11 ms·

Our interfaces have lost their senses

370 points by me_smith 2y ago

soared 2y ago
There is a certain beauty of a webpage about user interfaces failing to load under strains from traffic volume. I couldn’t read much, but it would appear the best interfaces are the ones that work!
- aftbit 2y ago
  It loaded for me!
- yuliyp 2y ago
  It's probably because there is 90MB of unoptimized images on it.
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    Our new applicant for user interface guru has tripped on the first hurdle.
vkazanov 2y ago
This is a nice and visually pleasing manifesto. It is also hard to read.
- smitty1e 2y ago
  It was a pleasant break from the Mark 1, Modification 0 top-to-bottom web page, yes.
- mvdtnz 2y ago
  Hence the whole point of the article. We've reduced our UIs down to minimal friction ("easy to read") where, like creating a drawing, a higher friction ("harder") interface could well be more rewarding.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    I think it ends up proving the opposite. I did not feel like scrolling through all this pointless flair was in any sense rewarding. Quite the opposite, it's distracting enough to be annoying, so if anything, it feels like a counterpoint to the message in the text.
- mint2 2y ago
  also ironic - an article lamenting the way things are so flat and lacking physicality yet it’s jam packed with AI generated art
crazygringo 2y ago
This is a beautifully designed and illustrated page. But I couldn't disagree more with the premise. It complains that computers have been reduced from physical, tactile, hulking mainframes to neutered generic text interfaces, but I've watched the opposite happen over the past two decades. My phone is physical -- I swipe, pinch, and tap. It buzzes and dings and flashes. I squeeze my AirPods, I pay by holding my wrist up to a sensor, I tilt my iPad to play video games and draw on it with a pencil. Everything the article complains about, we've already solved. All of its suggestions, we already have. It wants "multi-modality" but we already have that too -- I can change the volume on my iPhone with physical buttons while I dictate. I can listen to music while I scroll. Our interfaces haven't lost their senses. Our interfaces have more senses than they've ever had before.
- PaulKeeble 2y ago
  There has been a number of attempts at making screens create tactile bumps and provide direct feedback which haven't yet worked which might improve physical interaction somewhat so we can get buttons and switches and knobs in a programmable way that isn't hardware specific to the task but we aren't there yet.
  - intrasight 2y ago
    Having no tactile interaction on computers saddens me very much. A couple decades ago, a colleague and I did a mind experiment on pixel-level tactile interfaces and imagining all the affordances that would provide - including of course for those that are sight challenged. All humans have a very very strong tactile aspect to their neurophysiology. Cortical Man shows that clearly. It would be sad if in 10,000 years we evolved to lose our tactile senses. I'll also add the buttons and switches and knobs are not all that tactile. They are a modern human creation.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      This, by the way, is partly why MacBook trackpads are so good - they have excellent haptic feedback for clicking that is superior to most (all?) physical trackpads. > buttons and switches and knobs are not all that tactile But they are, though. You can touch them without pressing, and, once you get used to them, they have different textures.
skrebbel 2y ago
I'm very impressed with the visuals here! Wow
- pona-a 2y ago
  It seems from the finer details, a lot might be AI generated, which at least to me would defeat the message about how our interfaces are less human. I'd be very glad to be proven wrong, and it's just the style.
  - taurath 2y ago
    As an evocation of adding "texture" to a "flat" experience, I think it does the job quite well, and is pleasant to look at - it feels well thought out and crafted to me!
    - pona-a 2y ago
      It just feels strange to muse about the embodied experience of drawing while having a computer spit out a semantic average of your general idea with little creative control.
- throwaway150 2y ago
  Aren't these visuals just AI generated fillers?
- daemonologist 2y ago
  I agree with other commenters that it seems AI generated (patterns/noise in fine detail, nonsense text, and inconsistency in style, particularly in the faces of the "dolls"). The first few images are impressively well curated and consistent though. I think the "rotoscoping"/"compositing" helps quite a bit to make it feel more cohesive and intentional - certainly it's a step above the usual "blog post header image" slop.
  - godelski 2y ago
    Yeah I'm having a hard time telling as well, but I think it is AI. Following threads has a surprising amount of consistency and coherency that we don't commonly see in AI art. I would expect AI art to be VERY bad at felt imagery. The image here[0] looks too consistent though there are definitely parts that are edited. And here[1] the blurring is very consistent (other than the stitching you cans see when scrolling). Although this one[2] really makes it look like the text on the computer screen is AI generated. A lot looks good but the coat on the main character flattens out. But here is a really good one where you can see the AI errors pop up if you look at the bow[3] (the blurring is also inconsistent here) There are definitely issues that pop up but I find it weird people are calling this "slop". "Slop" is that bullshit people are posting where they take the first output and don't pay attention to details. Clearly this person played around with the parameters a lot. The problem with AI Art is taking the art out of the art (and the data theft). But if you're using AI, iterating, focusing on details, then I'm not sure how it is different than any other medium where you do the same things. Art takes time and makes you feel. Considering how it added to the message here and how clear it is that this person put time into the details, I find it hard to call it "slop" just because AI was used. [0] https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/our-interfaces-have-lost-their-senses/tech4.png https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/our-interfaces-have-lost-t... [1] https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/our-interfaces-have-lost-their-senses/tech5.png https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/our-interfaces-have-lost-t... [2] https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/our-interfaces-have-lost-their-senses/images.png https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/our-interfaces-have-lost-t... [3] https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/our-interfaces-have-lost-their-senses/hearing.png https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/our-interfaces-have-lost-t...
pazimzadeh 2y ago
Hm, no reference to Bret Victor? https://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign/ https://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDes...
- ccorcos 1y ago
  exactly my thought! his talk "humane representation of thought" as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K89W4WyiRFI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K89W4WyiRFI If you like this article, you should definitely check out Bret Victor's work on this.
dantheta 2y ago
It's a lovely set of sentiments. I think another aspect of UI that has been lost is discoverability - finding out how to do things in a new interface seems harder than it used to be when there was one app-level menu bar. Too many things are hidden in context menus, found only by right-clicking or long pressing on just the right spot. A set of multi-modal interfaces might just make discoverability even worse.
- andrepd 2y ago
  But don't you love buttons with ad-hoc icons and no text and no explanation of what they do and they don't even have any visual indication that they're buttons? :)
  - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
    In the late 1990s and early 2000s, we used to call that "mystery meat navigation." Now, we call it user interface design.
    - robinsonb5 2y ago
      Ah yes, often found within a Fisher Price user interface, wherein standard UI controls are thrown out in favour of a custom "artistic" and often unintentionally infantile interface. Good thing that never happens in today's world...
- layer8 2y ago
  Consistent use of context menus would actually be a boon, because it’s a single mechanism that can be applied everywhere, and just opening a context menu is a benign interaction (no fear of triggering some undesired action). The disappearance of context menus is one thing that I lament about modern UIs (another is tooltips). There may be “share” or “ellipsis” or long-press menus, but they are highly inconsistent, and you never know where to look for desired or possible actions.
appleorchard46 2y ago
Fantastic design. Normally pages with funky scrolling behavior and boxes whizzing all over the place and all that are annoying but it really works here. Not to mention the adorable visuals. That being said I think it misses what made the old physical interfaces so appealing and useful. It's not that there's something inherently superior about multimodality; it's that physical interfaces are permanent, with defined edges and definite shape. Unlike screens you know exactly what's where, building muscle memory every time you use it. There are no hidden menus or moving parts. Multimodality - such as being able to see the position of a slider at a glance, or feel its position by touch - is useful because it reinforces the absolute existence of a control and its state across multiple senses. Interfaces using voice and gestures like suggested are the exact opposite of that, because each point of interaction becomes even more disconnected and vague.
