"Interface-Free" Interface

29 Oct 2006 - 9:12am
8 years ago
27 replies
1042 reads
Dan Saffer
2003

I know this must have gone around and I just missed it somehow.

"Jeff Han demonstrates—for the first time publicly—his intuitive,
"interface-free," touch-driven computer screen, which can be
manipulated intuitively with the fingertips, and responds to varying
levels of pressure."

http://ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=j_han&flashEnabled=1

Just because an interface is [arguably] easy to use, doesn't mean
it's interface free. While I think this is a really need use of the Z-
axis and a gestural interface, I'm wondering about its limitations
for daily use. Could I type on a touch-screen keypad all day, for
instance? How would MS Office for instance (not to mention Adobe
products) get translated into this mouse-less OS?

Dan

Comments

29 Oct 2006 - 11:10am
Mark Schraad
2006

a visceral reaction and some observation:

Presentation: Wow, a lot of very cool razzle dazzle. The models used,
the hand motions all add up to a very nice presentation. This is a
bell and whistles project in my opinion. Curiously, Jeff contradicts
himself through out the presentation alternately stating calling it
"no interface" and referring to "the interface". To Dan's point, this
absolutely is an interface and not interface-free. The touch screen
and hands replace the mouse as the primary operator.

Obviously this interface is in it's infancy. I would like to see how
it works in a more applied use. The simplistic tasks that are
demonstrated are cool - but nothing the two fingered tack pad could
not do.

I love this stuff, and frankly think it has some real world
application (see it soon as a tool for CSI characters on TV). But the
introductory statement is either premature or a bit grandiose.

On Oct 29, 2006, at 10:12 AM, Dan Saffer wrote:

> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
> I know this must have gone around and I just missed it somehow.
>
> "Jeff Han demonstrates—for the first time publicly—his intuitive,
> "interface-free," touch-driven computer screen, which can be
> manipulated intuitively with the fingertips, and responds to varying
> levels of pressure."
>
> http://ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=j_han&flashEnabled=1
>
> Just because an interface is [arguably] easy to use, doesn't mean
> it's interface free. While I think this is a really need use of the Z-
> axis and a gestural interface, I'm wondering about its limitations
> for daily use. Could I type on a touch-screen keypad all day, for
> instance? How would MS Office for instance (not to mention Adobe
> products) get translated into this mouse-less OS?
>
> Dan
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

30 Oct 2006 - 8:50am
DrWex
2006

I can't find the references at this moment (they're on this ancient
paper medium somewhere in my home office filing cabinet) but back in
the late 80s the military went through a fad of touchscreen
interfaces. They were found to be highly error-prone and fatiguing.

Error sources include:
- size of the pointing device (fingertip vs cursor)
- selection with the finger obscures the thing you're trying to select
- uncertainty on feedback. The combination of physical feedback (does
the screen flex in response to pressure? If so how much and how does
the user correlate that feedback with visual changes?) proved
difficult for some users.
- dirt and oils from human hands tended to introduce errors and
obscure displays after extended use.

Fatigue sources included:
- necesity for operators to hold their arms up
- requirement to reach and retract arm on each completed interaction
- positioning of the screen for touch required operators to change
their head/body positions
- operators tended to crane their necks sideways to try and confirm a
touch that was full or partially blocked by their fingertips.

The tasks used were very similar to the original "Put That There"
gestural interface, which is why I got interested in the research (I
did my MS on gesture). The military operators used the touch screens
in 1, 2, 4 and 8 hour shifts that matched their normal work schedules.
Even a one-hour shift was perceived as fatiguing. This leads me to
believe that touch interfaces are fine for casual interaction over
short periods, but not really suitable for extended work.

On 10/29/06, Dan Saffer <dan at odannyboy.com> wrote:
> "Jeff Han demonstrates—for the first time publicly—his intuitive,
> "interface-free," touch-driven computer screen, which can be
> manipulated intuitively with the fingertips, and responds to varying
> levels of pressure."
>
> http://ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=j_han&flashEnabled=1
>
> Just because an interface is [arguably] easy to use, doesn't mean
> it's interface free. While I think this is a really need use of the Z-
> axis and a gestural interface, I'm wondering about its limitations
> for daily use. Could I type on a touch-screen keypad all day, for
> instance? How would MS Office for instance (not to mention Adobe
> products) get translated into this mouse-less OS?

30 Oct 2006 - 9:48am
maglez@btintern...
2006

I can confirm Alan's points as I have been designing for touch screen kiosks for the last 6 years.

Let me pass some of my experience on each of his points...

- Size of the pointing device (fingertip vs cursor)
Touch screen guidelines says that on screen controls should be at least 50*50px, for a usual
resolution 1024*768px. As controls have to be oversized, you have less room on screen to fit other
controls. On that video you can see that the screen is much bigger than usual. Prices for touch
screens are getting down every year so in a near future we all could afford a big touch screen,
the problem is that no many people has room for a large screen on their desk, sure the desk could
be modified but that is one more harsh to make this system to success.

- Selection with the finger obscures the thing you're trying to select
No only the finger but your arms, they are on the way all the time. What is you are wearing a
loose jumper.

- Uncertainty on feedback
This is a big problem. With the most common input devices, mouse and keyboard, users feel the
mouse button or key depressing under their finger, this is a sensation that touch screen cannot
imitate.

- Dirt and oils
Depending of the touch screen technology, this may decrease the accuracy of the screen. Also,
between a dirty mouse button and a dirty screen I will always prefer the mouse, easy and faster to
clean up.

- Fatigue.
This is a big one. When you walk, when you sleep, when you eat, when you do normal life stuff, you
don't hold your arms on that position, meaning that we haven't develop the necessary muscles to
easily hold our arms on that position, it's painful after a few minutes.

Another point is the visual angle of the screen to the user. The actual technology for those
screens make the screen gives you different colour depending of the screen's angle. For a personal
computer at your home that's fine, you don't change your stature every day, but for a machine in a
public area, different people has different stature and that create a problem. This could be
easily solved by creating a kiosk where the final user can move the screen to adjust it to his or
her needs, the problem is that the final user is not aware of that capability or is afraid or
breaking the kiosk so they don't change the angle, they just abandon the kiosk.

Another problem on the screen inclination is erring on target, depending of the technology; the
reactive layer can be separated from the external screen by a few millimetres, this makes the user
to mistake many times, those few millimetres makes you to misjudge the distance and so to fail.

Sure that the technology will sort out many of those problems, like making the reactive layer to
be at the same level than the screen protector glass, a new redesigned desk to increase ergonomic,
etc. This seems to be one more example of technology evolving much faster than human’s brain and
human’s body. Our brain and body is not got to change much in the few next centuries, all this new
technology will be fine for highly trained people but not for the casual one.

Again, we have to make clear who are we designing for, their environment, goals, etc. That touch
screen is really nice and the demonstration has been seen for many people on Internet over the
last 4 weeks, showing that people is really amazed and has a desire for this technology but that
doesn’t make it a successful technology, no many people will use a touch screen for more than an
hour.

I think I am missing an important point about this technology, the ability for multiple touch on
screen, I don’t recall the necessity for a multiple pointer, I think we don’t need it, but well,
it’s good to research and experiment, and this technology could bring something good in the
future, I hope.

Maglez.

--- Alan Wexelblat <awexelblat at gmail.com> wrote:

> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]
>
> I can't find the references at this moment (they're on this ancient
> paper medium somewhere in my home office filing cabinet) but back in
> the late 80s the military went through a fad of touchscreen
> interfaces. They were found to be highly error-prone and fatiguing.
>
> Error sources include:
> - size of the pointing device (fingertip vs cursor)
> - selection with the finger obscures the thing you're trying to select
> - uncertainty on feedback. The combination of physical feedback (does
> the screen flex in response to pressure? If so how much and how does
> the user correlate that feedback with visual changes?) proved
> difficult for some users.
> - dirt and oils from human hands tended to introduce errors and
> obscure displays after extended use.
>
> Fatigue sources included:
> - necesity for operators to hold their arms up
> - requirement to reach and retract arm on each completed interaction
> - positioning of the screen for touch required operators to change
> their head/body positions
> - operators tended to crane their necks sideways to try and confirm a
> touch that was full or partially blocked by their fingertips.
>
> The tasks used were very similar to the original "Put That There"
> gestural interface, which is why I got interested in the research (I
> did my MS on gesture). The military operators used the touch screens
> in 1, 2, 4 and 8 hour shifts that matched their normal work schedules.
> Even a one-hour shift was perceived as fatiguing. This leads me to
> believe that touch interfaces are fine for casual interaction over
> short periods, but not really suitable for extended work.

30 Oct 2006 - 10:15am
Christine Boese
2006

Hey y'all,

What an interesting discussion thread! I have nothing of substance to add to
the excellent points raised, esp. by Alan's memory of the document in his
file cabinet (terrific RAM call-up there!).

But while reading one point below, I was struck by a silly idea, and I
wondered to myself how it would play out in a discussion among interface
designers.

The item that set my mind spinng were several of the Fatigue Sources Alan
remembered, below:

Fatigue sources included:
- necesity for operators to hold their arms up
- requirement to reach and retract arm on each completed interaction
- positioning of the screen for touch required operators to change
their head/body positions

I got to thinking to myself about... oh, the obesity epidemic we hear about
all the time.

I got to thinking about the interface design of a shovel. You know, say for
digging a ditch to put down your Directv satellite cable to the place in the
yard where the dish has to be? Just a little ditch. This isn't like tilling
a garden by hand or anything.

So I'm guessing there will be some fatigue sources for the interface design
of the shovel. Some of those things are minimized, because it is a lever (as
is a broom), and we know that with a lever big enough, we can lift the
world. But your basic shovel functions as a lever because one hand chokes up
on the handle, forming the fulcrum, while the other holds on closer to the
end.

