TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

A brief rant on the future of interaction design (2011)

335 pointsby li4ickover 5 years ago

34 comments

vorticoover 5 years ago
This is probably my all-time favorite article on the internet. I&#x27;ve brought it up in conversation dozens of times when referring to ways to control computers. It&#x27;s why I don&#x27;t really use phones for anything beyond answering phone calls and handling urgent tasks when I&#x27;m not at home&#x2F;office. I just feel like I have very little control over these devices, unlike the massive control with a keyboard or mouse, or even better, a fork and spoon when eating dinner (although despite its high degree of control, you can&#x27;t control a computer with them).<p>Tech innovators and its users&#x2F;consumers need to think outside of the box more often for ways to control computers. Given a physical UI device, you can place it on a spectrum of &quot;computer-friendly to human-friendly&quot;. Touch screens are computer-friendly because it&#x27;s trivial for computers to understand and developers to interact with. The downside is that users feel distanced from their control, so it is difficult to use efficiently. But developers are smarter than users at UI---the difficulty should be put on them instead, to control their software&#x2F;OS.<p>I&#x27;ve imagined things like stress balls with &quot;electric muscles&quot; for feedback to control various applications, a cube with the ability to change its texture with suction&#x2F;servos, and things like <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;roli.com&#x2F;products&#x2F;seaboard" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;roli.com&#x2F;products&#x2F;seaboard</a> or <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.expressivee.com&#x2F;buy-touche" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.expressivee.com&#x2F;buy-touche</a> except for general computing applications rather than music performance. Who knows what could be invented if customers could be convinced their computing experience can be improved with better physical interfaces.
评论 #21118686 未加载
评论 #21120251 未加载
评论 #21119200 未加载
评论 #21120023 未加载
评论 #21120257 未加载
评论 #21121403 未加载
Chris_Newtonover 5 years ago
It’s sad that since this article was first written, the trend for dumbing down both the hardware and software we use every day has only continued.<p>When I was a kid, I used to love experimenting with programming. I first learned on a ZX81, with a magnificent 1KB of RAM, typing in simple games programs from books every session because there was no storage device to save them. That experience, that joy of being able to <i>create</i> something fun, sparked an interest in what these amazing technologies we have invented can do.<p>Some of my slightly younger friends were lucky enough to have more powerful systems like the BBC Micro available by the time they reached that stage. Those were brilliant because you could connect <i>anything</i> to them. When they were writing simple LOGO programs at school, they didn’t just draw a circle on the screen, an actual mechanical turtle with an actual pen would draw a circle on a real piece of paper, right before their eyes.<p>Now I want to offer that same joy and intrigue to the next generation of my family. Today’s ubiquitous computing devices are phones and tablets, each with numerical specs many orders of magnitude bigger than that ZX81. That little boy typing in listings from a book now has multiple decades of professional programming experience to share.<p>And yet, I can’t sit down with my own child and write even the most simple game on those devices, because for all their theoretical power, they lack even a rudimentary programming interface. In some cases, I can’t even write a game myself on another system and port it, because the whole ecosystem is closed off.<p>How is it that in a time when children seem, often all too soon, to be carrying around more processing power in their pockets than a supercomputer had when I grew up, they still can’t enjoy the sense of freedom and discovery that I experienced with my little ZX81 and its 1KB of RAM and no storage device in the 1980s?