- thfuran 2y ago
  >Fantastic design. Normally pages with funky scrolling behavior and boxes whizzing all over the place and all that are annoying but it really works here. Not to mention the adorable visuals. On my phone, there are several pictures that erratically resize themselves whole scrolling past, and that card stack section completely flips out when scrolling back up. Aside from being very visually noisy, I'd say it just doesn't work.
josheva 2y ago
I got agitated looking through that due to the excess of flourishes. Fancy elements should punctuate focal points. If there's too many, the focus is lost.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
gavinhoward 2y ago
Yes and no. Yes, flat design is too flat, and AI chat is too devoid of friction. But mobile and tablets are better at certain things [1], and we shouldn't get rid of that either. I saw somewhere (Bret Victor?) that tools have two parts: the part that fits the problem, and the part that fits the human. The example was a hammer; the head fit the problem (the nail), and the handle fit the human (the hand). Notably, the two parts must fit their respective things, but they also have to work together. That is what we should be doing: creating harmonious tools that fit the problem and the human. What that looks like will be different for every tool. Our interfaces currently have two problems: * Because they can have any appearance, appearance gets more attention than being a good tool. Example: flat design (good appearance) overriding skeuomorphic design (human fit). * No one wants to redesign everything, so we all reuse the same base stuff (Electron, Qt, etc.) even if the result won't fit (one or both ends) or harmonize. I would love to fix both of those problems, but because people are lazy, it essentially means creating a GUI framework that is flexible enough to fit almost any problem and any human (accessibility included) while making sure that flexibility does not destroy harmony. While I am working on that, it is a tall order, and I am almost certain I will not succeed. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43350339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43350339
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  > AI chat is too devoid of friction. You want an AI that argues with you?
  - gavinhoward 2y ago
    I don't want AI at all, but please read the article to understand what I mean by "friction."
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      > Compare the feeling of doomscrolling to kneading dough, playing an instrument, sketching... these take effort, but they're also deeply satisfying. When you strip away too much friction, meaning and satisfaction go with it. Kneading dough sucks if you do it a lot. It's monotonous and tiring. That's why frequent bakers use mixers with bread hooks. Instruments are designed to be as friction-free as possible, given physical constraints. Friction makes expression more difficult. A violin is the most expressive because it has the least "friction" of valves and hammers and buttons getting in the way. Sketching similarly is low-friction. That's why it's so much easier than oil painting. You can express yourself hundreds of times more easily, which is why oil painters start with tons of preparatory sketches. I fundamentally disagree with the premise that friction is desirable. It's not.
Terr_ 2y ago
Disagree: Our malaise is not boredom from simplicity, but fatigue from inconsistency. "Flat" interfaces aren't bad because they lack an ineffable whimsy of embodied human experience, they're bad because they threw out the baby the bathwater, tossing decades of conventions and hard-learned accessibility lessons in the name of supporting a touchscreen. Compared to 20 years ago, everyone is shipping half-website-half-desktop abominations (e.g. with Electron[0]) and reinventing UX wheels. Too many apps/sites impose "their own look" instead of following what the user has already learned. [1] Often users must guess whether certain things are even clickable, how a certain toggle looks when enabled, whether certain settings are a single-select option or a multi-select tickbox... And memorize those rules with per-app or per-website granularity. > You can talk while clicking, listen while reading, look at an image while spinning a knob, gesture while talking. Those are all things people do after "make computer do what I want" has become automatic. Now when--for example--trying to find the 21st item they just added inside a list that is vertically limited to 20 and the custom grey-on-grey scrollbar is always hidden unless you've currently hovering a mouse exactly in the right 5-pixel-wide strip between two columns of the interface. [0] A sample listing of software readers may be familiar with: https://www.electronjs.org/apps https://www.electronjs.org/apps [1] That may be due to deliberate "remember us" branding, whatever was fastest-to-ship, because things to look new to get somebody a promotion, because they want to create a switching-cost so current users feel bad trying to use a competitor's product... Or because someone like the blog-poster has misguidedly tried to make a "richer experience."
- skydhash 2y ago
  I'm currently using Gnome and their UI may not be the most beautiful or complete, but they've gone all in on consistency. I don't mind software like Blender, Audacity, and others having their own design systems as their domain is much more complicated. But a lot of software only needs a few controls and the native ones should suffice.
  - cosmic_cheese 2y ago
    I don’t think it’s a coincedence that out of the Linux DE ecosystems, GNOME has probably the biggest presence in little third-party utilities made to match the environment. The DE itself is quite flawed in my opinion, but its consistent and opinionated design system catches the eyes of devs and would-be devs and motivates them to build things. A similar effect I believe is what’s been largely responsible for the healthy botique indieware scene on macOS too.
throwaway150 2y ago
It might just be me but I find the thesis of the article to be very confusing. > but we should have made typing feel like painting. Maybe painting should should feel like painting and typing should feel like typing? I don't know about others but when I type, I just want to type, as efficiently and quickly as possible. I definitely don't want typing to feel like painting. By the way, loading 92 MB of images to make me read 6 KB of text is brutal!
- userbinator 2y ago
  By the way, loading 92 MB of images to make me read 6 KB of text is brutal That's what I get for wanting to read the article before the comments here. Waited minutes only to be greeted with mediocre AI-generated images too, to add insult to injury.
nomdep 2y ago
These beautiful images (AI generated, perhaps?) make for a great showcase, but I find myself disagreeing with almost everything here - except for the core desire to make interfaces more engaging. The real challenge is that UI designs are ultimately constrained by their hardware. This means major interface innovations often limit where the software can actually be used. Take tablet-optimized apps, for instance. They can fully embrace touch interaction, but this leaves desktop-only users completely out of the loop. So unfortunately, truly revolutionary interfaces tend to require equally revolutionary hardware to match .
- godelski 2y ago
  Did we read the same article? > The real challenge is that UI designs are ultimately constrained by their hardware. Sure, but part of designing a product is recognizing this and the author seems to be making that point. Surely they aren't saying you should have sound and haptics in devices with no speakers or motors. Certainly I think the author would argue that cars should have physical knobs and not touch screens. The problem is what you mean by "UI" UI means "User Interface". It does not mean "Software defined User Interface". User interfaces are composed of one or more layers, including a human–machine interface (HMI) that typically interfaces machines with physical input hardware (such as keyboards, mice, or game pads) and output hardware (such as computer monitors, speakers, and printers). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_interface
- schneems 2y ago
  > truly revolutionary interfaces tend to require equally revolutionary hardware to match The prime examples given were about mixing and matching capabilities that most hardware already has. Most computers and tablets already have a microphone and some kind of tactile input (touch or keyboard). So, I wouldn’t say that you’re wrong in tying UI innovations to hardware, but it feels like perhaps you didn’t read the whole article. We can innovate by remixing existing functionality without having to wait on entirely new paradigms being adopted and universally available.
- do_not_redeem 2y ago
  Definitely AI generated. https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/our-interfaces-have-lost-their-senses/typing2.png https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/our-interfaces-have-lost-t... What are those floating letters? Does the keyboard have 3 rows of keys, or 4? What's going on near where the esc key should be? Why does the screen look like the back of a park bench?
_wire_ 2y ago
When you think that your primary relationship with a machine is "telling it what you want" you've already taken the first step to an inevitable hell.
haswell 2y ago