So besides the function of the lever, there are a couple of other Fatigue
Sources, like perhaps the need to bend at the waist, and the force needed to
dig the shovel into the ground, usually be stepping down hard on the top of
the blade. But the blade edge on the ground can form another lever as well,
to help turn hard-packed earth.

Clearly these fatigue sources pose a problem for this interface. Should we
propose all shovels be eliminated because of poor interface design, in favor
of the far superior backhoe or rototiller?

But those interfaces burn fossil fuels, while a shovel burns human calories.
There is that obesity epidemic, after all, and this is just a little ditch,
to bury that Directv cable.

Some people may HAVE to dig ditches all day by hand, and if fossil fuels run
out one day, we all may have to do it at sometime, at the very least to bury
our own waste. There can be terrible ergonomic problems for the back and
neck too, with a risk of repetitive stress injuries, bursitis, and so on.
Shovels all over the world will be spawning lawsuits, unless interface
designers can address these issues.

I know, I'm just being silly, but I wanted to step back and think about
things in these terms for a second. Since when does a physical movement
factor automatically count as a strike against an interface design calculus,
you know, physical movement=bad?

Would ALL IDEAL interfaces ultimately move toward telepathic control and
utterly inert human users, like Stephen Hawking's eye-controller thingie?
Should we really be designing interfaces so as to make the physical body
obsolete?

Yes, I know accessiblity issues mandate certain interface features so as not
to restrict differently abled people from using them. And that's part of the
reason we have both right- and left-handed scissors. I'm not arguing for
discarding those standards. I like inclusiveness in design very much.

But what PHILOSOPHIES, what unexamined assumptions sit behind the idea
(perhaps going back to Taylorism, factory assembly line efficiency studies)
that minimizing physical movement is an ultimate good?

And could we not say the politics of those deep structure interfaces are
part of what helped create the obesity epidemic? (along with high fructose
corn syrup and MSG, of course).

Indulge me one more second, and then I'll shut up. Consider an alternative
universe where inert bodies are not an unintended consequence of interface
design assumptions. All of these assumptions are socially-constructed
anyway, so imagine a culture that values all movement, considers kinetics,
all kinetics, as a form of dance and joy, from working a shovel to
snowboarding to chopping wood to making love. Bodies in motion.

Such a culture would not be able to sit still long enough to learn to love
our inert body interfaces. Their feet would get twitchy. Their knees would
bounce up and down. Maybe they'd compulsively pick at their pimples or twirl
and chew on their hair. Maybe they'd start chain smoking, or get another
oral fixation and fill their need for movement with food.

Their asses might spread a bit, if they really HAD to be married to our
inert body interfaces. Maybe they'd buy their children interfaces that used
their feet on something like a twister mat, so the kids wouldn't be lured
away by the attractive idea of creative and unstructured play in the
physical interface called "outside."

Think of it. Some of these people, forced into these inert positions for
long periods of time, not conscious that their bodies were craving movement,
might just sort of automatically find themselves at porn sites, maybe daily,
maybe more often than daily, watching the kinds of movement that people who
still live in a world of movement get to do...

I'm just speculating...

Chris

On 10/30/06, Alan Wexelblat <awexelblat at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
> I can't find the references at this moment (they're on this ancient
> paper medium somewhere in my home office filing cabinet) but back in
> the late 80s the military went through a fad of touchscreen
> interfaces. They were found to be highly error-prone and fatiguing.
>
> Error sources include:
> - size of the pointing device (fingertip vs cursor)
> - selection with the finger obscures the thing you're trying to select
> - uncertainty on feedback. The combination of physical feedback (does
> the screen flex in response to pressure? If so how much and how does
> the user correlate that feedback with visual changes?) proved
> difficult for some users.
> - dirt and oils from human hands tended to introduce errors and
> obscure displays after extended use.
>
> Fatigue sources included:
> - necesity for operators to hold their arms up
> - requirement to reach and retract arm on each completed interaction
> - positioning of the screen for touch required operators to change
> their head/body positions
> - operators tended to crane their necks sideways to try and confirm a
> touch that was full or partially blocked by their fingertips.
>
> The tasks used were very similar to the original "Put That There"
> gestural interface, which is why I got interested in the research (I
> did my MS on gesture). The military operators used the touch screens
> in 1, 2, 4 and 8 hour shifts that matched their normal work schedules.
> Even a one-hour shift was perceived as fatiguing. This leads me to
> believe that touch interfaces are fine for casual interaction over
> short periods, but not really suitable for extended work.
>
> On 10/29/06, Dan Saffer <dan at odannyboy.com> wrote:
> > "Jeff Han demonstrates—for the first time publicly—his intuitive,
> > "interface-free," touch-driven computer screen, which can be
> > manipulated intuitively with the fingertips, and responds to varying
> > levels of pressure."
> >
> > http://ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=j_han&flashEnabled=1
> >
> > Just because an interface is [arguably] easy to use, doesn't mean
> > it's interface free. While I think this is a really need use of the Z-
> > axis and a gestural interface, I'm wondering about its limitations
> > for daily use. Could I type on a touch-screen keypad all day, for
> > instance? How would MS Office for instance (not to mention Adobe
> > products) get translated into this mouse-less OS?
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>

--
christine boese
www.serendipit-e.com

30 Oct 2006 - 11:13am
Gomez, Marla A
2005

Hooray - you touched on a subject close to my heart...people move way too little nowadays and some of us find joy in the physical as well as some people's intelligence lies more in the physical realm...however, in today's company, the focus is on efficiency to cut costs so anything physical would still have to be efficient timewise...you bring up some very interesting points for discussion.

Marla Gómez
User Experience Researcher
Intel

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Christine Boese
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 8:15 AM
To: discuss at ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] "Interface-Free" Interface

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

Hey y'all,

What an interesting discussion thread! I have nothing of substance to add to
the excellent points raised, esp. by Alan's memory of the document in his
file cabinet (terrific RAM call-up there!).

But while reading one point below, I was struck by a silly idea, and I
wondered to myself how it would play out in a discussion among interface
designers.

The item that set my mind spinng were several of the Fatigue Sources Alan
remembered, below:

Fatigue sources included:
- necesity for operators to hold their arms up
- requirement to reach and retract arm on each completed interaction
- positioning of the screen for touch required operators to change
their head/body positions

I got to thinking to myself about... oh, the obesity epidemic we hear about
all the time.

I got to thinking about the interface design of a shovel. You know, say for
digging a ditch to put down your Directv satellite cable to the place in the
yard where the dish has to be? Just a little ditch. This isn't like tilling
a garden by hand or anything.

So I'm guessing there will be some fatigue sources for the interface design
of the shovel. Some of those things are minimized, because it is a lever (as
is a broom), and we know that with a lever big enough, we can lift the
world. But your basic shovel functions as a lever because one hand chokes up
on the handle, forming the fulcrum, while the other holds on closer to the
end.

So besides the function of the lever, there are a couple of other Fatigue
Sources, like perhaps the need to bend at the waist, and the force needed to
dig the shovel into the ground, usually be stepping down hard on the top of
the blade. But the blade edge on the ground can form another lever as well,
to help turn hard-packed earth.

Clearly these fatigue sources pose a problem for this interface. Should we
propose all shovels be eliminated because of poor interface design, in favor
of the far superior backhoe or rototiller?

But those interfaces burn fossil fuels, while a shovel burns human calories.
There is that obesity epidemic, after all, and this is just a little ditch,
to bury that Directv cable.

Some people may HAVE to dig ditches all day by hand, and if fossil fuels run
out one day, we all may have to do it at sometime, at the very least to bury
our own waste. There can be terrible ergonomic problems for the back and
neck too, with a risk of repetitive stress injuries, bursitis, and so on.
Shovels all over the world will be spawning lawsuits, unless interface
designers can address these issues.

I know, I'm just being silly, but I wanted to step back and think about
things in these terms for a second. Since when does a physical movement
factor automatically count as a strike against an interface design calculus,
you know, physical movement=bad?

Would ALL IDEAL interfaces ultimately move toward telepathic control and
utterly inert human users, like Stephen Hawking's eye-controller thingie?
Should we really be designing interfaces so as to make the physical body
obsolete?

Yes, I know accessiblity issues mandate certain interface features so as not
to restrict differently abled people from using them. And that's part of the
reason we have both right- and left-handed scissors. I'm not arguing for
discarding those standards. I like inclusiveness in design very much.

But what PHILOSOPHIES, what unexamined assumptions sit behind the idea
(perhaps going back to Taylorism, factory assembly line efficiency studies)
that minimizing physical movement is an ultimate good?

And could we not say the politics of those deep structure interfaces are
part of what helped create the obesity epidemic? (along with high fructose
corn syrup and MSG, of course).

Indulge me one more second, and then I'll shut up. Consider an alternative
universe where inert bodies are not an unintended consequence of interface
design assumptions. All of these assumptions are socially-constructed
anyway, so imagine a culture that values all movement, considers kinetics,
all kinetics, as a form of dance and joy, from working a shovel to
snowboarding to chopping wood to making love. Bodies in motion.

Such a culture would not be able to sit still long enough to learn to love
our inert body interfaces. Their feet would get twitchy. Their knees would
bounce up and down. Maybe they'd compulsively pick at their pimples or twirl
and chew on their hair. Maybe they'd start chain smoking, or get another
oral fixation and fill their need for movement with food.

Their asses might spread a bit, if they really HAD to be married to our
inert body interfaces. Maybe they'd buy their children interfaces that used
their feet on something like a twister mat, so the kids wouldn't be lured
away by the attractive idea of creative and unstructured play in the
physical interface called "outside."

Think of it. Some of these people, forced into these inert positions for
long periods of time, not conscious that their bodies were craving movement,
might just sort of automatically find themselves at porn sites, maybe daily,
maybe more often than daily, watching the kinds of movement that people who
still live in a world of movement get to do...

I'm just speculating...

