3 ms·

The issue with those fictional UIs is that who design them do not design to serve a real purpose, but to impress the public. It's like a car cockpit designed by

by kkfx 5y ago

The issue with those fictional UIs is that who design them do not design to serve a real purpose, but to impress the public. It's like a car cockpit designed by someone who have nothing more than a limited and distorted idea about how cars are driven to impress someone who do not know how to drive either. From a techie point point of view those UIs are just garbage: full of irrelevant information, confusing, completely poor of controls and interactive effectiveness. People using them act as ignorant who can't really do nothing but just touching around hoping something will happen in the direction they want to go to. Even filmmakers should remember a thing: the purpose of a UI is human-device interaction, not human-device-driven-decision-making. I understand they have just to please their public and those who pay them money (witch means also pushing the public toward certain behaviors, commercially and politically nice for some film financier) but if a movie is made ONLY with those principles appeal of the movie will lower and lower, and that's probably why fan of "old" movies grow and grow every days... A future UI IMVHO? Look back at Xerox UIs like http://augmentingcognition.com/assets/Kay1977.pdf http://augmentingcognition.com/assets/Kay1977.pdf or some experiments like SUNws PostScript Pizza tool. A document interactive UI not for passive content consumption or at maximum content selection like modern web services UIs but a UI for production and consumption at the same level without any perceived difference between the two modes, like I write as I read, I execute as I write etc. Emacs/org-mode is one the most modern UI we have alive, modern Notebook UIs are limited archaic UIs that can offer far less than Emacs but a bit more modern stuff (like proper image/video integration to a certain less bad extent), the rest? Is so advanced to be behind the early history of computer's UI, a bit advanced than the Eniac UI, but given the leap between the two Eniac in theory was more advanced anyway, just featuring a raw UI for tech limits of it's time.

giraffe_lady 5y ago
> the purpose of a UI is human-device interaction That's not the purpose of a film ui though. Its purpose is a lot closer to that of a prop: it can convey information about the plot (ACCESS DENIED), be part of character development (fluid mastery of a complex tool), convey setting & tone (metal and cracked glass screen implies something different than flowing holograms). The thing it is not for is an actual person to use as a tool to solve a problem in real space. It's not inherently a worse prop because it can't be used that way. Just as a prop gun that can't fire is a shitty gun, but a better prop for that very reason. Filmmakers should study real use of UIs so they understand how better to use that prop to convey their meaning to the audience. But they shouldn't pursue verisimilitude for its own sake. A prop gun that the audience can tell wouldn't be able to fire conveys a very different meaning to one that looks ready to go. Filmmakers should be able to ensure they're conveying the information they think they are, but the rest is artistic choice.

by kkfx 5y ago

giraffe_lady 5y ago

> the purpose of a UI is human-device interaction That's not the purpose of a film ui though. Its purpose is a lot closer to that of a prop: it can convey information about the plot (ACCESS DENIED), be part of character development (fluid mastery of a complex tool), convey setting & tone (metal and cracked glass screen implies something different than flowing holograms). The thing it is not for is an actual person to use as a tool to solve a problem in real space. It's not inherently a worse prop because it can't be used that way. Just as a prop gun that can't fire is a shitty gun, but a better prop for that very reason. Filmmakers should study real use of UIs so they understand how better to use that prop to convey their meaning to the audience. But they shouldn't pursue verisimilitude for its own sake. A prop gun that the audience can tell wouldn't be able to fire conveys a very different meaning to one that looks ready to go. Filmmakers should be able to ensure they're conveying the information they think they are, but the rest is artistic choice.