Bumptop

28 Feb 2007 - 8:59am
7 years ago
21 replies
675 reads
Dave Malouf
2005

For those of us designing Tablet based stuff, this might be really interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0ODskdEPnQ

Bumptop is a new interaction model for working with objects that we
keep on our desktop.

I find the "pliability" demonstrated in the demo to be quite high, and
the engagement factor of manipulating objects in such a "real" fashion
to also be high.

Check it out! And be sure to watch the whole thing. I didn't start
really liking it until I got towards the middle to end. It feels
obvious in the beginning, but explodes in directions I wouldn't have
thought of.

I also appreciate their use of research artifacts (photos) in the
presentation to demonstrate key points.

It might seem too literal, but as an exploration of IxD I really like it.

-- dave

--
David Malouf
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixda.org/
http://motorola.com/

Comments

28 Feb 2007 - 10:43am
Dave Malouf
2005

Pauric,

Is there always a keyboard?

that's why I framed it for folks working in the Tablet world.

But it is also an exploration and I think there are micro- concepts
that are probable take aways depending on the contexual needs of your
designs.

If every design we do has to be "practical" I would suggest that you
aren't doing design.

Dave

On 2/28/07, pauric <radiorental at gmail.com> wrote:
> 110% wow factor but there are practical issues in that some of the
> interactions depend heavily on pressure sensitive pen input. Another issue
> being pens are not a very good method of interacting with interfaces. Great
> for creativity but fall over (literally) when you need to put them to one
> side to use the keyboard. Slick demo but I see this coming in to its own
> with multitouch interfaces.
>
> Exciting times ahead for our options with input devices.
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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
>

--
David Malouf
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixda.org/
http://motorola.com/

28 Feb 2007 - 11:13am
.pauric
2006

Good questions. I dont see this limited to tablets and I think the
designers have had their eye on the bigger picture too. Its a desktop
interaction paradigm and therefor has the potential to be platform
independent. I feel they are very much tied to currently available input
devices and I see them being released from this constraint with multitouch.

Dave: "Is there always a keyboard?"
Pauric: No, but the demo clearly works through icon manipulation, icons
generally represent documents, documents invariably require a keyboard,
physical or virtual, at some point - therefor the pen falls over. That said
I've had minimal time on tablets and could quite well be wrong.

Dave: "I would suggest that you aren't doing design."
Pauric: I would say you are 100% right. Design is part of what I/we do. At
a more complete level I'd consider myself an enabler. I take pure Design +
real Constraints and produce something that lets users accomplish work.

If all we did was design then we'd build follies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folly

28 Feb 2007 - 10:54am
Simon North
2007

> Another issue being pens are not a very good method of interacting with interfaces.
> Great for creativity but fall over (literally) when you need to put them to one
> side to use the keyboard. Slick demo but I see this coming in to its own
> with multitouch interfaces.

I'd disagree with that. I've used a tablet instead of a mouse for the last 9 years. It's
a darn sight faster than a mouse - and that's without even considering the extra
accelerations you can achieve with Firefox gestures.

I don't have to put the pen 'to one side', I tuck the pen under my index
finger when I use the keyboard so that switching from keyboard to and from
the tablet is simply a matter of flexing part of my hand. It's position is constant,
so I don't even have to change my visual focus (as I would have to too look for
a mouse).

my ten cents,

Simon

This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of Quintiq. It is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute or use this message or any part thereof. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. Please note that e-mails are susceptible to change, therefore they are not binding.

28 Feb 2007 - 11:46am
Dave Malouf
2005

On 2/28/07, pauric <radiorental at gmail.com> wrote:
> Good questions. I dont see this limited to tablets and I think the
> designers have had their eye on the bigger picture too. Its a desktop
> interaction paradigm and therefor has the potential to be platform
> independent. I feel they are very much tied to currently available input
> devices and I see them being released from this constraint with multitouch.

Actually, they specific speak of "pen" as the primary I/O device, so I
think dost might be extrapolating a bit too much.

>
> Dave: "Is there always a keyboard?"
> Pauric: No, but the demo clearly works through icon manipulation, icons
> generally represent documents, documents invariably require a keyboard,
> physical or virtual, at some point - therefor the pen falls over. That said
> I've had minimal time on tablets and could quite well be wrong.

