5 ms·

It's not surprising that most people (even programmers, and the technically inclined) can't even comprehend how the desktop model will be replaced by natural us

It's not surprising that most people (even programmers, and the technically inclined) can't even comprehend how the desktop model will be replaced by natural user interfaces. That's precisely why paradigm shifts catch people and entire industries off guard. I guarantee in 10 years you won't be using a mouse, you won't be resizing windowed applications, and moving scrollbars up and down, none of this will be necessary. I'm not just talking about iPad replacing your Windows PC. I'm talking about a mouse not even being necessary to perform your tasks. Why use a mouse to click a button, when you can just touch it with your finger, or why click through 20 context menus to activate an option when you can just speak to your computer and say "turn music on". The operating system and form factor of the device is irrelevant. Natural user interfaces (touch, sound, speech, vision, gestures) are going to blow the desktop model into the dark ages. And it's going to happen way, way faster than most people expect.

bad_user 15y ago
There is no such thing as a "natural user interface". What is natural is learning by reapplying already learned concepts. Stay off the weeds for awhile.
- wavephorm 15y ago
  No such thing? Really? So you're saying "touch, sound, speech, vision, gestures" for using computers does not exist? You have inadvertently proved my point, few people today can comprehend how computers will be used tomorrow. And it is this exact reason that Linux is going to be light year behind the rest of the world when it comes to user interface design. The people making open source duplications of windows aren't the ones innovating for the future. Anyone who thinks Linux desktop is going to take over the world needs to stay off the weed.
  - untog 15y ago
    No such thing? Really? So you're saying "touch, sound, speech, vision, gestures" for using computers does not exist? No, what he and I are saying is that you're drawing an entirely artificial line in the sand about what is and isn't "natural". Desktop interfaces today use "touch" in the sense that you touch a keyboard and mouse. They use sound. Obviously they use vision. Why is pressing on the screen with my finger more "natural" than using a mouse? What does "natural" even mean and why is it better than "non-natural"? few people today can comprehend how computers will be used tomorrow For a second there I imagined I was in the 1960s, talking to someone who is convinced that everyone will be driving a flying car by 1990. Predicting with absolute certainly how anything is going to look in the future usually doesn't pan out.
    - wavephorm 15y ago
      Desktop interfaces today use "touch" in the sense that you touch a keyboard and mouse Touchscreen interfaces, speech recognition and dictation, and computer vision are NOT part of the desktop GUI paradigm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elements_of_graphical_user_interfaces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elements_of_graphical_user_inte... someone who is convinced that everyone will be driving a flying car by 1990. Predicting with absolute certainly how anything is going to look in the future It is not just me that is convinced that next-generation interfaces will replace conventional desktops. Steve Jobs did too.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    I don't know how you took that away from my simple sentence. You're like my wife that always reads "between the lines". You're also either building a strawman or you're losing yourself in your own arguments to somehow reach your original point - interaction with a desktop computer, featuring a keyboard and mouse, also relies on "touch, sound, speech, vision and gestures" (again, stay off the weeds). First of all, let me quote Wikipedia: A common misunderstanding of the "Natural User Interface" is that it is somehow mimicry of nature or that some inputs to a computer are somehow more 'natural' than others. In truth things that feel "natural" to us are things that are familiar to us, just because we interacted with similar things before. If moving a box from one screen corner to another with our finger feels natural, that's only because we've been using our hands to move objects since forever. However, that doesn't mean a keyboard is not natural. Quite the contrary, because of repeated usage I can now type at 100 WPM, which is a speed that can't be matched with a touch-screen or speech recognition. I never think about the keyboard in front of me, but the on-screen keyboard on a tablet is definitely not "natural". Touch-screens are not natural when you want to write text (a trait essential to humanity as a whole btw). Touch-screens are also not natural when you have complex interfaces with functions organized in a tree-structure. For example you can use a simple word-processor or a simple photo retouching app with a touch-screen, however, try imagining how Adobe Photoshop would "feel" on those tablets. Bill Buxton, of Microsoft Research [2], says in his own essay "Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved": Everything is best for something and worst for something else Also, see this essay published by Don Norman in the ACM CHI magazine: "Natural User Interfaces Are Not Natural", which explains with detail how interactions based on touch aren't a panacea [1] [1] http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/natural_user_interfaces_are_not_natural.html http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/natural_user_interfaces_are_not_na... [2] http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
untog 15y ago
why click through 20 context menus to activate an option when you can just speak to your computer and say "turn music on". Imagine, for a second, an entire office of people using voice-activated commands. It simply would not work. Why use a mouse to click a button, when you can just touch it with your finger Because that would involve raising my arm and would actually be far more work (and less comfortable) than just using a mouse. OK, we think- let's put the screen where the keyboard is. Now I'm staring downwards for the entire day. And where does my keyboard go? I'm sure as hell not going to dictate this document. I'm not saying that things won't change, but "natural interface" means precisely nothing.
- wavephorm 15y ago
  "natural interface" means precisely nothing. Like I said, it means using touch, speech, and gestures instead of using these arcane mice and cursor metaphors. The computer mouse only exists because they needed a way to activate the UI controls like scrollbars and cascading menus. Once you eliminate the desktop UI controls, most uses of the mouse aren't necessary. Instead of a mouse, you use your voice, and a tablet/touchscreen device beside your keyboard. Keyboards will probably stay around for a long time. But what I'm specifically saying is the traditional desktop we've been using for the past 25 years is most certainly going to go away.
  - untog 15y ago
    But you still aren't outlining why any of this would be better. Like I said- an office full of people using voice commands on their computer would be a total, utter nightmare. How is it better than using a keyboard and mouse?
    - wavephorm 15y ago
      A voice command computer would allow me to walk into my kitchen and say "make me a coffee", whereas the ancient desktop model of computing would require me to log into my Windows desktop and scroll and click through menus to connect and schedule time with my coffee maker. There is an order of magnitude difference in usability between these paradigms, and it doesn't matter how good the Ubuntu Unity Linux desktop is, it won't make tasks like this any bit easier. In every office I have worked in, people are already talking on their phones, I don't see how talking to your computer is any different.

