Realistic Desktop UI Research Project - BumpTop
-
This is a research project for possible future Desktops. Very cool if you ask me. Check it out. (Use the Norway mirror the main WMV link appears to have problems). http://honeybrown.ca/Pubs/BumpTop.html[^] Enjoy, David
Hate to break the news, but this isn't new. Every few years, some graduate student discovers the next break through in UI design and they always end up looking just like this with variations according to the latest graphical design fad. None of them work. I'm not saying this just be cynical, they really don't work. This mistake is assuming that a good UI mimics the real world. It doesn't. Perhaps the funniest example of this was a quite serious UI design that made your desktop look like a real cluttered desk. (Even more than this one.) A bigger mistake is too many graphical designers who think they understand usability and human factors. In reality, all they're really doing is creating things that look cool. The most extreme example of this were the amazingly cool, but almost unusable, add-ons for Adobe Photoshop in the late mid to late 90s. (In my experience, graphical designers actually make worse usability experts than developers. The best usability people have degrees in pyschology and have extensive training in human factors and industrial design.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
This is a research project for possible future Desktops. Very cool if you ask me. Check it out. (Use the Norway mirror the main WMV link appears to have problems). http://honeybrown.ca/Pubs/BumpTop.html[^] Enjoy, David
I fount it to be quite stupid. It sure looks cool, but if I wanted the real world I would use the real world. If I want a pile of paper to toss around I would just print my pdf's to paper and place them on my desk.
-
This is a research project for possible future Desktops. Very cool if you ask me. Check it out. (Use the Norway mirror the main WMV link appears to have problems). http://honeybrown.ca/Pubs/BumpTop.html[^] Enjoy, David
Reminds me of Micro$oft Bob[^] :laugh:
Wout
-
This is a research project for possible future Desktops. Very cool if you ask me. Check it out. (Use the Norway mirror the main WMV link appears to have problems). http://honeybrown.ca/Pubs/BumpTop.html[^] Enjoy, David
Orcrist wrote:
This is a research project for possible future Desktops.
The future of desktops is an immersive 3D environment where you reach out to your left/right pull a draw, withdraw a file-folder, pull a file, open it page through the pages, and then toss it in the air, the paper lands in the file, the file in the file-folder, the file-folder in the drawer and the drawer closes for you. :) Piece of cake. :)
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Reminds me of Micro$oft Bob[^] :laugh:
Wout
interesting site. one good bit from their History of GUI Timeline says, about XP, "ties continued operation of the OS to the existence of the Microsoft corporation" (paraphrased). :omg:
Why donchoo take a peekchur mayn? OK, cleeeeek
-
Hate to break the news, but this isn't new. Every few years, some graduate student discovers the next break through in UI design and they always end up looking just like this with variations according to the latest graphical design fad. None of them work. I'm not saying this just be cynical, they really don't work. This mistake is assuming that a good UI mimics the real world. It doesn't. Perhaps the funniest example of this was a quite serious UI design that made your desktop look like a real cluttered desk. (Even more than this one.) A bigger mistake is too many graphical designers who think they understand usability and human factors. In reality, all they're really doing is creating things that look cool. The most extreme example of this were the amazingly cool, but almost unusable, add-ons for Adobe Photoshop in the late mid to late 90s. (In my experience, graphical designers actually make worse usability experts than developers. The best usability people have degrees in pyschology and have extensive training in human factors and industrial design.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
I recognize that this isn't new, but nevertheless it is an interesting concept. I dont envision this type of desktop (or something similar) actually working for 10+ years but I believe that it will eventually evolve into something of this nature. Why? 1. Currently the Windows gui (not the OS) is structured on the concept of Applications. Just ask yourself how counter intuitive this is. When I am working a typical day I am working with a Drawing document, Programming Document, Letter Document, etc. It just so happens that these run within AutoCad, VS, and Word, but that is just the wrapper. I am working the document. 2. Everyone has their own way of organizing things that makes them work to their (hopefully) best capabilities. Yet we currently have to operate within the constraints of the Windows / Mac / Linux operating systems. For example I know one person that uses a grid system to manage workload (X - Axis being Importance and Y-Axis being Urgency). He uses a whiteboard. But imagine you move documents into your own grid system right on the desktop. What if the future computer systems were in fact a full size rigid LCD screen style desk structure (3'x5') where you could have multiple screens/OS up at the same time and you drag/throw them on the desktop (aka Minority Report). The point is that we should not constrain our vision by our desire to remain in our own comfort zone (while this is perfectly human nature). For example the youth today use Instant Messaging in ways that I would have found hard to believe even 10 years ago while I myself refrain because I still see it as a huge inconvenience and waste of time. I am a dinosaur in some ways but advanced in others. Or look at cel phone usage compared to a few years ago. It's nuts. Stating that it just doesnt work now, doesnt mean you fold the tent and go home. The process is evolving and this example is just one possible direction that the future desktop (perhaps literally). Keep in mind that this is a working prototype using todays tools. There is a lot of exciting things on the horizon. As a parallel, if you dont know much about Nanotechnology you should do some research on it. You will see what I mean. Cheers, David
-
Orcrist wrote:
This is a research project for possible future Desktops.