Yup, lots of Tablet programs exist with objects that are manipulated
on a standard desktop. One of the problems though is that a mouse is
not available or not connected and so it is hard to manipulate
standard icons the way we would with a mouse. Though people "learn" to
deal. But a keyboard is a presumption for manipulating documents. I.e.
I could have an application that manages objects but does not create
or edit them. OR! I create objects that are tablet or other device
intensive such as images, drawing schematics, etc. that are less
keyboard reliant. Tablets are fun, I suggest getting exposure.

>
> Dave: "I would suggest that you aren't doing design."
> Pauric: I would say you are 100% right. Design is part of what I/we do. At
> a more complete level I'd consider myself an enabler. I take pure Design +
> real Constraints and produce something that lets users accomplish work.

What I was saying was a bit "deeper". If you are only "enabling" and
dealing with constraints you are probably missing the bigger
opportunity that design affords. Yes! my final products deal in
constraints, but how I get there is to work in the stratosphere for a
spell (spells vary in time depending on project) and then come down to
earth with ideas that I wouldn't have gained if I didn't get giddy
from the lack of O2.

Not that you are doing this Pauric, but I find that most UX processes
don't do "design" of this sort, but are so encumbered by "engineering"
centric processes like "agile" and "RUP" that they can never get to
doing the types of design that are afforded within either studios
(consultancies) and ID shops.

Of course one could say that REAL design changes the presumed constraints. ;)

-- dave

--
David Malouf
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixda.org/
http://motorola.com/

28 Feb 2007 - 12:38pm
.pauric
2006

Thanks Dave, very enlightening. I have some questions, partially rhetorical
but would value your corrections.

1) If this is a tablet/pen focused design, and given its an OS interface not
app. Are there issues having a set of -fundamental- interactions that
become limited once a user moves to a desktop machine? Lets take a field
engineer how sorts his notes as per the demo, then docks back at the office,
starts to use a keyboard/mouse. No pressure sensitivity, weak gesturing.
Granted tablet apps work on the platform and dont have to translate to the
desktop, but given this is OS level I feel consistency between platforms is
a big issue.

2) "they specific speak of "pen" as the primary I/O device, so I think dost
might be extrapolating a bit too much."
What is the functional difference between a wacom pen and a human finger?
Lets skip forward 5 years and view this demo with fingers on a screen, is
that a good evolutionary development or is the tablet/pen a better design?

I genuinely think this design is platform independent and the pen is a
constraint which can be fixed. Exemplified by Simon's trick of tucking his
pen under a finger with current tablet interactions. Nice workaround but
surely thats not in the manual.

Re: What is Designing? I got the deeper meaning. I like pushing envelopes
(you should try it with inexperienced engineers - the results can be very
surprising) however I really dont think we ever diverge ourselves from our
experiences, our innate knowledge of what is possible, achievable and simply
fanciful. Even if this is at a subconscious level.

Yes, take time out to brainstorm the bigger picture in a Sagan/Einstein
fashion far away from limitations. However stray too far from the
gravitational pull of constraints and your designs will never make the
transition from concept back to reality.

The trick is knowing the delta between the edge of the envelop and the
available resources, the hard constraints and easily doable. I understand
we're both in agreement on this but I think its an important point to note
we never really leave our experience behind, including the baggage that
comes with it.

1 Mar 2007 - 1:48am
Jeff Axup
2006

Sorry but I think the prototype has a fundamental problem with the theory
behind the design. This is that "accurate simulation of real-world artifacts
is a good idea for interaction in a digital medium". This is the mistake VR
people made (and are still making). We are used to interacting with paper
objects, but that doesn't mean that it's the most efficient way to deal with
large volumes of information. For example: getting my physical body
transported from here to Seattle takes a long plane flight or a longer
drive. I don't want that "reality" copied into a digital world - I want
teleportation in the digital world. I fail to see how a messy digital
desktop is any better than a messy real world desktop. When I get so many
documents that I can't see them all on a desktop, I want them to disappear
and be available through search, not stuck into massive piles of mini-icons
I can't read.