Chris

On 10/30/06, Alan Wexelblat <awexelblat at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
> I can't find the references at this moment (they're on this ancient
> paper medium somewhere in my home office filing cabinet) but back in
> the late 80s the military went through a fad of touchscreen
> interfaces. They were found to be highly error-prone and fatiguing.
>
> Error sources include:
> - size of the pointing device (fingertip vs cursor)
> - selection with the finger obscures the thing you're trying to select
> - uncertainty on feedback. The combination of physical feedback (does
> the screen flex in response to pressure? If so how much and how does
> the user correlate that feedback with visual changes?) proved
> difficult for some users.
> - dirt and oils from human hands tended to introduce errors and
> obscure displays after extended use.
>
> Fatigue sources included:
> - necesity for operators to hold their arms up
> - requirement to reach and retract arm on each completed interaction
> - positioning of the screen for touch required operators to change
> their head/body positions
> - operators tended to crane their necks sideways to try and confirm a
> touch that was full or partially blocked by their fingertips.
>
> The tasks used were very similar to the original "Put That There"
> gestural interface, which is why I got interested in the research (I
> did my MS on gesture). The military operators used the touch screens
> in 1, 2, 4 and 8 hour shifts that matched their normal work schedules.
> Even a one-hour shift was perceived as fatiguing. This leads me to
> believe that touch interfaces are fine for casual interaction over
> short periods, but not really suitable for extended work.
>
> On 10/29/06, Dan Saffer <dan at odannyboy.com> wrote:
> > "Jeff Han demonstrates-for the first time publicly-his intuitive,
> > "interface-free," touch-driven computer screen, which can be
> > manipulated intuitively with the fingertips, and responds to varying
> > levels of pressure."
> >
> > http://ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=j_han&flashEnabled=1
> >
> > Just because an interface is [arguably] easy to use, doesn't mean
> > it's interface free. While I think this is a really need use of the Z-
> > axis and a gestural interface, I'm wondering about its limitations
> > for daily use. Could I type on a touch-screen keypad all day, for
> > instance? How would MS Office for instance (not to mention Adobe
> > products) get translated into this mouse-less OS?
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>

--
christine boese
www.serendipit-e.com
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

30 Oct 2006 - 12:09pm
maglez@btintern...
2006

Oh come on! you guys lost the point.

As Interaction Designers, we have a mission and that is not to worry about people's weight,
actually, if someone gets fat, then his or her problem is more related to a health diet, not on
usability, design...

I took Chrsitine's post more as a funny thing than serious. We humans make comparisons to help us
on explaining new concepts to people by using a concept that they already know, but that
comparison has to be close to the new concept and so do not mislead them, the shovel example is
just a bad comparison.

You guys can't be serious about this.

Maglez.

--- "Gomez, Marla A" <marla.a.gomez at intel.com> wrote:

> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]
>
> Hooray - you touched on a subject close to my heart...people move way too little nowadays and
> some of us find joy in the physical as well as some people's intelligence lies more in the
> physical realm...however, in today's company, the focus is on efficiency to cut costs so
> anything physical would still have to be efficient timewise...you bring up some very interesting
> points for discussion.
>
> Marla Gómez
> User Experience Researcher
> Intel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Christine Boese
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 8:15 AM
> To: discuss at ixda.org
> Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] "Interface-Free" Interface
>
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]
>
> Hey y'all,
>
> What an interesting discussion thread! I have nothing of substance to add to
> the excellent points raised, esp. by Alan's memory of the document in his
> file cabinet (terrific RAM call-up there!).
>
> But while reading one point below, I was struck by a silly idea, and I
> wondered to myself how it would play out in a discussion among interface
> designers.
>
> The item that set my mind spinng were several of the Fatigue Sources Alan
> remembered, below:
>
> Fatigue sources included:
> - necesity for operators to hold their arms up
> - requirement to reach and retract arm on each completed interaction
> - positioning of the screen for touch required operators to change
> their head/body positions
>
> I got to thinking to myself about... oh, the obesity epidemic we hear about
> all the time.
>
> I got to thinking about the interface design of a shovel. You know, say for
> digging a ditch to put down your Directv satellite cable to the place in the
> yard where the dish has to be? Just a little ditch. This isn't like tilling
> a garden by hand or anything.
>
> So I'm guessing there will be some fatigue sources for the interface design
> of the shovel. Some of those things are minimized, because it is a lever (as
> is a broom), and we know that with a lever big enough, we can lift the
> world. But your basic shovel functions as a lever because one hand chokes up
> on the handle, forming the fulcrum, while the other holds on closer to the
> end.
>
> So besides the function of the lever, there are a couple of other Fatigue
> Sources, like perhaps the need to bend at the waist, and the force needed to
> dig the shovel into the ground, usually be stepping down hard on the top of
> the blade. But the blade edge on the ground can form another lever as well,
> to help turn hard-packed earth.
>
> Clearly these fatigue sources pose a problem for this interface. Should we
> propose all shovels be eliminated because of poor interface design, in favor
> of the far superior backhoe or rototiller?
>
> But those interfaces burn fossil fuels, while a shovel burns human calories.
> There is that obesity epidemic, after all, and this is just a little ditch,
> to bury that Directv cable.
>
> Some people may HAVE to dig ditches all day by hand, and if fossil fuels run
> out one day, we all may have to do it at sometime, at the very least to bury
> our own waste. There can be terrible ergonomic problems for the back and
> neck too, with a risk of repetitive stress injuries, bursitis, and so on.
> Shovels all over the world will be spawning lawsuits, unless interface
> designers can address these issues.
>
> I know, I'm just being silly, but I wanted to step back and think about
> things in these terms for a second. Since when does a physical movement
> factor automatically count as a strike against an interface design calculus,
> you know, physical movement=bad?
>
> Would ALL IDEAL interfaces ultimately move toward telepathic control and
> utterly inert human users, like Stephen Hawking's eye-controller thingie?
> Should we really be designing interfaces so as to make the physical body
> obsolete?
>
> Yes, I know accessiblity issues mandate certain interface features so as not
> to restrict differently abled people from using them. And that's part of the
> reason we have both right- and left-handed scissors. I'm not arguing for
> discarding those standards. I like inclusiveness in design very much.
>
> But what PHILOSOPHIES, what unexamined assumptions sit behind the idea
> (perhaps going back to Taylorism, factory assembly line efficiency studies)
> that minimizing physical movement is an ultimate good?
>
> And could we not say the politics of those deep structure interfaces are
> part of what helped create the obesity epidemic? (along with high fructose
> corn syrup and MSG, of course).
>
> Indulge me one more second, and then I'll shut up. Consider an alternative
> universe where inert bodies are not an unintended consequence of interface
> design assumptions. All of these assumptions are socially-constructed
> anyway, so imagine a culture that values all movement, considers kinetics,
> all kinetics, as a form of dance and joy, from working a shovel to
> snowboarding to chopping wood to making love. Bodies in motion.
>
> Such a culture would not be able to sit still long enough to learn to love
> our inert body interfaces. Their feet would get twitchy. Their knees would
> bounce up and down. Maybe they'd compulsively pick at their pimples or twirl
> and chew on their hair. Maybe they'd start chain smoking, or get another
> oral fixation and fill their need for movement with food.
>
> Their asses might spread a bit, if they really HAD to be married to our
> inert body interfaces. Maybe they'd buy their children interfaces that used
> their feet on something like a twister mat, so the kids wouldn't be lured
> away by the attractive idea of creative and unstructured play in the
> physical interface called "outside."
>
> Think of it. Some of these people, forced into these inert positions for
> long periods of time, not conscious that their bodies were craving movement,
> might just sort of automatically find themselves at porn sites, maybe daily,
> maybe more often than daily, watching the kinds of movement that people who
> still live in a world of movement get to do...
>
> I'm just speculating...
>
> Chris
>
> On 10/30/06, Alan Wexelblat <awexelblat at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> > material.]
> >
> > I can't find the references at this moment (they're on this ancient
> > paper medium somewhere in my home office filing cabinet) but back in
> > the late 80s the military went through a fad of touchscreen
> > interfaces. They were found to be highly error-prone and fatiguing.
> >
> > Error sources include:
> > - size of the pointing device (fingertip vs cursor)
> > - selection with the finger obscures the thing you're trying to select
> > - uncertainty on feedback. The combination of physical feedback (does
> > the screen flex in response to pressure? If so how much and how does
> > the user correlate that feedback with visual changes?) proved
> > difficult for some users.
> > - dirt and oils from human hands tended to introduce errors and
> > obscure displays after extended use.
> >
> > Fatigue sources included:
> > - necesity for operators to hold their arms up
> > - requirement to reach and retract arm on each completed interaction
> > - positioning of the screen for touch required operators to change
> > their head/body positions
> > - operators tended to crane their necks sideways to try and confirm a
> > touch that was full or partially blocked by their fingertips.
> >
> > The tasks used were very similar to the original "Put That There"
> > gestural interface, which is why I got interested in the research (I
> > did my MS on gesture). The military operators used the touch screens
> > in 1, 2, 4 and 8 hour shifts that matched their normal work schedules.
> > Even a one-hour shift was perceived as fatiguing. This leads me to
> > believe that touch interfaces are fine for casual interaction over
> > short periods, but not really suitable for extended work.
> >
> > On 10/29/06, Dan Saffer <dan at odannyboy.com> wrote:
> > > "Jeff Han demonstrates-for the first time publicly-his intuitive,
> > > "interface-free," touch-driven computer screen, which can be
> > > manipulated intuitively with the fingertips, and responds to varying
> > > levels of pressure."
> > >
> > > http://ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=j_han&flashEnabled=1
> > >
> > > Just because an interface is [arguably] easy to use, doesn't mean
> > > it's interface free. While I think this is a really need use of the Z-
> > > axis and a gestural interface, I'm wondering about its limitations
> > > for daily use. Could I type on a touch-screen keypad all day, for
> > > instance? How would MS Office for instance (not to mention Adobe
> > > products) get translated into this mouse-less OS?
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> > List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> > (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> > Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> > Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> > Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> > Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> christine boese
> www.serendipit-e.com
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>

30 Oct 2006 - 12:51pm
stauciuc
2006

Well, what is our mission as Designers if not to help make the world better
and improve the well-being of humans and to sometimes dare to consider
everything involved in reaching these goals?