I was reflecting on something similar to this this while photographing the recent lunar eclipse with a Fujifilm X-T5, a highly tactile camera that is just an absolute joy to operate. I was on my roof in the dark at 1:30 in the morning in the cold and wind. I'm tired, can't really see much, but still need to actively work with the camera's controls. Thankfully, the X-T5 is covered in physical dials, switches and buttons. Without looking at the camera's screen, I can quickly change shooting modes and the majority of the settings I care about and be confident that I changed the right things. The same cannot be said about a large number of modern cameras, which opt instead for a more digital approach. In terms of modern "computing" devices, my cameras are an absolute joy to use compared to most of my other hardware. So much so that I've recently been finding myself looking to recreate this tactile experience on my general purpose computers. I've been looking at weird bespoke dials, switches and various input hardware to make processing the photos (among other tasks) feel more tactile.
- rambambram 2y ago
  >Thankfully, the X-T5 is covered in physical dials, switches and buttons. Without looking at the camera's screen, I can quickly change shooting modes and the majority of the settings I care about and be confident that I changed the right things. > The same cannot be said about a large number of modern cameras, which opt instead for a more digital approach. I feel you. I can only imagine the horror of looking at a small but very bright touch screen in the dark, eyes adjusting, etc. > So much so that I've recently been finding myself looking to recreate this tactile experience on my general purpose computers. I've been looking at weird bespoke dials, switches and various input hardware to make processing the photos (among other tasks) feel more tactile. A physical knob on my desk to precisely control the volume of the speakers is a very handy one for me. Don't know how to live without that. Especially because one big yank on the knob mutes unsuspected annoying sounds.
mac-mc 2y ago
There is a niceness to more kinesthetic input devices, to dials, knobs, and pens. I'm always experimenting with trying more. The unfortunate thing is they tend to be niche and unsupported. Try finding a nice dial to control things like zoom or volume, it's harder than it should be and costs over $100 or is not a great experience.
greybox 2y ago
I very much liked this: > We made painting feel like typing, but we should have made typing feel like painting. I think this quote is worth ruminating for a few while. It reminds me of some Bret Victor talks.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
kaycebasques 2y ago
A Brief Rant On The Future Of Interaction Design [1] was great. The comments in this thread are my first time hearing about that blog post. Send me more blogs/books/videos/etc. like that, please. [1] https://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign/ https://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDes...
- wiley1454 2y ago
  See "Inventing on principle" also by Bret Victor on YouTube. Great watch.
  - kaycebasques 2y ago
    Thanks Inventing On Principle: https://youtu.be/PUv66718DII https://youtu.be/PUv66718DII A couple other Bret Victor resources I gleaned from other comments: Humane Representation Of Thought: https://youtu.be/agOdP2Bmieg https://youtu.be/agOdP2Bmieg Dynamicland: https://dynamicland.org/ https://dynamicland.org/
fitsumbelay 2y ago
I'm imagining this post as a 360 VR experience with on demand narration and heavy on ASMR. I'd like to spend time in that world quite frankly
mnky9800n 2y ago
It lost me when it encourages websites to have sound.
hoseja 2y ago
Is this completely AI-generated; the illustrations, the website, and the text too? I'd suspect so.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
This is a beautiful article with great visuals, like many other comments have said. But the actual point being made is worth paying attention to: > Computers used to be physical beasts. > We programmed them by punching cards, plugging in wires, and flipping switches. Programmers walked among banks of switches and cables, physically choreographing their logic. Being on a computer used to be a full-body experience. It’s about working in a physical environment and not just isolated digital interfaces, which is how many different jobs work today (not just programmers). The personal touch is lost. But I’m not sure it can be fixed. There is no commercial justification for making using computers or phones “enjoyable”.
- intrasight 2y ago
  Computers were never "physical beasts" in terms of their connection to the human senses. If anything computers are vastly improving in the way they interact with the human senses. I'm an optimist. I think we're in the early days and in 100 years the current computers will seem terribly primitive from a sensory standpoint.
- kaycebasques 2y ago
  I can get behind the vision of computers being more physical. That's a potent vision. The claim that current technology is a regression compared to past technology is hard-to-swallow, though. I have a family friend who took CS classes in the early 70s. Punching out 0s and 1s, waiting a day to have a chance to run the program, etc. I do not get the impression that she views this as the pinnacle of enjoyable HCI. My mom also has a funny story about visiting this friend during the chaos of finals. The friend showed my mom the computer area. My mom vividly remembers seeing students frantically trying to get their final programs done and punch card papers being scattered EVERYWHERE. Back to the main point, I don't see a lot of extensive, enjoyable physical interaction in this past paradigm. Punching holes in paper would probably get tedious. Carrying the stack of papers over to the mainframe operators would also get annoying. And then you read out the results of your program one page at a time on physical paper. Sure, it's more physical, but is this really more enjoyable in the long run? So exactly what point in the past is the author reminiscing about?
graypegg 2y ago
Maybe if I can make a counter-point: a lot of these patterns are common place right now! And much more so than whatever golden era we want to imagine existed long ago. - Gestures in a lot of applications have made things more confusing by hiding functionality that you now need to stumble into to discover. - Sound cues are used all over the place. Anyone who's ever worked in a kitchen hears the godforsaken ubereats alert sound in their nightmares. - About ten minutes ago, I got startled by my phone deciding that the "you should stand up" vibration pattern should be three long BZZZZ-es... amplified by it sitting on my hollow-sounding printer. - If another fucking god damn website asks me to chat with an AI agent in it's stupid little floating chat bubble, only appearing AFTER I interact with the page so it's allowed to also make an annoying "chirp!" sound, I WILL become a chicken farmer in some remote forest eating only twigs, berries, and improperly-raised chicken eggs. All of these things annoy me, and actively make me hate computers. A silent glass brick can go in my pocket because I know it's not going to bother me or beg me to talk outloud to it. If it was some sensory-overload distraction machine (which, by default, it is) it would find itself over the side of a bridge rather quickly. It's getting in the way of my human experience! The one where I'm the human, not the computer!!
- hinkley 2y ago
  When iOS had a couple gestures to get away from needing physical buttons, things were pretty good. However once you realize that you can add new gestures without having to defend adding a physical or screen real estate button, it takes a lot of discipline to avoid adding more. I like to think that Steve would have told most of their people to fuck off and we’d have one or two new gestures now, instead of twice as many. They would have found some other way.
  - whstl 2y ago
    Good points... For me personally a similar thing was when Ableton Live transitioned from having a more "direct" interface to having popup menus for absolutely everything, and it took time for me to adapt to it for live performances. To be fair I never really adapted and just moved to something else. Rather than coming up with creative solutions like they did before they just kept adding things to those popup menus. The app went from magic (by enabling me to perform live effortlessly) to frankly difficult (by having the interface become difficult to memorize and getting in my way). Coincidentally was when they also started racking up bugs so much that they needed a couple years without new features just to clean up bugs.
kaycebasques 2y ago
In The Great Flattening section of the post the author literally argues that the way we interacted with computers back in the 50s-70s was better because it was more of a full-body experience. That's a silly argument to make. As far as the status quo HCI paradigm goes, we've obviously made a lot of progress over the last 50 years. However, I think the post is striking a chord because it's pointing to a deeper truth: after 70 years, we are still only scratching the surface of all the ways that humans and computers can potentially interact with each other.
jazzcomputer 2y ago
This feels like a article against the fur trade that was written on a rare animal skin.
wiley1454 2y ago
Reminds me of Bret Victor's article,"A brief rant on the future of Interaction design". https://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign/ https://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDes... I guess one on the reasons why he's building Dynamic Land.
skadamat 2y ago