评论 #21120041 未加载
评论 #21119789 未加载
Animatsover 5 years ago
Victor is one of the people behind Dynamicland, the &quot;live paper&quot;&#x2F;&quot;room is the computer&quot; startup that was shut down recently. That was on HN last week or so.<p>Fancier input devices seem to have come and gone. They peaked in the 1990s, when you could see a lot of them at SIGGRAPH. My favorite was the magnetically levitated sphere in a bowl. It was like a 3D joystick&#x2F;trackball with force feedback. It was really cool. It never sold. There were lots of gadgets like that. An animator friend had a workstation with a keyboard, a knob box, a button box, a joystick, a trackball, a tablet, and two screens. Some of the people doing Jurassic Park had a model dinosaur where you could move all the joints, the computer could read the angles, and the on-screen image moved to match. None of this ever caught on. Even 3D joysticks are rare. Game controllers with two joysticks caught on, but those joysticks are abstractions of what&#x27;s on screen, as, for example, steering, not direct interaction.<p>I tried Jaron Lanier&#x27;s original gloves-and-goggles VR system. You couldn&#x27;t do much with the gloves. That was pretty much true in later glove systems. Autodesk fooled around with VR in the 1990s, but determined that gloves and goggles were not going to make CAD easier.<p>Lack of force feedback is a huge problem with gloves. Without force feedback, it&#x27;s like trying to work in oven mittens. Much of human precision is tactile feedback. Without that, precision work is slow and tiring. As everyone who&#x27;s soldered surface mount parts under a microscope knows.<p>Back in the 1990s, when I was working on collision detection and physically based animation, I considered building an input device I called &quot;The Handle&quot;. The Handle was to be a jointed arm, like a robot arm, with a grip handle on the end as an input device. A servomotor system (or, for cost reasons, I was thinking brakes only back then) would provide tactile feedback. The handle itself would have the ability to split, like pliers, so you&#x27;d have something to squeeze.<p>The Hammer could potentially simulate pliers, tongs, wrenches, hammers, etc. Do simulated auto repair. Assemble Meccano. This would have been what Victor is calling for.<p>Could it be built? Yes. Would it sell in volume? No.<p>That&#x27;s the problem.
评论 #21122422 未加载
评论 #21121548 未加载
评论 #21127173 未加载
评论 #21121694 未加载
guitarnickover 5 years ago
Though this has been discussed many times, I must say the trend of using touchscreens to replace dials and buttons on cars is extremely worrying. It’s entirely an aesthetic and cost saving decision at the expense of safety and UX.
评论 #21119449 未加载
评论 #21118933 未加载
评论 #21121255 未加载
评论 #21121155 未加载
评论 #21121567 未加载
评论 #21119366 未加载
neilobremskiover 5 years ago
This brings to mind the phone ringing in the middle of the night. You pick it up and add mumble into the receiver and the conversation begins. But no, now the phone rings in the middle of the night (assuming it isn&#x27;t text &#x2F; Slack &#x2F; email &#x2F; etc.) and you pick it up and then try to focus your eyes on the screen to figure out WHAT is happening and then HOW to answer. It seems the massive leap forward in the CAPABILITY of our phones has actually caused them to stumble backwards in PRACTICAL usability.
评论 #21121135 未加载
评论 #21129999 未加载
评论 #21125756 未加载
tboyd47over 5 years ago
Instead of a single spectrum from computer- to human-friendliness, picture a triangle with the third vertex being &quot;task-friendliness&quot; or task specificity. The author is advocating a return to human-friendliness, but what he describes is more like task-friendliness.<p>I&#x27;ve become somewhat obsessed with ergonomics after a long battle with chair pain. In my mind, true human-friendliness does not require new interfaces for every task (although it may require a slightly different interface for each <i>human</i>). Every computing task may very well be handled best by a person sitting in a chair at a workstation. That wouldn&#x27;t be bad design IMO; computers are, in fact, general purpose.<p>If we can get to a point where each computer user is able to use their computer comfortably for 8 hours straight, without pinching a nerve or a blood vessel (yes! it&#x27;s possible!), then I would consider that a human-friendly design.<p>I&#x27;m not talking about iPads here - the author is totally right that these devices don&#x27;t seem to be made for human beings.