Just another dreamer...

Sebi

On 10/30/06, Miguel Gonzalez <maglez at btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
> Oh come on! you guys lost the point.
>
> As Interaction Designers, we have a mission and that is not to worry about
> people's weight,
> actually, if someone gets fat, then his or her problem is more related to
> a health diet, not on
> usability, design...
>
> I took Chrsitine's post more as a funny thing than serious. We humans make
> comparisons to help us
> on explaining new concepts to people by using a concept that they already
> know, but that
> comparison has to be close to the new concept and so do not mislead them,
> the shovel example is
> just a bad comparison.
>
> You guys can't be serious about this.
>
> Maglez.
>
>
>
> --- "Gomez, Marla A" <marla.a.gomez at intel.com> wrote:
>
> > [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
> >
> > Hooray - you touched on a subject close to my heart...people move way
> too little nowadays and
> > some of us find joy in the physical as well as some people's
> intelligence lies more in the
> > physical realm...however, in today's company, the focus is on efficiency
> to cut costs so
> > anything physical would still have to be efficient timewise...you bring
> up some very interesting
> > points for discussion.
> >
> > Marla Gómez
> > User Experience Researcher
> > Intel
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> > [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of
> Christine Boese
> > Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 8:15 AM
> > To: discuss at ixda.org
> > Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] "Interface-Free" Interface
> >
> > [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
> >
> > Hey y'all,
> >
> > What an interesting discussion thread! I have nothing of substance to
> add to
> > the excellent points raised, esp. by Alan's memory of the document in
> his
> > file cabinet (terrific RAM call-up there!).
> >
> > But while reading one point below, I was struck by a silly idea, and I
> > wondered to myself how it would play out in a discussion among interface
> > designers.
> >
> > The item that set my mind spinng were several of the Fatigue Sources
> Alan
> > remembered, below:
> >
> > Fatigue sources included:
> > - necesity for operators to hold their arms up
> > - requirement to reach and retract arm on each completed interaction
> > - positioning of the screen for touch required operators to change
> > their head/body positions
> >
> > I got to thinking to myself about... oh, the obesity epidemic we hear
> about
> > all the time.
> >
> > I got to thinking about the interface design of a shovel. You know, say
> for
> > digging a ditch to put down your Directv satellite cable to the place in
> the
> > yard where the dish has to be? Just a little ditch. This isn't like
> tilling
> > a garden by hand or anything.
> >
> > So I'm guessing there will be some fatigue sources for the interface
> design
> > of the shovel. Some of those things are minimized, because it is a lever
> (as
> > is a broom), and we know that with a lever big enough, we can lift the
> > world. But your basic shovel functions as a lever because one hand
> chokes up
> > on the handle, forming the fulcrum, while the other holds on closer to
> the
> > end.
> >
> > So besides the function of the lever, there are a couple of other
> Fatigue
> > Sources, like perhaps the need to bend at the waist, and the force
> needed to
> > dig the shovel into the ground, usually be stepping down hard on the top
> of
> > the blade. But the blade edge on the ground can form another lever as
> well,
> > to help turn hard-packed earth.
> >
> > Clearly these fatigue sources pose a problem for this interface. Should
> we
> > propose all shovels be eliminated because of poor interface design, in
> favor
> > of the far superior backhoe or rototiller?
> >
> > But those interfaces burn fossil fuels, while a shovel burns human
> calories.
> > There is that obesity epidemic, after all, and this is just a little
> ditch,
> > to bury that Directv cable.
> >
> > Some people may HAVE to dig ditches all day by hand, and if fossil fuels
> run
> > out one day, we all may have to do it at sometime, at the very least to
> bury
> > our own waste. There can be terrible ergonomic problems for the back and
> > neck too, with a risk of repetitive stress injuries, bursitis, and so
> on.
> > Shovels all over the world will be spawning lawsuits, unless interface
> > designers can address these issues.
> >
> > I know, I'm just being silly, but I wanted to step back and think about
> > things in these terms for a second. Since when does a physical movement
> > factor automatically count as a strike against an interface design
> calculus,
> > you know, physical movement=bad?
> >
> > Would ALL IDEAL interfaces ultimately move toward telepathic control and
> > utterly inert human users, like Stephen Hawking's eye-controller
> thingie?
> > Should we really be designing interfaces so as to make the physical body
> > obsolete?
> >
> > Yes, I know accessiblity issues mandate certain interface features so as
> not
> > to restrict differently abled people from using them. And that's part of
> the
> > reason we have both right- and left-handed scissors. I'm not arguing for
> > discarding those standards. I like inclusiveness in design very much.
> >
> > But what PHILOSOPHIES, what unexamined assumptions sit behind the idea
> > (perhaps going back to Taylorism, factory assembly line efficiency
> studies)
> > that minimizing physical movement is an ultimate good?
> >
> > And could we not say the politics of those deep structure interfaces are
> > part of what helped create the obesity epidemic? (along with high
> fructose
> > corn syrup and MSG, of course).
> >
> > Indulge me one more second, and then I'll shut up. Consider an
> alternative
> > universe where inert bodies are not an unintended consequence of
> interface
> > design assumptions. All of these assumptions are socially-constructed
> > anyway, so imagine a culture that values all movement, considers
> kinetics,
> > all kinetics, as a form of dance and joy, from working a shovel to
> > snowboarding to chopping wood to making love. Bodies in motion.
> >
> > Such a culture would not be able to sit still long enough to learn to
> love
> > our inert body interfaces. Their feet would get twitchy. Their knees
> would
> > bounce up and down. Maybe they'd compulsively pick at their pimples or
> twirl
> > and chew on their hair. Maybe they'd start chain smoking, or get another
> > oral fixation and fill their need for movement with food.
> >
> > Their asses might spread a bit, if they really HAD to be married to our
> > inert body interfaces. Maybe they'd buy their children interfaces that
> used
> > their feet on something like a twister mat, so the kids wouldn't be
> lured
> > away by the attractive idea of creative and unstructured play in the
> > physical interface called "outside."
> >
> > Think of it. Some of these people, forced into these inert positions for
> > long periods of time, not conscious that their bodies were craving
> movement,
> > might just sort of automatically find themselves at porn sites, maybe
> daily,
> > maybe more often than daily, watching the kinds of movement that people
> who
> > still live in a world of movement get to do...
> >
> > I'm just speculating...
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On 10/30/06, Alan Wexelblat <awexelblat at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> > > material.]
> > >
> > > I can't find the references at this moment (they're on this ancient
> > > paper medium somewhere in my home office filing cabinet) but back in
> > > the late 80s the military went through a fad of touchscreen
> > > interfaces. They were found to be highly error-prone and fatiguing.
> > >
> > > Error sources include:
> > > - size of the pointing device (fingertip vs cursor)
> > > - selection with the finger obscures the thing you're trying to select
> > > - uncertainty on feedback. The combination of physical feedback (does
> > > the screen flex in response to pressure? If so how much and how does
> > > the user correlate that feedback with visual changes?) proved
> > > difficult for some users.
> > > - dirt and oils from human hands tended to introduce errors and
> > > obscure displays after extended use.
> > >
> > > Fatigue sources included:
> > > - necesity for operators to hold their arms up
> > > - requirement to reach and retract arm on each completed interaction
> > > - positioning of the screen for touch required operators to change
> > > their head/body positions
> > > - operators tended to crane their necks sideways to try and confirm a
> > > touch that was full or partially blocked by their fingertips.
> > >
> > > The tasks used were very similar to the original "Put That There"
> > > gestural interface, which is why I got interested in the research (I
> > > did my MS on gesture). The military operators used the touch screens
> > > in 1, 2, 4 and 8 hour shifts that matched their normal work schedules.
> > > Even a one-hour shift was perceived as fatiguing. This leads me to
> > > believe that touch interfaces are fine for casual interaction over
> > > short periods, but not really suitable for extended work.
> > >
> > > On 10/29/06, Dan Saffer <dan at odannyboy.com> wrote:
> > > > "Jeff Han demonstrates-for the first time publicly-his intuitive,
> > > > "interface-free," touch-driven computer screen, which can be
> > > > manipulated intuitively with the fingertips, and responds to varying
> > > > levels of pressure."
> > > >
> > > > http://ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=j_han&flashEnabled=1
> > > >
> > > > Just because an interface is [arguably] easy to use, doesn't mean
> > > > it's interface free. While I think this is a really need use of the
> Z-
> > > > axis and a gestural interface, I'm wondering about its limitations
> > > > for daily use. Could I type on a touch-screen keypad all day, for
> > > > instance? How would MS Office for instance (not to mention Adobe
> > > > products) get translated into this mouse-less OS?
> > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > > List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> > > List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> > > (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> > > Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> > > Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> > > Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> > > Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > christine boese
> > www.serendipit-e.com
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> > List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> > (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> > Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> > Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> > Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> > Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> > List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> > (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> > Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> > Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> > Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> > Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>

--
Sergiu Sebastian Tauciuc
http://www.sergiutauciuc.ro/en/

30 Oct 2006 - 1:16pm
maglez@btintern...
2006

Are you saying that we should do the interface more complicated so the final user moves more and
so he or she doesn't get fat?

