4 ms·

Skin Deep Usability (Microsoft Surface)

29 points by pmjordan 18y ago

alexitosrv 18y ago
So, just by curiosity, I would like to know (it didn't get mentioned in the article) what is the use case for a device like that?
- smhinsey 18y ago
  big in-store interactive displays. in this instance since they're talking about real estate, probably some sort of listing browser they can throw in the lobby or take to the mall or whatever they want.
- tvon 18y ago
  Microsoft Surface Demo @ CES 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxk_WywMTzc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxk_WywMTzc Every time I see a Surface demo I'm struck at the whole "display photos as a jumbled mess, just like real photos!" thing. It just seems so... idiotic. Anyway, there does seem to be some potential with Surface but it does seem like a bit of a waste in the hands of Microsoft.
- potatolicious 18y ago
  I believe AT&T has them as kiosks in the stores, and specially tagged demo phones that can interact with the screen (e.g. place the phone on the surface and get its specs, along with price plans, etc) It's cool stuff, and as a point-of-sale thing can seriously boost marketing. It just doesn't seem like MS should be someone tackling a project that requires immaculate usability.
- wmeredith 18y ago
  I used one of these at The Sprint store in the Power & Light district in Kansas City. It was infuriating. It seemed like everything happened about 2.5 seconds after you had touched it. I walked off after about 30 seconds.
buugs 18y ago
I don't think it took them half an hour to plug it in and if it did maybe they should stay away from new technology... seriously.
- tvon 18y ago
  Yeah, I have no doubt that the device is somewhat unintuitive to setup, but given the size of the machine it wouldn't take them half an hour to physically search it for a place to plug it in.
iigs 18y ago
The whole experience was probably best summed up by Amanda who, when asked why it was taking us so long to get the machine up and running, and why we all looked so unhappy, replied “Oh, it’s just so…Microsofty.” This is exactly the problem with this device. My memories of my five minutes with one: 1) From a distance: It looks like a giant iPod touch under glass. They are better replicas of iPods than the giant LCD/Plasma screens with an iPod-alike shell at the front of the Apple store. 2) Up close: You can tell it's DLP projected. The image quality was a sizable step down from the gorgeous LCD of the iPod. I think it would have been better to work with a plasma vendor to make a plasma with a thick glass surface. 3) First touch: The top, maybe 1mm or less, of the glass top is soft. You _really_ get the feeling that you could damage it with your fingernail or a tile cup coaster, or other things you could reasonably expect to do to a table top. To their credit, the one I looked at was absolutely pristine, so perhaps it's a perception thing. 4) Other: The stupid white Windows mouse pointer was always on and dead center on the screen. The whole time. It didn't follow the touches, which would have felt unpolished but understandable, it just stuck out like a scab. This kind of thing has to make Steve Jobs cackle with glee. Overall it looks like a solution in search of a problem, and I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would pay that kind of money for something so superficially polished but so lacking in technical engineering.
- potatolicious 18y ago
  2) It has to be DLP projected - there's an infrared camera below the screen that captures your touches - which means that there can be no obstruction between the camera and the table top (like, oh, say, a plasma screen). 3) This is a pliant silicon surface and necessary with the sort of tech that Microsoft is implementing. This is somewhat sad, since hobbyists (look up NUIGroup if you are interested) have gotten better results with a pure glass surface (which obviously takes a lot more punishment). This is the difference between Apple and Microsoft - attention to detail. MS will get the core bullet point features working, but when using it there are so many rough edges and little things that irk you that ultimately you have a negative experience, despite the fact that the machine is perfectly functional.
  - iigs 18y ago

29 points by pmjordan 18y ago

So, just by curiosity, I would like to know (it didn't get mentioned in the article) what is the use case for a device like that?

smhinsey 18y ago
big in-store interactive displays. in this instance since they're talking about real estate, probably some sort of listing browser they can throw in the lobby or take to the mall or whatever they want.
tvon 18y ago
Microsoft Surface Demo @ CES 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxk_WywMTzc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxk_WywMTzc Every time I see a Surface demo I'm struck at the whole "display photos as a jumbled mess, just like real photos!" thing. It just seems so... idiotic. Anyway, there does seem to be some potential with Surface but it does seem like a bit of a waste in the hands of Microsoft.
potatolicious 18y ago
I believe AT&T has them as kiosks in the stores, and specially tagged demo phones that can interact with the screen (e.g. place the phone on the surface and get its specs, along with price plans, etc) It's cool stuff, and as a point-of-sale thing can seriously boost marketing. It just doesn't seem like MS should be someone tackling a project that requires immaculate usability.
wmeredith 18y ago
I used one of these at The Sprint store in the Power & Light district in Kansas City. It was infuriating. It seemed like everything happened about 2.5 seconds after you had touched it. I walked off after about 30 seconds.

buugs 18y ago

I don't think it took them half an hour to plug it in and if it did maybe they should stay away from new technology... seriously.

tvon 18y ago
Yeah, I have no doubt that the device is somewhat unintuitive to setup, but given the size of the machine it wouldn't take them half an hour to physically search it for a place to plug it in.

iigs 18y ago

The whole experience was probably best summed up by Amanda who, when asked why it was taking us so long to get the machine up and running, and why we all looked so unhappy, replied “Oh, it’s just so…Microsofty.” This is exactly the problem with this device. My memories of my five minutes with one: 1) From a distance: It looks like a giant iPod touch under glass. They are better replicas of iPods than the giant LCD/Plasma screens with an iPod-alike shell at the front of the Apple store. 2) Up close: You can tell it's DLP projected. The image quality was a sizable step down from the gorgeous LCD of the iPod. I think it would have been better to work with a plasma vendor to make a plasma with a thick glass surface. 3) First touch: The top, maybe 1mm or less, of the glass top is soft. You _really_ get the feeling that you could damage it with your fingernail or a tile cup coaster, or other things you could reasonably expect to do to a table top. To their credit, the one I looked at was absolutely pristine, so perhaps it's a perception thing. 4) Other: The stupid white Windows mouse pointer was always on and dead center on the screen. The whole time. It didn't follow the touches, which would have felt unpolished but understandable, it just stuck out like a scab. This kind of thing has to make Steve Jobs cackle with glee. Overall it looks like a solution in search of a problem, and I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would pay that kind of money for something so superficially polished but so lacking in technical engineering.

potatolicious 18y ago
2) It has to be DLP projected - there's an infrared camera below the screen that captures your touches - which means that there can be no obstruction between the camera and the table top (like, oh, say, a plasma screen). 3) This is a pliant silicon surface and necessary with the sort of tech that Microsoft is implementing. This is somewhat sad, since hobbyists (look up NUIGroup if you are interested) have gotten better results with a pure glass surface (which obviously takes a lot more punishment). This is the difference between Apple and Microsoft - attention to detail. MS will get the core bullet point features working, but when using it there are so many rough edges and little things that irk you that ultimately you have a negative experience, despite the fact that the machine is perfectly functional.
- iigs 18y ago