Obligatory & highly relevant: Humane Representation of Thought by Bret Victor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agOdP2Bmieg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agOdP2Bmieg And of course: https://dynamicland.org/ https://dynamicland.org/
ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
Seems to be a call for the return of skeuomorphic UI, and combining it with things like haptics (actually, fairly classic). TBH, I'm not especially against the idea, except that, if you make something look like a real-world object, it's important to make it behave like one. There's a hell of a lot of digital interfaces (not just touchscreen stuff -digital dials and switches can also have the issue), that look like they should behave a certain way, but don't actually do it.
jevndev 2y ago
[dead]
__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
I think of this trend every time I try to connect my bluetooth headphones to a third device. They'll tolerate two just fine but if you want a third you have to puzzle out which other two they're connected to, go find one of them and disable bluetooth on it. Then you can power cycle the headphones and your third device will now be your second. I want some kind of magical piece of string which I can touch to both devices as a way of saying: "you two, communicate now" And then later, to break the spell, I'll just touch the ends of that string together. I don't want to have to dig through settings, I want to manipulate physical objects around me.
- Dwedit 2y ago
  What we really need is a device switcher on the headphones. Something like a simple 4-position switch, to pair with device A, B, C, or D.
- ianburrell 2y ago
  What would make sense is tapping the devices together, and using NFC to pair them. The hard part would be figuring which parts of devices to tap together so it would probably be more like rubbing them together to find sweet spot. Also, it needs to be seamless and automatic, not involve downloading any apps.
getnormality 2y ago
This kinda reminds me of how, in the wake of the smartphone, for a few years every company thought they needed to boost engagement with their product. Even if their product was something in the background that people are happiest not thinking about. Do we need to engage with our oil filters? With our clothes washers? With our insurance policies? Some things are best if they stay simple, efficient, reliable stable, and quiet. Not needy, demanding, high-maintenance, attempting to ensnare us through as many of our senses as they can get their claws on. Some things are an experience, other things should just be quietly useful. Do we ask ourselves which we should be, before adding another colorful icon, with a red dot in the corner, with a number inside the red dot, to the poor user's screen? And I hate haptic feedback. I keep my phone on silent 24/7 just to not feel my phone creepily zapping my fingers, and for some reason silent mode is the only way I can accomplish that.
- rglover 2y ago
  This is a true gem of a thought that every designer should consider at the outset of a project: "Some things are an experience, other things should just be quietly useful."
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  It didn't help that bigger companies were hungry to integrate vertically and build the biggest moat they could, to the point it became a "eat as much as you can" landscape. When Steve Jobs was saying DropBox is not a product but a feature, it surely didn't reassure DropBox that they could keep making simple and transparent services that the platform owner will gently play nice with.
Aeolun 2y ago
There is a reason we are using a keyboard to interface with this stuff. We’ve been writing to think for millennia. Using a keyboard to do it is just marginally more efficient and less of a strain on your wrist.
underdeserver 2y ago
This feels Bret Victor-esque. The problem I see here is the more senses you engage - really, the more coordination you demand of the user, the harder it is to make the interface feel intuitive.
makeitdouble 2y ago
> Compare the feeling of doomscrolling to kneading dough, playing an instrument, sketching The whole article felt disconnected from reality to me, and this might be the core part that underlies it all. The author seems to be hostile enough to smartphones that they don't really see much more physical using them has got. In particular in the last decade or so we got rid of so much of frequent polling to see if something needs attention or not, and notification management has become leaps and bounds better, at least on android. But the author's focus seems to be more on social media ? And they also idealize what people were doing before smartphones. People scrolling Twitter rage thread today would probably not have been sketching birds in their backyard. Some perhaps, most surely not. TV was already widely popular for a reason.
ghc 2y ago
I understand the sentiment, but I believe Brad Woods explained it better in https://garden.bradwoods.io/notes/design/juice https://garden.bradwoods.io/notes/design/juice . Flat design is much more of a blank canvas than old desktop UI toolkits were, but companies are loathe to invest in "Juice" because it requires a level of attention to detail that works against fast iteration.
protocolture 2y ago
I think what UI needs is talented people to come up with new ideas. When it was purely utilitarian only a minority of people could use it. When it became tailored to a wider audience it was bland and uninspired. The further it goes towards art\skeumorphism the more niche the userbase. The further it goes towards corporate capture the angrier the userbase. I think we shouldn't pretend like there's a big obvious solution that everyone else has ignored. Shit I remember reading the Windows 8 designer blogs. Microsoft did serious testing to come up with the most hated interface in their history. From an academic perspective they did a lot of things correctly. Still shit. In fact Microsoft have form here, I remember being one of the few people who enjoyed the original Xbox controller, which was fairly rapidly redesigned due to market angst.
nine_k 2y ago
First of all: this is utterly beautiful, thank you! There is an important thing about computer interfaces which does not hold for playing an instrument, or woodworking, or dancing, etc: it very often needs to be done privately and discreetly enough, both to avoid publicizing your private affairs, and to allow several people work near each other, or work near people who are not working, without bothering them. This significantly limits the use of the body language (finger gestures are OK; gestures, so-so; poses, no), sound (listening is OK provided headphones, speaking or singing, much less so), haptics (some force feedback is OK, noisy vibration and clicking, less so). This does not mean that all these things are useless! Not at all; audio feedback may be welcome, haptic feedback may be welcome, but both should be optional (e.g. in a game), unless sound is what you work with anyway (e.g. in a DAW). What I miss is the richness of erstwhile interfaces, with their colors, shapes, textures, pseudo-3D effects, the occasional skeumorphism. They gave so many clues, helpful hints that encouraged exploration, and provided large amounts of subtle feedback. Sadly, they were considered "noisy" and removed by æsthetics purists, likely the same people who designed the sharp, wrist-biting "clean" edges of certain Macbook models. This regress needs to be revested. Something has to be said about non-keyboard controls. They are few, and non-standard, with the exception of touchpad / touchscreen and mice. They allowed direct manipulation and gestures to flourish! But, unlike knobs, these cannot give reasonable haptic feedback. Musicians have all the best devices like that, and those who need such controls repurpose MIDI devices with their knobs and faders; GIMP, a raster graphics editor, even has a special MIDI device configuration section in settings. Another good source of haptic controls are mice with their wheels, and, more rare, game pads with joysticks. Neither is assumed to be connected to an average laptop though, which limits their use in interfaces, however optional.
laxk 2y ago
We can say whatever we want, but aesthetically the site just delivers. :)
j45 2y ago
Maybe interfaces are self-interested instead of interested in the outcomes of the user, which might not align with the creators of the interface.
peter_vukovic 2y ago
An article on user interfaces that is barely usable on a mobile phone due to scroll hijacking is hardly making a convincing point.
moribvndvs 2y ago
I think the article laments over a lack of something that interfaces have legitimately embraced for some time. Gestures, audio control, interactivity, visualizations, and so on are all things we’ve seen an increase in over the decades, not vise versa. Whether it’s done to a degree and in a manner that suits the author is another matter. That in itself leads to another rebuttal: As someone who is easily overwhelmed by their senses, simplicity and accessibility should be the priority. Surely, there are times when a rich interaction can be extremely useful (why just talk about physics when you can also let the reader interact with the concepts[0]). On the other hand, it’s easy to become flustered when someone imposes their artistic flair, conceptual model, or worse (when businesses weaponize interfaces against the user). I look at the author’s note organization mock up and I feel legitimate anxiety as it looks like little more than chaos on the screen. 0 - https://ciechanow.ski/airfoil/ https://ciechanow.ski/airfoil/
mollerhoj 2y ago
ironic how broken this site on my phone
throawayonthe 2y ago
[dead]
hackburg 2y ago
[dead]

