4 ms·

I think in many ways, you're reinforcing his point. Your perspective here is one that doesn't even consider ways of interacting beyond touching a flat screen.

I think in many ways, you're reinforcing his point. Your perspective here is one that doesn't even consider ways of interacting beyond touching a flat screen. When you talk about haptics, you only mention passive haptic feedback: annoying bumps, buzzes, and rumbles. You're right that those are annoying and mostly useless (though the haptic feedback on MacBook Pro trackpads is quite nice). But that's not what he's talking about at all. His whole point is that interacting with tool's isn't "fundamentally virtual". That's a choice that technology has made because screens of pixels are so amenable to software control. If you want to, say, decide which restaurant to eat at, there's nothing intrinsically visual or 2D about that. We assume that a screen is the only natural way to do that simply because we're used to that paradigm, which is exactly the problem he's ranting about. Imagine a "restaurant tray". It has, I don't know, physical sliders and buttons at the top where you can specify what kinds of restaurants you're OK with. When you do, a bunch of tokens appear on the tray for every potential restaurant. You and your party can reach out and grab them. Group a few together as potential ones. Sweep the ones no one wants off to the side. Maybe let each person take and hold their favorite, or pull them over to their side of the tray. Swap and trade them like poker chips. Think about how much more immediate and collaborative that process would be for reaching agreement on where to go. That's the kind of stuff he's talking about. You might be thinking, "Well it would be too hard to build a system that creates physical tokens for every possible restaurant." But, again, that's a technological problem we'll only solve if we have a vision for those kinds of experiences in the first place. If we can't see beyond pixels on screens, we'll never get there.

makeitdouble 4y ago
Thanks, I think I better understand the point he is making. I would call that the “why don’t we have flying cars” kind of thinking, and the restaurant example feels the same to me. To the “that's a technological problem we'll only solve if we have a vision for those kinds of experiences in the first place.”, that’s a valid point. I think were I stray from that is I don’t feel the appeal of the vision. A restaurant giving me complex “a choosing experience” instead of presenting the traditionally “flat” list and menus is not an improvement from my perspective. In general, I think we’re at a stage where interface that make more sense physically are still physical. For instance cars are completely electronically driven but we (still) have physically optimized controls. My oven is a computer, but I have nobs and buttons that click. My “smart” lights have rotating controls to adjust brightness, etc. These interfaces are well into the world and I feel they’re not in the article because the author (and you perhaps ?) take it for granted.
- munificent 4y ago
  > In general, I think we’re at a stage where interface that make more sense physically are still physical. For instance cars are completely electronically driven but we (still) have physically optimized controls. My oven is a computer, but I have nobs and buttons that click. My “smart” lights have rotating controls to adjust brightness, etc. Unfortunately, we're already sliding in the wrong directionn even on those examples. Many newer cars have huge touchscreens and relegate many controls to it that used to have dedicated tactile inputs. A lot of newer electric ranges put all the controls on a screen under the same glass surface as the cooktop. Many smart LEDs only have an app to control them.
jodrellblank 4y ago
Sounds like you're describing an electronic chess board[1] being hacked to be a general purpose input. I don't think I've seen something like that before. Start by unlocking your computer by moving the pieces to the right positions, then give the Queen a McDonald's hat, the King a BurgerKing hat, one Bishop a Taco Bell ringer, and proceed in this fashion until one of you checkmates your way to a dinner decision... [1] like https://www.adverts.ie/other-electronics/dgt-electronic-chess-board/2122027 https://www.adverts.ie/other-electronics/dgt-electronic-ches...
- munificent 4y ago
  It was just the first random idea that came to mind. But the general point is that when thinking about "interface", we often don't even consider that the interface could be made of physical things and instead implicitly assume pixels on screen. The idea that you could interact with a system not using video is practically unthinkable. Victor's point is that we can't invent what we can't imagine, so it's important to always have visions that seem unattainable and not give in to accepthing things as they are.

makeitdouble 4y ago

Thanks, I think I better understand the point he is making. I would call that the “why don’t we have flying cars” kind of thinking, and the restaurant example feels the same to me. To the “that's a technological problem we'll only solve if we have a vision for those kinds of experiences in the first place.”, that’s a valid point. I think were I stray from that is I don’t feel the appeal of the vision. A restaurant giving me complex “a choosing experience” instead of presenting the traditionally “flat” list and menus is not an improvement from my perspective. In general, I think we’re at a stage where interface that make more sense physically are still physical. For instance cars are completely electronically driven but we (still) have physically optimized controls. My oven is a computer, but I have nobs and buttons that click. My “smart” lights have rotating controls to adjust brightness, etc. These interfaces are well into the world and I feel they’re not in the article because the author (and you perhaps ?) take it for granted.

munificent 4y ago
> In general, I think we’re at a stage where interface that make more sense physically are still physical. For instance cars are completely electronically driven but we (still) have physically optimized controls. My oven is a computer, but I have nobs and buttons that click. My “smart” lights have rotating controls to adjust brightness, etc. Unfortunately, we're already sliding in the wrong directionn even on those examples. Many newer cars have huge touchscreens and relegate many controls to it that used to have dedicated tactile inputs. A lot of newer electric ranges put all the controls on a screen under the same glass surface as the cooktop. Many smart LEDs only have an app to control them.

jodrellblank 4y ago

Sounds like you're describing an electronic chess board[1] being hacked to be a general purpose input. I don't think I've seen something like that before. Start by unlocking your computer by moving the pieces to the right positions, then give the Queen a McDonald's hat, the King a BurgerKing hat, one Bishop a Taco Bell ringer, and proceed in this fashion until one of you checkmates your way to a dinner decision... [1] like https://www.adverts.ie/other-electronics/dgt-electronic-chess-board/2122027 https://www.adverts.ie/other-electronics/dgt-electronic-ches...

munificent 4y ago
It was just the first random idea that came to mind. But the general point is that when thinking about "interface", we often don't even consider that the interface could be made of physical things and instead implicitly assume pixels on screen. The idea that you could interact with a system not using video is practically unthinkable. Victor's point is that we can't invent what we can't imagine, so it's important to always have visions that seem unattainable and not give in to accepthing things as they are.