3 ms·

There's an opportunity to break out of the LRUD-driven user interfaces and input modality. Only issue is all the TV apps that will run on this virtual smart TV

There's an opportunity to break out of the LRUD-driven user interfaces and input modality. Only issue is all the TV apps that will run on this virtual smart TV assume LRUD, so I don't have high hopes for a transcendent advancement in usability. Not even Apple, who introduced a touch remote, control the Apple TV (hardware) and the Apple TV app attempted to supersede LRUD. LG's pointer-based input devices (you can think of it as a mouse) have been with us for many years now, but hasn't caught on with more device manufacturers. Some people hold out hope for Voice UI, but it has a number of downsides that make it worse than LRUD. Once you rethink the vending machine interface, maybe a different modality reveals it self.

dmonitor 1y ago
I still hold to how amazing the Wii's user interface was. All pointer-based, using simple IR cameras, an underpowered CPU, and a downright ancient IMU (it didn't even have a gyroscope!)
pimlottc 1y ago
I think LRUD means “left-right-up-down” here? I had to google it.
- andsoitis 1y ago
  Yes.
CharlesW 1y ago
> Not even Apple, who introduced a touch remote, control the Apple TV (hardware) and the Apple TV app attempted to supersede LRUD. I can't recall the last time I've used LRUD controls with Apple TV. The hardware and software remotes both do trackpad-style control, which in my experience works just fine in that I've never had to think about it.
gdulli 1y ago
> Once you rethink the vending machine interface, maybe a different modality reveals it self. You haven't said why one should. The screen is 2d, the LRUD interface is 2d. It's simple and works well. What are we leaving on the table? The article says this "represents a monetization opportunity for Meta". What does it represent for me? Other than an opportunity to have new types of screens to buy. > “Instead of a $500 TV sitting in front of us, what’s to keep us from one day having it be a $1 app,” I'm already at my peak being online and attached to screens. If I make any change it's going to be in the direction of being less online, not more. I don't want smart glasses keeping me online at all times. I don't want TV glasses enabling me to watch TV at all times. My $500 TV serves its purpose perfectly already and I don't need to bring it with me. Even if I wanted a permanent TV in my glasses and the app was only $1. The app will track the shit out of me. My TV is kept off the network. Going from cable to streaming added the adtech industry's surveillance and unskippable ads. There's no way Meta won't shit out something worse than I can still cling to with my offline TV. Surely I lack the imagination to see how cool VR TV apps could be, but it doesn't take imagination to know how this is going to be consumer-hostile.
- andsoitis 1y ago
  > You haven't said why one should. The screen is 2d, the LRUD interface is 2d. It's simple and works well. What are we leaving on the table? Gestural input with a touch interface can give you a wider range of interesting UI and interaction.

dmonitor 1y ago

I still hold to how amazing the Wii's user interface was. All pointer-based, using simple IR cameras, an underpowered CPU, and a downright ancient IMU (it didn't even have a gyroscope!)

pimlottc 1y ago

I think LRUD means “left-right-up-down” here? I had to google it.

andsoitis 1y ago
Yes.

CharlesW 1y ago

> Not even Apple, who introduced a touch remote, control the Apple TV (hardware) and the Apple TV app attempted to supersede LRUD. I can't recall the last time I've used LRUD controls with Apple TV. The hardware and software remotes both do trackpad-style control, which in my experience works just fine in that I've never had to think about it.

gdulli 1y ago

> Once you rethink the vending machine interface, maybe a different modality reveals it self. You haven't said why one should. The screen is 2d, the LRUD interface is 2d. It's simple and works well. What are we leaving on the table? The article says this "represents a monetization opportunity for Meta". What does it represent for me? Other than an opportunity to have new types of screens to buy. > “Instead of a $500 TV sitting in front of us, what’s to keep us from one day having it be a $1 app,” I'm already at my peak being online and attached to screens. If I make any change it's going to be in the direction of being less online, not more. I don't want smart glasses keeping me online at all times. I don't want TV glasses enabling me to watch TV at all times. My $500 TV serves its purpose perfectly already and I don't need to bring it with me. Even if I wanted a permanent TV in my glasses and the app was only $1. The app will track the shit out of me. My TV is kept off the network. Going from cable to streaming added the adtech industry's surveillance and unskippable ads. There's no way Meta won't shit out something worse than I can still cling to with my offline TV. Surely I lack the imagination to see how cool VR TV apps could be, but it doesn't take imagination to know how this is going to be consumer-hostile.

andsoitis 1y ago
> You haven't said why one should. The screen is 2d, the LRUD interface is 2d. It's simple and works well. What are we leaving on the table? Gestural input with a touch interface can give you a wider range of interesting UI and interaction.