This opinion piece gives 8 reasons as to why HCI (Human-Computer Interaction) is in its stone age. It talks of screen corners, visual attention, the spatial paradigm (oh my...) and much more.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-12
Some examples from the OS/2 WorkPlace Shell include:
* The ability to extend any folder context menu via drag and drop (including the desktop context menu), which is very nice for making quick context-sensitive menus of commonly used programs.
* The ability to place a series of programs and data files in a single folder and mark the folder as a work group. This groups those elements logically, and the desktop will automatically open or close all of those programs and documents when the folder itself is opened or closed. Very useful for programming environments when you might want to open an IDE, a couple of shell windows, and various help files and other assistants.
* The ability to create, manipulate, and destroy desktop folders and other objects from scripts on the command line (in OS/2's case, it's done via Rexx).
Those features are all over ten years old.
Also, w.r.t. the command line: it hasn't been exactly standing still in the DOS, Windows, or OS/2 worlds either, at least if you've ever used 4DOS, 4NT, 4OS2, or any of the other JP Software shells available.
The fact that Microsoft hasn't seen fit to extend that to its standard shells is more a testament to Microsoft's stagnation than anything else.
Member since:2005-07-12
Member since:2005-07-12
Some examples from the OS/2 WorkPlace Shell include:
* The ability to extend any folder context menu via drag and drop (including the desktop context menu), which is very nice for making quick context-sensitive menus of commonly used programs.
* The ability to place a series of programs and data files in a single folder and mark the folder as a work group. This groups those elements logically, and the desktop will automatically open or close all of those programs and documents when the folder itself is opened or closed. Very useful for programming environments when you might want to open an IDE, a couple of shell windows, and various help files and other assistants.
* The ability to create, manipulate, and destroy desktop folders and other objects from scripts on the command line (in OS/2's case, it's done via Rexx).
* the ability to create third-party extensions to existing desktop functions (objects) which directly inherit characteristics from the parent class on which they are based, and which in turn can be parents of additional third-party classes with inheritable attributes. This allows Joe Programmer to create an FTP class based on a folder class, and then turn around and modify the original folder class in such a way as to impact both the original desktop folders and his FTP folder derivative.
Those features are all over ten years old.
Also, w.r.t. the command line: it hasn't been exactly standing still in the DOS, Windows, or OS/2 worlds either, at least if you've ever used 4DOS, 4NT, 4OS2, or any of the other JP Software shells available.
The fact that Microsoft hasn't seen fit to extend that to its standard shells is more a testament to Microsoft's stagnation than anything else.
Member since:2005-07-12
You are right ... huge enhancements to the GUI can be made and should be - and it's a testament to people's unwillingness to change (or companys that are unwilling to implement) that OS/2 has had many great usability features for years, but the major desktop makers ignore these only to add cool new features like transluscency (?) for title bars and such. What about BeOS and its shell features (live queries, etc)? Also rather canned - well at least some of them are being picked up.
And the command line - yes, it's definitely progessing in other worlds (other than unix) too. However, MS hasn't extened it because of their stagnation and deminuation of the CLI - but that's just the point. MS has claimed that the GUI is the supreme user interface, when in reality, it's not. MS could do tons of things to their GUI to make it more powerful (and they should - corners would be a nice place to start :-)), but in the end, power users will still rely on a good CLI for tasks that require the most flexibility and extensibility. That's why I think an integrated environment between CLI and GUI will be the ultimate solution. We'll have to see if anyone will implement such a thing or how it would work...
Member since:2005-08-19
However, by nature, GUI offer very little power compared to the command line and someone who knows how to use it.
It doesn't have to be this way. It's just easier to write a command line app with all the features you want than to design a good GUI that has the same features.
Member since:
2005-07-12
This post is actually quite good, and the general opinion of "hey, the UI hasn't changed in years and could be a lot better" is really true. Unfortunately though, there are numerous problems to overcome before implementing a better UI, and one of them is change. Computers and now mainstream and changes must be evolutionary in nature and revolutionary in nature. People are creatures of habit and don't want to change (if you disagree with this, think of the top five things you decided to change on New Years... has it happened?). Here are my thoughts on his post:
1. Corners are the most accessible part of the screen. However, I have OSX and have Expose keyed to the corners. My wife (a Windows user) hates it because she hits of the corners by accident and unintentionally fires Expose. Why? Because corners mena nothing to her. Most people will find corner actions extremely unfriendly for this reason. They are stuck in a habit and no amount of tell them how wonderful it is will stop them from griping.
2. So is it possible to design a system that's suits both beginners and professionals?
Yes, it is, but the author thinks that the GUI should be expanded. However, by nature, GUI offer very little power compared to the command line and someone who knows how to use it. Unlike the modern GUI, the command line (in the unix world at least) has been making leaps and bounds in terms of power. The possibilities are endless. A GUI that integrates key components of a command line would be a vastly superior tool than current GUIs.
3. I bet you my bunny the former Soviet union could have designed a better operating system GUI than any of the software vendors of today.
Maybe, maybe not. In an ideal world, having a best-of-breed OS with one GUI and the best preferences would work. Well - it would work for the people who designed it. However, people work differently from each other, and choice is a huge part of human productivity. Just like no tool fills all roles, no tool fits all humans. The key here is to provide the best preferences for most people, and then give the others the extensibility to easily change and mold it to their own needs. His example of the kitchen is very valid, but you have to remember, not all kitchens are alike - and spatial awareness only work when you are familiar with it. Forcing familiarity by limiting customization just alienates those for which the defaults don't work.
So, my opinion is that the GUI needs lots of work, but it is naive to think that it will change rapidly because of people's fear of change. It is wishful thinking to think that one GUI with no customization will provide better productivity because humans themselves are different. Also, there's no getting around it. The CLI is still an extremely flexible interface and I would have a very hard time thinking of any GUI paradigm that could replace its power. A hybrid approach between GUI and CLI is probably a better and more realistic solution.
my 2 cents...