:-D

--- Sebi Tauciuc <stauciuc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, what is our mission as Designers if not to help make the world better
> and improve the well-being of humans and to sometimes dare to consider
> everything involved in reaching these goals?
>
> Just another dreamer...
>
> Sebi
>
> On 10/30/06, Miguel Gonzalez <maglez at btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> > material.]
> >
> > Oh come on! you guys lost the point.
> >
> > As Interaction Designers, we have a mission and that is not to worry about
> > people's weight,
> > actually, if someone gets fat, then his or her problem is more related to
> > a health diet, not on
> > usability, design...
> >
> > I took Chrsitine's post more as a funny thing than serious. We humans make
> > comparisons to help us
> > on explaining new concepts to people by using a concept that they already
> > know, but that
> > comparison has to be close to the new concept and so do not mislead them,
> > the shovel example is
> > just a bad comparison.
> >
> > You guys can't be serious about this.
> >
> > Maglez.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- "Gomez, Marla A" <marla.a.gomez at intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> > material.]
> > >
> > > Hooray - you touched on a subject close to my heart...people move way
> > too little nowadays and
> > > some of us find joy in the physical as well as some people's
> > intelligence lies more in the
> > > physical realm...however, in today's company, the focus is on efficiency
> > to cut costs so
> > > anything physical would still have to be efficient timewise...you bring
> > up some very interesting
> > > points for discussion.
> > >
> > > Marla Gómez
> > > User Experience Researcher
> > > Intel
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> > > [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of
> > Christine Boese
> > > Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 8:15 AM
> > > To: discuss at ixda.org
> > > Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] "Interface-Free" Interface
> > >
> > > [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> > material.]
> > >
> > > Hey y'all,
> > >
> > > What an interesting discussion thread! I have nothing of substance to
> > add to
> > > the excellent points raised, esp. by Alan's memory of the document in
> > his
> > > file cabinet (terrific RAM call-up there!).
> > >
> > > But while reading one point below, I was struck by a silly idea, and I
> > > wondered to myself how it would play out in a discussion among interface
> > > designers.
> > >
> > > The item that set my mind spinng were several of the Fatigue Sources
> > Alan
> > > remembered, below:
> > >
> > > Fatigue sources included:
> > > - necesity for operators to hold their arms up
> > > - requirement to reach and retract arm on each completed interaction
> > > - positioning of the screen for touch required operators to change
> > > their head/body positions
> > >
> > > I got to thinking to myself about... oh, the obesity epidemic we hear
> > about
> > > all the time.
> > >
> > > I got to thinking about the interface design of a shovel. You know, say
> > for
> > > digging a ditch to put down your Directv satellite cable to the place in
> > the
> > > yard where the dish has to be? Just a little ditch. This isn't like
> > tilling
> > > a garden by hand or anything.
> > >
> > > So I'm guessing there will be some fatigue sources for the interface
> > design
> > > of the shovel. Some of those things are minimized, because it is a lever
> > (as
> > > is a broom), and we know that with a lever big enough, we can lift the
> > > world. But your basic shovel functions as a lever because one hand
> > chokes up
> > > on the handle, forming the fulcrum, while the other holds on closer to
> > the
> > > end.
> > >
> > > So besides the function of the lever, there are a couple of other
> > Fatigue
> > > Sources, like perhaps the need to bend at the waist, and the force
> > needed to
> > > dig the shovel into the ground, usually be stepping down hard on the top
> > of
> > > the blade. But the blade edge on the ground can form another lever as
> > well,
> > > to help turn hard-packed earth.
> > >
> > > Clearly these fatigue sources pose a problem for this interface. Should
> > we
> > > propose all shovels be eliminated because of poor interface design, in
> > favor
> > > of the far superior backhoe or rototiller?
> > >
> > > But those interfaces burn fossil fuels, while a shovel burns human
> > calories.
> > > There is that obesity epidemic, after all, and this is just a little
> > ditch,
> > > to bury that Directv cable.
> > >
> > > Some people may HAVE to dig ditches all day by hand, and if fossil fuels
> > run
> > > out one day, we all may have to do it at sometime, at the very least to
> > bury
> > > our own waste. There can be terrible ergonomic problems for the back and
> > > neck too, with a risk of repetitive stress injuries, bursitis, and so
> > on.
> > > Shovels all over the world will be spawning lawsuits, unless interface
> > > designers can address these issues.
> > >
> > > I know, I'm just being silly, but I wanted to step back and think about
> > > things in these terms for a second. Since when does a physical movement
> > > factor automatically count as a strike against an interface design
> > calculus,
> > > you know, physical movement=bad?
> > >
> > > Would ALL IDEAL interfaces ultimately move toward telepathic control and
> > > utterly inert human users, like Stephen Hawking's eye-controller
> > thingie?
> > > Should we really be designing interfaces so as to make the physical body
> > > obsolete?
> > >
> > > Yes, I know accessiblity issues mandate certain interface features so as
> > not
> > > to restrict differently abled people from using them. And that's part of
> > the
> > > reason we have both right- and left-handed scissors. I'm not arguing for
> > > discarding those standards. I like inclusiveness in design very much.
> > >
> > > But what PHILOSOPHIES, what unexamined assumptions sit behind the idea
> > > (perhaps going back to Taylorism, factory assembly line efficiency
> > studies)
> > > that minimizing physical movement is an ultimate good?
> > >
> > > And could we not say the politics of those deep structure interfaces are
> > > part of what helped create the obesity epidemic? (along with high
> > fructose
> > > corn syrup and MSG, of course).
> > >
> > > Indulge me one more second, and then I'll shut up. Consider an
> > alternative
> > > universe where inert bodies are not an unintended consequence of
> > interface
> > > design assumptions. All of these assumptions are socially-constructed
> > > anyway, so imagine a culture that values all movement, considers
> > kinetics,
> > > all kinetics, as a form of dance and joy, from working a shovel to
> > > snowboarding to chopping wood to making love. Bodies in motion.
> > >
> > > Such a culture would not be able to sit still long enough to learn to
> > love
> > > our inert body interfaces. Their feet would get twitchy. Their knees
> > would
> > > bounce up and down. Maybe they'd compulsively pick at their pimples or
> > twirl
> > > and chew on their hair. Maybe they'd start chain smoking, or get another
> > > oral fixation and fill their need for movement with food.
> > >
> > > Their asses might spread a bit, if they really HAD to be married to our
> > > inert body interfaces. Maybe they'd buy their children interfaces that
> > used
> > > their feet on something like a twister mat, so the kids wouldn't be
> > lured
> > > away by the attractive idea of creative and unstructured play in the
> > > physical interface called "outside."
> > >
> > > Think of it. Some of these people, forced into these inert positions for
> > > long periods of time, not conscious that their bodies were craving
> > movement,
> > > might just sort of automatically find themselves at porn sites, maybe
> > daily,
> > > maybe more often than daily, watching the kinds of movement that people
> > who
> > > still live in a world of movement get to do...
> > >
> > > I'm just speculating...
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > On 10/30/06, Alan Wexelblat <awexelblat at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> > > > material.]
> > > >
> > > > I can't find the references at this moment (they're on this ancient
> > > > paper medium somewhere in my home office filing cabinet) but back in
> > > > the late 80s the military went through a fad of touchscreen
> > > > interfaces. They were found to be highly error-prone and fatiguing.
> > > >
> > > > Error sources include:
> > > > - size of the pointing device (fingertip vs cursor)
> > > > - selection with the finger obscures the thing you're trying to select
> > > > - uncertainty on feedback. The combination of physical feedback (does
> > > > the screen flex in response to pressure? If so how much and how does
> > > > the user correlate that feedback with visual changes?) proved
> > > > difficult for some users.
> > > > - dirt and oils from human hands tended to introduce errors and
> > > > obscure displays after extended use.
> > > >
> > > > Fatigue sources included:
> > > > - necesity for operators to hold their arms up
> > > > - requirement to reach and retract arm on each completed interaction
> > > > - positioning of the screen for touch required operators to change
> > > > their head/body positions
> > > > - operators tended to crane their necks sideways to try and confirm a
> > > > touch that was full or partially blocked by their fingertips.
> > > >
> > > > The tasks used were very similar to the original "Put That There"
> > > > gestural interface, which is why I got interested in the research (I
> > > > did my MS on gesture). The military operators used the touch screens
> > > > in 1, 2, 4 and 8 hour shifts that matched their normal work schedules.
> > > > Even a one-hour shift was perceived as fatiguing. This leads me to
> > > > believe that touch interfaces are fine for casual interaction over
> > > > short periods, but not really suitable for extended work.
> > > >
> > > > On 10/29/06, Dan Saffer <dan at odannyboy.com> wrote:
> > > > > "Jeff Han demonstrates-for the first time publicly-his intuitive,
> > > > > "interface-free," touch-driven computer screen, which can be
> > > > > manipulated intuitively with the fingertips, and responds to varying
> > > > > levels of pressure."
> > > > >
> > > > > http://ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=j_han&flashEnabled=1
> > > > >
> > > > > Just because an interface is [arguably] easy to use, doesn't mean
> > > > > it's interface free. While I think this is a really need use of the
> > Z-
> > > > > axis and a gestural interface, I'm wondering about its limitations
> > > > > for daily use. Could I type on a touch-screen keypad all day, for
> > > > > instance? How would MS Office for instance (not to mention Adobe
> > > > > products) get translated into this mouse-less OS?
> > > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > > > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > > > List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> > > > List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> > > > (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> > > > Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> > > > Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> > > > Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> > > > Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > christine boese
> > > www.serendipit-e.com
> > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > > List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> > > List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> > > (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> > > Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> > > Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> > > Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> > > Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
> > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > > List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> > > List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> > > (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> > > Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> > > Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> > > Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> > > Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
> > >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> > List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> > (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> > Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> > Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> > Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> > Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sergiu Sebastian Tauciuc
> http://www.sergiutauciuc.ro/en/
>

30 Oct 2006 - 2:20pm
Lorne Trudeau
2006

Yes! ... If I'm designing a treadmill.

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of
Miguel Gonzalez
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 11:16 AM
To: ixda list
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] "Interface-Free" Interface

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
material.]

Are you saying that we should do the interface more complicated so the
final user moves more and
so he or she doesn't get fat?

:-D

30 Oct 2006 - 3:19pm
Alain D. M. G. ...
2003

That is a great and at the same time extremely misleading video. To
start with, Han has already presented his hardware (he does research on
hardware, not software) at several scientifc conferences in the past
year. I got a chance (and several hundred other conference
participants also) to try it out nearly exactly a year ago when he put
it up at the demo sessions at UIST 2005 in Seatle. (User Interface
Software and Technology, of the ACM).

