Tales of usability or the interface of the future
The problem of friendliness of modern interfaces is familiar to each of us. There are hundreds of thousands of articles devoted to the creation of "correct" systems, "correct" interfaces, and "correct" sites. In each announcement of the new software, we hear: "Unprecedented achievements in the field of usability, an intuitive interface!". And you involuntarily think about it, really and really something new. But again and again you are convinced that all these specialists have never come up with anything. Yes, the windows have become transparent, yes, the buttons have acquired rounded corners, and virtual desktops are stretched on the edge of a cube. But this is nothing new! And it scares. Humanity, due to its fear of a new one, climbed into a hole and is not in a hurry to get out of it.
So, today we will talk about ways to access information, as well as ways to manage non-standard means, but no less convenient, and sometimes even more accessible to the user.
')
So what are the options besides the already familiar window? And many of them. And I'll start with a famous person in the field of building interfaces - Jeff Raskin. Many believe that the main merit of Ruskin was the interface to the well-known poppy, but this is far from the case. Raskin all his conscious life dreamed of how to simplify the life of man. His entire career is related to research in areas related to usability interfaces. And there were a lot of ideas. For example, Raskin did not understand why the user should run any programs, editors, if he wants to type some text, why should he care about saving it? Intuitive, it would be easy to get behind the car and start typing! Brilliant. This is the idea behind the Canon Cat computer. Workspace, implemented in this machine, is an endless input field, which is constantly in front of you. Each new entry is separated from the previous trait. The concept of files is missing! It's simple: you sit at the computer and start typing. You turn it off and do not worry about the safety of the text - it will always be there. How to find old records if there is no file mechanism? The answer is really simple - search. =) The machine itself will find the necessary piece of text containing the search expression or words from it. Also from the text you can execute commands, calculate mathematical expressions. You just need to type this text, select it and execute it.
A few words must be said about the text selection in Canon Cat. This system does not use a mouse, but working with a computer does not make it inconvenient or flawed. To select the text here are special keys leap UP and leap Down. Holding one of them and typing in some text, we select the line that is between the current cursor position and the entered expression. Elementary? Yes. Simply? Yes. Uncomfortable? No, no! Little of. Such a weak machine gained fame as the fastest computer of those years. Many who used it said that the system starts up instantly. This was implemented by saving a static screenshot at the time of turning off the computer. When the user turned on the power, he saw the picture at the time of loading, and when the download ended, the program quietly replaced it with a real image of the working field. Work began from the place where it was finished.
Learn more about Canon Cat here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Cat
Yes, the above interface is only good for working with text. Why not consider the development of the same Ruskin, but applicable to any media information. This is his famous work - Zoom World. At one time, the novelty of the ideas of this concept shook Apple developers so much that they did not accept it, writing off the refusal to the unusual nature of this method of data management. Raskin had to continue working on the concepts of window interfaces and the desktop metaphor. And Zoom World was just research. But the ideas embodied in him are brilliant!
This interface is still an infinite two-dimensional field on which we can place any objects, be it images, videos, texts, sounds (in the form of visual images), as well as signatures to them. No file names - just signatures. We are free to move these objects, to group them. But further - more. This space also has depth. But not by the depth that is present in the three-dimensional space, but by the possibility of unlimited scaling. Objects can be placed on any "distance" from the source point of observation. Work with information in this case is a movement in the plane of observation, as well as an increase in individual objects. Imagine: on the plane to the left is the caption “Photos”, below it there are groups of some small objects, you move to this group, and then begin to zoom in, bringing the group of objects closer. And here you start to distinguish groups of images with the captions "Summer 2007", "Work", "Italy", go to Italy, increase it even more, look at the photos, and notice that there is something else next to the image of the Venetian canals. Increase and see the text of the note: “Venice, how do you look like Peter! ;-) ". That's the essence of Zoom World. Also, do not forget about the existence of a search for signatures.
Want something closer to the windows? No problems. There are far less exotic interfaces. For example frame. A similar concept is embedded in Oberon OS. In essence: the same windows, but they do not overlap each other, and objects that are controls are capable of being freely moved by the user.
But all this is an abstraction. It is much more interesting to look at the systems that implement a copy of the objective reality surrounding us. And there are really similar developments. Of course, not all of them can boast of applicability today in specific systems, and most of them are sucking the already known model, the desktop. But much more interesting things can be seen. It is also impossible to bypass the interfaces of purely three-dimensional, implementing a copy of our reality. The experiments are already there: you can walk around the beautiful rooms, press the buttons of the multimedia centers, open the drawers of the desktops. But something is very raw and uncomfortable. Who knows, maybe in the future?
But what about voice control? The variant is interesting and quite feasible, but then it is necessary to shovel all the concepts of interfaces, and not to finish building existing ones. This is not to be afraid. In general, the best way to communicate with someone is to use a language, even if it is simplified, but not many understand it. And in vain. The same console, although complicated in many ways, is a good way to interact, if only the language is not synthetic. But in this case, there are options for discrepancies, and this is unacceptable.