Very awesome demo however. =)

-Jeff

On 2/28/07, pauric <radiorental at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Dave, very enlightening. I have some questions, partially
> rhetorical
> but would value your corrections.
>
> 1) If this is a tablet/pen focused design, and given its an OS interface
> not
> app. Are there issues having a set of -fundamental- interactions that
> become limited once a user moves to a desktop machine? Lets take a field
> engineer how sorts his notes as per the demo, then docks back at the
> office,
> starts to use a keyboard/mouse. No pressure sensitivity, weak gesturing.
> Granted tablet apps work on the platform and dont have to translate to the
> desktop, but given this is OS level I feel consistency between platforms
> is
> a big issue.
>
> 2) "they specific speak of "pen" as the primary I/O device, so I think
> dost
> might be extrapolating a bit too much."
> What is the functional difference between a wacom pen and a human finger?
> Lets skip forward 5 years and view this demo with fingers on a screen, is
> that a good evolutionary development or is the tablet/pen a better design?
>
> I genuinely think this design is platform independent and the pen is a
> constraint which can be fixed. Exemplified by Simon's trick of tucking his
> pen under a finger with current tablet interactions. Nice workaround but
> surely thats not in the manual.
>
> Re: What is Designing? I got the deeper meaning. I like pushing
> envelopes
> (you should try it with inexperienced engineers - the results can be very
> surprising) however I really dont think we ever diverge ourselves from our
> experiences, our innate knowledge of what is possible, achievable and
> simply
> fanciful. Even if this is at a subconscious level.
>
> Yes, take time out to brainstorm the bigger picture in a Sagan/Einstein
> fashion far away from limitations. However stray too far from the
> gravitational pull of constraints and your designs will never make the
> transition from concept back to reality.
>
> The trick is knowing the delta between the edge of the envelop and the
> available resources, the hard constraints and easily doable. I understand
> we're both in agreement on this but I think its an important point to note
> we never really leave our experience behind, including the baggage that
> comes with it.
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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
>

--
Best Regards,
Jeff
____________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Axup Ph.D. Candidate - University of Queensland, Brisbane,
Australia
Principal Consultant, Mobile Community Design Consulting

Research: Mobile Group Research Methods, Social Networks, Group Usability
E-mail: axup <at> userdesign.com
Blog: http://mobilecommunitydesign.com
Moblog: http://memeaddict.blogspot.com
Academic: http://www.infenv.itee.uq.edu.au
____________________________________________________________________________

1 Mar 2007 - 2:12am
Josh
2006

There are parts I love and parts that don't really inspire me. I love the
collision detection and direct interaction with files.

The sweeping circles would probably end up driving me crazy, but this is
probably a product of the video's inability to convey the subtleties of
motion needed. Another thing that bothers me is how closely they're sticking
to the real world artifacts metaphor. It seems so limiting. Isn't one of the
strengths of technology the ability to do things that couldn't otherwise be
done in real life? One thing that sticks out in my mind is the file
organization system. Files are moved about, organized, etc., but what if I
want my file to be in 2 or more places at the same time? My rudimentary
understanding of physics says that something can't be in two places at once.
Sticking to this "real world" metaphor seems to be a significant limitation
when users want to make associations between files that don't necessarily
have anything to do with moving the file from one place to another on the
hard drive. I also wonder what the room would look like w/ my 80,000 music
files, 10,000 photos, and 5,000 emails loosely organized.

Josh Viney
EastMedia Group
http://www.eastmedia.com

1 Mar 2007 - 3:32am
Jonas Löwgren
2003

To me, the Bumptop demo seems a very well crafted example of
captivating interaction. High scores for pliability, in the sense
that you can expect people to start playing with surface well beyond
any instrumental reasons for approaching it in the first place --
which means that they are more likely to discover content they didn't
know they were interested in.

Given that, I am not sure a GUI desktop document demo is the most
compelling one. Are there other examples of infoviz that would depend
less on task-oriented search and more on serendipitous discovery?
Products in an e-catalogue? Movie clips in a media archive? Snippets
of web page content in a portal? Pictures in photo albums?
Inspiration material in a sketching environment for designers (cf.
Cabinet, PhD at Delft by Keller)?

Concerning explorative design/pushing the boundaries, it is
interesting to note that Bumptop is the first compelling
demonstration I have seen of the desktop-pile ideas that were
advanced in 1991 by people at Apple Research (in a chapter of The Art
of HCI Design, ed. B. Laurel). Apparently, it can sometimes take 16
years for technology and design to advance to the level where a
conceptual proposal starts making "practical" sense.

