Anything that requires a user to wear gloves or glasses is junk that will swiftly be relegated to obscurity in a scrap heap. Such novelty junk has been around for years and nobody wants it because it doesn't accomplish anything. I'd love to see the day where standardized Direct Neural Interfaces are de rigueur for the majority of typical computing applications. Unfortunately, the typical generational techno-inertia that we see is likely to be drastically compounded when it comes to tech involving surgical procedures. We already suffer buyer's remorse shortly after we buy the latest video card or CPU. How much worse will it be when it involves surgical procedures that fiddle with brain tissue, or optic nerves?
For these reasons, and many more, I foresee screen technology (whether LCD screens or projectors of a sort) remaining the standard for many, many years to come. We're social animals, and sharing the view is part of what we love. If anything, I see displays becoming larger, with higher resomolutions, and being easily "painted" onto walls. Anything else seems like pipe dreams inspired by 80s cyberpunk fiction (which has not aged well.) #singularity
@met2art: Yeah! If they have to wear anything that sits on their face or clips onto their ears or that they wear on their wrist or...
wait, that stuff is working and people do want it. especially bluetooth headsets and wireless headphones. they just have to be reliable and cheap. #singularity
@met2art: I disagree. How often do people share their cell phone displays with others besides showing a photo? Not often. I think future cell phones will still have displays, but they'll be three inches in diameter and be complemented by transparent eyepieces like the Lumus PD-18.
I think displays like those will catch on quickly when the price comes down enough. People will be won over having 800x600 resolution today or 1024x768 tomorrow. #singularity
@tylerbrainerd: Earpieces for phone calls aren't in the same category. Telephone conversation always has been, by and large, direct to the ear since its inception. Bluetooth is simply an extension of the standard way people use their phones... having the conversation privately directed to their ears. The fact that it is wireless isn't revolutionary, nor is the fact that it is smaller. The basic function it performs has not changed at all, and it doesn't preclude one from performing other tasks by imparting limitations on perception of one's surrounding.
Moving from a LCD monitor to a privately viewed headmounted display is a radical shift in usability that places enormous limitations on the product. It puts more burden on the user with little practical benefit, and hinders the performance of other tasks. This is why no headmounted display has ever caught on as a practical alternative for daily use of a computer or portable computing device. #singularity
@Neimo: Perhaps not everyone shows their phone screens to other people all the time, but it's a tremendous convenience. I'd wager that people show their screens to others more often than they'd imagine. Adding complimentary display tech is fine A screen is indispensable to show a photo to a friend, quickly check a map, glance to see the time, quickly look up a phone number, or read a quick text or email. Putting on a pair of glasses to do any of that would be very annoying. Increasing the resolution won't solve the inherent lack of need for such a niche product. It also adds cost without adding much useful functionality.
Perhaps for some games, or private movie viewing on an airplane, or extremely specific industrial or military use... but for general consumer use, I see almost no practical benefit of wearable glasses displays (like the Lumus PD-18 you mentioned) as a prevalent screen replacement technology. I've yet to be given a solid counter-argument for this, and apparently, neither has the consumer public. (This isn't to say, as a gadget lover, I wouldn't want to try a pair... but they'd always be a novelty, and useless for my daily computer needs as an artist, writer and sometime-musician.)
On the other hand, perhaps there will be a major revolution in head-mounted displays that weigh less than an ounce, can't be lost, don't drain battery power and have super high resolution, and don't make everyone look like a reject from an 80s sci-fi flick. When and if, perhaps everyone will want a pair so they can finally get some practical use of their cellphones, which have always been hindered by restrictive 2D display technology. #singularity
@met2art: Well, as technology progresses and things continue to be miniaturized, it may not be long before we can manufacture wearable displays which are no larger than conventional glasses. As for showing others your screen, if the tech were prevalent enough and bound to a standard such as bluetooth then perhaps the user could live stream their screen to whoever wants to see it. #singularity
@met2art: Not everyone has a smartphone and not everyone has to have high resolution glasses that augment reality and make reading webpages or navigating far easier. Also people who lose their glasses all the time shouldn't get these when they're available.