The future of desktops is an immersive 3D environment where you reach out to your left/right pull a draw, withdraw a file-folder, pull a file, open it page through the pages, and then toss it in the air, the paper lands in the file, the file in the file-folder, the file-folder in the drawer and the drawer closes for you. :) Piece of cake. :)
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
This is a research project for possible future Desktops. Very cool if you ask me. Check it out. (Use the Norway mirror the main WMV link appears to have problems). http://honeybrown.ca/Pubs/BumpTop.html[^] Enjoy, David
Cool :cool: but useless X|
... she said you are the perfect stranger she said baby let's keep it like this... Dire Straits
-
I recognize that this isn't new, but nevertheless it is an interesting concept. I dont envision this type of desktop (or something similar) actually working for 10+ years but I believe that it will eventually evolve into something of this nature. Why? 1. Currently the Windows gui (not the OS) is structured on the concept of Applications. Just ask yourself how counter intuitive this is. When I am working a typical day I am working with a Drawing document, Programming Document, Letter Document, etc. It just so happens that these run within AutoCad, VS, and Word, but that is just the wrapper. I am working the document. 2. Everyone has their own way of organizing things that makes them work to their (hopefully) best capabilities. Yet we currently have to operate within the constraints of the Windows / Mac / Linux operating systems. For example I know one person that uses a grid system to manage workload (X - Axis being Importance and Y-Axis being Urgency). He uses a whiteboard. But imagine you move documents into your own grid system right on the desktop. What if the future computer systems were in fact a full size rigid LCD screen style desk structure (3'x5') where you could have multiple screens/OS up at the same time and you drag/throw them on the desktop (aka Minority Report). The point is that we should not constrain our vision by our desire to remain in our own comfort zone (while this is perfectly human nature). For example the youth today use Instant Messaging in ways that I would have found hard to believe even 10 years ago while I myself refrain because I still see it as a huge inconvenience and waste of time. I am a dinosaur in some ways but advanced in others. Or look at cel phone usage compared to a few years ago. It's nuts. Stating that it just doesnt work now, doesnt mean you fold the tent and go home. The process is evolving and this example is just one possible direction that the future desktop (perhaps literally). Keep in mind that this is a working prototype using todays tools. There is a lot of exciting things on the horizon. As a parallel, if you dont know much about Nanotechnology you should do some research on it. You will see what I mean. Cheers, David
Orcrist wrote:
What if the future computer systems were in fact a full size rigid LCD screen style desk structure (3'x5') where you could have multiple screens/OS up at the same time and you drag/throw them on the desktop (aka Minority Report).
I would love to have something like that. But rather than the cluttered touch-fest that was Minority Report, i'd have the whole thing displaying code, with a tiny little context-sensitive pad appearing under my fingers. Gesture-based controls would largely replace keyboard shortcuts.
