Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iDesk--Apple's Advanced Solution to Surface Computing
- Thread starter GodBless
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I just can't imagine audible feedback when typing an article...I already think in my head as I type, so hearing what I've just typed slows me down. I think lots of people need to feel they've hit the key. It might not need to be the same level of feedback we have today, but at least something the verify that a key has been hit. Now as voice input becomes more and more reliable...then by all means it'll be time to remove tactile feedback from keyboarding because it will be a lot less common. Something like a jog-shuttle control or a musical keyboard layout is something where I imagine some amount of tactile feedback will also be important.
I'm sorry. I should have been more clear when I said audible feedback. I wasn't meaning that it announce what letter you typed. Just a light click sound, like what you hear now when you've hit a key.
I'm sorry. I should have been more clear when I said audible feedback. I wasn't meaning that it announce what letter you typed. Just a light click sound, like what you hear now when you've hit a key.
That would be cool...especially if it came from the keyboard itself. You might still need some sort of thin overlay for people to better sense where the keys are.
I know that not too many people are fans of my iMac's design but I (along with a few others) certainly like it and that's what counts the most.
As I like to say: "Don't do what popular--do what's right".
Yeah - and your designs are wrong. Very very very very very...very VERY wrong. It's huge, it's ugly, it's fundamentally compromised, it would take up HUGE ammounts of desk space (when current iMac take up hardly anything) - it's far too low (screen should be at eye level), it's pointless, vulgar, and thank GOD Apple has people like Johnny Ive to do some proper product design.
Your design is neither popular (infact, it's fairly universally hated) nor is it right. Now pelase do the right thing and stop pretending to be a product designer - you're just not. It might not be popular with you - but it's the right thing to do.
Doug
No offense but that design is just god awful ugly. Plus you keep popping it up on the forums for some reason.
First of all God isn't awful so you aren't sounding reliable by using "god awful"--it is especially disrespectful with the lowercase "god".
Secondly I repost my iMac design when it is relevant to a discussion as it was in this case.
By the way I am surprised that the people who have responded to this thread lack creative usage ideas for multi-touch surfaces. A multi-touch surface doesn't need to be in one's reach at all times because certain parts on it will be used at certain times. Also since a multi-touch screen senses what is on its surface it will know what is where on your desk at all times--this is a major reason (but not just the only reason) why having a whole desk with multi-touch is a good idea.
Surface runs on Vista, all the other fluff is just applications sitting on top of it optimized to work with all the touch sensitive technologies bolted on.
Ok, I just spent the last few minutes curled up in the fetal position shaking under my desk after I saw your avatar.
LMFAO!
Your statement here, in response to mine, is a straw man logical fallacy. The statement in itself is irrelevant since the interface in not finalized for its release and will be refined for practical uses prior to the time that Microsoft will release it.
Certainly certain parts of the body are going to be stressed more than others (which is unavoidable with any type of physical activity) but a slight bend of the back is healthy--therefore I think that having a tilt option on desks and tables would be a good bonus when there is nothing on the tables and desks--perhaps even having an option to tip part of the desk would be a good idea so that objects could remain on the flat surface and then people who want to spend extended time using the surface could tip it up. Certainly it would add stress on the arms but painters and drawers are used to it and it can give the body good exercise and plus the tilt exercises different muscles depending on its angle. It's about time computing became better for our physical health.
Reaching far is more healthy than lazily moving your fingertips slightly to type.Obviously you have no vision or creativity regarding what can be done with these surface computers. This is like the step from the command line to the GUI. The GUI was built on top of the command line as an extra thing but even though it was extra it was better because it gave the users an easier experience and it also gave them more options--the multi-touch surface computers will do the same thing. From the GUI to the multi-touch will be just as great as from command line to GUI!
That is the most thoughtless piece of writing that I have read in quite some time. Scaling windows is quite different from scaling other objects such as data graphs and pictures. Scaling is a good thing is some areas but it is bad in others where it is unnecessary and a waste of time. No!--Having properly designed windows with large enough icons for multi-touch does not make scaling useless--even if it did multi-touch would still be better because of its many other superior usages.
Some tasks are easier with the mouse, while others are easier with the keyboard but most will be easier with the multi-touch screen. Try precisely selecting an area of the screen with the keyboard--I guarantee you that is is easier to use a mouse--it is even easier to use a mouse to select an area of the screen than it is to select it with your finger on a multi-touch screen. Therefore the mouse will still be used for the specific things that it is best for. A physical keyboard is easier to use than an onscreen one since the key positions can be felt--therefore regular keyboards will still be used too.