评论 #21118985 未加载
gdubsover 5 years ago
A few things come to mind. First, I&#x27;ve been reading a lot on the science behind Montessori education, and there&#x27;s a lot to support the idea that our brains are much more active when we&#x27;re physically interacting with something. Would be logical to assume that the richer the physical interaction, the more meaningful the connection.<p>Second, reading Jaron Lanier&#x27;s somewhat recent book on VR I was struck by how far ahead of its time the &#x27;data glove&#x27; was. Early VR may not have had the dazzling eye-candy of today&#x27;s graphics, but on interactivity we just seem to be catching up. (As an aside, I never realized the Nintendo PowerGlove was basically Data Glove &#x27;lite&#x27;; developed by VPL.)<p>Edit: Third, I recently read Carl Sagan&#x27;s &quot;The Dragons of Eden&quot; which he wrote in the 1970s. It&#x27;s about the evolution of the human mind. It&#x27;s SO worth reading today, even if its outdated and proven wrong at times by contemporary discoveries. One thing that really stood out was this idea that it wasn&#x27;t so much that humans evolved and then invented tools – but that perhaps tools shaped our evolution as much as we shaped tools. Invent a simple tool -&gt; use the tool -&gt; brain develops as a result -&gt; invent even more complex tools -&gt; etc.
dangover 5 years ago
A thread from 2013: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=6325996" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=6325996</a><p>Discussed at the time: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=3212949" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=3212949</a>
modernerdover 5 years ago
&gt; With an entire body at your command, do you seriously think the Future Of Interaction should be a single finger?<p>What if you don&#x27;t have an entire body at your command?<p>The plus side of “pictures behind glass” is that it&#x27;s a fairly well standardized interface — the software has to adapt to that homogenized hardware, instead of you fighting to adapt to the hardware. (Or, more accurately, you adapt to it once, instead of once for every type of object you want to interact with.)<p>If interactive experiences all start to require a good range of motion, bodily sensitivity, and ability to instinctively interpret the interface, there&#x27;s a risk it could be incredibly alienating for many. Unless we design with that consideration from day one, it could make adaptivity harder than it already is.<p>I went looking for Bret Victor&#x27;s take on this question because I was certain he would have thought of this already. So far I only found this:<p>“Channeling all interaction through a single finger is like restricting all literature to Dr Seuss&#x27;s vocabulary. Yes, it&#x27;s much more accessible, both to children and to a small set of disabled adults. But a fully-functioning adult human being deserves so much more.”<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;worrydream.com&#x2F;ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign&#x2F;responses.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;worrydream.com&#x2F;ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesi...</a><p>I find it sad to read that. Those with access issues deserve so much more too. There&#x27;s already a huge access gap. If we&#x27;re going to champion new modes of interaction, we should fight hard not to make the gap bigger still.
评论 #21123321 未加载
评论 #21119944 未加载
评论 #21119687 未加载
_bxg1over 5 years ago
There are some gaps in reasoning, but overall I think the point stands.<p>The biggest omission is the key advantage of &quot;Pictures Under Glass&quot;: they can be defined purely in software. Because of that, I don&#x27;t think they&#x27;ll ever stop serving a role in our device interactions. No amount of space-age physical device design could&#x27;ve supported the smartphone&#x27;s explosion of apps without pictures under glass or some equivalent.<p>With that said, we could definitely benefit from moving some of the more constant&#x2F;widespread interactions back to physical controls. Buttons and switches on smartphones are always appreciated. And don&#x27;t even get me started on cars, where there&#x27;s little need for a vibrant developer ecosystem and a <i>ton</i> of need for non-visual interface comprehension. I also think the Apple Watch&#x27;s &quot;crown&quot; is one of the more interesting recent examples of a tactile interface that doesn&#x27;t sacrifice open-ended software development.
评论 #21119661 未加载
评论 #21119967 未加载
arkhover 5 years ago
I&#x27;d like to extend this to fucking VR. All VR experiences lack one thing: full body haptics. Take something inspired from the &quot;Pacific Rim&quot; cockpits ( <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.imgur.com&#x2F;DLze6j7.jpg" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.imgur.com&#x2F;DLze6j7.jpg</a> ) so you can have some contraption giving you a huge freedom of movement and haptic feedback everywhere. That&#x27;d make some games a lot more immersive and physical.
