A better UI than MacOS X & Windows XP?
Vis Mike
some progress in the UI, but whole thing of overlapping windows, minimizing
and maximizing is still there. What happend to workspaces? Is the idea too
complex for basic users? I designed a sample UI months ago, and still think
this is a better idea than managing independent window.
http://www.geocities.com/mike_ekim/projects/new-interface/new-workspace.jpg
Instead of individual applications, the UI is component driven. For
example, the Outbox is a view from the mail application. Many applications
don't need full screen space, so you have to manually resize and fit all of
your windows. It would be nice to have a layout manager do this for you.
You should be able to create new shelves, move components around, etc.
Instead of switching to specific applications, workspaces would allow
multiple components to work together - tightly coupled, or looselly, such as
a calculator.
Another idea shown in the example is "pulldown applications". I can think
of many 'applets' that are used infrequently, but would be handy to pull up
quicky, then disapear quickly. I can imagine a calculator pulldown app that
can paste the result into the the selected field in an application - No need
to even cut and paste.
Well, I'd just like other people's input just for the fun of it. What about
3D interfaces? Voice driven?
Please remove _nospam_ from my email account when replying directly.
Thanks,
Mike Austin
Sharon Curtis
Vis Mike <visionary25@_nospam_hotmail.com> wrote:
>I was recently browsing screenshots of Windows XP. I think that they made
>some progress in the UI, but whole thing of overlapping windows, minimizing
>and maximizing is still there. What happend to workspaces? Is the idea too
>complex for basic users? I designed a sample UI months ago, and still think
>this is a better idea than managing independent window.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/mike_ekim/projects/new-interface/new-workspace.jpg
I'm not familiar with workspaces (gradually learning about current
innovations), but just looking at your screenshot (before reading
comments), a few things come to mind.
I like the transparent overlapping idea illustrated by the
"Are you sure you want to..." section of the screen.
I'm not sure what is happening with the world clock and calculator.
Over on the left there is some kind of calculator interface, over
on the right there is another. Are these two things separate runnings
of the same program or are they somehow the same thing? Confusing
having something appearing twice for no apparent reason.
What do you feel is wrong with the windows idea of management with
minimizing and maximizing? Personally as a user I like to have several
tasks around, only one of which I'm currently working on, but I don't
like the screen too cluttered - the idea of a window corresponding to
a task and having some kind of minimize/maximise (open/close, whatever
you want to call it) facility suits very well my purposes. What do you
think could be improved on?
>Instead of individual applications, the UI is component driven. For
>example, the Outbox is a view from the mail application. Many applications
>don't need full screen space, so you have to manually resize and fit all of
>your windows. It would be nice to have a layout manager do this for you.
If it could read my mind, yes that would be fine by me, but it can't.
Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Usually whatever I'm working on
I want a big screen for it (full screen usually).
>Another idea shown in the example is "pulldown applications". I can think
>of many 'applets' that are used infrequently, but would be handy to pull up
>quicky, then disapear quickly. I can imagine a calculator pulldown app that
>can paste the result into the the selected field in an application - No need
>to even cut and paste.
>
>Well, I'd just like other people's input just for the fun of it.
I could imagine that getting cluttered, given the number of infrequently
used applications that I use.
> What about
>3D interfaces? Voice driven?
I like the idea of having more sophisticated 3D-style graphics built
into current interfaces. I'm not sure how far actual 3D interfaces could
go in a 2D screen environment without potentially being confusing,
probably depends on the form of input (3D mice?!)
Sharon
Vis Mike
Workspaces are common in a power user setting. They are virtual 'screens'
that you can switch between, with any number of applications on each screen.
They are available for Windows, Linux, BeOS, and probably many others.
The way I am thinking, you would switch workspaces, not applications. This
allows you to switch to a bunch of applications at the same time. You could
easily have only one full size application in a Workspace if you wanted..
For example, you could have one Workspace with Microsoft Word writing your
novel. On another workspace, you could have your tools such as calculator,
notepad, and a clock. Instead of all these windows floating around, they
would be in the 'Utilities' workspace. You can switch between the two just
as you switch between applications.
The transparent overlapping comes from MaxOS X. It ataches it's dialog
propmts to the owner window, and is semi-transparent. Apple would be happy
to hear that you like it.
