3 ms·

I think I disagree with the rant. It's a little inconsistant as well. On the one hand, he argues that Pictures behind glass isn't where we should be heading,

by Volpe 15y ago

I think I disagree with the rant. It's a little inconsistant as well. On the one hand, he argues that Pictures behind glass isn't where we should be heading, and instead we should come up with better visions, as an example he uses the someone who came up with the original idea for a "goddamn ipad"... But wait, didn't he just say pictures behind glass was a bad model to work towards? Personally I think if we could implement a fraction of the things in that vision video, the world would be a better place for it. If some of the things don't work, or the interaction feels wrong... we can always change the vision. The Apple Knowledge Navigator doesn't resemble the iPhone at all... But it was/is a good vision to work towards.

nchuhoai 15y ago
I dont really get your point. He was an UX engineer at Apple. He probably was involved with the "goddamn ipad". He is not critizicing the Interface Method perse, since it is probably the best we can do right now given the size constraints and technological capabilities we have right now. What he says however is that the long run, pictures behind the glass cannot be the solution. Or better said: shouldnt be.
- Volpe 15y ago
  I know who he is and where he's worked. But authority != always right The vision held a lot more than just swiping on glass, there were spacially aware devices, proximity networking, augmented reality... But that's not vision worthy... because the ipad already exists!? People are talking like, if you get a vision wrong (at the start) the whole journey is pointless. I'm saying, we can always change the things that don't work. If interacting with glass stops working out... we can ditch that for something better. Just like the iPhone/iPad doesn't fold in the middle (like the knowledge navigator vision presented).
macrael 15y ago
You are taking that first bit out of context. H is pretty clear in the article what he means. He believes that pictures behind glass are a transitionary phase and not something we should work toward, because we already have them. The Dynabook was a vision of the iPad but it was a vision someone had 40 years ago. His point is that Alan Kay's vision truly was visionary in that he saw a future interface that did not come to pass for decades, but that Microsoft's vision here is not truly visionary because it basically shows you where we are today.
- Volpe 15y ago
  As I said in my other response, there is a lot in that video that is visionary. Alan Kay's drawing had a keyboard in it... That's not visionary... he's just copying the typewriter - what a stupid vision!? Augmented reality, Proximity networking, transparent computers, visual recognition, AI, interfacing with the kitchen... seriously we are saying "Not visionary" because there are glass interfaces with hands swiping on them...

by Volpe 15y ago

nchuhoai 15y ago

I dont really get your point. He was an UX engineer at Apple. He probably was involved with the "goddamn ipad". He is not critizicing the Interface Method perse, since it is probably the best we can do right now given the size constraints and technological capabilities we have right now. What he says however is that the long run, pictures behind the glass cannot be the solution. Or better said: shouldnt be.

Volpe 15y ago
I know who he is and where he's worked. But authority != always right The vision held a lot more than just swiping on glass, there were spacially aware devices, proximity networking, augmented reality... But that's not vision worthy... because the ipad already exists!? People are talking like, if you get a vision wrong (at the start) the whole journey is pointless. I'm saying, we can always change the things that don't work. If interacting with glass stops working out... we can ditch that for something better. Just like the iPhone/iPad doesn't fold in the middle (like the knowledge navigator vision presented).

macrael 15y ago

You are taking that first bit out of context. H is pretty clear in the article what he means. He believes that pictures behind glass are a transitionary phase and not something we should work toward, because we already have them. The Dynabook was a vision of the iPad but it was a vision someone had 40 years ago. His point is that Alan Kay's vision truly was visionary in that he saw a future interface that did not come to pass for decades, but that Microsoft's vision here is not truly visionary because it basically shows you where we are today.

Volpe 15y ago
As I said in my other response, there is a lot in that video that is visionary. Alan Kay's drawing had a keyboard in it... That's not visionary... he's just copying the typewriter - what a stupid vision!? Augmented reality, Proximity networking, transparent computers, visual recognition, AI, interfacing with the kitchen... seriously we are saying "Not visionary" because there are glass interfaces with hands swiping on them...