Boy you really like to try to twist reality because there is no contradiction that you pointed out in the quotes of mine that you responded to.
That question proves that you are fully a Luddite when it comes to new technology. It is obvious that this specific new technology is the next generation of standard computers--questioning "...how exactly is a multi-touch Surface wannabe or a multi-touch monitor better on a large scale?" is the first thing that a Luddite would say about a new technology like this one so I don't know why you try to seem so confident when you are completely wrong.
The multi-touch trackpad already exists and has its limitations. A larger surface gives the users many additional benefits. Complaining about the ergonomics of a table is unquestionably out of place since people use tables for paperwork and other things yet their bodies function just fine and they will once surface computers become the standard.
If it is available for customers at the end of 2007 then it will probably be for sale at certain retail stores. Some people buy desktop computers and televisions for $5,000 to $10,000--I would be less likely to buy one of those for that price when compared to a surface computer for that price. I might buy a Microsoft surface computer if Apple doesn't release one of their own soon.
Wow--it sounds like you would purposefully choose the wrong option. That's like saying that you drag a folder that at the time is full of important documents to the trash and press empty trash. The point of a computer is to use it productively although no matter how advanced computers get people can still use them in a poor manner that causes problems.
It sounds like you need a real person for that type of thing--maybe it's time to come out from behind your fence and make some friends--that's "TheAnswer"--The REAL Answer.
Using physical objects that are detachable from the screen is a great way to use a surface computer. If the objects were part of the screen and the surface computer then it would give users less options since the screen wouldn't recognize external objects.
That is one type of use--but a large screen is the best use yet and needs to see the most development with this technology.
I totally agree with you on everything it this quote of yours. I'm glad we agree with something.
Wow--thanks for telling me--that's too bad.
I will reconsider buying a Microsoft Surface after all--I don't like Windows Vista too much.
Wow--thanks for telling me--that's too bad.
I will reconsider buying a Microsoft Surface after all--I don't like Windows Vista too much.
I think Surface isn't really marketed towards consumers, I think its more an industry tool.
Unless thats what you were looking for?
Swapping out tools on the fly would be time consuming and harder. Using the whole screen would give you access to more tools and options all at once since you can place tools that will work for you onto the screen. The "more useful" option is a larger screen that provides you with more possible (and more practical) uses.
Different isn't always better--change can be for better or for worse.
Swapping hardware for those purposes would be a waste of time and energy and would also wear out the computer parts pretty fast.
What evidence is there that the interface isn't finalized?
Certainly it would add stress on the arms but painters and drawers are used to it and it can give the body good exercise and plus the tilt exercises different muscles depending on its angle. It's about time computing became better for our physical health.
Traditional artists aren't physically painting/drawing 8+ hours a day, 5/6 days a week as part of their career. Graphic designers and computer artists use graphic tablets which lay flat on their desks to reduce the stress on their elbows, wrists. For most, computing is about being productive and part of a career. I think even Richard Simmons would prefer being a couch potato than sitting in front of his computer doing multi-touch arm exercises for 8+ hours a day.
This is like the step from the command line to the GUI. The GUI was built on top of the command line as an extra thing but even though it was extra it was better because it gave the users an easier experience and it also gave them more options--the multi-touch surface computers will do the same thing. From the GUI to the multi-touch will be just as great as from command line to GUI!
I like your optimism, but the fact remains that right now this technology adds cost more than increased performance/usability, especially at a large scale. Despite you arguments, I still haven't been persuaded that a large scale implementation overlay on the monitor won't create ergonomic problems.
We haven't even touched much on the fact that using our big clumsy hands to manipulate things gets in the way of our eyes being able to see the screen (especially in the sectors we are manipulating). Advances voice command and eye-cursor movement technologies probably show more potential than on-screen multi-touch for this reason alone.
A GUI that's properly designed size-wise for multi-touch with my fingers means it's larger than it need to be when I use my other input devices and therefore wasting screen real estate. Now if it can proximity detect my fingers and automatically resize the interface (kinda like dock magnification), then that's great.
You do a great job of defending the status quo of the mouse and keyboard here, yet say most things will be easier with a multi-touch screen. Evidence? In what ways would it be more practical or cost effective than, say, advance voice command technologies.
I guess I better just post the whole portion of the argument here and let people decide for themselves:
That question proves that you are fully a Luddite when it comes to new technology. It is obvious that this specific new technology is the next generation of standard computers--questioning "...how exactly is a multi-touch Surface wannabe or a multi-touch monitor better on a large scale?" is the first thing that a Luddite would say about a new technology like this one so I don't know why you try to seem so confident when you are completely wrong.
