[Sussex] Rantting

[Steve Dobson]

Geoff

On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:07:07AM +0100, Geoffrey J. Teale wrote:
> Steve Dobson <steve at dobson.org> writes:
> > I never said that it was invalid to use GUIs or that I was intolerant of those
> > that use them.  I use a GUI desktop most of the time (but it runs more shells
> > than anything else).  What I was saying was that GUIs put a limit on the
> > way you interact with the computer - a point you appear to broadly agree
> > with.
> >
> > This is, in fact, a well documented problem of GUIs.  By limiting the way
> > you interact with a computer imposes a limit on the way a user thinks that
> > a computer can be used.  
> 
> OK.. I fundamentally disagree.  The problem isn't with GUI's in
> themselves, it's that we haven't evolved (or rather generally
> accepted) input devices that match the potential of GUI and so we've
> been restrained from developing GUI applications that utilise a more
> complex mode of interaction than simple point and click.  

Okay, I do agree that is isn't the GUI interface but the use we make of
them that is the problem.
 
> Text based control is more powerful only because we learn arcane
> mechanisms for specifying filter conditions and forcing streams of
> data through pipes.

But as the new mechanisms where developed they didn't get in the way
(much) of someone wanting to use the command line in the old way of
CP/M or VMS: one command at a time, run in isolation from the others.

>                       There's no reason that GUI's cannot achieve this
> level of power (that is they can achieve what you can achieve in the
> command line without crossing that very fuzzy line into actual
> "programming") and indeed they have, several times over in research
> project done by Xerox, Sun, Microsoft and many others.  

True, I've seen some of this research and found it interesting too.

> That's all very interesting, but none of these research projects up on
> our desks because almost invariably, when you've got a 30 minute sales
> pitch people opt for a simpler, less powerful model that they can
> understand easily.  No end of research showing that text-based input
> systems are far more efficient for data-entry than GUI applications
> has not made the slightest dent in the march towards GUI applications in most
> data-entry driven industries, simply because people are now familiar
> with WIMP and they think anything else is too complex to bother with.

I have often be told that people resist change.  I don't think I do, I
have often changed the way I do something one someone shows me a better
way. But if the majority of people resist change and the GUI opened up
computing to these people are they what is holding back the development
of a better computer/human interface?

>        I will shortly be taking delivery of a Fingerworks Touchstream
> LP "keyboard" to try and ease the impact on my fingers.  Now this
> device replaces a lot of common key commands with gestures and indeed
> acts as a mouse as well as a keyboard.  In doing all this it allows some
> much more complex interaction with the GUI that makes some trivial
> tasks a little more interesting.  Imagine a world with two mice
> available to you to control GUI elements without moving your hands
> from their typing position - I'm looking forward to playing with
> things like this:
> 
> http://www.fingerworks.com/XWinder.html
> 
> .. a trivial example of what you can do with only a slight increase in
> input device complexity.  Now with a little imagination consider the
> wonders we might achieve if we designed GUI environments with this as
> the base point instead of the model we use currently (as defined by
> Xerox and Apple in the 60s, 70s and 80s).

Looks cool.  Two questions:

1). How much does it cost? - Couldn't see a price on their website, and

2). Can you bring it along to a moot and show it off?

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/sussex/attachments/20050414/71ecebff/attachment.pgp