scrubbers, tables, lists, scrollviews, etc. This has little to do with touch, and everything to do with 2D design for screens. Better/worse design will depend on how these idioms are used/organized, rather than a radical rethink of those idioms. That's not to say there aren't good undiscovered idioms for 2D UIs, but there's no shortage of designers trying to find them, especially outside of their dayjob. Designers love trying to invent new and novel ways to interact. It is, however, actually an advantage for touch UIs that they aren't radically different from WIMP, because users don't have to learn a completely different UI, at least in terms of visual organization/affordance. You can also bet the Apple designers/engineers who were prototyping iOS UI idioms before the iPhone was released explored a range of different idioms, and they continue to do so.