On the downside, I guess Bumptop suffers from similar problems as
many other proposed GUI desktop makeovers. It doesn't really scale,
it doesn't add a magnitude of qualitative value. Broadly speaking, I
would guess that you can comfortably handle perhaps twice as many
elements on a BumpTop surface (compared to a traditional GUI design)
before occlusion, collisions during drag and other overhead outweighs
the benefits. This is not an order-of-magnitude improvement, and thus
would probably not motivate a massive phase-out of existing
technology and investments in learning the skills of traditional GUI
juggling.

I would look for other areas of application where the pliability/
captivity qualities of Bumptop could be used to even better advantage.

Jonas Löwgren
----
Arts and Communication
Malmö University, SE-205 06 Malmö, Sweden

phone +46 7039 17854
web http://webzone.k3.mah.se/k3jolo

1 Mar 2007 - 4:45am
Dave Malouf
2005

A few people talked about scale being an issue for the demo. I can see
what people mean. Good point.

But I didn't see it as a replacement for "windows explorer". I saw it
as a replacement for the desktop part of the OS, or more aptly, I see
it as a replacement for the context of the desktop.

This greatly limits the need for scale in my opinion. So instead of it
needing to manage the 120GB of my entire system, it just needs to
manage smaller scales.

I could see a zooming system of some sort or a search system put "on
top" of this UI that creates discrete work spaces. I mean the
advantage of the digital is that I can have multiple "desktops" in the
same box, no?

So for example, if I was a media worker and had to sort through and
manage material let's say for a publication (images, articles), I
could create a workspace for the "issue" I was working on, import
objects into the workspace and then manage them through this
interface.

I could also see applications that use these interaction models for
their specfic needs. Think of a Minority Report type application that
instead of a transparent touch screen you have this sort of desktop.

someone said that VR made the same mistake in the past. I'm not sure I
see this direction as a mistake at this time. it is not THAT literal.
I did have a similar reaction, but b/c of the gravitational and
nudging behaviors i really think they pull it off here.

As for gestural movement being used. I think this is what adds to the
pliability of the application hands down. Whether a circle for
gathering or using dragging for zooming in and out, the manipulation
being so direct to the response definitely appeals to me.

I really think towards the end of the video you see ways that they
thought through the metaphors/reality and pulled this off to a "next"
level in many respects.

-- dave

1 Mar 2007 - 8:16am
Mark Schraad
2006

There is a "sizzle" to this demo that reminds me of the edge popping
contextual toolboxes that AT&T Labs were using for RIO [early spline
graphics drawing software] back in the eighties. I am just not sure
though, who the real audience would be. If I draw on the people I
have observed or interviewed in prior projects, I do not recall
desktop document management being a huge issue. If I think
introspectively - I can imagine that this might save me a few minutes
a week - or month. That is a lot of horsepower for the pay off.

It is a pretty impressive and polished demo non-the-less. Maybe its
greatest benefit is in the hype/marketing arena.

Mark

On Mar 1, 2007, at 3:32 AM, Jonas Löwgren wrote:

> Concerning explorative design/pushing the boundaries, it is
> interesting to note that Bumptop is the first compelling
> demonstration I have seen of the desktop-pile ideas that were
> advanced in 1991 by people at Apple Research (in a chapter of The Art
> of HCI Design, ed. B. Laurel). Apparently, it can sometimes take 16
> years for technology and design to advance to the level where a
> conceptual proposal starts making "practical" sense.

1 Mar 2007 - 9:55am
John Schrag
2005

Dave wrote:
> Bumptop is a new interaction model for working with objects that we
keep on our desktop.

Bumptop is actually a couple of years old, now. It is a product of the
Dynamic Graphics Project at the University of Toronto, who are doing
some of the coolest stuff in UI experimentation. (They've been around
since 1972 -- I hung out there during my own time at UofT in the early
80s, and worked with quite a few of the people there in the years I was
at Alias.)

The DGP has a team of grad students who look to the future --- where
will input and display technology be in five or ten years, and what
kinds of interactions will that enable? They try out all different
kinds of ideas. Right now they're working on all kinds of things,
including some of the issues raised in this list --- handling large
numbers of object, dealing effectively with very large displays, true 3d
displays, etc.