370 points by me_smith 2y ago

There is a certain beauty of a webpage about user interfaces failing to load under strains from traffic volume. I couldn’t read much, but it would appear the best interfaces are the ones that work!

aftbit 2y ago
It loaded for me!
yuliyp 2y ago
It's probably because there is 90MB of unoptimized images on it.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  Our new applicant for user interface guru has tripped on the first hurdle.

vkazanov 2y ago

This is a nice and visually pleasing manifesto. It is also hard to read.

smitty1e 2y ago
It was a pleasant break from the Mark 1, Modification 0 top-to-bottom web page, yes.
mvdtnz 2y ago
Hence the whole point of the article. We've reduced our UIs down to minimal friction ("easy to read") where, like creating a drawing, a higher friction ("harder") interface could well be more rewarding.
- int_19h 2y ago
  I think it ends up proving the opposite. I did not feel like scrolling through all this pointless flair was in any sense rewarding. Quite the opposite, it's distracting enough to be annoying, so if anything, it feels like a counterpoint to the message in the text.
mint2 2y ago
also ironic - an article lamenting the way things are so flat and lacking physicality yet it’s jam packed with AI generated art

crazygringo 2y ago

This is a beautifully designed and illustrated page. But I couldn't disagree more with the premise. It complains that computers have been reduced from physical, tactile, hulking mainframes to neutered generic text interfaces, but I've watched the opposite happen over the past two decades. My phone is physical -- I swipe, pinch, and tap. It buzzes and dings and flashes. I squeeze my AirPods, I pay by holding my wrist up to a sensor, I tilt my iPad to play video games and draw on it with a pencil. Everything the article complains about, we've already solved. All of its suggestions, we already have. It wants "multi-modality" but we already have that too -- I can change the volume on my iPhone with physical buttons while I dictate. I can listen to music while I scroll. Our interfaces haven't lost their senses. Our interfaces have more senses than they've ever had before.

PaulKeeble 2y ago
There has been a number of attempts at making screens create tactile bumps and provide direct feedback which haven't yet worked which might improve physical interaction somewhat so we can get buttons and switches and knobs in a programmable way that isn't hardware specific to the task but we aren't there yet.
- intrasight 2y ago
  Having no tactile interaction on computers saddens me very much. A couple decades ago, a colleague and I did a mind experiment on pixel-level tactile interfaces and imagining all the affordances that would provide - including of course for those that are sight challenged. All humans have a very very strong tactile aspect to their neurophysiology. Cortical Man shows that clearly. It would be sad if in 10,000 years we evolved to lose our tactile senses. I'll also add the buttons and switches and knobs are not all that tactile. They are a modern human creation.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    This, by the way, is partly why MacBook trackpads are so good - they have excellent haptic feedback for clicking that is superior to most (all?) physical trackpads. > buttons and switches and knobs are not all that tactile But they are, though. You can touch them without pressing, and, once you get used to them, they have different textures.

skrebbel 2y ago

I'm very impressed with the visuals here! Wow

pona-a 2y ago
It seems from the finer details, a lot might be AI generated, which at least to me would defeat the message about how our interfaces are less human. I'd be very glad to be proven wrong, and it's just the style.
- taurath 2y ago
  As an evocation of adding "texture" to a "flat" experience, I think it does the job quite well, and is pleasant to look at - it feels well thought out and crafted to me!
  - pona-a 2y ago
    It just feels strange to muse about the embodied experience of drawing while having a computer spit out a semantic average of your general idea with little creative control.
throwaway150 2y ago
Aren't these visuals just AI generated fillers?
daemonologist 2y ago
I agree with other commenters that it seems AI generated (patterns/noise in fine detail, nonsense text, and inconsistency in style, particularly in the faces of the "dolls"). The first few images are impressively well curated and consistent though. I think the "rotoscoping"/"compositing" helps quite a bit to make it feel more cohesive and intentional - certainly it's a step above the usual "blog post header image" slop.
- godelski 2y ago
  Yeah I'm having a hard time telling as well, but I think it is AI. Following threads has a surprising amount of consistency and coherency that we don't commonly see in AI art. I would expect AI art to be VERY bad at felt imagery. The image here[0] looks too consistent though there are definitely parts that are edited. And here[1] the blurring is very consistent (other than the stitching you cans see when scrolling). Although this one[2] really makes it look like the text on the computer screen is AI generated. A lot looks good but the coat on the main character flattens out. But here is a really good one where you can see the AI errors pop up if you look at the bow[3] (the blurring is also inconsistent here) There are definitely issues that pop up but I find it weird people are calling this "slop". "Slop" is that bullshit people are posting where they take the first output and don't pay attention to details. Clearly this person played around with the parameters a lot. The problem with AI Art is taking the art out of the art (and the data theft). But if you're using AI, iterating, focusing on details, then I'm not sure how it is different than any other medium where you do the same things. Art takes time and makes you feel. Considering how it added to the message here and how clear it is that this person put time into the details, I find it hard to call it "slop" just because AI was used. [0] https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/our-interfaces-have-lost-their-senses/tech4.png https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/our-interfaces-have-lost-t... [1] https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/our-interfaces-have-lost-their-senses/tech5.png https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/our-interfaces-have-lost-t... [2] https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/our-interfaces-have-lost-their-senses/images.png https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/our-interfaces-have-lost-t... [3] https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/our-interfaces-have-lost-their-senses/hearing.png https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/our-interfaces-have-lost-t...

pazimzadeh 2y ago

Hm, no reference to Bret Victor? https://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign/ https://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDes...

ccorcos 1y ago
exactly my thought! his talk "humane representation of thought" as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K89W4WyiRFI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K89W4WyiRFI If you like this article, you should definitely check out Bret Victor's work on this.

dantheta 2y ago

It's a lovely set of sentiments. I think another aspect of UI that has been lost is discoverability - finding out how to do things in a new interface seems harder than it used to be when there was one app-level menu bar. Too many things are hidden in context menus, found only by right-clicking or long pressing on just the right spot. A set of multi-modal interfaces might just make discoverability even worse.

andrepd 2y ago
But don't you love buttons with ad-hoc icons and no text and no explanation of what they do and they don't even have any visual indication that they're buttons? :)
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  In the late 1990s and early 2000s, we used to call that "mystery meat navigation." Now, we call it user interface design.
  - robinsonb5 2y ago
    Ah yes, often found within a Fisher Price user interface, wherein standard UI controls are thrown out in favour of a custom "artistic" and often unintentionally infantile interface. Good thing that never happens in today's world...
layer8 2y ago
Consistent use of context menus would actually be a boon, because it’s a single mechanism that can be applied everywhere, and just opening a context menu is a benign interaction (no fear of triggering some undesired action). The disappearance of context menus is one thing that I lament about modern UIs (another is tooltips). There may be “share” or “ellipsis” or long-press menus, but they are highly inconsistent, and you never know where to look for desired or possible actions.

