To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I can perfectly understand because i tended to think like that also. But this is all information which is lastly organized in sheets of emulated paper, be it dynamic, self calculating, hyperlinked, animated, or not. As long as we don't have nice and thin, preferrably flexible or even foldable tablets like f.e. that in Neal Stephensons Diamond Age i don't see that much use of it. Does the surface of your real desk change when you put some letter somewhere? Maybe you have whole stacks of paper on it, would you enjoy them falling over? Does it matter when the grass bends when you put some book on it when you're outside and enjoying the sun? Do you actually like the sand between the pages? ;-)
With all that pseudorealism i always have to think about the jokes i make to my postman that i could write three Xses onto that touchscreen when i have to sign for some reception, because the parallax between the surface of that gadget and the LC-Display just isn't right.
Edited 2007-10-28 20:27
Nice article Thom,
<rant>
I've been banging on about how a consistent and well thought out icon set is really essential for our suite of apps, but my calls are falling on deaf ears.
Our icons basically look like were done by a pre-schooler with his eyes closed, as our parent company insists that we have text (our 3 letter acronym) within the icons.
At 16 pixels, this just looks like a smudge, and gives an overall impression to our users that we just can't be stuffed.
</rant>
Have to disagree by the way about the wobbly windows in XGL. That has to be the most unholy of 3D effects.
Just makes you feel like you're on drugs, only without the fun part.
Edited 2007-10-29 04:15
This looks to me like a discussion which is not really resolvable. Simply because obviously the brain structure of different human beings can differ much.
Having Desktop objects to be more "physical" is a disturbance to some, and to others it is a help. Some like "overiconized" GUIs like MSOffice 2007 better than reduced one (KDE vs. GNOME anyone?). Some people can find their way through 20 icons thrown at them immediately, others are completele at a loss there but don't have problems remembering 100 console commands including most of their options.
And that is the truth about user interfaces: One size does not fit all. With a graphical interface you can try to reach most, but you will never be able to be good for everybody.
That is the reason why I think that each of the numerous desktops (KDE, Gnome, Aero, XFCE, ...) are best for someone, and each of them should be developed further without converging too much onto a "unified desktop".




Member since:
2005-06-29
This sentence has a few problems. For instance, many find the wobbly windows in Compiz annoying and a toy - but to me, they contribute to a feeling that I sorely miss in GUIs: making objects behave like physical objects. I love how a window in Compiz wobbles when I move it, it gives me additional feedback, just as if I was manipulating a real world object.
I have been thinking a lot the past years about how to make user interfaces more physical. If I'm manipulating multiple objects on a screen, I want those objects to interfere with one another, as if they are real-world objects.
As an example, imagine you have a wallpaper with leaves on it. Moving a window over those leaves could ruffle those leaves - that would give the window a physical dimension. Of course having leaves flying around your desktop wallpaper is a bit over the top, but you get the idea.
Edited 2007-10-28 19:50 UTC