You can find lots of cool stuff on their pages, although you may have to
hunt a bit: www.dgp.utoronto.edu

-john

1 Mar 2007 - 10:29am
.pauric
2006

The correct link to dgp is <www.dgp.toronto.edu<http://www.dgp.utoronto.edu/>
>

Dave M: noted on the project site that the designers "are actively pursuing
the development of our prototype into a complete desktop replacement that
can be installed on any machine." not just tablets!
<http://bumptop.com/>

Mark S: "I do not recall desktop document management being a huge issue. If
I think introspectively - I can imagine that this might save me a few
minutes a week - or month. That is a lot of horsepower for the pay off."

Its a major issue for me and a real chore cleaning up. While this might not
be efficient it certainly makes the task fun and a nice distraction from
real work. I would liken it to a productive Tetris for the desktop.

And a nice, if a little silly, animated short on literal desktop metaphors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYx-cc0rx7c

1 Mar 2007 - 12:47pm
Jeff Axup
2006

A few thoughts:

- the people doing the demo are are a graphics engineering group. that is
why it looks flashy, but it is primarily a test case to play with new
graphics capabilities. it's beyond what most grad students can produce in
the way of a prototype (and they probably spent an excessive amount of time
building it anyway).

- after castigating realistic 3D interfaces, I will say I like the 3D
interface on my garmin GPS navigator. I prefer it to the 2D mode because it
lets you "see more on the screen" looking off into the distance at a 30 deg
angle or so, which is better than looking straight down. I think this works
because it maps to your real driving experience which is 3D to begin with.
And actually both the 2D and 3D mode are useful, but for different purposes
and both of them allow "teleportation" between locations and zooming that
aren't realistic.

- I'm not sure there is an ideal purpose for a "desktop". It just exists as
a default because we have flat screens and layers of windows on them. It's
never a good place to put information because it's always obstructed. No UI
I've seen does a very good desktop. I suppose google desktop is actually
adding value to the desktop finally, but they do it by taking a portion of
the desktop and reserving it for widgets which are rarely covered by
windows. So it's less of a "desktop" and more of a reserved area of the
screen for top-level UIs. I don't think I want to manage anything on a
"desktop", it should all be in windows that are more accessible.

-Jeff

On 3/1/07, pauric <radiorental at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The correct link to dgp is <www.dgp.toronto.edu<
> http://www.dgp.utoronto.edu/>
> >
>
> Dave M: noted on the project site that the designers "are actively
> pursuing
> the development of our prototype into a complete desktop replacement that
> can be installed on any machine." not just tablets!
> <http://bumptop.com/>
>
> Mark S: "I do not recall desktop document management being a huge issue.
> If
> I think introspectively - I can imagine that this might save me a few
> minutes a week - or month. That is a lot of horsepower for the pay off."
>
> Its a major issue for me and a real chore cleaning up. While this might
> not
> be efficient it certainly makes the task fun and a nice distraction from
> real work. I would liken it to a productive Tetris for the desktop.
>
> And a nice, if a little silly, animated short on literal desktop metaphors
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYx-cc0rx7c
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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
>

--
Best Regards,
Jeff
____________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Axup Ph.D. Candidate - University of Queensland, Brisbane,
Australia
Principal Consultant, Mobile Community Design Consulting

Research: Mobile Group Research Methods, Social Networks, Group Usability
E-mail: axup <at> userdesign.com
Blog: http://mobilecommunitydesign.com
Moblog: http://memeaddict.blogspot.com
Academic: http://www.infenv.itee.uq.edu.au
____________________________________________________________________________

1 Mar 2007 - 6:57pm
cfmdesigns
2004

>From: pauric <radiorental at gmail.com>
>
>110% wow factor but there are practical issues in that some of the
>interactions depend heavily on pressure sensitive pen input. Another issue
>being pens are not a very good method of interacting with interfaces. Great
>for creativity but fall over (literally) when you need to put them to one
>side to use the keyboard. Slick demo but I see this coming in to its own
>with multitouch interfaces.

That's not necessarily a fault of the pens, but in how we use them and where we put them. There are surely innovative and convenient mechanisms for dealing with pens. We just haven't had enough need to develop them yet.

The iMac's Front Row remote attaches to the side of the machine with a couple magnets, for example. (Although they aren't quite strong enough, and especially aren't strong enough to withstand a kitten brushing past, but they are a good start.)

