4 ms·
Two counterpoints: 1) "targets" are a part of tactile interfaces, in touch interfaces we may shed the need for accurate targets (i.e. gestures can be made anyw
by tsunamifury 15y ago
Two counterpoints:
1) "targets" are a part of tactile interfaces, in touch interfaces we may shed the need for accurate targets (i.e. gestures can be made anywhere on a screen)
2) Confidence that comes from the physical response from tactile systems may just be an anachronism after a decade or two of built up trust in touchscreen systems
- kirillzubovsky 15y agoSo, Ipads for navigation displays in a cockpit - great idea. But, would you really like your pilot to trust that an airplane is descending because Siri said it was? Don't think so.
- redler 15y agoYou're being snarky about Siri for some reason. But what you describe is in fact similar to the Ground Proximity Warning System, a feature of modern aircraft. When the computer announces "pull up! pull up! terrain!" you can be certain the pilot pays heed. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_proximity_warning_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_proximity_warning_system
- nchlswu 15y agoWe may shed the need for accurate targets, but I would imagine there would be atleast a need for feedback that is not demonstrated in the 'vision.' But that leads to your second point. There's been anecdotal evidence that young children can just figure these interfaces out and I'm wondering if it's true that the confidence may come from learning and built up trust. I'm doubtful that the built up trust can account for 100% of the confidence. Touch based interfaces are largely form-less designs. There are an infinite amount of affordances offered by a touch screen. As it stands now, all of these affordances are defined by the visual appearance and lack the 'resolution' so to speak, that a physical form can provide.