Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 13th May 2008 18:30 UTC
Rethinking the desktop metaphor, or even improving it in any significant way, is a daunting task, and few dare to take the risk. The end result is that the desktop metaphor that we use today barely changed over the years - which is quite unique for the computing industry, as normally, things change very rapidly.
Permalink for comment 314116
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2008-02-26
I couldn't see the demos, so I relied in other people's posts, but anyways.
Remember the Doom interface that came out for Windows 3.11(Maybe plain DOS)? It was intuitive and close to our real world. One could remember the way to Word, Qbasic, DOS... That was in the nineties. Why aren't we using that interface by now?
The answer is that simple 2D I/O will always be easier to process by both the computer and the person operating it. A normal file browser(with nothing flying around) assuming an equally well thought arrangement, will always have the lead in terms of productivity, although I can imagine people eventually swearing by interfaces like grape if such interfaces became common. Just like people swear by 2D interfaces to find their programs when typing their name(OS/UNIX style), or telling the computer to open it(Star Trek TNG style) are obviously superior approaches. 2D adds some value over 1D, but I fail to see any benefit in 3D. The redundancy it adds, while cool, has no informative value.
Edited 2008-05-14 12:40 UTC