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.7.1.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
I recognize that this isn't new, but nevertheless it is an interesting concept. I dont envision this type of desktop (or something similar) actually working for 10+ years but I believe that it will eventually evolve into something of this nature. Why? 1. Currently the Windows gui (not the OS) is structured on the concept of Applications. Just ask yourself how counter intuitive this is. When I am working a typical day I am working with a Drawing document, Programming Document, Letter Document, etc. It just so happens that these run within AutoCad, VS, and Word, but that is just the wrapper. I am working the document. 2. Everyone has their own way of organizing things that makes them work to their (hopefully) best capabilities. Yet we currently have to operate within the constraints of the Windows / Mac / Linux operating systems. For example I know one person that uses a grid system to manage workload (X - Axis being Importance and Y-Axis being Urgency). He uses a whiteboard. But imagine you move documents into your own grid system right on the desktop. What if the future computer systems were in fact a full size rigid LCD screen style desk structure (3'x5') where you could have multiple screens/OS up at the same time and you drag/throw them on the desktop (aka Minority Report). The point is that we should not constrain our vision by our desire to remain in our own comfort zone (while this is perfectly human nature). For example the youth today use Instant Messaging in ways that I would have found hard to believe even 10 years ago while I myself refrain because I still see it as a huge inconvenience and waste of time. I am a dinosaur in some ways but advanced in others. Or look at cel phone usage compared to a few years ago. It's nuts. Stating that it just doesnt work now, doesnt mean you fold the tent and go home. The process is evolving and this example is just one possible direction that the future desktop (perhaps literally). Keep in mind that this is a working prototype using todays tools. There is a lot of exciting things on the horizon. As a parallel, if you dont know much about Nanotechnology you should do some research on it. You will see what I mean. Cheers, David
Minority Report is actually a great example of how stupid the entire concept is. Instead of simply making simple queries through a straighforward interface, he wasted time doing things that looked cool, but which were horribly unproductive. Seriously; a computer user in 1985 could accomplish what the Tom Cruise character did in a fraction of the time. What baffles me with all these concepts is the insistance that electronic data must have a physical metaphor. It is this approach that actually limits the capability of the computer as a tool, not enhance it. Instant Messaging is actually a good example. If we were to take the approach of the so-called visionaries, each message would look like a postcard and we'd have to painfully fill out the postal address of the recipient with each message. But the electronic world ISN'T the real world. So, instead you pick a person by an alias, type a message and hit send. For a really good example of a computer visionary watch the following (the content is quite interesting as well): http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=hans_rosling&flashEnabled=1[^]
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Orcrist wrote:
And you're probably right. Not in my lifetime though.
why?
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Orcrist wrote:
What if the future computer systems were in fact a full size rigid LCD screen style desk structure (3'x5') where you could have multiple screens/OS up at the same time and you drag/throw them on the desktop (aka Minority Report).
I would love to have something like that. But rather than the cluttered touch-fest that was Minority Report, i'd have the whole thing displaying code, with a tiny little context-sensitive pad appearing under my fingers. Gesture-based controls would largely replace keyboard shortcuts.
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.7.1.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
now all you have to do is make a time machine that would project you loooong into the future where we will have that. dont forget to come back and bring a system like that for all us, CPians.
rara avis in terris
-
Minority Report is actually a great example of how stupid the entire concept is. Instead of simply making simple queries through a straighforward interface, he wasted time doing things that looked cool, but which were horribly unproductive. Seriously; a computer user in 1985 could accomplish what the Tom Cruise character did in a fraction of the time. What baffles me with all these concepts is the insistance that electronic data must have a physical metaphor. It is this approach that actually limits the capability of the computer as a tool, not enhance it. Instant Messaging is actually a good example. If we were to take the approach of the so-called visionaries, each message would look like a postcard and we'd have to painfully fill out the postal address of the recipient with each message. But the electronic world ISN'T the real world. So, instead you pick a person by an alias, type a message and hit send. For a really good example of a computer visionary watch the following (the content is quite interesting as well): http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=hans_rosling&flashEnabled=1[^]
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
What baffles me with all these concepts is the insistance that electronic data must have a physical metaphor. It is this approach that actually limits the capability of the computer as a tool, not enhance it.