评论 #21127345 未加载
cvaidya1986over 5 years ago
This is great! Really shows what we have today is a reductionist approach to only using our finger on a 2D surface as opposed to utilizing all our motions, muscles and senses to interact with technology in 3D space.
评论 #21117739 未加载
badsectoraculaover 5 years ago
Back when touchscreens started to become popular i remember some talks about a &#x27;tactile overlay&#x27; to touchscreens, essentially a grid of tiny bumps (pixels, though at a much lower resolution) that would &#x27;pump up&#x27; and &#x27;flatten&#x27; just enough to provide a tactile feel to the otherwise glassy screens.<p>What happened to that?
mellingover 5 years ago
I almost made a comment in this article about using Deep Learning and Motion Tracking to have computers better understand our gestures so we can interact visually.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=21115863" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=21115863</a><p>At some point AR and VR will finally provide us the overwhelming need. Then we’ll wonder why we didn’t think of it sooner.<p>At the moment, we’re stuck in the “a keyboard and mouse are better” stage.
评论 #21118340 未加载
bsanr2over 5 years ago
I noticed this while experimenting with VR and hand-tracking. Without tactile or precise auditory feedback, the experience was hollow, even with relatively high-fidelity visuals and tracking. You can never feel like you are somewhere else - or something immaterial is with you - until a full sensory experience coalesces, even if it&#x27;s &quot;low resolution.&quot; Until then, the result is landing in an experiential uncanny valley.<p>On another note, we should also be looking at accessibility when approaching this research. Contrary to that last little bit at the end, not everyone has full use of their bodies, or even of their hands. I just finished listening to an NPR segment about inner-city youth dealing with permanent disability as a result of gun violence, and the unique challenges presented to them. Perhaps with people like them in mind, the mass solutions we eventually end up with will be better for focusing farther upstream than nerve endings.
评论 #21118314 未加载
评论 #21118458 未加载
dreamcompilerover 5 years ago
This is why I dislike touch screens in cars so much: You have to look at them. We have 100 years of experience with car user interfaces that don&#x27;t require you to take your eyes off the road, but we threw all that away in favor of these shitty pictures under glass.
gitgudover 5 years ago
I feel my Nokia 3210 in highschool had a much more intuitive UI than the latest iPhone... and it was trivial to use without looking at it, since your hands could navigate the keys...<p>This isn&#x27;t possible anymore with <i>sliding pictures under glass</i>...
simulateover 5 years ago
I remember this Bret Victor piece from 2011 and I was thinking about it recently when Google announced Soli for the Pixel 4. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnet.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;project-soli-is-the-secret-star-of-googles-pixel-4-self-leak&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnet.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;project-soli-is-the-secret-star-of...</a><p>Soli and other gesture-based technologies seem like at least an incremental move to using motion that Bret Victor was advocating for in 2011.
评论 #21118178 未加载
syrrimover 5 years ago
I think maybe the principle is that we want to be able to transfer as many bits&#x2F;second of data as possible. We have the computer-&gt;human interface down, because screens can already emit more information than humans can process. But human-&gt;computer we can only go so fast. This is partly limited by how many fingers we use to do the input. I can type faster on a keyboard than a screen. But I think the main issue people are worried about is that humans can only think so fast. So if the interface requires asking humans for input too much, it will take forever. So instead you try and guess what the humans want. And if you do this well enough, then the input method doesn&#x27;t matter. Some people say they can type better on their phones because they can use swiftkey. So I think most visions of the future are thinking about AI, and intelligence, and asking &quot;what will we be able to guess without asking the human first?&quot; And this is where they think interaction design is going.<p>Another point of fact. Such a machine requires less bps from the human. That is, it requires them to do less thinking, which most people will prefer. And if you&#x27;re trying to predict the future, &quot;machines will require less thinking (but be more mass market)&quot; is a pretty safe bet.<p>Sandwiches are very fancy things, as everyone knows. But I expend a lot of mental effort getting the cheese slices in the right thickness. I&#x27;m sitting there focusing on making sure I don&#x27;t deflect the knife too deep or too shallow. This is a very fancy task. But many people prefer specialized cheese slicing devices, because they makes more precise slices, and because they require less mental effort. So expect UI to follow the same trend, from general tools requiring complex input to particular tools requiring simple input.