Depending on what kind of artist or musician you are, you might find them capable of augmenting your work in interesting ways. For example a camera in the glasses could track two blank pages on a music stand and overlay the notes. You wouldn't have to turn the pages. #singularity
the mouse and the keyboard are interesting devices, not unlike, say, the steering wheel.
they do more to accomodate the inherent limitations of human anatomy than take advantage of it.
even the concept of the GUI falls into that category. it's modeled around simply making something accessible for humans. it's current form is obviously better than its original form, but inevitably, our limits limit IT.
imagine if you could do computation without going through the physical middleman of your eyes, ears, and hands for input and feedback. it's the next logical steps, but i wonder if it's not a terrible idea to leave some limitations in place.
in a world where to think it is to do it, i could see people getting seriously hooked on brain based computing. information/stimulation addiction may well be a reality in a few more years.
i mean, look at how helpless some modern people feel when rudimentary technologies like electricity or long distance communications are suddenly unavailable. i believe there is even a psychological term for trauma caused by a sudden absence of technology.
now imagine you've been jacked into a cerebrally interactive computing system on a constant basis since you were say, 5, and you're 30 now, and it goes off. #singularity
Remember this? It's from 2000 or so - the Xybernaut Poma. Wearable Windows CE device, for about $1500. If these little suckers caught on, we'd probably have heads-up displays a lot more mainstream and probably nice wearable i7s in our pockets. #singularity
I say weave a giant flexible organic led screen into a womans tank top and then apply some augmented Reality software to it... if there is a reason, boobs are it! #singularity
@jrronimo: If this functions anything like the Wave interface, you shouldn't need to be too worried about "wasted space". In Wave, each of the boxes/gadgets can be minimized to the top of the screen, Windows XP style.....if you have your taskbar up top, and occupying a void instead of an obvious bar.
In the second shot, you see an example of this, as the Inbox is minimized.
@ripfire: Single biggest failure of GMail. You can filter all you want, but you can only show email in the order Google thinks you should see it. #userinterface
@ripfire: Out of curiosity, why would you want your emails sorted any other way than the date received? With tags, and searching, I can't see any other way I'd want to sort it. #userinterface
@whatne1wuddo: You can only search for things that you already know. However, you can't search for something if you don't know what you're looking for. Sometimes it's just easier to sort by contact and scroll through the names to find what you're looking for. (when you're dealing with Indian or Thai last names, trust me on this).
Here's another example. Let's say I'm a manager at sales, and I created a folder for incoming requests from new clients. Normally, I would sort the messages by contacts and get a quick scan on a list of all the clients. In addition to that, I would be able to see how many requests each different client are submitting.
Sorting is such a fundamental feature when dealing with lists, I just don't understand why Google won't implement it.
@ripfire: That's a good point. Alright, I understand completely now.
TBH, i didn't even know Google didn't allow this until it was mentioned, seems like such a simple thing not to be in, and it's strange that there isn't a labs fix for it. #userinterface
You guys just don't get it. Google Wave is the new Google. Everything they make will be part of a Wave. That's how they will bring it to the mainstream and build critical mass for Google Wave. Every piece of Google will be assimilated into Wave. Maps, Bookmarks, GMail, News, Docs, they are all apart of the Wave.
Google Wave is Google's real OS. Chrome OS is just a front. #userinterface
@dallasmay: Also, every purchase, sale, or any kind of transaction will be made with Google Wave - if anyone doesn't have it, they'll be unable to buy or sell. #userinterface
I think my Gmail screen looks just fine. It's clean, easy to read, and it only displays what I tell it to display. Threaded and Starred conversations and custome labels make it even simpler to organize everything into a neat and tidy inbox. There's always room for improvement, but as far as I'm concerned, this is the best looking and most cleanly organized email interface I've ever used.
@imTheKing: I've enabled various "Labs" settings, such as Superstars, Mark as Read, Multiple Inboxes, GDocs integration, Title Tweaks, and custom theme "Shiny." I also use Gmail exclusively through Chrome, which may contribute to the clean and simplified look. #userinterface
Halfway decent? One of the biggest reasons I'm attracted to Google and their applications if the fact that everything simple, effective and spartan. Look at Yahoo Mail or Hotmail by comparison to Gmail. Everything Google is simple and just plain works. The fonts, colours are soft and easy to use. And keeping everything simple also allows the Google sites to load the fastest and without any fuss. I don't need fancy graphics in my email client. I just need it to work smoothly and quickly. #userinterface
@Aetius: My thoughts exactly. Of course, Google still gives the option to customize and "sweeten" things up a bit, as usual. My first priority with mail is speed, and second is keeping things organized. I've yet to see a mail client that can beat it in those categories. Glassy buttons, textured skins and glowing or sliding bits... it's a bunch of useless junk for people who have more time to gawk at their interface than actual work to get done. I say, get the art out of the way when there is work to be done. #userinterface
I'll be honest, I don't see a whole lot of difference. I also don't really mind their current layout. Sure it looks simple, but sometimes simplicity is the best thing. #userinterface
@James Sorensen: Agreed. Gizmodo has consistently had one of the worst interfaces and comment thread systems I've ever seen. It's always glitchy and slow, clearly hacked together by amateurs more intereste din displaying ads than providing a consistent and useful interface. If it weren't for the consistently high quality, unbiased and accurate articles from Jesus Diaz, I'd never look back... #userinterface
MS know how to make Computing students love them. A really nice tight IDE (that they give to students for free as well) and an excellent development environment (.NET). Not to mention they give students a lot of other free software. But yeah, they really know how to market to programmers. #microsofttouchlessuserinterfac...