The clock on the left top is what I call a 'popup tool'. It doesn't exist
in any UI that I've seen. It is a way to quickly use a tool such as a
calculator or other 'quck' tool. It behaves similar to a menu - you click
'Calculator' on the top menu bar, and an instead of a menu, the calculator
pops up. Now do whatever you need to do, then when you click somewhere
else, it disapears. If you want to use it more often, you can drag the
calculator to a workspace. Maybe another name for it would be 'menu app'.
I should probably remove the calc from the right hand side to make it more
clear.
Oooo, I guess I could make it an animation so you can see the steps - it is
a powerpoint document.
Regards,
Mike
"Sharon Curtis" <s...@peseta.cs.stir.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:9ovk3a$t6a$1...@peseta.cs.stir.ac.uk...
Terry Eden
news:UZvs7.35$Xl6.1...@news.pacbell.net...
> I was recently browsing screenshots of Windows XP. I think that they
made
> some progress in the UI, but whole thing of overlapping windows,
minimizing
> and maximizing is still there. What happend to workspaces? Is the idea
too
> complex for basic users?
I haven't looked at your site yet (slow connection!) but by workspace, do
you mean the equivalent of virtual desktops?
If so, the answer lies in Windows' (and Linux's) ability to use multiple
monitors. For more information www.realtimesoft.com/multimon
Breifly a $20 graphics card and a $100 monitor allows me to place all of my
tasks on screen with none of them overlapping.
Terry
--
Sorry, all our Angels are busy right now. Your soul is important to us.
Please wait in purgatory and you will be connected to the first available
Angel.
To reply, change "deadspam.com" to "uea.ac.uk"
Paul Schwartz
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vis Mike [mailto:visionary25@_nospam_hotmail.com]
> Posted At: Thursday, September 27, 2001 12:23 PM
> Posted To: comp.human-factors
> Conversation: A better UI than MacOS X & Windows XP?
> Subject: Re: A better UI than MacOS X & Windows XP?
>
>
> Sharon, thanks for the feedback. Let me clarify a little bit -
>
> Workspaces are common in a power user setting. They are
> virtual 'screens'
> that you can switch between, with any number of applications
> on each screen.
> They are available for Windows, Linux, BeOS, and probably many others.
>
I use X-Desk on Windows and it is wonderful, but it has been around for
years and as you have pointed out window managers for xWindows have also
had it for years. I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting that is
different. Call it a virtual desktop or workspace but it's already
there.
> The way I am thinking, you would switch workspaces, not
> applications. This
> would be in the 'Utilities' workspace. You can switch
> between the two just
> as you switch between applications.
> ..................
> The transparent overlapping comes from MaxOS X. It ataches
> it's dialog
> propmts to the owner window, and is semi-transparent. Apple
> would be happy
> to hear that you like it.
The transparent windows are the victory of industrial designers and
marketing over usability. Nice eye candy but the text in the dialog
becomes unreadable if it happens to pop-up over the wrong background.
>
> The clock on the left top is what I call a 'popup tool'. It
> doesn't exist
> in any UI that I've seen. It is a way to quickly use a tool such as a
> calculator or other 'quck' tool. It behaves similar to a
> menu - you click
> 'Calculator' on the top menu bar, and an instead of a menu,
> the calculator
> pops up. Now do whatever you need to do, then when you click
> somewhere
> else, it disapears. If you want to use it more often, you
> can drag the
> calculator to a workspace. Maybe another name for it would
> be 'menu app'.
I think the name for it is the tool bar. Again it's been standard with
most OS's for years.
> >
> > > What about
> > >3D interfaces? Voice driven?
> >
Voice driven interfaces have proved to be very problematic for most
applications. Implementation issues aside there are social problems
with using voice activation in many settings. In some ways using voice
activation is the same as having everybody within hearing looking over
your shoulder all the time.
There are very few 3D interfaces that are actually 3D, and I would go so
far as to state that there are none on the desktop. I have seen some
that use 3D idioms such as "flying" through your file system, SGI had
one such one a few years ago, but there is none of the affordances of 3D
are available unless you can behave in 3D. So long as you can not reach
through your monitor screen there is almost no advantage to 3D and there
are many drawbacks.