keenmasterover 5 years ago
Haptic, resistive gloves will merge the tactile with the digital in VR applications. Just like touchscreens, they will serve as a single device that can simulate an infinite number of different controls. Give 5-10 years for the tech to miniaturize and mature. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;haptx.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;haptx.com&#x2F;</a>
JesseAldridgeover 5 years ago
Embodied cognition is definitely a thing: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Embodied_cognition" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Embodied_cognition</a><p>And in software development, the primary bottleneck is thinking. Anything you can do to enable greater clarity of thought is going to have huge leverage. So I think this is a super promising angle.<p>Bret&#x27;s actively developing his ideas at DynamicLand: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;dynamicland.org" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;dynamicland.org</a> But clearly it will be quite some time before that tech becomes viable in the real world.<p>Now I&#x27;m wondering if there are simpler ways to use the rest of my body to facilitate thinking. Like, I can&#x27;t mount lasers and network connected cameras on the ceiling... but maybe there&#x27;s some software that can use a webcam to do simple gesture recognition mapped to bash scripts or something like that.
pgodzinover 5 years ago
The benefit is of &quot;Pictures Under Glass&quot; is the flexibility - it is extremely easy to change the picture to align to almost any use case. It is extremely difficult to have the same flexible interface with something that is tactile and can manipulate its own shape to be appropriate for the task.
评论 #21118536 未加载
justinmchaseover 5 years ago
&gt; Are we really going to accept an Interface Of The Future that is less expressive than a sandwich?<p>Great line.
评论 #21119696 未加载
lkrubnerover 5 years ago
The article focuses on the use of hands, but a visionary future technology might focus more on voice and NLP. This is something I have worked for some years:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.smashcompany.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;the-advantages-of-a-natural-language-processing-interface" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.smashcompany.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;the-advantages-of-a-n...</a>
tabtabover 5 years ago
I predict the UI of the future will be via brain implants that allow one to control an app with just thoughts. It may become a necessity in order to keep up with other countries that may have less qualms about the ethical side of surgery and intrusion.
cryptozeusover 5 years ago
I think we are in transition faze. Current future ideas assumes that we will have same interface and hand driven intersections which may not be true. Increase of IOT devices and voice controlled interfaces have different story to tell.
tambourine_manover 5 years ago
2011
jct3uover 5 years ago
The video anchoring the article shows as unavailable for me. Is there an alternate place to view it?
评论 #21118600 未加载
naiveaiover 5 years ago
The condescending tone of this article does not help it whatsoever.<p>Not to mention the huge gaps in logic that cause it to jump from merely a misguided attempt to rail against well established conventions for interfaces to an active argument for those interfaces still being good.
slotkinover 5 years ago
ahh was really hoping this was something new from Bret
dmixover 5 years ago
Aw, I was hoping it was a new essay by Bret. Needs (2011) in the title.
评论 #21118512 未加载
fragmedeover 5 years ago
There&#x27;s a (2011) missing from the title here, at least according to the title graphic.
评论 #21119993 未加载
carapaceover 5 years ago
Tiny grey sans-serif font means you hate my eyes.<p>Extra-ironic on a rant about interaction design.
galonkover 5 years ago
Seems pretty easy to write an essay saying &quot;screens are old news, let&#x27;s use our hands!&quot; containing not a single word about how that would work, technically or design-wise.<p>I&#x27;m going to write an essay saying &quot;screens are old news, let&#x27;s use free-floating holograms like in Iron Man!&quot; with no indication how that would even be possible, and see if I can get on HN.
评论 #21117667 未加载
评论 #21117715 未加载
评论 #21117682 未加载