I quite agree with you. My problem is that since I dont have a physical metaphor to compare it against I really have no clue as to what form (omg I am metaphoring it..) it would take. My head is spinning... Must lie down on my virtual cot. lol. Cheers, David
-
now all you have to do is make a time machine that would project you loooong into the future where we will have that. dont forget to come back and bring a system like that for all us, CPians.
rara avis in terris
-
Hate to break the news, but this isn't new. Every few years, some graduate student discovers the next break through in UI design and they always end up looking just like this with variations according to the latest graphical design fad. None of them work. I'm not saying this just be cynical, they really don't work. This mistake is assuming that a good UI mimics the real world. It doesn't. Perhaps the funniest example of this was a quite serious UI design that made your desktop look like a real cluttered desk. (Even more than this one.) A bigger mistake is too many graphical designers who think they understand usability and human factors. In reality, all they're really doing is creating things that look cool. The most extreme example of this were the amazingly cool, but almost unusable, add-ons for Adobe Photoshop in the late mid to late 90s. (In my experience, graphical designers actually make worse usability experts than developers. The best usability people have degrees in pyschology and have extensive training in human factors and industrial design.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
This mistake is assuming that a good UI mimics the real world
I remember an example my HCI (Human Computer Interaction) lecturer gave. He said driving a car is nothing like controlling a horse attached to a carriage, yet in the beginning they were called "horseless carriages". Some people have difficulty in driving a car, but we wouldn't dream of making a car operate like riding a horse to make it more like the "real world"
Scottish Developers events: * .NET debugging, tracing and instrumentation by Duncan Edwards Jones and Code Coverage in .NET by Craig Murphy * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog
-
Orcrist wrote:
And you're probably right. Not in my lifetime though.
why?
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
I recognize that this isn't new, but nevertheless it is an interesting concept. I dont envision this type of desktop (or something similar) actually working for 10+ years but I believe that it will eventually evolve into something of this nature. Why? 1. Currently the Windows gui (not the OS) is structured on the concept of Applications. Just ask yourself how counter intuitive this is. When I am working a typical day I am working with a Drawing document, Programming Document, Letter Document, etc. It just so happens that these run within AutoCad, VS, and Word, but that is just the wrapper. I am working the document. 2. Everyone has their own way of organizing things that makes them work to their (hopefully) best capabilities. Yet we currently have to operate within the constraints of the Windows / Mac / Linux operating systems. For example I know one person that uses a grid system to manage workload (X - Axis being Importance and Y-Axis being Urgency). He uses a whiteboard. But imagine you move documents into your own grid system right on the desktop. What if the future computer systems were in fact a full size rigid LCD screen style desk structure (3'x5') where you could have multiple screens/OS up at the same time and you drag/throw them on the desktop (aka Minority Report). The point is that we should not constrain our vision by our desire to remain in our own comfort zone (while this is perfectly human nature). For example the youth today use Instant Messaging in ways that I would have found hard to believe even 10 years ago while I myself refrain because I still see it as a huge inconvenience and waste of time. I am a dinosaur in some ways but advanced in others. Or look at cel phone usage compared to a few years ago. It's nuts. Stating that it just doesnt work now, doesnt mean you fold the tent and go home. The process is evolving and this example is just one possible direction that the future desktop (perhaps literally). Keep in mind that this is a working prototype using todays tools. There is a lot of exciting things on the horizon. As a parallel, if you dont know much about Nanotechnology you should do some research on it. You will see what I mean. Cheers, David
Orcrist wrote:
Currently the Windows gui (not the OS) is structured on the concept of Applications. Just ask yourself how counter intuitive this is.
Did they make driving cars like riding a horse. Just how counter intuative must that shift have been. People had been riding horses for thousands of years and then someone comes along and invents the car and doesn't even make it like riding a horse - how thoughtless of them!
Orcrist wrote:
When I am working a typical day I am working with a Drawing document, Programming Document, Letter Document, etc. It just so happens that these run within AutoCad, VS, and Word, but that is just the wrapper. I am working the document.
Microsoft tried this with Microsoft Office Binder - It didn't work.
