The New Interface Is There Is No interface

I am a music producer and audio engineer, which these days means I labor at the computer. I have come to the conclusion that the GUI as we know it is a really bad interface at which to labor.<p>One of the fundamental problems is that it breaks our normal mind/body connection. It is virtually impossible to develop any kind of muscle memory using an interface that requires different physical movements for the same act.<p>Using a application over time, we do learn to work in an unconscious, trance-like state. But it requires a rigid posture to maintain visual connection with the location of the mouse and the state of the interface. This leads quickly to fatigue and potential repetitive strain injury.<p>I do think the touch interfaces are an improvement in this context (they reconnect mind/body/application). But for something as labor intensive and complex as audio production (or any media production) I don't think they will be usable for sustained work (at least with existing interface metaphors).<p>I have developed a tool for use with Pro Tools audio software, the Hotkey Matrix. It is a keyboard with pre-configured single key keyboard shortcuts. It has a number of features which are distinct from the many other attempts at control surfaces for audio software, and somewhat against the tenor of the times.<p>The shortcuts are fixed. We have iterated the specific shortcuts and layout over many years of production use. They are color coded, there are no modes or pages, so the same function is always in the same place and it is easy to target. It basically replaces and adds to the default keyboard shortcuts in Pro Tools. Pro Tools has a nice set of default single key shortcuts, but since it has so many, increasingly elaborate key bindings and two hands are required to use them (some have four modifier keys).<p>I'm convinced this is a superior interface enhancement on a lot of levels. It brings back some tactile response, and makes both muscle and mental memorization a lot easier. Since production work is extremely repetitive, it saves a thousands of keystrokes.<p>I think there is a long way to go in improving interfaces for complex media software. The computer brings tremendous benefits and cost savings to audio production, so there is no going back. It is now trivial to build up a virtual studio environment in a laptop that would have literally cost millions of dollars back in the 90s (not to mention insane electric bills). But the awesome thing about old school analog production was that each parameter in a project got its own dedicated knob/button/fader.<p>I miss those all those knobs/buttons/faders!<p>I'm also convinced that most software developers who make tools for professionals never use their software as a professional does (they don't have the time). Hence they make design decisions that turn out to be non-optimal over long use. I've used a lot of audio applications, and IMO Pro Tools is the best. My guess is that since they have a large installed base of professionals and some kind of feedback mechanism from the user base, their updates tend in the direction of increased usability (for pro users). Usability for apps that are simple and used infrequently is very different, and it is here that the comments of the OP are most on point.<p>Anyhow, I've wanting to run this by the HN community to see what people think. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTvhwtvw2sI" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTvhwtvw2sI</a>

Physical objects have/are interfaces too. What do you think handles, levers, door knobs, gear shifters, file cabinets and flat surfaces are?<p>Between our senses and external reality, there will always be an interface. The beauty of computers is we are much less dependent on the physical properties of actual objects in designing those interfaces. Maybe that's what the author is getting at, but I think they are saying it wrong.

<i>Interface</i>: A point where two systems, subjects, organizations, etc., meet and interact. -(First Google definition, and the one that I was taught)<p>I think the author is confused. He isn't talking about interfaces, he's talking about functionality. In his examples of mobile applications, interface is actually <i>everything</i>: the app is a point of overlap between the user's singular need and the tool that provides a targeted solution. (We can argue over the distinction of <i>user interface</i> vs. <i>interface</i>, but I posit the former follows the latter.)<p>In other words, the mobile app interface is not non-existent, but perfect: a single point of overlap between need and function.<p>From the article: <i>That’s precisely what a tool is: something which requires very little explanation for how to use it, because it is designed so precisely for its purpose, that how to use it is obvious. If you’re trying to dig a hole with your hands, you don’t need much explanation for how to use a shovel. “This is the handle” is about the extent of it.</i><p>That's an example of a perfect interface, not no interface!

In some cases, mobile apps force you to put shit IN THE WAY of what the user is doing because of a lack of hardware interface for the user.<p>Game on an iPhone? Sorry, I'm going to need to stick buttons in the way of your visuals. So, you had a 3.5 inch display area, already small enough, and now you have to stick buttons and joysticks and touch menus on it. If not qwerty, at least throw me two or three buttons. Bah.

The problem with interface-less mobile apps is that the interface provides critical cues to the user about functionality. Phrases like, "...a finicky piece of artifice that we have to strain to understand" is only indicative of a <i>poorly designed</i> interface, not all of them.<p>The beauty of technology is that its software transcends the physical realm. Software does things paper cannot. While specific physical metaphors often apply to software, especially with touch-based interfaces, to avoid taking advantage of the inherent non-physical nature of an application is a terrible mistake at the expense of true usability and functionality.

<i>That’s precisely what a tool is: something which requires very little explanation for how to use it, because it is designed so precisely for its purpose, that how to use it is obvious.</i><p>Oh, that's what a tool is? :)

This is exactly why Siri is important. It is context aware and stays out of your way until you need it. I am very bullish on voice-driven apps of all kinds.

You effectively just described what "good design" is -- so effortless, it's invisible.<p>This isn't a new concept, but with the recent focus on design in startups, I guess it's finally coming to light outside the design community.

There is still an interface. Anything you interact with, by nature, has an interface. It's just become so intuitive you don't think about it, or need to learn it. It's just obvious.

Wall of text. Definitely No Interface &#62;.&#60;

No. Computer interfaces are increasingly virtual.<p>"The New Interface Is There Is No Interface" is an oxymoron.

Is it just me or did the author just write a whole article about the Metro UI without actually naming it?<p><a href="http://windowsphone.interoperabilitybridges.com/media/42139/panorama.png" rel="nofollow">http://windowsphone.interoperabilitybridges.com/media/42139/...</a><p><a href="http://weblogs.asp.net/blogs/bsimser/MetroDesign_thumb_6D6BFA59.png" rel="nofollow">http://weblogs.asp.net/blogs/bsimser/MetroDesign_thumb_6D6BF...</a><p>It seems to be the only UI around that eschews window chrome and faux 3d and focuses on the content.

I posit that the old interface could be the new interface. For example, I'm willing to bet that most people spend most of their online time using complex interfaces to acquire tiny, yet important to them, bits of information. By "complex", I mean something like Facebook compared to the information retrieved, which could be something as simple as your best friend's status. So, imagine replacing Facebook in the browser with Windows Notepad plus an EXE made using AutoIt. The EXE would run in the background, regularly getting that important friend status, then "typing" it into the assigned Notepad window. Sure, you could argue that this does not replace Facebook in the browser, but it gives you a new way of utilizing an old interface, while also giving you features that the complex interface might not have, such as being able to easily save a history of your friend's status messages. I'm not saying that this should be an actual product, although it does have some potential. Rather, I'm pointing out that old interfaces can be repurposed.

Your interface has to be a metaphore for a real-world process. If it isn't then you are a) doing it wrong or b) there is no direct mapping to a real-world process.