None of the software presented was developed for or with his hardware.
The point is that with such a well executed piece of hardware, then
developing more intuitive software becomes much easier.

There's also the cost factor involved. His hardware is very cost
effective. The year before I also got the occasion to see very close
up (at UIST 2004 in Santa Fe in automn)a two finger (or multiple finger
back projection screen) demonstrated by a very hardware-sharp gentleman
from Microsft Research which did pretty much the same thing with a
different tech base, and also had some added oomoph like being able to
scan whatever image or text you wanted to place on its surface, just
like the imaginary interface Tognazzini and Sun presented in their
starfire video way back long ago. But that thing from Microsoft was
not designed with cost in mind. It was assembled from the neatest
hardware with the biggest wow factor, while Han's display software and
tech assembly is a genial maximization of low cost elements.

This is why you really shouldn't even think of typing away daily at
that screen or translating MS Word to it.

Don't think about translating existing business software. Think in
therms of software developed for that piece of hardware, like they did
for the first palmpilots.

Alain Vaillancourt

> Just because an interface is [arguably] easy to use, doesn't mean
> it's interface free. While I think this is a really need use of the
> Z-
> axis and a gestural interface, I'm wondering about its limitations
> for daily use. Could I type on a touch-screen keypad all day, for
> instance? How would MS Office for instance (not to mention Adobe
> products) get translated into this mouse-less OS?
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Courriel vous offre la meilleure protection possible contre les messages non nollicités
http://mail.yahoo.ca Yahoo! Courriel

30 Oct 2006 - 3:31pm
stauciuc
2006

No, but I did like the idea being brought in discussion. :)
Sebi

On 10/30/06, Miguel Gonzalez <maglez at btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
> Are you saying that we should do the interface more complicated so the
> final user moves more and
> so he or she doesn't get fat?
>
> :-D
>
>
> --- Sebi Tauciuc <stauciuc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, what is our mission as Designers if not to help make the world
> better
> > and improve the well-being of humans and to sometimes dare to consider
> > everything involved in reaching these goals?
> >
> > Just another dreamer...
> >
> > Sebi
> >
> > On 10/30/06, Miguel Gonzalez <maglez at btinternet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> > > material.]
> > >
> > > Oh come on! you guys lost the point.
> > >
> > > As Interaction Designers, we have a mission and that is not to worry
> about
> > > people's weight,
> > > actually, if someone gets fat, then his or her problem is more related
> to
> > > a health diet, not on
> > > usability, design...
> > >
> > > I took Chrsitine's post more as a funny thing than serious. We humans
> make
> > > comparisons to help us
> > > on explaining new concepts to people by using a concept that they
> already
> > > know, but that
> > > comparison has to be close to the new concept and so do not mislead
> them,
> > > the shovel example is
> > > just a bad comparison.
> > >
> > > You guys can't be serious about this.
> > >
> > > Maglez.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- "Gomez, Marla A" <marla.a.gomez at intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> > > material.]
> > > >
> > > > Hooray - you touched on a subject close to my heart...people move
> way
> > > too little nowadays and
> > > > some of us find joy in the physical as well as some people's
> > > intelligence lies more in the
> > > > physical realm...however, in today's company, the focus is on
> efficiency
> > > to cut costs so
> > > > anything physical would still have to be efficient timewise...you
> bring
> > > up some very interesting
> > > > points for discussion.
> > > >
> > > > Marla Gómez
> > > > User Experience Researcher
> > > > Intel
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> > > > [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Christine Boese
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 8:15 AM
> > > > To: discuss at ixda.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] "Interface-Free" Interface
> > > >
> > > > [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> > > material.]
> > > >
> > > > Hey y'all,
> > > >
> > > > What an interesting discussion thread! I have nothing of substance
> to
> > > add to
> > > > the excellent points raised, esp. by Alan's memory of the document
> in
> > > his
> > > > file cabinet (terrific RAM call-up there!).
> > > >
> > > > But while reading one point below, I was struck by a silly idea, and
> I
> > > > wondered to myself how it would play out in a discussion among
> interface
> > > > designers.
> > > >
> > > > The item that set my mind spinng were several of the Fatigue Sources
> > > Alan
> > > > remembered, below:
> > > >
> > > > Fatigue sources included:
> > > > - necesity for operators to hold their arms up
> > > > - requirement to reach and retract arm on each completed interaction
> > > > - positioning of the screen for touch required operators to change
> > > > their head/body positions
> > > >
> > > > I got to thinking to myself about... oh, the obesity epidemic we
> hear
> > > about
> > > > all the time.
> > > >
> > > > I got to thinking about the interface design of a shovel. You know,
> say
> > > for
> > > > digging a ditch to put down your Directv satellite cable to the
> place in
> > > the
> > > > yard where the dish has to be? Just a little ditch. This isn't like
> > > tilling
> > > > a garden by hand or anything.
> > > >
> > > > So I'm guessing there will be some fatigue sources for the interface
> > > design
> > > > of the shovel. Some of those things are minimized, because it is a
> lever
> > > (as
> > > > is a broom), and we know that with a lever big enough, we can lift
> the
> > > > world. But your basic shovel functions as a lever because one hand
> > > chokes up
> > > > on the handle, forming the fulcrum, while the other holds on closer
> to
> > > the
> > > > end.
> > > >
> > > > So besides the function of the lever, there are a couple of other
> > > Fatigue
> > > > Sources, like perhaps the need to bend at the waist, and the force
> > > needed to
> > > > dig the shovel into the ground, usually be stepping down hard on the
> top
> > > of
> > > > the blade. But the blade edge on the ground can form another lever
> as
> > > well,
> > > > to help turn hard-packed earth.
> > > >
> > > > Clearly these fatigue sources pose a problem for this interface.
> Should
> > > we
> > > > propose all shovels be eliminated because of poor interface design,
> in
> > > favor
> > > > of the far superior backhoe or rototiller?
> > > >
> > > > But those interfaces burn fossil fuels, while a shovel burns human
> > > calories.
> > > > There is that obesity epidemic, after all, and this is just a little
> > > ditch,
> > > > to bury that Directv cable.
> > > >
> > > > Some people may HAVE to dig ditches all day by hand, and if fossil
> fuels
> > > run
> > > > out one day, we all may have to do it at sometime, at the very least
> to
> > > bury
> > > > our own waste. There can be terrible ergonomic problems for the back
> and
> > > > neck too, with a risk of repetitive stress injuries, bursitis, and
> so
> > > on.
> > > > Shovels all over the world will be spawning lawsuits, unless
> interface
> > > > designers can address these issues.
> > > >
> > > > I know, I'm just being silly, but I wanted to step back and think
> about
> > > > things in these terms for a second. Since when does a physical
> movement
> > > > factor automatically count as a strike against an interface design
> > > calculus,
> > > > you know, physical movement=bad?
> > > >
> > > > Would ALL IDEAL interfaces ultimately move toward telepathic control
> and
> > > > utterly inert human users, like Stephen Hawking's eye-controller
> > > thingie?
> > > > Should we really be designing interfaces so as to make the physical
> body
> > > > obsolete?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I know accessiblity issues mandate certain interface features
> so as
> > > not
> > > > to restrict differently abled people from using them. And that's
> part of
> > > the
> > > > reason we have both right- and left-handed scissors. I'm not arguing
> for
> > > > discarding those standards. I like inclusiveness in design very
> much.
> > > >
> > > > But what PHILOSOPHIES, what unexamined assumptions sit behind the
> idea
> > > > (perhaps going back to Taylorism, factory assembly line efficiency
> > > studies)
> > > > that minimizing physical movement is an ultimate good?
> > > >
> > > > And could we not say the politics of those deep structure interfaces
> are
> > > > part of what helped create the obesity epidemic? (along with high
> > > fructose
> > > > corn syrup and MSG, of course).
> > > >
> > > > Indulge me one more second, and then I'll shut up. Consider an
> > > alternative
> > > > universe where inert bodies are not an unintended consequence of
> > > interface
> > > > design assumptions. All of these assumptions are
> socially-constructed
> > > > anyway, so imagine a culture that values all movement, considers
> > > kinetics,
> > > > all kinetics, as a form of dance and joy, from working a shovel to
> > > > snowboarding to chopping wood to making love. Bodies in motion.
> > > >
> > > > Such a culture would not be able to sit still long enough to learn
> to
> > > love
> > > > our inert body interfaces. Their feet would get twitchy. Their knees
> > > would
> > > > bounce up and down. Maybe they'd compulsively pick at their pimples
> or
> > > twirl
> > > > and chew on their hair. Maybe they'd start chain smoking, or get
> another
> > > > oral fixation and fill their need for movement with food.
> > > >
> > > > Their asses might spread a bit, if they really HAD to be married to
> our
> > > > inert body interfaces. Maybe they'd buy their children interfaces
> that
> > > used
> > > > their feet on something like a twister mat, so the kids wouldn't be
> > > lured
> > > > away by the attractive idea of creative and unstructured play in the
> > > > physical interface called "outside."
> > > >
> > > > Think of it. Some of these people, forced into these inert positions
> for
> > > > long periods of time, not conscious that their bodies were craving
> > > movement,
> > > > might just sort of automatically find themselves at porn sites,
> maybe
> > > daily,
> > > > maybe more often than daily, watching the kinds of movement that
> people
> > > who
> > > > still live in a world of movement get to do...
> > > >
> > > > I'm just speculating...
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > > On 10/30/06, Alan Wexelblat <awexelblat at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> > > > > material.]
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't find the references at this moment (they're on this
> ancient
> > > > > paper medium somewhere in my home office filing cabinet) but back
> in
> > > > > the late 80s the military went through a fad of touchscreen
> > > > > interfaces. They were found to be highly error-prone and
> fatiguing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Error sources include:
> > > > > - size of the pointing device (fingertip vs cursor)
> > > > > - selection with the finger obscures the thing you're trying to
> select
> > > > > - uncertainty on feedback. The combination of physical feedback
> (does
> > > > > the screen flex in response to pressure? If so how much and how
> does
> > > > > the user correlate that feedback with visual changes?) proved
> > > > > difficult for some users.
> > > > > - dirt and oils from human hands tended to introduce errors and
> > > > > obscure displays after extended use.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fatigue sources included:
> > > > > - necesity for operators to hold their arms up
> > > > > - requirement to reach and retract arm on each completed
> interaction
> > > > > - positioning of the screen for touch required operators to change
> > > > > their head/body positions
> > > > > - operators tended to crane their necks sideways to try and
> confirm a
> > > > > touch that was full or partially blocked by their fingertips.
> > > > >
> > > > > The tasks used were very similar to the original "Put That There"
> > > > > gestural interface, which is why I got interested in the research
> (I
> > > > > did my MS on gesture). The military operators used the touch
> screens
> > > > > in 1, 2, 4 and 8 hour shifts that matched their normal work
> schedules.
> > > > > Even a one-hour shift was perceived as fatiguing. This leads me
> to
> > > > > believe that touch interfaces are fine for casual interaction over
> > > > > short periods, but not really suitable for extended work.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/29/06, Dan Saffer <dan at odannyboy.com> wrote:
> > > > > > "Jeff Han demonstrates-for the first time publicly-his
> intuitive,
> > > > > > "interface-free," touch-driven computer screen, which can be
> > > > > > manipulated intuitively with the fingertips, and responds to
> varying
> > > > > > levels of pressure."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> http://ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=j_han&flashEnabled=1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just because an interface is [arguably] easy to use, doesn't
> mean
> > > > > > it's interface free. While I think this is a really need use of
> the
> > > Z-
> > > > > > axis and a gestural interface, I'm wondering about its
> limitations
> > > > > > for daily use. Could I type on a touch-screen keypad all day,
> for
> > > > > > instance? How would MS Office for instance (not to mention Adobe
> > > > > > products) get translated into this mouse-less OS?
> > > > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > > > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > > > > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > > > > List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> > > > > List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> > > > > (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> > > > > Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> > > > > Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> > > > > Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> > > > > Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > christine boese
> > > > www.serendipit-e.com
> > > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > > > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > > > List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> > > > List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> > > > (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> > > > Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> > > > Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> > > > Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> > > > Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
> > > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > > > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > > > List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> > > > List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> > > > (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> > > > Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> > > > Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> > > > Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> > > > Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
> > > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > > List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> > > List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> > > (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> > > Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> > > Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> > > Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> > > Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sergiu Sebastian Tauciuc
> > http://www.sergiutauciuc.ro/en/
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>