-- Jim

1 Mar 2007 - 6:58pm
Alain D. M. G. ...
2003

Desktop management is not an issue for now on the average screen
because if you look at the office or home user you see a single screen
and that screen is set at an average of 1024 by 768 pixels. This is
way too low. Even people who have a "triplemon" three screen
arrangement (with each screen set at 1600 by 1200 pixels) still have a
rather "primitive" desktop when it comes to any comparison with the
high resolution given by actual paper arrayed on actual desk surfaces
and walls, and with all the little stickie notes and things you can
post on them.

When you want to consider the usefulness of things like Bumptop you
have to think in terms of a much higher resolution triplemon setup (or
any comparable setup with a 4 to 1 screen surface ratio) combined with
a projected screen working at the same time (like the additional
projector in the IBM bluespace prototype but with much higher
resolution) and also combined with other screens lying around the same
office. In other words you have to think in terms of 4 to 8 years from
now, and not what your customer wants next year or next month.

This all means that I'm very enthusiastic about Bumptop, even if they
don't realise they're way off track with those "tidy piles" which are
way too tidy, in my view, and those "messy piles" which aren't messy
enough. They just come a tiny bit close to the crucial topics of pile
annotation and item annotation at the end when they mention the
capacity to "fold" documents. They still have a long way to go there
but they're on the right track.

Alain Vaillancourt

--- Mark Schraad <mschraad at mac.com> a écrit :

> There is a "sizzle" to this demo that reminds me of the edge popping
>
> contextual toolboxes that AT&T Labs were using for RIO [early spline
>
> graphics drawing software] back in the eighties. I am just not sure
> though, who the real audience would be. If I draw on the people I
> have observed or interviewed in prior projects, I do not recall
> desktop document management being a huge issue. If I think
> introspectively - I can imagine that this might save me a few minutes
>
> a week - or month. That is a lot of horsepower for the pay off.
>
> It is a pretty impressive and polished demo non-the-less. Maybe its
> greatest benefit is in the hype/marketing arena.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2007, at 3:32 AM, Jonas Löwgren wrote:
>
> > Concerning explorative design/pushing the boundaries, it is
> > interesting to note that Bumptop is the first compelling
> > demonstration I have seen of the desktop-pile ideas that were
> > advanced in 1991 by people at Apple Research (in a chapter of The
> Art
> > of HCI Design, ed. B. Laurel). Apparently, it can sometimes take 16
> > years for technology and design to advance to the level where a
> > conceptual proposal starts making "practical" sense.
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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
>

__________________________________________________
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

1 Mar 2007 - 7:33pm
cfmdesigns
2004

>From: "Alain D. M. G. Vaillancourt" <ndgmtlcd at yahoo.com>
>
>This all means that I'm very enthusiastic about Bumptop, even if they
>don't realise they're way off track with those "tidy piles" which are
>way too tidy, in my view, and those "messy piles" which aren't messy
>enough. They just come a tiny bit close to the crucial topics of pile
>annotation and item annotation at the end when they mention the
>capacity to "fold" documents. They still have a long way to go there
>but they're on the right track.

Actually, I think they may be on the wrong track in some ways. They are anally replicating the desktop metaphor without seeming to analyze why we do things as we do on the desktop and to physical items.

They allow "folding corners" because we sometimes fold corners. But why do we do that? We do it because (a) we don't have a better way to apply a mark and (b) because there are physical properties associated with it such as texture and visibility from a distance. They can solve (a) and they can't help with (b), which removes a lot of the purpose of doing it in the first place.

Similar arguments arise for "messy piles" and "sticking things to the wall" and "throw and bump" and "crumple before discarding". They aren't doing these things to actually solve problems; they are doing them to replicate the physical world even when that isn't helpful, a cross between "kewl" and "physical is always best".

Which doesn't mean there isn't value in what they've developed, techniques that can be applied to solve real issues. But the bulk of this adds nothing and eats processor cycles.

-- Jim

1 Mar 2007 - 7:37pm
cfmdesigns
2004

Oh, and the fancier your interactions get, aping the real world, the more piddly quirks and bugs your QA process is going to find. If you want it to be "just like real", you'd better be prepared for testing to complain abut how far it falls short. Because you've set a mighty high bar for your user experience.

-- Jim

1 Mar 2007 - 7:58pm
Jeff Axup
2006

Did anyone see the movie "the island" recently? It had an awesome idea for a
digital desktop with movable digital papers which I think were moved with
hands on the tabletop and could be signed with a pen, etc. Seemed reasonable
in their scenario, in large part because of the big size of the desk display
screen and the full size of the pages and the need to rotate documents
between two parties sitting across from each other.

