Remember when we all went ga ga for the interactions in Iron Man and Minority Report? They're heeeerrrree...

17 Nov 2008 - 2:05pm
5 years ago
8 replies
724 reads
Angel Anderson
2010

Can we please play with this at Interaction '09 in Vancouver??

http://gizmodo.com/5090366/g+speak-minority-report-gesture-ui-actually-made-by-minority-report-designer

Comments

17 Nov 2008 - 2:13pm
mtumi
2004

BTW, the new James Bond movie also has a nifty little UI interlude on
a touchscreen table. I think it might be longer than some of these
other sequences people have mentioned.

MT

On Nov 17, 2008, at 2:05 PM, Angel Anderson wrote:

> Can we please play with this at Interaction '09 in Vancouver??
>
> http://gizmodo.com/5090366/g+speak-minority-report-gesture-ui-actually-made-by-minority-report-designer
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

18 Nov 2008 - 9:13pm
DampeS8N
2008

I'm not really all that ga ga over these novelty hardware-driven UIs.
I've watched minority report more than a few times looking over the
potential of the interface. Seems entirely clumsy and slower than a
mouse is almost every possible context.

The Bond UI was interesting. But more-or-less like a giant
table-sized iPhone. Not earth-shattering. At least not to me...

Will

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35672

18 Nov 2008 - 10:35pm
Krystal Higgins
2008

Wasn't the tabletop device in the Bond movie just a glorified
Microsoft Surface?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35672

19 Nov 2008 - 3:46am
Andy Polaine
2008

Me neither. I wrote a piece about it recently: http://www.polaine.com/playpen/2008/11/17/g-speak-back-to-vr-gloves-again/
- I finally got to use the phrase "smell the glove".

> The Bond UI was interesting. But more-or-less like a giant table-
> sized iPhone. Not earth-shattering. At least not to me...

The Bond UI was really a Surface or any other multi-touch table. In
that context of discussing information together I could see it being
useful, though the UI itself was rather over-egged (for film, of
course). You still have to slide documents over to the other side of
the table for the person to see, it's just that they are more flexible
and digital, which is an advantage to loads of paper (tagging,
resizing, extra layers of info, etc., etc.).

What was interesting about it was how not-futuristic it was compared
to other Bond tech in years gone by. I haven't really looked around to
find out, but I would be interested to know if they really made the
table or just comped it in afterwards, which is the usual route for
VFX in film.

My guess is that MI6's offices look more like something out of The
Office than Bond, although they claim the "gap narrows" from time to
time: http://www.mi6.gov.uk/output/faqs.html

By the way, they also hire designers: http://www.mi6.gov.uk/output/technology-profiles.html
. Of course, you'd only be licensed to draw, not to fire. Ha ha ha.

Best,

Andy

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Andy Polaine

Research | Writing | Strategy
Interaction Concept Design
Education Futures

Twitter: apolaine
Skype: apolaine

http://playpen.polaine.com
http://www.designersreviewofbooks.com
http://www.omnium.net.au
http://www.antirom.com

19 Nov 2008 - 4:20am
Agnes
2008

Sure the geeky gloves might not be very sexy. But I think this is
definitely a step in the right direction. We as a group (us
interaction specialists etc) take it for granted how comfortable we
are with technology. But if you really think about it there is
nothing intuitive to our human nature in the mouse and keyboard.

I think a great example of this is the Nintendo Wii. Of course the
hard-core gamers had a hard time moving back in time with the visual
quality. But the numbers really speak for themselves (
http://nexgenwars.com/ ) that people that didn't game before were
feeling much more comfortable with picking up a Wii Remote and waving
it around. I will never forget the first time I tried the interaction
with Metroid Prime on the Wii. Not a fan of 3D shooters myself I
couldn't believe how immersed I was into the game now having the
ability to point to where I wanted to look or shoot.