In general, still work and work. What is the best approach will not solve even time, because the applicability of a particular concept lies within the scope of activities. And one, fully suitable now and here, will not be available for use tomorrow and in another area. That's all. Thanks to those who read to the end.
PS
A common environment, for example, is a good version of what may be other than today's means of access to information: unienv.org
So, today we will talk about ways to access information, as well as ways to manage non-standard means, but no less convenient, and sometimes even more accessible to the user.
')
So what are the options besides the already familiar window? And many of them. And I'll start with a famous person in the field of building interfaces - Jeff Raskin. Many believe that the main merit of Ruskin was the interface to the well-known poppy, but this is far from the case. Raskin all his conscious life dreamed of how to simplify the life of man. His entire career is related to research in areas related to usability interfaces. And there were a lot of ideas. For example, Raskin did not understand why the user should run any programs, editors, if he wants to type some text, why should he care about saving it? Intuitive, it would be easy to get behind the car and start typing! Brilliant. This is the idea behind the Canon Cat computer. Workspace, implemented in this machine, is an endless input field, which is constantly in front of you. Each new entry is separated from the previous trait. The concept of files is missing! It's simple: you sit at the computer and start typing. You turn it off and do not worry about the safety of the text - it will always be there. How to find old records if there is no file mechanism? The answer is really simple - search. =) The machine itself will find the necessary piece of text containing the search expression or words from it. Also from the text you can execute commands, calculate mathematical expressions. You just need to type this text, select it and execute it.
A few words must be said about the text selection in Canon Cat. This system does not use a mouse, but working with a computer does not make it inconvenient or flawed. To select the text here are special keys leap UP and leap Down. Holding one of them and typing in some text, we select the line that is between the current cursor position and the entered expression. Elementary? Yes. Simply? Yes. Uncomfortable? No, no! Little of. Such a weak machine gained fame as the fastest computer of those years. Many who used it said that the system starts up instantly. This was implemented by saving a static screenshot at the time of turning off the computer. When the user turned on the power, he saw the picture at the time of loading, and when the download ended, the program quietly replaced it with a real image of the working field. Work began from the place where it was finished.
Learn more about Canon Cat here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Cat
Yes, the above interface is only good for working with text. Why not consider the development of the same Ruskin, but applicable to any media information. This is his famous work - Zoom World. At one time, the novelty of the ideas of this concept shook Apple developers so much that they did not accept it, writing off the refusal to the unusual nature of this method of data management. Raskin had to continue working on the concepts of window interfaces and the desktop metaphor. And Zoom World was just research. But the ideas embodied in him are brilliant!
This interface is still an infinite two-dimensional field on which we can place any objects, be it images, videos, texts, sounds (in the form of visual images), as well as signatures to them. No file names - just signatures. We are free to move these objects, to group them. But further - more. This space also has depth. But not by the depth that is present in the three-dimensional space, but by the possibility of unlimited scaling. Objects can be placed on any "distance" from the source point of observation. Work with information in this case is a movement in the plane of observation, as well as an increase in individual objects. Imagine: on the plane to the left is the caption “Photos”, below it there are groups of some small objects, you move to this group, and then begin to zoom in, bringing the group of objects closer. And here you start to distinguish groups of images with the captions "Summer 2007", "Work", "Italy", go to Italy, increase it even more, look at the photos, and notice that there is something else next to the image of the Venetian canals. Increase and see the text of the note: “Venice, how do you look like Peter! ;-) ". That's the essence of Zoom World. Also, do not forget about the existence of a search for signatures.
Want something closer to the windows? No problems. There are far less exotic interfaces. For example frame. A similar concept is embedded in Oberon OS. In essence: the same windows, but they do not overlap each other, and objects that are controls are capable of being freely moved by the user.
But all this is an abstraction. It is much more interesting to look at the systems that implement a copy of the objective reality surrounding us. And there are really similar developments. Of course, not all of them can boast of applicability today in specific systems, and most of them are sucking the already known model, the desktop. But much more interesting things can be seen. It is also impossible to bypass the interfaces of purely three-dimensional, implementing a copy of our reality. The experiments are already there: you can walk around the beautiful rooms, press the buttons of the multimedia centers, open the drawers of the desktops. But something is very raw and uncomfortable. Who knows, maybe in the future?
But what about voice control? The variant is interesting and quite feasible, but then it is necessary to shovel all the concepts of interfaces, and not to finish building existing ones. This is not to be afraid. In general, the best way to communicate with someone is to use a language, even if it is simplified, but not many understand it. And in vain. The same console, although complicated in many ways, is a good way to interact, if only the language is not synthetic. But in this case, there are options for discrepancies, and this is unacceptable.
In general, still work and work. What is the best approach will not solve even time, because the applicability of a particular concept lies within the scope of activities. And one, fully suitable now and here, will not be available for use tomorrow and in another area. That's all. Thanks to those who read to the end.
PS
A common environment, for example, is a good version of what may be other than today's means of access to information: unienv.org
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/18951/
All Articles