A good deal has been written on the design of user interfaces and many
authors, like yourself, see large deficiencies of the current set that
are out there. I would read and build on what others have understood
and never start a design with "Wouldn't it be cool if....."
Paul
Paul Brinkley
<Pa...@scenicsoft.com> wrote:
>> From: Vis Mike [mailto:visionary25@_nospam_hotmail.com]
>> > > What about
>> > >3D interfaces? Voice driven?
>
>Voice driven interfaces have proved to be very problematic for most
>applications. Implementation issues aside there are social problems
>with using voice activation in many settings. In some ways using voice
>activation is the same as having everybody within hearing looking over
>your shoulder all the time.
Good points. There are few cases when I'd like a voice-driven
interface myself, and in those cases, it'd be really, really handy.
1. Hands are busy doing something else, like chopping vegetables for
dinner, or operating machinery that also requires computer interaction
(the scenario in my mind is a high-tech auto garage, or a machine
shop).
2. I need the computer to do something relatively simple from across
the room. In essence, anything that would require a remote control
right now, like a TV or VCR, could be considered a candidate for a
VDI. Or, I want to dictate a reminder to myself to do something, but
I'm in the shower, or sick in bed with the flu.
3. Use through a phone. E.g., I'm stuck in traffic, and I'd like my
VCR to tape a show, or I need to check my email.
These are certainly not currently considered "normal use", but then
many HF experts would claim that current models of computer use are
abnormal by human standards. :-) Also, it might be possible to solve
the problems above using something other than a VDI.
>There are very few 3D interfaces that are actually 3D, and I would go so
>far as to state that there are none on the desktop. I have seen some
>that use 3D idioms such as "flying" through your file system, SGI had
>one such one a few years ago, but there is none of the affordances of 3D
>are available unless you can behave in 3D. So long as you can not reach
>through your monitor screen there is almost no advantage to 3D and there
>are many drawbacks.
In other words, the hardware is not yet up to the task. (Data gloves,
anyone?)
>A good deal has been written on the design of user interfaces and many
>authors, like yourself, see large deficiencies of the current set that
>are out there. I would read and build on what others have understood
>and never start a design with "Wouldn't it be cool if....."
I've probably committed that sin in the past. I haven't read much in
HF other than Norman's POET (or DOET) and a few scattered websites
(AskTog, Nielsen's site, et al.). I tend to start a design with "What
would make this job possible/faster/easier..."
Vis Mike
workspace, and toolbars. Instead of having windows floating around
everywhere, it would be nice to have a shelves and tabs window manager. You
can manually do this in BeOS - simply slide the titlebar-tab along the top
of the window and you can overlap a few windows. Then, all you need to do
is click on the titlebar-tab to bring the window to the front. I've done
this in a development environment, with windows for code, debugging,
console, toolboxes, etc.
For the 'popup calculator' example, imagine this: You are working on a
document in a text editor, and want to insert a calculation.
1. Click on the calculator button on the toolbar, the calc pops up next to
the button
2. Do your calculations
3. Click paste, and it inserts the result into your document
4. Click anywhere else, or the calc button again and it disappears
Is there anything like this in X-Desk? It would also be very useful for
inserting symbols, into any application because it is a global tool.
Yes, semi-transparent windows were designed to be aestheticly pleasing, but
I believe a little bit of transparency helps portray it as a temporary
dialog.
Mike
"Paul Schwartz" <Pa...@scenicsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3849BAFD79A7D411A1C...@exchange-us.scenicsoft.com...
Vis Mike
only works for IE 5+.
Hover the mouse over the 'Calculator' menu, and the calculator will pop up
like a menu.
http://www.geocities.com/mike_ekim/projects/new-interface/popup-applet.html
Mike
"Paul Schwartz" <Pa...@scenicsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3849BAFD79A7D411A1C...@exchange-us.scenicsoft.com...
>
>
Sharon Curtis
Paul Schwartz <Pa...@scenicsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vis Mike [mailto:visionary25@_nospam_hotmail.com]
>> The transparent overlapping comes from MaxOS X. It ataches
>> it's dialog
>> propmts to the owner window, and is semi-transparent. Apple
>> would be happy
>> to hear that you like it.