appleorchard46 2y ago

Fantastic design. Normally pages with funky scrolling behavior and boxes whizzing all over the place and all that are annoying but it really works here. Not to mention the adorable visuals. That being said I think it misses what made the old physical interfaces so appealing and useful. It's not that there's something inherently superior about multimodality; it's that physical interfaces are permanent, with defined edges and definite shape. Unlike screens you know exactly what's where, building muscle memory every time you use it. There are no hidden menus or moving parts. Multimodality - such as being able to see the position of a slider at a glance, or feel its position by touch - is useful because it reinforces the absolute existence of a control and its state across multiple senses. Interfaces using voice and gestures like suggested are the exact opposite of that, because each point of interaction becomes even more disconnected and vague.

thfuran 2y ago
>Fantastic design. Normally pages with funky scrolling behavior and boxes whizzing all over the place and all that are annoying but it really works here. Not to mention the adorable visuals. On my phone, there are several pictures that erratically resize themselves whole scrolling past, and that card stack section completely flips out when scrolling back up. Aside from being very visually noisy, I'd say it just doesn't work.

josheva 2y ago

I got agitated looking through that due to the excess of flourishes. Fancy elements should punctuate focal points. If there's too many, the focus is lost.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

gavinhoward 2y ago

Yes and no. Yes, flat design is too flat, and AI chat is too devoid of friction. But mobile and tablets are better at certain things [1], and we shouldn't get rid of that either. I saw somewhere (Bret Victor?) that tools have two parts: the part that fits the problem, and the part that fits the human. The example was a hammer; the head fit the problem (the nail), and the handle fit the human (the hand). Notably, the two parts must fit their respective things, but they also have to work together. That is what we should be doing: creating harmonious tools that fit the problem and the human. What that looks like will be different for every tool. Our interfaces currently have two problems: * Because they can have any appearance, appearance gets more attention than being a good tool. Example: flat design (good appearance) overriding skeuomorphic design (human fit). * No one wants to redesign everything, so we all reuse the same base stuff (Electron, Qt, etc.) even if the result won't fit (one or both ends) or harmonize. I would love to fix both of those problems, but because people are lazy, it essentially means creating a GUI framework that is flexible enough to fit almost any problem and any human (accessibility included) while making sure that flexibility does not destroy harmony. While I am working on that, it is a tall order, and I am almost certain I will not succeed. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43350339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43350339

SoftTalker 2y ago
> AI chat is too devoid of friction. You want an AI that argues with you?
- gavinhoward 2y ago
  I don't want AI at all, but please read the article to understand what I mean by "friction."
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    > Compare the feeling of doomscrolling to kneading dough, playing an instrument, sketching... these take effort, but they're also deeply satisfying. When you strip away too much friction, meaning and satisfaction go with it. Kneading dough sucks if you do it a lot. It's monotonous and tiring. That's why frequent bakers use mixers with bread hooks. Instruments are designed to be as friction-free as possible, given physical constraints. Friction makes expression more difficult. A violin is the most expressive because it has the least "friction" of valves and hammers and buttons getting in the way. Sketching similarly is low-friction. That's why it's so much easier than oil painting. You can express yourself hundreds of times more easily, which is why oil painters start with tons of preparatory sketches. I fundamentally disagree with the premise that friction is desirable. It's not.

Terr_ 2y ago

Disagree: Our malaise is not boredom from simplicity, but fatigue from inconsistency. "Flat" interfaces aren't bad because they lack an ineffable whimsy of embodied human experience, they're bad because they threw out the baby the bathwater, tossing decades of conventions and hard-learned accessibility lessons in the name of supporting a touchscreen. Compared to 20 years ago, everyone is shipping half-website-half-desktop abominations (e.g. with Electron[0]) and reinventing UX wheels. Too many apps/sites impose "their own look" instead of following what the user has already learned. [1] Often users must guess whether certain things are even clickable, how a certain toggle looks when enabled, whether certain settings are a single-select option or a multi-select tickbox... And memorize those rules with per-app or per-website granularity. > You can talk while clicking, listen while reading, look at an image while spinning a knob, gesture while talking. Those are all things people do after "make computer do what I want" has become automatic. Now when--for example--trying to find the 21st item they just added inside a list that is vertically limited to 20 and the custom grey-on-grey scrollbar is always hidden unless you've currently hovering a mouse exactly in the right 5-pixel-wide strip between two columns of the interface. [0] A sample listing of software readers may be familiar with: https://www.electronjs.org/apps https://www.electronjs.org/apps [1] That may be due to deliberate "remember us" branding, whatever was fastest-to-ship, because things to look new to get somebody a promotion, because they want to create a switching-cost so current users feel bad trying to use a competitor's product... Or because someone like the blog-poster has misguidedly tried to make a "richer experience."

skydhash 2y ago
I'm currently using Gnome and their UI may not be the most beautiful or complete, but they've gone all in on consistency. I don't mind software like Blender, Audacity, and others having their own design systems as their domain is much more complicated. But a lot of software only needs a few controls and the native ones should suffice.
- cosmic_cheese 2y ago
  I don’t think it’s a coincedence that out of the Linux DE ecosystems, GNOME has probably the biggest presence in little third-party utilities made to match the environment. The DE itself is quite flawed in my opinion, but its consistent and opinionated design system catches the eyes of devs and would-be devs and motivates them to build things. A similar effect I believe is what’s been largely responsible for the healthy botique indieware scene on macOS too.

throwaway150 2y ago

It might just be me but I find the thesis of the article to be very confusing. > but we should have made typing feel like painting. Maybe painting should should feel like painting and typing should feel like typing? I don't know about others but when I type, I just want to type, as efficiently and quickly as possible. I definitely don't want typing to feel like painting. By the way, loading 92 MB of images to make me read 6 KB of text is brutal!

userbinator 2y ago
By the way, loading 92 MB of images to make me read 6 KB of text is brutal That's what I get for wanting to read the article before the comments here. Waited minutes only to be greeted with mediocre AI-generated images too, to add insult to injury.

nomdep 2y ago

These beautiful images (AI generated, perhaps?) make for a great showcase, but I find myself disagreeing with almost everything here - except for the core desire to make interfaces more engaging. The real challenge is that UI designs are ultimately constrained by their hardware. This means major interface innovations often limit where the software can actually be used. Take tablet-optimized apps, for instance. They can fully embrace touch interaction, but this leaves desktop-only users completely out of the loop. So unfortunately, truly revolutionary interfaces tend to require equally revolutionary hardware to match .

godelski 2y ago
Did we read the same article? > The real challenge is that UI designs are ultimately constrained by their hardware. Sure, but part of designing a product is recognizing this and the author seems to be making that point. Surely they aren't saying you should have sound and haptics in devices with no speakers or motors. Certainly I think the author would argue that cars should have physical knobs and not touch screens. The problem is what you mean by "UI" UI means "User Interface". It does not mean "Software defined User Interface". User interfaces are composed of one or more layers, including a human–machine interface (HMI) that typically interfaces machines with physical input hardware (such as keyboards, mice, or game pads) and output hardware (such as computer monitors, speakers, and printers). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_interface
schneems 2y ago
> truly revolutionary interfaces tend to require equally revolutionary hardware to match The prime examples given were about mixing and matching capabilities that most hardware already has. Most computers and tablets already have a microphone and some kind of tactile input (touch or keyboard). So, I wouldn’t say that you’re wrong in tying UI innovations to hardware, but it feels like perhaps you didn’t read the whole article. We can innovate by remixing existing functionality without having to wait on entirely new paradigms being adopted and universally available.
do_not_redeem 2y ago
Definitely AI generated. https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/our-interfaces-have-lost-their-senses/typing2.png https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/our-interfaces-have-lost-t... What are those floating letters? Does the keyboard have 3 rows of keys, or 4? What's going on near where the esc key should be? Why does the screen look like the back of a park bench?