11/11/09
11/12/09
@Software_Goddess: That's Billy Zane! #singularity
11/11/09
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn #singularity
11/11/09
For these reasons, and many more, I foresee screen technology (whether LCD screens or projectors of a sort) remaining the standard for many, many years to come. We're social animals, and sharing the view is part of what we love. If anything, I see displays becoming larger, with higher resomolutions, and being easily "painted" onto walls. Anything else seems like pipe dreams inspired by 80s cyberpunk fiction (which has not aged well.) #singularity
11/11/09
wait, that stuff is working and people do want it. especially bluetooth headsets and wireless headphones. they just have to be reliable and cheap. #singularity
11/11/09
I think displays like those will catch on quickly when the price comes down enough. People will be won over having 800x600 resolution today or 1024x768 tomorrow. #singularity
11/11/09
Moving from a LCD monitor to a privately viewed headmounted display is a radical shift in usability that places enormous limitations on the product. It puts more burden on the user with little practical benefit, and hinders the performance of other tasks. This is why no headmounted display has ever caught on as a practical alternative for daily use of a computer or portable computing device. #singularity
11/11/09
Perhaps for some games, or private movie viewing on an airplane, or extremely specific industrial or military use... but for general consumer use, I see almost no practical benefit of wearable glasses displays (like the Lumus PD-18 you mentioned) as a prevalent screen replacement technology. I've yet to be given a solid counter-argument for this, and apparently, neither has the consumer public. (This isn't to say, as a gadget lover, I wouldn't want to try a pair... but they'd always be a novelty, and useless for my daily computer needs as an artist, writer and sometime-musician.)
On the other hand, perhaps there will be a major revolution in head-mounted displays that weigh less than an ounce, can't be lost, don't drain battery power and have super high resolution, and don't make everyone look like a reject from an 80s sci-fi flick. When and if, perhaps everyone will want a pair so they can finally get some practical use of their cellphones, which have always been hindered by restrictive 2D display technology. #singularity
11/11/09
11/11/09
Depending on what kind of artist or musician you are, you might find them capable of augmenting your work in interesting ways. For example a camera in the glasses could track two blank pages on a music stand and overlay the notes. You wouldn't have to turn the pages. #singularity
11/11/09
they do more to accomodate the inherent limitations of human anatomy than take advantage of it.
even the concept of the GUI falls into that category. it's modeled around simply making something accessible for humans. it's current form is obviously better than its original form, but inevitably, our limits limit IT.
imagine if you could do computation without going through the physical middleman of your eyes, ears, and hands for input and feedback. it's the next logical steps, but i wonder if it's not a terrible idea to leave some limitations in place.
in a world where to think it is to do it, i could see people getting seriously hooked on brain based computing. information/stimulation addiction may well be a reality in a few more years.
i mean, look at how helpless some modern people feel when rudimentary technologies like electricity or long distance communications are suddenly unavailable. i believe there is even a psychological term for trauma caused by a sudden absence of technology.
now imagine you've been jacked into a cerebrally interactive computing system on a constant basis since you were say, 5, and you're 30 now, and it goes off. #singularity
11/11/09
Looks cool, but how far away are we from this? #singularity
11/11/09
We've had wearable computing for ages.
Remember this? It's from 2000 or so - the Xybernaut Poma. Wearable Windows CE device, for about $1500. If these little suckers caught on, we'd probably have heads-up displays a lot more mainstream and probably nice wearable i7s in our pockets. #singularity
11/11/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
In the second shot, you see an example of this, as the Inbox is minimized.
Again, assuming it's real. #userinterface
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
Here's another example. Let's say I'm a manager at sales, and I created a folder for incoming requests from new clients. Normally, I would sort the messages by contacts and get a quick scan on a list of all the clients. In addition to that, I would be able to see how many requests each different client are submitting.
Sorting is such a fundamental feature when dealing with lists, I just don't understand why Google won't implement it.
11/09/09
TBH, i didn't even know Google didn't allow this until it was mentioned, seems like such a simple thing not to be in, and it's strange that there isn't a labs fix for it. #userinterface
11/09/09
Google Wave is Google's real OS. Chrome OS is just a front. #userinterface
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09