--
Sergiu Sebastian Tauciuc
http://www.sergiutauciuc.ro/en/

30 Oct 2006 - 5:07pm
Oleh Kovalchuke
2006

On 10/29/06, Mark Schraad <mschraad at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> I love this stuff, and frankly think it has some real world
> application (see it soon as a tool for CSI characters on TV). But the
> introductory statement is either premature or a bit grandiose.

Indeed, the interface has not disappeared. The presenter said "Oops" at some
point - that is unadultered comment on the interface (from the interface
designer, no less).

As far as real world applications are concerned, it would be fun to play the
World of Warcraft with the multiple input screen shown in the video.
Moreover two or more players could play the game off-line at one oversized
screen (coming soon to the video arcade near you).

By the way, the multiple input, touch interface has been implemented a while
ago. Quite successfully I might add. It is 'Dance, Dance Revolution'.

Upon testing this particular interface I can validate Alan's points:

- The pointing devices are very large: feet. The input is achieved via
foot-wide pads.
- The interface induces the fatigue and might lead to weight loss
among dedicated users (that's Chris' point).
- The feedback can be frustratingly uncertain and demands uncommon
precision and training.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-h-uXuJRDI for contextual usage.

Less common variation with input from both feet and hands:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv7GtwVsXPU (includes emotional feedback from
the focus group in the title of the clip).

--
Oleh Kovalchuke
Interaction Design is Design of Time
http://www.tangospring.com/IxDtopicWhatIsInteractionDesign.htm

31 Oct 2006 - 7:36pm
Christian Sosa-Lanz
2006

To Alain's point, I agree this is closer to a new product like the
Palm Pilot and not just another thing to stick Windows and Office on.
This type of product can open the doors for designers and others to
return to a more manual or direct manipulation way of working. Car
designer today still work on large paper, sitting flat on the desk
and marker that they sweep around the page by moving , heaven forbid,
their whole arm! Even through this isn't the most effective way of
working, its the most direct, most creative medium. Sometimes its
better to design the right thing slowly rather than the wrong thing
quickly.

This could lead to the return of dedicated products as opposed to the
one for all MS Office approach which is less then desirable. Again
bring the tie back to the Palm.

The fatigue factor is something to consider, but moving your whole
arm, standing, sitting means that you spread out repetition over many
joints and easing the abuse on the old Carpel Tunnel.

Other existing and new technologies can address feedback. Think
rumble packs in joysticks and Apple's click wheel.

Yeah I dreaming but there will eventually be a solution in this space.

Christian Sosa-Lanz

1 Nov 2006 - 8:13am
Jason Witenstei...
2006

I feel that the whole tagline of "Interface-Free" is a misnomer and
little more than sensational publicity for the lecture circuit. If
there is no interface there are no interactions/objects/exchanges. I
think it becomes a nice sound bite for a new way interacting, a new
metaphor, but ultimately there will never be an interface free
interaction. A page of a book, a word on paper, a foot to a dance
floor, a hand on a steering wheel or any other point where two objects
interact (or interface) will all continue to be the reality of our world
at a fundamental level. Therefore, to march under the banner of
"Interface-Free" when referring to the simultaneous and highly complex
interactions we have with computers is simply...well silly.

M-W.com defines the highly specific "Graphical User Interface" as: "a
computer program designed to allow a computer user to interact easily
with the computer typically by making choices from menus or groups of
icons." To my mind, the key point here is "with the computer". There
is the caveat at the end of the definition of "typically" when referring
to the metaphors (not the interface) of menus and icons. I personally
think that Jeff Han's work is amazing and can potentially revolutionize
data visualization, but at the same time, I'm very well aware that it is
the overall way in which he interacts with the computer that is amazing,
the touch screen, the metaphors, the gestures; in all the interface.

Ultimately I'm a huge advocate of the paradigm shift in application
interface metaphors and am personally on the front lines of trying to
change the way the world thinks about interacting with digital content,
but I do so with the understanding that the interface is the essential
not the disposable element of what I do.

Jason Witenstein-Weaver
Hillcrest Labs

5 Dec 2006 - 7:52pm
Daniel J. Wilson
2005

Alan Wexelblat wrote:
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]
>
> I can't find the references at this moment (they're on this ancient
> paper medium somewhere in my home office filing cabinet) but back in
> the late 80s the military went through a fad of touchscreen
> interfaces. They were found to be highly error-prone and fatiguing.
>
> Error sources include:
> - size of the pointing device (fingertip vs cursor)
> - selection with the finger obscures the thing you're trying to select
> - uncertainty on feedback. The combination of physical feedback (does
> the screen flex in response to pressure? If so how much and how does
> the user correlate that feedback with visual changes?) proved
> difficult for some users.
> - dirt and oils from human hands tended to introduce errors and
> obscure displays after extended use.

I wonder how the TactaPad would fare in comparison:

http://www.tactiva.com/demo.html

I want one.

Daniel J. Wilson
http://blog.wilsonet.com

6 Dec 2006 - 6:17am
.pauric
2006

I'm sure most people have seen this demo in one form or another, in case you
have not;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JcSu7h-I40&eurl=

And a build your own hand gesture interface to google earth
http://atlasgloves.org/diy

> > Error sources include:
> > - size of the pointing device (fingertip vs cursor)
> > - selection with the finger obscures the thing you're trying to select
> > - uncertainty on feedback. The combination of physical feedback (does
> > the screen flex in response to pressure? If so how much and how does
> > the user correlate that feedback with visual changes?) proved
> > difficult for some users.
> > - dirt and oils from human hands tended to introduce errors and
> > obscure displays after extended use.
>
>

6 Dec 2006 - 11:54am
Juan Lanus
2005

These computers are an example of a keyboard and mouse less interface:
http://www.positivesystems.com/tps121v.htm
are Pentium PCs, compatible, regular.

Only they are usually operated thru the TFT screen in the places where
they are used, maily restaurants, casinos, and the like.

The "keyboard" appearing in the pictures is an image in the screen,
not actual keys. In the back of the PC there is a standard "ATX"
connector ribbon so regular keyboards and mpuses can be connected when
needed.

The size of the buttons is appropriate for the pointing device, the
pointing finger.
The applications behave well, topping the bills exactly.
This touch screens sense touch or no-touch, not pressure level.

As TFT panel prices continue to drop a bigger panel would be
affordable, maybe one with
an integrated keyboard in its bottom, when needed, and a
touch-pad-like surface there too.
Or maybe one of the kind of the laser keyboard:
http://moblog.co.uk/blogs/2634/moblog_04fc75aba02d0.jpg

There is no need for to exclude the input devices of today. What would
be the advantage, except for to trigger this thread?
--
Juan Lanus
TECNOSOL
Argentina

6 Dec 2006 - 2:47pm
maglez@btintern...
2006

Touch screens are for the casual user that spend only a few minutes with the machine.

Touch screen systems, as unique input devices, won't last in your home much, think of the
applications you already have installed on your computer, have you ever try to use an Internet
browser with a touch screen? it's a pain in the neck, to reach the address bar, for instance, you
may need to try 3 times because your finger is too big to hit that control at first. I could spend
lot of time explaining all the disadvantages of this hardware.

Yes, desktop applications haven't been designed for touch screen system, so let re-design them for
the touch screen, most touch screen design guidelines says that the minimum hit area should be
50x50 pixels in a 1024x768 resolution for a 15" screen, everything get so huge that suddenly you
run out of space to fit buttons, pictures, text boxes, etc. that's the reason of those interfaces
having everything so big.