_wire_ 2y ago

When you think that your primary relationship with a machine is "telling it what you want" you've already taken the first step to an inevitable hell.

haswell 2y ago

I was reflecting on something similar to this this while photographing the recent lunar eclipse with a Fujifilm X-T5, a highly tactile camera that is just an absolute joy to operate. I was on my roof in the dark at 1:30 in the morning in the cold and wind. I'm tired, can't really see much, but still need to actively work with the camera's controls. Thankfully, the X-T5 is covered in physical dials, switches and buttons. Without looking at the camera's screen, I can quickly change shooting modes and the majority of the settings I care about and be confident that I changed the right things. The same cannot be said about a large number of modern cameras, which opt instead for a more digital approach. In terms of modern "computing" devices, my cameras are an absolute joy to use compared to most of my other hardware. So much so that I've recently been finding myself looking to recreate this tactile experience on my general purpose computers. I've been looking at weird bespoke dials, switches and various input hardware to make processing the photos (among other tasks) feel more tactile.

rambambram 2y ago
>Thankfully, the X-T5 is covered in physical dials, switches and buttons. Without looking at the camera's screen, I can quickly change shooting modes and the majority of the settings I care about and be confident that I changed the right things. > The same cannot be said about a large number of modern cameras, which opt instead for a more digital approach. I feel you. I can only imagine the horror of looking at a small but very bright touch screen in the dark, eyes adjusting, etc. > So much so that I've recently been finding myself looking to recreate this tactile experience on my general purpose computers. I've been looking at weird bespoke dials, switches and various input hardware to make processing the photos (among other tasks) feel more tactile. A physical knob on my desk to precisely control the volume of the speakers is a very handy one for me. Don't know how to live without that. Especially because one big yank on the knob mutes unsuspected annoying sounds.

mac-mc 2y ago

There is a niceness to more kinesthetic input devices, to dials, knobs, and pens. I'm always experimenting with trying more. The unfortunate thing is they tend to be niche and unsupported. Try finding a nice dial to control things like zoom or volume, it's harder than it should be and costs over $100 or is not a great experience.

greybox 2y ago

I very much liked this: > We made painting feel like typing, but we should have made typing feel like painting. I think this quote is worth ruminating for a few while. It reminds me of some Bret Victor talks.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

kaycebasques 2y ago

A Brief Rant On The Future Of Interaction Design [1] was great. The comments in this thread are my first time hearing about that blog post. Send me more blogs/books/videos/etc. like that, please. [1] https://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign/ https://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDes...

wiley1454 2y ago
See "Inventing on principle" also by Bret Victor on YouTube. Great watch.
- kaycebasques 2y ago
  Thanks Inventing On Principle: https://youtu.be/PUv66718DII https://youtu.be/PUv66718DII A couple other Bret Victor resources I gleaned from other comments: Humane Representation Of Thought: https://youtu.be/agOdP2Bmieg https://youtu.be/agOdP2Bmieg Dynamicland: https://dynamicland.org/ https://dynamicland.org/

fitsumbelay 2y ago

I'm imagining this post as a 360 VR experience with on demand narration and heavy on ASMR. I'd like to spend time in that world quite frankly

mnky9800n 2y ago

It lost me when it encourages websites to have sound.

hoseja 2y ago

Is this completely AI-generated; the illustrations, the website, and the text too? I'd suspect so.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

This is a beautiful article with great visuals, like many other comments have said. But the actual point being made is worth paying attention to: > Computers used to be physical beasts. > We programmed them by punching cards, plugging in wires, and flipping switches. Programmers walked among banks of switches and cables, physically choreographing their logic. Being on a computer used to be a full-body experience. It’s about working in a physical environment and not just isolated digital interfaces, which is how many different jobs work today (not just programmers). The personal touch is lost. But I’m not sure it can be fixed. There is no commercial justification for making using computers or phones “enjoyable”.

intrasight 2y ago
Computers were never "physical beasts" in terms of their connection to the human senses. If anything computers are vastly improving in the way they interact with the human senses. I'm an optimist. I think we're in the early days and in 100 years the current computers will seem terribly primitive from a sensory standpoint.
kaycebasques 2y ago
I can get behind the vision of computers being more physical. That's a potent vision. The claim that current technology is a regression compared to past technology is hard-to-swallow, though. I have a family friend who took CS classes in the early 70s. Punching out 0s and 1s, waiting a day to have a chance to run the program, etc. I do not get the impression that she views this as the pinnacle of enjoyable HCI. My mom also has a funny story about visiting this friend during the chaos of finals. The friend showed my mom the computer area. My mom vividly remembers seeing students frantically trying to get their final programs done and punch card papers being scattered EVERYWHERE. Back to the main point, I don't see a lot of extensive, enjoyable physical interaction in this past paradigm. Punching holes in paper would probably get tedious. Carrying the stack of papers over to the mainframe operators would also get annoying. And then you read out the results of your program one page at a time on physical paper. Sure, it's more physical, but is this really more enjoyable in the long run? So exactly what point in the past is the author reminiscing about?

graypegg 2y ago

Maybe if I can make a counter-point: a lot of these patterns are common place right now! And much more so than whatever golden era we want to imagine existed long ago. - Gestures in a lot of applications have made things more confusing by hiding functionality that you now need to stumble into to discover. - Sound cues are used all over the place. Anyone who's ever worked in a kitchen hears the godforsaken ubereats alert sound in their nightmares. - About ten minutes ago, I got startled by my phone deciding that the "you should stand up" vibration pattern should be three long BZZZZ-es... amplified by it sitting on my hollow-sounding printer. - If another fucking god damn website asks me to chat with an AI agent in it's stupid little floating chat bubble, only appearing AFTER I interact with the page so it's allowed to also make an annoying "chirp!" sound, I WILL become a chicken farmer in some remote forest eating only twigs, berries, and improperly-raised chicken eggs. All of these things annoy me, and actively make me hate computers. A silent glass brick can go in my pocket because I know it's not going to bother me or beg me to talk outloud to it. If it was some sensory-overload distraction machine (which, by default, it is) it would find itself over the side of a bridge rather quickly. It's getting in the way of my human experience! The one where I'm the human, not the computer!!

hinkley 2y ago
When iOS had a couple gestures to get away from needing physical buttons, things were pretty good. However once you realize that you can add new gestures without having to defend adding a physical or screen real estate button, it takes a lot of discipline to avoid adding more. I like to think that Steve would have told most of their people to fuck off and we’d have one or two new gestures now, instead of twice as many. They would have found some other way.
- whstl 2y ago
  Good points... For me personally a similar thing was when Ableton Live transitioned from having a more "direct" interface to having popup menus for absolutely everything, and it took time for me to adapt to it for live performances. To be fair I never really adapted and just moved to something else. Rather than coming up with creative solutions like they did before they just kept adding things to those popup menus. The app went from magic (by enabling me to perform live effortlessly) to frankly difficult (by having the interface become difficult to memorize and getting in my way). Coincidentally was when they also started racking up bugs so much that they needed a couple years without new features just to clean up bugs.