>
>The transparent windows are the victory of industrial designers and
>marketing over usability. Nice eye candy but the text in the dialog
>becomes unreadable if it happens to pop-up over the wrong background.
I agree. No point in having unusable eye candy. One would hope that
designers wouldn't use this if they couldn't ensure it was always
going to be readable, but I guess I am being naive here!
Michael Valentiner=Branth
> If so, the answer lies in Windows' (and Linux's) ability to use multiple
> monitors. For more information www.realtimesoft.com/multimon
> Breifly a $20 graphics card and a $100 monitor allows me to place all of my
> tasks on screen with none of them overlapping.
>
Are (acceptable!) graphic-cards and monitors in uk really that cheap?
In my case (a virtual screen 4 times the size of my real screen), I would
need 3 additional graphic cards and monitors; and a larger, more robust
table; not to forget the additional power consumption.
And 4 times 17inch-size still is not enough.<g>
Michael
--
The system-user is concerned with operational effectiveness, not with the
designer's problems of creating the system. (W.E.Woodson)
Simon Turner
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 20:34:29 +0100, Terry Eden wrote:
>
>> If so, the answer lies in Windows' (and Linux's) ability to use multiple
>> monitors. For more information www.realtimesoft.com/multimon
>> Breifly a $20 graphics card and a $100 monitor allows me to place all of
>> my tasks on screen with none of them overlapping.
>>
> Are (acceptable!) graphic-cards and monitors in uk really that cheap?
>
> In my case (a virtual screen 4 times the size of my real screen), I would
> need 3 additional graphic cards and monitors; and a larger, more robust
> table; not to forget the additional power consumption.
>
> And 4 times 17inch-size still is not enough.<g>
I tend to use about 6 distinct workspaces at work, and that many
monitors would probably crush my desk.
The answer doesn't lay in the ability to use multiple monitors,
but in the ability to use multiple workspaces!
>
> Michael
>
Bradley K. Sherman
Simon Turner <simon....@riversoft.com> wrote:
>I tend to use about 6 distinct workspaces at work, and that many
>monitors would probably crush my desk.
I think six integrated flat screens would work. A regular laptop
is about 3kg, while my 21" Sun monitor weighs about 30kg. The
issue would be how to set focus for the active screen (I have
two keyboards now, I don't want four more). I often type into one
window while looking at another, or off-screen, so head-mounted
and other eye-tracking devices are right out. Tapping
a pressure-sensive pad or just using the good old mouse to click
or hot-focus would seem to be superior.
Ideally the screens would float at about eye-level in a semi-circular,
or parabolic shape. I'm not sure if they should be arrayed in more
than one level, I think not. The desk should reflect the same
arrangement with a keyboard/mouse tray that is on a track to allow
some lateral movement.
--bks
Michael Valentiner=Branth
> I think six integrated flat screens would work.
>
But why should one use that much hardware?
> The issue would be how to set focus for the active screen
>
Exactly. And not only the focus in your system, but also *your* focus to
the active screen. *You* can only focus one screen at a time (or step
back and see all your screens, but no details on them.)
So, IMHO it is easier to switch between workspaces or move mithin a
virtual screen.
And, it is not so hardware consuming.
Michael Valentiner=Branth
> I tend to use about 6 distinct workspaces at work, and that many
> monitors would probably crush my desk.
>
> The answer doesn't lay in the ability to use multiple monitors,
> but in the ability to use multiple workspaces!
>
I prefer a virtual screen to multiple desktops. In a virtual screen I
can
- spread one application over more than the real screen size. For
example my Delphi environment,
- see parts of two windows at a time,
- drag-n-drop between two windows in different regions.
If only the drivers would support it better! For example limit the size
of maximized windows to the size of the real screen.
Fluid
So you haven't seen the Palette Well in Photoshop 6, which behaves in
essentially the same fashion?
Not to denigrate your idea. I agree we should see it more places.
In article <h0Ls7.40$wZ1....@news.pacbell.net>, Vis Mike
<visionary25@_nospam_hotmail.com> wrote, among other things,:
Dick Penn
calendar popup, in any number of programs....