Finally you will have applications that may suit beginner users, due to its simplicity since you
left out many functionalities, but will profoundly annoy other users since they won't have all
those functionalities at hand.

The post that started this thread showed a video where it simulated the user's hands as
translucent, in real scenario, those hands are opaque, now try to imagine those shadowed hands as
pure black and realise all the information that you are missing behind your hands. This is the
real problem to rightly hit a control on screen, because when you touch the screen, you lost the
target, when you approach the finger to the control, it gets obscured for your finger, gosh, after
6 years of experience designing touch screen kiosks I perfectly know that this devices will never
take over that simple but quit effective and usable device, the mouse, and I am sure that those
touch screen will never get cheaper than a mouse.

Of course touch screens have some future but you won't use it at home, as I said, it's for the
casual user in a museum, a cash dispenser machine, etc. A good use of touch screen systems is to
give an attractive look to customers, to create a feeling of high technology so your customers
will get amused, nothing to be with the use of the application running on it.

The second post on this thread mention that amazing video of that guy using a multiple-touch
screen, and that was already discussed on here
http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/2006-October/012263.html

...and as someone mentioned, touch screen are not interface free, we'll never be free of an
interface when it comes to communication between human and computers.

****** ********.

6 Dec 2006 - 3:18pm
Xiaoyu Kaess
2006

Can't a stylus solve the problem you mentioned?

On 12/6/06, Miguel Gonzalez <maglez at btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> Touch screens are for the casual user that spend only a few minutes with
> the machine.
>
> Touch screen systems, as unique input devices, won't last in your home
> much, think of the
> applications you already have installed on your computer, have you ever
> try to use an Internet
> browser with a touch screen? it's a pain in the neck, to reach the address
> bar, for instance, you
> may need to try 3 times because your finger is too big to hit that control
> at first. I could spend
> lot of time explaining all the disadvantages of this hardware.
>

6 Dec 2006 - 3:43pm
Juan Lanus
2005

On 12/6/06, Xiaoyu Chen <xiaoyu.chen.njit at gmail.com> wrote:
> Can't a stylus solve the problem you mentioned?

Chen,
There is no such problem.
Again, look at http://www.positivesystems.com/tps121v.htm
These PCs work very well, given that the right application is there.

It's ridiculuos to talk about driving a browser, designed for to be
controlled by a mouse, with the coarse resolution of a finger.
But computers are not used onlyfor to run Word and Firefox.

There are circumstances, like for example a restaurant in the center
of an expensive city, where these PCs have fit. One of the advantages
is that they need no keyboard, no mouse: this reduces the space the
computer needs, leaving more space for tables.
Also, operation is fast, just point and presto!. Also, no need for
additional light.

These computers are not experimental. They are working since years ago
specially in Europe.
Finger smudge has no influence on their behaviour, as the sensor is
capacitiva and reacts to pressure, not to what it sees.

As of the postural problem yes, it's a pain to operate a touch screen
IF the monitor is on the computer, at your face's height.
This is not the case. These PCs have the panel mounted in the front
and it gets located more or less in the same position you'd have a
regular keyboard, or a copybook if you were writing with a pencil. The
user can set the touch screen position where it's more comfortable.
Aches and pains are not worse than for regular PCs, maybe easier.

All this discussion stems from thinking of operating the same programs
on the same PC layout, which is not the case.
Even Han is demonstrating different applications in his video, and the
position of his arms does not seem tiring, being the panel position
similar as that of a traditional drawing table.
--
Juan Lanus
TECNOSOL
Argentina

6 Dec 2006 - 3:49pm
maglez@btintern...
2006

A Stylus? No, it won't solve the problem.

Let me say something else about touch screens, it's not only the interface design, the software
running on it, but the ergonomic of the touch screen.

Right now, while you are reading this post, you may be sat in front of your screen and the
keyboard and mouse in between close to you, now do this test for some minutes...

Take away your keyboard and mouse and place the monitor in a suitable distance for you and start
touching the screen, or using an stylus, as it would be a real touch screen, after a few seconds
you will feel your arm muscles hitting up about your shoulder, after a couple of minutes, that
feeling will become discomfort, one more minute it will be pain. Our arm's muscles are not ready
for that position.

This could be solved by modifying the environment around the computer, your desk, placing the
touch screen in a position where you don't need to have your arm extended, placing the touch
screen in a position where your arms could be relaxed.

As you see, those are too many things to change to take one thing working, the market won't make
such a big change just to accommodate a new technology that is not better than what already exist.

Different is with one of those tablet computers but then we are talking of a different thing, I am
talking of a touch screen systems as a substitute for desktop computers.

Miguel Gonzalez.

6 Dec 2006 - 3:53pm
.pauric
2006

"The second post on this thread mention that amazing video of that guy using
a multiple-touch
screen, and that was already discussed on here
http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/2006-October/012263.html
"

Sorry about that, I thought it had been mentioned but couldnt find it after
a search. Wanted to show/compare the similar 'atlas hands' as an accessible
version of the multitouch hand gesture interface which avoids both the hands
being in the way, issues of dirt/scratching and much of the erognomic issue.

It shouldnt be too long before we see some one build a wii controller
interface for the PC, possibly allowing for more interactive media center
apps for example. I tend to think that when software is afforded new
methods of interaction, designers will utilise those methods if it suits the
application. I dont think its fair to hold up the limitations of these
devices when used with traditional applications.

You wouldnt put an aircraft yoke in a car.

6 Dec 2006 - 4:04pm
maglez@btintern...
2006

It is good to experiment and try something new, there must be practical people and people that
today we'll call insane. Those insane of today may be the genius of tomorrow and for that I am
happy of seeing more and more touch screen system getting better and better.

But we have to understand the limitations and use the right tool for the right job, this is the
practical part of myself, I also do lot of research and experimentation and for that reason I feel
confident of what I say on this matter.

Miguel Gonzalez.

6 Dec 2006 - 4:30pm
maglez@btintern...
2006

Juan, that's what I am saying, I perfectly know about those applications running in a kiosk that
get the job done, but as I said those are very simple applications that won't comfort a power user
that needs most features up-front.

Today I went to IBM in Bedfont, London, and I have seen good and bad examples of kiosks. I have
seen so many kiosks around in complete abandon, isolated because no one uses them because some
designer put in place an application that should be running on a desktop system. As you said,
there are kiosk applications successfully running for years, like cash machines, it's just a
matter of using the right tool.

6 Dec 2006 - 6:15pm
Michael Micheletti
2006

In the public safety, defense, and intel services domain, there is
considerable use of touch-screen technology for sophisticated applications.
These are apps where seconds matter and operators are highly capable. The
touch screens are typically augmented by keyboards and mice. This lets
someone like a public safety dispatcher manipulate the touch screens to
quickly press a talk button or drag a channel into a patch or something like
that, and then use the keyboard to enter data into a log book or a CAD
system. A mouse would be used for non-touchscreen apps running on the
computer. Sometimes secondary workstations with keyboards and mice are used
to avoid having something touchy like Outlook clobber a windows session
where a critical application is running.

Coolest touch screen I've seen yet is this table from Northrop Grumman. They
were demoing it at the APCO (Public Safety) conference a year ago (they
didn't let me play with it though). I kept imagining it for multi-player
games. It carried a jaw-drop price.

Link to PDF flyer: www.esri.com/library/fliers/pdfs/cs-*northrop*-
grumman.pdf

Michael Micheletti

On 10/29/06, Dan Saffer <dan at odannyboy.com> wrote:
>
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
> Just because an interface is [arguably] easy to use, doesn't mean
> it's interface free. While I think this is a really need use of the Z-
> axis and a gestural interface, I'm wondering about its limitations
> for daily use. Could I type on a touch-screen keypad all day, for
> instance? How would MS Office for instance (not to mention Adobe
> products) get translated into this mouse-less OS?
>
> Dan
>
>

6 Dec 2006 - 7:57pm
.pauric
2006

Some one has created a wii remote app for the mac & pc (over bluetooth) with
support for all buttons and the 3 axis sensors;

PC with video demo on windows interface, looks like someone trying to stir
porridge with a plastic straw.
http://onakasuita.org/wii/index-e.html

For mac:
http://blog.hiroaki.jp/2006/12/000433.html

It shouldnt be too long before dual wii functionality is developed and
'multitouch' gesturing can be applied to applications such as google earth.
The apparent sluggishness aside I think there is potential for complex
interactions given the array of buttons on each remote. Pollock meets
Photoshop.

7 Dec 2006 - 6:14am
Juan Lanus
2005

On 12/6/06, Miguel Gonzalez <maglez at btinternet.com> wrote:

> applications that won't comfort a power user that needs most features up-front.
You are the only one I've seen talking about driving a workstatio for,
say, software dev, or stats analisys, using a touch screen.
It would be like preparing mayonnaise with a golf club. It migh hurt
your shoulder too.

The point is that there are successful touch screen implementations
for the appropriate application properly designed. And nobody gets
hurt.
As can be seen in http://www.positivesystems.com/tps121v.htm

The type of applications seen to be of the kind that clients in a row
choose products or services from a limited set, as for example in fast
food places like Burger King.
The (touch) screen is used by the designer as a
software-reconfigurable keyboard, like the optimus kb
http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus/

The apps seem to display the same stuff all the time, as appropriate
for a fast food restaurant, but it's the application who has the last
word.
We as application desigers, we are who will say what, where and how
will happen. Including the position of the screen, the visual
feedback, the size of the buttons, etc. And I'm not talking about the
"you are here" kiosk in the shopping mall but real applications for to
manage transactions bu the thousands with productivity.
What I mean is that it's not that the tauoch screen is bad because it
produces back ache. It depends on the design of the application and
the freedom of mind of the designers.

As always is.
--
Juan

Syndicate content Get the feed