Orcrist wrote:
Everyone has their own way of organizing things that makes them work to their (hopefully) best capabilities. Yet we currently have to operate within the constraints of the Windows / Mac / Linux operating systems.
My preferred way of doing things is to spread things out so everything is open at the position that I want it. This is impossible because I have to work within the confines of my desk.
Orcrist wrote:
For example I know one person that uses a grid system to manage workload (X - Axis being Importance and Y-Axis being Urgency). He uses a whiteboard. But imagine you move documents into your own grid system right on the desktop.
Well, lay your documents across windows desktop like that if you want - there isn't anything stopping you.
Orcrist wrote:
The point is that we should not constrain our vision by our desire to remain in our own comfort zone
Exactly - Now stop whining and learn how to use Windows! ;P
Orcrist wrote:
For example the youth today use Instant Messaging in ways that I would have found hard to believe even 10 years ago while I myself refrain because I still see it as a huge inconvenience and waste of time.
That is because it is a waste of time. 90% of all instant messages are "LOL" - What a waste of bandwidth that is! You are obviously not in the right demographic for that. It is nothing to do with technical ability or vision.
O
-
Orcrist wrote:
Currently the Windows gui (not the OS) is structured on the concept of Applications. Just ask yourself how counter intuitive this is.
Did they make driving cars like riding a horse. Just how counter intuative must that shift have been. People had been riding horses for thousands of years and then someone comes along and invents the car and doesn't even make it like riding a horse - how thoughtless of them!
Orcrist wrote:
When I am working a typical day I am working with a Drawing document, Programming Document, Letter Document, etc. It just so happens that these run within AutoCad, VS, and Word, but that is just the wrapper. I am working the document.
Microsoft tried this with Microsoft Office Binder - It didn't work.
Orcrist wrote:
Everyone has their own way of organizing things that makes them work to their (hopefully) best capabilities. Yet we currently have to operate within the constraints of the Windows / Mac / Linux operating systems.
My preferred way of doing things is to spread things out so everything is open at the position that I want it. This is impossible because I have to work within the confines of my desk.
Orcrist wrote:
For example I know one person that uses a grid system to manage workload (X - Axis being Importance and Y-Axis being Urgency). He uses a whiteboard. But imagine you move documents into your own grid system right on the desktop.
Well, lay your documents across windows desktop like that if you want - there isn't anything stopping you.
Orcrist wrote:
The point is that we should not constrain our vision by our desire to remain in our own comfort zone
Exactly - Now stop whining and learn how to use Windows! ;P
Orcrist wrote:
For example the youth today use Instant Messaging in ways that I would have found hard to believe even 10 years ago while I myself refrain because I still see it as a huge inconvenience and waste of time.
That is because it is a waste of time. 90% of all instant messages are "LOL" - What a waste of bandwidth that is! You are obviously not in the right demographic for that. It is nothing to do with technical ability or vision.
O
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Microsoft tried this with Microsoft Office Binder - It didn't work.
AFAIK, OS/2 tried it in the Workplace Shell before Office took a stab at it, and it worked reasonably well (as well as anything worked...). Win95 took a half-hearted stab at making file associations more than just a convenience thing, but as usual MS overengineered the technical side of things (try whipping up a full-featured OLE document server from scratch and getting it to work right the first time), while underplaying the UI side of things (once a document is open, it acts just like a plain old file you'd opened via some old app's File menu). IMHO, this is the most salvageable idea of the lot, since the metaphor (one or more "tools" that are used on a single "object") is one that actually has transfered from RL. Then again, i'm saying this as a programmer, by definition a tool-maker. Doubtless there are plenty of users for whom Word is the computer, and the idea that a computer might become (much less "contain") multiple tools is utterly beyond comprehension... Of course, expecting a company that makes its money selling Software to actually work towards making the act of using Software a transparent part of working is quite laughable... But it's fun to talk about anyway. ;)
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.7.1.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
Last modified: Mond
-
This is a research project for possible future Desktops. Very cool if you ask me. Check it out. (Use the Norway mirror the main WMV link appears to have problems). http://honeybrown.ca/Pubs/BumpTop.html[^] Enjoy, David