-Jeff

On 3/1/07, Jim Drew <cfmdesigns at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Oh, and the fancier your interactions get, aping the real world, the more
> piddly quirks and bugs your QA process is going to find. If you want it to
> be "just like real", you'd better be prepared for testing to complain abut
> how far it falls short. Because you've set a mighty high bar for your user
> experience.
>
> -- Jim
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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
>

--
Best Regards,
Jeff
____________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Axup Ph.D. Candidate - University of Queensland, Brisbane,
Australia
Principal Consultant, Mobile Community Design Consulting,
San Diego

Research: Mobile Group Research Methods, Social Networks, Group Usability
E-mail: axup <at> userdesign.com
Blog: http://mobilecommunitydesign.com
Moblog: http://memeaddict.blogspot.com
Academic: http://www.infenv.itee.uq.edu.au
____________________________________________________________________________

1 Mar 2007 - 9:48pm
Alain D. M. G. ...
2003

--- Jim Drew <cfmdesigns at earthlink.net> a écrit :

> They allow "folding corners" because we sometimes fold corners. But
> why do we do that? We do it because (a) we don't have a better way
> to apply a mark and (b) because there are physical properties
> associated with it such as texture and visibility from a distance.
> They can solve (a) and they can't help with (b), which removes a lot
> of the purpose of doing it in the first place.

Instead of reiventing the wheel and "solving" a problem which has
already been solved I think it was a genius act on their part to pick
the "folding" metaphor as one possible way of marking among so many
others (that they could also implement, eventually, I hope) because:

1) - It is easy and extremely common in the real world
2) - It's also very visible on a digital desktop and its nature leaves
room for all kind of digital extensions of the metaphor, like a
"rubber" folded corner, and others that might come along later
3) - The folded corner graphic symbol is so common in icon
representations of documents that it just begs to be carried forther
into a digital marking act. In this way, you're building on past
digital tradiion which his embedded in user memory.

> Similar arguments arise for "messy piles" and "sticking things to the
> wall" and "throw and bump" and "crumple before discarding". They
> aren't doing these things to actually solve problems; they are doing
> them to replicate the physical world even when that isn't helpful, a
> cross between "kewl" and "physical is always best".

Their messy piles need work yes, but notice how carefully they've kept
the "wall" "clean"? In the last 20 years I've seen so many 3D desktops
which tried to copy the real world that I can't help but cheer when I
see one like this which is absolutely clean and leaves space for many
interpretations and further expansions.

I've also seen countless "kewl" attempts at 3D desktops in the last 20
years and the muted, discrete surfaces of Bumptop has very little in
common with them.

Alain Vaillancourt

__________________________________________________
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

2 Mar 2007 - 1:38pm
jayhilwig
2006

I feel like I'm missing something, how is document identification handled?
http://img516.imageshack.us/my.php?image=idij6.jpg

2 Mar 2007 - 1:56pm
Alain D. M. G. ...
2003

Bingo!

That's exactly what I mean when I say they still have a lot of work to
do in this matter and when I say that a new 3D scheme for the desktop
will be able to work only in 4 to 8 years from now with the
multiplication of hi-res screens all over a workspace.

In their current scheme of things they rely only on two things: The
first is the document's format or type, which is useless when most or
all of your documents are of the same type. The other is the
annotations you can give to a document by doing things like folding
corners or changing arrangment in 3D space, in and out of piles,
something which is useful only if you have time to do this for each
document, which is impossible for most documents and most
office/knowledge workers given lack of time and great number of
documents.

On a real desk surface and office walls a lot of the elements of any
document ID depend on inherited information, which can be in textual
and numeric form, but also in graphic form. The Bumptop gang have
barely scratched the surface by making the graphic component of
document types more visible. They, or others, still have to get into
the matter of devising and implementing some form of textual and
graphic inheritance for each document. Such a form of GUI documentary
bequest will require a higher resolution and more space.

Alain Vaillancourt

gi
--- jayhilwig <jayhilwig at cablespeed.com> a écrit :

> I feel like I'm missing something, how is document identification
> handled?
> http://img516.imageshack.us/my.php?image=idij6.jpg
>
>

__________________________________________________
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

Syndicate content Get the feed