3 ms·

Having a non-focused, non-active window arbitrarily take up 1/3 of my viewable monitor at all times would drive me nuts. It also makes no sense to me to go to

by TrevorJ 17y ago

Having a non-focused, non-active window arbitrarily take up 1/3 of my viewable monitor at all times would drive me nuts. It also makes no sense to me to go to the trouble of allowing a user to use all ten fingers, and then restricting application interaction to only two or three fingers. I work in rich, deep applications with tons of controls and buttons, if I'm going to go to the trouble of learning to use ten fingers to navigate a computer, you better allow me to make use of all of them withing the individual programs that I'm using.

stcredzero 17y ago
I think you're onto something. OS interaction/application switching should be simple, and the individual app interaction should be more complex. I think 4 app selection modes are almost too much. 3 is perfect. Prediction: I suspect that Apple is taking Exposé in exactly this direction.
- buro9 17y ago
  Re: the prediction. Doesn't it help to have a documented piece of prior art like the Linux demo in this video when it comes to patent defence and implementation on other platforms? Of course, R. Clayton Miller may have patented too. Or he could see it in the same vein as the safety match and just record it to give it away.
- TrevorJ 17y ago
  The real logical gap in the thinking here is that they are focusing on replacing the mouse but in reality, they are in fact replacing functions that can be executed simply and quickly with a keyboard. Application switching etc can be done efficiently with a keyboard. At the very least I question the wisdom of moving away from the modifier key paradigm because it is an elegant and easy method of interaction. I also believe that as we engage more and more of the body in a control interface, for it to be natural it is going to need to mimic real-world interaction so that we can rely on our lifetime of experience interacting with physical objects. The better solution in my opinion would contain: -2 mirrored screens so that the one under your hands can be glanced at for reference as well. -A UI approach that allows you to interact with objects and windows in the same ways you would with real objects. (Grabbing the edges moves the window, pushing down on it 'sticks' it in place, etc.)

by TrevorJ 17y ago

stcredzero 17y ago

I think you're onto something. OS interaction/application switching should be simple, and the individual app interaction should be more complex. I think 4 app selection modes are almost too much. 3 is perfect. Prediction: I suspect that Apple is taking Exposé in exactly this direction.

buro9 17y ago
Re: the prediction. Doesn't it help to have a documented piece of prior art like the Linux demo in this video when it comes to patent defence and implementation on other platforms? Of course, R. Clayton Miller may have patented too. Or he could see it in the same vein as the safety match and just record it to give it away.
TrevorJ 17y ago
The real logical gap in the thinking here is that they are focusing on replacing the mouse but in reality, they are in fact replacing functions that can be executed simply and quickly with a keyboard. Application switching etc can be done efficiently with a keyboard. At the very least I question the wisdom of moving away from the modifier key paradigm because it is an elegant and easy method of interaction. I also believe that as we engage more and more of the body in a control interface, for it to be natural it is going to need to mimic real-world interaction so that we can rely on our lifetime of experience interacting with physical objects. The better solution in my opinion would contain: -2 mirrored screens so that the one under your hands can be glanced at for reference as well. -A UI approach that allows you to interact with objects and windows in the same ways you would with real objects. (Grabbing the edges moves the window, pushing down on it 'sticks' it in place, etc.)