3 ms·
I think that moving a finger to do an action is going to trump needing to move your whole arm or do jumping jacks for the same action. Especially since it would
by napierzaza 15y ago
I think that moving a finger to do an action is going to trump needing to move your whole arm or do jumping jacks for the same action. Especially since it would be fairly embarrassing for probably a whole generation of people before it became common place. But it might justify some of the more active users getting offices.
What you're suggesting I imagine is points at an item but doesn't touch it. Maybe they coordinate themselves with a virtual reflection on the screen or something so they needn't physically touch it?
The background technology is indeed complex, but that doesn't really matter much. The biggest stopper is the fact that you are still putting and abstraction between yourself and the object you're manipulating.
Touching something and directly manipulating (touch screens) is a very close coupling with little abstraction. But having to point, but coordinate your "reflection", or point but don't touch is a stretch.
- TomOfTTB 15y agoI'm not sure the abstraction bothers that many people. If every time you lifted your hand a virtual hand appeared on the screen I think people would get by. I certainly think Kinect is preferable to the Apple's current desktop solution (the touchpad touch interface) Part of my logic here is that all of this is a placeholder. EVENTUALLY someone will invent a smudge proof technology with tactile elements and we'll probably evolve to the point where are screens are angled (think Star Trek consoles) so the reaching isn't so much an issue. Until that comes along there will be abstractions and I think Kinect has a chance at being the best of those abstractions. (In the above I assume you meant a mouse by "moving your finger". If you meant an iPad like interaction I'd agree it is better but I think it is unfeasible for desktop interaction)