It seems funny but it seems to me that us Techies are the ones most
cynical of changes in this area. And yet the comfort we get from the
Wii and the iPhone are omens of the inevitable direction. Personally
I'm excited for the day I'll no longer be chained to one screen and
one chair.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35672

19 Nov 2008 - 11:41am
Andy Polaine
2008

Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely for interfaces in which the body
is the affordance and you don't have to learn any controls. That's
what made many of those camera-based systems (and games like the
EyeToy) so potent and has been a large part of the Wii's success. You
don't really have to 'learn' the Wiimote much, you wave it about and
the thing on screen waves about in the same way.

But that's the problem with the whole gloves and special gestures
thing. It's impossible, and unfair, to say without using the thing of
course, but the Oblong system doesn't look all that intuitive. It
looks like you have to learn a whole bunch of quite special gestures.
I don't use the mouse gestures plug-in in Firefox, for example,
because I can't be bothered and keyboard shortcuts are, for me,
quicker. On the other hand I know quite a few Flame/Inferno (and other
post production system) users who are very used to doing all sorts of
stuff with pen and tablet gestures.

I still think that the best interfaces are the ones that become almost
invisible and I think that's why multitouch often works so well -
you're not really interacting with an interface, you're interacting
directly with the content. (Although of course those gestures are
designed). As soon as I have to put on some funny gloves or a headset
or whatever it is, you've made a barrier and made the interface the
'thing' not the thing you are interacting with.

Like I say - smell the glove. :-)

Best,

Andy

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Andy Polaine

Research | Writing | Strategy
Interaction Concept Design
Education Futures

Twitter: apolaine
Skype: apolaine

http://playpen.polaine.com
http://www.designersreviewofbooks.com
http://www.omnium.net.au
http://www.antirom.com

19 Nov 2008 - 11:13pm
mtumi
2004

Yeah, I would disagree with this. It wasn't just pushing items
around. if that were the case it would be really uninteresting to
watch. It was that plus automatic contextual information suiting the
conversation that was taking place, unfolding and collapsing in a way
that was perfectly laid out for two people sitting apparently random
locations at a long table and kept everything within reach without
extra shifting around or scrolling.

or maybe it was just a very good powerpoint presentation by a junior
member of MI6 on a surface table. :-)

Very much of a movie UI, and probably not realistically something one
will see anytime soon outside of a movie, but interesting to consider
how it might become a reality.

Michael

On Nov 19, 2008, at 3:46 AM, Andy Polaine wrote:

> he Bond UI was really a Surface or any other multi-touch table. In
> that context of discussing information together I could see it being
> useful, though the UI itself was rather over-egged (for film, of
> course). You still have to slide documents over to the other side of
> the table for the person to see, it's just that they are more
> flexible and digital, which is an advantage to loads of paper
> (tagging, resizing, extra layers of info, etc., etc.).

20 Nov 2008 - 3:18am
Andy Polaine
2008

True. I think I need to watch it again :-), I think I missed quite a
lot of the subtlety in the table. I watched the film in German, so my
mind was already occupied with translation (they dub everything here).

But it was almost certainly comped afterwards, which means they could
perfectly place and time everything...

On 20 Nov 2008, at 05:13, Michael Tuminello wrote:

> Yeah, I would disagree with this. It wasn't just pushing items
> around. if that were the case it would be really uninteresting to
> watch. It was that plus automatic contextual information suiting
> the conversation that was taking place, unfolding and collapsing in
> a way that was perfectly laid out for two people sitting apparently
> random locations at a long table and kept everything within reach
> without extra shifting around or scrolling.
>
> or maybe it was just a very good powerpoint presentation by a junior
> member of MI6 on a surface table. :-)
>
> Very much of a movie UI, and probably not realistically something
> one will see anytime soon outside of a movie, but interesting to
> consider how it might become a reality.
>
> Michael
>
>
> On Nov 19, 2008, at 3:46 AM, Andy Polaine wrote:
>
>> he Bond UI was really a Surface or any other multi-touch table. In
>> that context of discussing information together I could see it
>> being useful, though the UI itself was rather over-egged (for film,
>> of course). You still have to slide documents over to the other
>> side of the table for the person to see, it's just that they are
>> more flexible and digital, which is an advantage to loads of paper
>> (tagging, resizing, extra layers of info, etc., etc.).
>

Syndicate content Get the feed