Cool != Good and the future of UI
One of the sensory highlights of E-tech ’06 was the demo of the multitouch interaction project from NYU. I’ve seen projects like this before, as things like it have been tried in the past, but this is the most polished and advanced of its kind. As you can tell from the picture, this display allows for complex interactions with your hands. You can grab things, slide them around, change input modes, you name it. You can use it as a keyboard, finger painting system or image modification suite.
The problem is that the demo is so non-representative of how we use computers. It’s more like an orgy of interaction pornography (everything is bigger, faster and shinier than life) than a sampling of how the world might be better with the use of a tool like this. The dude running the demo operates at high speed and with a magicians sense of flourish and polish – they knew exactly how to make this look cool. As a research project this is great – perhaps this is, or will lead to, how we’ll interact with machines in the future. But I see all sorts of easy questions about performance and interaction that this prototype itself can’t ask (What kinds of tasks is this good for? What new and useful behavior does it enable? What does it suck at? How hard is it to learn? etc.)
And that’s the trap – it’s a classic example of Cool vs Good – It’s great that people are excited by this project, as it fun and exciting to watch (aka cool). But there are few uses for something like this that match the coolness with value – exactly the same criticism I had of the famed VR type UI in Minority report. They both look fun, and match our faith in a cooler future, but that’s part of my point. I don’t think there is a strong historical correlation between what’s cool and what turns out to be good.
The video is a must watch: Go here to read about the project and watch the short film (12MB mpeg). Kudos to Jeff Han and everyone else that worked on this – nice job.
Although I tend to agree with you in general (but my equation would be cool ~!= good), sometimes revolutionary advances in UI can mean that developers/engineers can spend more time in the “flow” stage, which is far more productive mindset to be in than the “damn computers” mindset.
Whether they can actually get all the nuts and bolts in place to be reliable (and useful) is another question; but I do believe increased interactivity has offers many opportunities for increased productivity.
I forget: what does ~!= mean? :) I thought that ~= means congruent so I didn’t want to stick the ~ in there and mess things up. If you ~!= means approximately not equal, then we’re on the same page.
I don’t think you need revolutionary advances in UI to get out of the “damn computers” stage – it’s basic stuff that most software gets wrong. Revolutions are for the birds – they’re fun to fantasize about, but most of our problems, UI or otherwise, are solvable by basic, ordinary means.
“And that’s the trap ”
I agree. I got fed up with eye-candy.
Here is my UI (customized window manager)
http://perfectwm.blogspot.com/
Mine is not a fancy as multitouch but it does have some useful
window manipulation improvements.
Looks very cool for a DJ in a trance-stadium.
However, 2 remarks just pop-up immediately:
1. his arms will become either very tired very quickly, or will become imensely strong
2. the screen will become very dirty-greasy unless one puts on some gloves
Yeah – given how much food has fallen into the mysterious depths of my keyboard, I can only imagine what my $2000 interactive screen would look like in a few weeks :)