3 ms·

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,

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

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