Then prove it's better as a large scale device rather than ducking the question and lacing your rhetoric with personal attacks. I've already stated I'm a proponent of small-scale multi-touch interfaces...you've stated that you believe the mouse and keyboard aren't going anywhere and are better for precision work on the screen. Now lets make the leap to the point where you show evidence to convince me that large multi-touch screens are better than small-scale multi-touch interfaces (which I believe are better for both ergonomic and cost reasons) for everyday use.
Not really...especially if you are using an advanced multi-touch "gesture" interface in parallel with another device as the cursor control. Imagine using your mouse to select an object then using the multi-touch surface to rotate it, while pressing the shift key to constrain the value of rotation. If the multi-touch surface is built into the keyboard, it can be much more productive than a large scale device. And because such a device will be customizable, I don't rule out the ability to have it serve as a mirror of the monitor for things such as photo sorting and the like.
I just don't agree...a computer screen has a tendency to draw a user in and hold them "captive" much more than a piece of paper does. Blinking rates decrease when viewing a computer monitor...if I bring my monitor within arms reach, eye strain will increase or I'll have to take more breaks and I've only got a 20" monitor...If I get a dual 30" multi-touch setup, I might as well just pluck out my eyes and throw them into a skillet.
That seems like some wishful thinking more than anything else.
Sure...people spend that much on desktop computers because of the power they provide. Choosing a Surface over a Power Mac when you don't even know the processing power yet is sorta like picking a candy bar by the color of its wrapper rather than the ingredients.
I didn't indicate that the "grab" function was destructive to the data on the device did I? Nor did I state that "All from All Available" was the only option, obviously you'd be able the "grab" from individual devices in proximity. I think the close proximity/contact needed by the Surface is just too limiting, people want access to their devices from where they are...having to haul them to their computers just takes away from being able to do what they want with their data. You should be able to keep your camera, iPhone and/or iPod near your keys and you wallet downstairs and still communicate with them from the computer in your office upstairs. Having to set something down on a Surface to communicate with it is just as ridiculous as having to connect it using a USB cable. Ultimately, we'll arrive at a point where the minute you pull into your garage coming from a photo shoot, your camera be able to detect that it's home and automatically downloaded all it's photos to your computer by the time you've gotten in the door. Devices will have be programable will proximity relative workflows that control their behavior when in proximity to other devices...a natural evolution of iSync.
But it's limiting at the same time...take your chess example, right now you can view the board at many angles conveniently. Once you add in physical chess pieces, that functionality is lost (unless the surface somehow moves the physical pieces). Granted, the physical pieces will take away some of the desire to manipulate the board angle. In public places, such as bars and restaurants where the Surface will be debuted...you add the problem of theft of the physical objects.
The other proble is how smart the Surface actually is...one of the demos with the painting app, the guy used a actual paintbrush to paint on the Surface...did the stroke appear as a brush stroke, nope...just a slightly wider finger stroke, no characteristics of a physical brush whatsoever.
That is one type of use--but a large screen is the best use yet and needs to see the most development with this technology...I totally agree with you on everything it this quote of yours. I'm glad we agree with something.
I think we actually aren't that far apart on the large issues...it's just the details. I think small-scale input devices just make more sense because of their lower cost and the way that they will more easily fit into people's existing computing experience. I think the ergonomic issues haven't been resolved with a large scale device, so I don't think they'll work on a personal/business computing level...but in public areas I think they are the way to go. In the end, I think we both want this technology to not only wisely developed, but to become well adopted by the public.
Not if we are talking about something such as a thin silicon overlay like an iSkin keyboard cover just to let you better feel where the keys are that can be easily removed when you're not typing. The jog-shuttle would have to be more complex than that...but someone needing such a device isn't likely to swap it out as often.
Only if you are talking about swapping out physical items...not if each multi-touch configuration is such the touch of a multi-touch button away. Plus, since you could have toolsets on the multi-touch device...you could hide palettes on the monitor, you'd gain screen real estate that way (because you are basically gaining a 5"x17" multi-touch surface for your toolsets). This becomes even more efficient when you add in the ability to have different loads of multi-touch toolset screens load with each application.
Add in cursor independence and the ability to add multiple multi-touch input devices at only a portion of the cost of a monitor and you are rapidly increasing your potential productivity. Select with your mouse/stylus, tap a color from your palette, tap a font definition on another palette.
I have my uses for breakthrough technology.
...one of the reasons is so that I can be prepared in advance for when the end user technology will be available for me to fully use--that way I can blaze the trails for others to follow.