bad_user 15y ago

There is no such thing as a "natural user interface". What is natural is learning by reapplying already learned concepts. Stay off the weeds for awhile.

wavephorm 15y ago
No such thing? Really? So you're saying "touch, sound, speech, vision, gestures" for using computers does not exist? You have inadvertently proved my point, few people today can comprehend how computers will be used tomorrow. And it is this exact reason that Linux is going to be light year behind the rest of the world when it comes to user interface design. The people making open source duplications of windows aren't the ones innovating for the future. Anyone who thinks Linux desktop is going to take over the world needs to stay off the weed.
- untog 15y ago
  No such thing? Really? So you're saying "touch, sound, speech, vision, gestures" for using computers does not exist? No, what he and I are saying is that you're drawing an entirely artificial line in the sand about what is and isn't "natural". Desktop interfaces today use "touch" in the sense that you touch a keyboard and mouse. They use sound. Obviously they use vision. Why is pressing on the screen with my finger more "natural" than using a mouse? What does "natural" even mean and why is it better than "non-natural"? few people today can comprehend how computers will be used tomorrow For a second there I imagined I was in the 1960s, talking to someone who is convinced that everyone will be driving a flying car by 1990. Predicting with absolute certainly how anything is going to look in the future usually doesn't pan out.
  - wavephorm 15y ago
    Desktop interfaces today use "touch" in the sense that you touch a keyboard and mouse Touchscreen interfaces, speech recognition and dictation, and computer vision are NOT part of the desktop GUI paradigm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elements_of_graphical_user_interfaces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elements_of_graphical_user_inte... someone who is convinced that everyone will be driving a flying car by 1990. Predicting with absolute certainly how anything is going to look in the future It is not just me that is convinced that next-generation interfaces will replace conventional desktops. Steve Jobs did too.
- bad_user 15y ago
  I don't know how you took that away from my simple sentence. You're like my wife that always reads "between the lines". You're also either building a strawman or you're losing yourself in your own arguments to somehow reach your original point - interaction with a desktop computer, featuring a keyboard and mouse, also relies on "touch, sound, speech, vision and gestures" (again, stay off the weeds). First of all, let me quote Wikipedia: A common misunderstanding of the "Natural User Interface" is that it is somehow mimicry of nature or that some inputs to a computer are somehow more 'natural' than others. In truth things that feel "natural" to us are things that are familiar to us, just because we interacted with similar things before. If moving a box from one screen corner to another with our finger feels natural, that's only because we've been using our hands to move objects since forever. However, that doesn't mean a keyboard is not natural. Quite the contrary, because of repeated usage I can now type at 100 WPM, which is a speed that can't be matched with a touch-screen or speech recognition. I never think about the keyboard in front of me, but the on-screen keyboard on a tablet is definitely not "natural". Touch-screens are not natural when you want to write text (a trait essential to humanity as a whole btw). Touch-screens are also not natural when you have complex interfaces with functions organized in a tree-structure. For example you can use a simple word-processor or a simple photo retouching app with a touch-screen, however, try imagining how Adobe Photoshop would "feel" on those tablets. Bill Buxton, of Microsoft Research [2], says in his own essay "Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved": Everything is best for something and worst for something else Also, see this essay published by Don Norman in the ACM CHI magazine: "Natural User Interfaces Are Not Natural", which explains with detail how interactions based on touch aren't a panacea [1] [1] http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/natural_user_interfaces_are_not_natural.html http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/natural_user_interfaces_are_not_na... [2] http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

untog 15y ago

why click through 20 context menus to activate an option when you can just speak to your computer and say "turn music on". Imagine, for a second, an entire office of people using voice-activated commands. It simply would not work. Why use a mouse to click a button, when you can just touch it with your finger Because that would involve raising my arm and would actually be far more work (and less comfortable) than just using a mouse. OK, we think- let's put the screen where the keyboard is. Now I'm staring downwards for the entire day. And where does my keyboard go? I'm sure as hell not going to dictate this document. I'm not saying that things won't change, but "natural interface" means precisely nothing.

wavephorm 15y ago
"natural interface" means precisely nothing. Like I said, it means using touch, speech, and gestures instead of using these arcane mice and cursor metaphors. The computer mouse only exists because they needed a way to activate the UI controls like scrollbars and cascading menus. Once you eliminate the desktop UI controls, most uses of the mouse aren't necessary. Instead of a mouse, you use your voice, and a tablet/touchscreen device beside your keyboard. Keyboards will probably stay around for a long time. But what I'm specifically saying is the traditional desktop we've been using for the past 25 years is most certainly going to go away.
- untog 15y ago
  But you still aren't outlining why any of this would be better. Like I said- an office full of people using voice commands on their computer would be a total, utter nightmare. How is it better than using a keyboard and mouse?
  - wavephorm 15y ago
    A voice command computer would allow me to walk into my kitchen and say "make me a coffee", whereas the ancient desktop model of computing would require me to log into my Windows desktop and scroll and click through menus to connect and schedule time with my coffee maker. There is an order of magnitude difference in usability between these paradigms, and it doesn't matter how good the Ubuntu Unity Linux desktop is, it won't make tasks like this any bit easier. In every office I have worked in, people are already talking on their phones, I don't see how talking to your computer is any different.