kaycebasques 2y ago

In The Great Flattening section of the post the author literally argues that the way we interacted with computers back in the 50s-70s was better because it was more of a full-body experience. That's a silly argument to make. As far as the status quo HCI paradigm goes, we've obviously made a lot of progress over the last 50 years. However, I think the post is striking a chord because it's pointing to a deeper truth: after 70 years, we are still only scratching the surface of all the ways that humans and computers can potentially interact with each other.

jazzcomputer 2y ago

This feels like a article against the fur trade that was written on a rare animal skin.

wiley1454 2y ago

Reminds me of Bret Victor's article,"A brief rant on the future of Interaction design". https://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign/ https://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDes... I guess one on the reasons why he's building Dynamic Land.

skadamat 2y ago

Obligatory & highly relevant: Humane Representation of Thought by Bret Victor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agOdP2Bmieg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agOdP2Bmieg And of course: https://dynamicland.org/ https://dynamicland.org/

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago

Seems to be a call for the return of skeuomorphic UI, and combining it with things like haptics (actually, fairly classic). TBH, I'm not especially against the idea, except that, if you make something look like a real-world object, it's important to make it behave like one. There's a hell of a lot of digital interfaces (not just touchscreen stuff -digital dials and switches can also have the issue), that look like they should behave a certain way, but don't actually do it.

jevndev 2y ago

[dead]

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago

I think of this trend every time I try to connect my bluetooth headphones to a third device. They'll tolerate two just fine but if you want a third you have to puzzle out which other two they're connected to, go find one of them and disable bluetooth on it. Then you can power cycle the headphones and your third device will now be your second. I want some kind of magical piece of string which I can touch to both devices as a way of saying: "you two, communicate now" And then later, to break the spell, I'll just touch the ends of that string together. I don't want to have to dig through settings, I want to manipulate physical objects around me.

Dwedit 2y ago
What we really need is a device switcher on the headphones. Something like a simple 4-position switch, to pair with device A, B, C, or D.
ianburrell 2y ago
What would make sense is tapping the devices together, and using NFC to pair them. The hard part would be figuring which parts of devices to tap together so it would probably be more like rubbing them together to find sweet spot. Also, it needs to be seamless and automatic, not involve downloading any apps.

getnormality 2y ago

This kinda reminds me of how, in the wake of the smartphone, for a few years every company thought they needed to boost engagement with their product. Even if their product was something in the background that people are happiest not thinking about. Do we need to engage with our oil filters? With our clothes washers? With our insurance policies? Some things are best if they stay simple, efficient, reliable stable, and quiet. Not needy, demanding, high-maintenance, attempting to ensnare us through as many of our senses as they can get their claws on. Some things are an experience, other things should just be quietly useful. Do we ask ourselves which we should be, before adding another colorful icon, with a red dot in the corner, with a number inside the red dot, to the poor user's screen? And I hate haptic feedback. I keep my phone on silent 24/7 just to not feel my phone creepily zapping my fingers, and for some reason silent mode is the only way I can accomplish that.

rglover 2y ago
This is a true gem of a thought that every designer should consider at the outset of a project: "Some things are an experience, other things should just be quietly useful."
makeitdouble 2y ago
It didn't help that bigger companies were hungry to integrate vertically and build the biggest moat they could, to the point it became a "eat as much as you can" landscape. When Steve Jobs was saying DropBox is not a product but a feature, it surely didn't reassure DropBox that they could keep making simple and transparent services that the platform owner will gently play nice with.

Aeolun 2y ago

There is a reason we are using a keyboard to interface with this stuff. We’ve been writing to think for millennia. Using a keyboard to do it is just marginally more efficient and less of a strain on your wrist.

underdeserver 2y ago

This feels Bret Victor-esque. The problem I see here is the more senses you engage - really, the more coordination you demand of the user, the harder it is to make the interface feel intuitive.

makeitdouble 2y ago

> Compare the feeling of doomscrolling to kneading dough, playing an instrument, sketching The whole article felt disconnected from reality to me, and this might be the core part that underlies it all. The author seems to be hostile enough to smartphones that they don't really see much more physical using them has got. In particular in the last decade or so we got rid of so much of frequent polling to see if something needs attention or not, and notification management has become leaps and bounds better, at least on android. But the author's focus seems to be more on social media ? And they also idealize what people were doing before smartphones. People scrolling Twitter rage thread today would probably not have been sketching birds in their backyard. Some perhaps, most surely not. TV was already widely popular for a reason.

ghc 2y ago

I understand the sentiment, but I believe Brad Woods explained it better in https://garden.bradwoods.io/notes/design/juice https://garden.bradwoods.io/notes/design/juice . Flat design is much more of a blank canvas than old desktop UI toolkits were, but companies are loathe to invest in "Juice" because it requires a level of attention to detail that works against fast iteration.

protocolture 2y ago

I think what UI needs is talented people to come up with new ideas. When it was purely utilitarian only a minority of people could use it. When it became tailored to a wider audience it was bland and uninspired. The further it goes towards art\skeumorphism the more niche the userbase. The further it goes towards corporate capture the angrier the userbase. I think we shouldn't pretend like there's a big obvious solution that everyone else has ignored. Shit I remember reading the Windows 8 designer blogs. Microsoft did serious testing to come up with the most hated interface in their history. From an academic perspective they did a lot of things correctly. Still shit. In fact Microsoft have form here, I remember being one of the few people who enjoyed the original Xbox controller, which was fairly rapidly redesigned due to market angst.

nine_k 2y ago

First of all: this is utterly beautiful, thank you! There is an important thing about computer interfaces which does not hold for playing an instrument, or woodworking, or dancing, etc: it very often needs to be done privately and discreetly enough, both to avoid publicizing your private affairs, and to allow several people work near each other, or work near people who are not working, without bothering them. This significantly limits the use of the body language (finger gestures are OK; gestures, so-so; poses, no), sound (listening is OK provided headphones, speaking or singing, much less so), haptics (some force feedback is OK, noisy vibration and clicking, less so). This does not mean that all these things are useless! Not at all; audio feedback may be welcome, haptic feedback may be welcome, but both should be optional (e.g. in a game), unless sound is what you work with anyway (e.g. in a DAW). What I miss is the richness of erstwhile interfaces, with their colors, shapes, textures, pseudo-3D effects, the occasional skeumorphism. They gave so many clues, helpful hints that encouraged exploration, and provided large amounts of subtle feedback. Sadly, they were considered "noisy" and removed by æsthetics purists, likely the same people who designed the sharp, wrist-biting "clean" edges of certain Macbook models. This regress needs to be revested. Something has to be said about non-keyboard controls. They are few, and non-standard, with the exception of touchpad / touchscreen and mice. They allowed direct manipulation and gestures to flourish! But, unlike knobs, these cannot give reasonable haptic feedback. Musicians have all the best devices like that, and those who need such controls repurpose MIDI devices with their knobs and faders; GIMP, a raster graphics editor, even has a special MIDI device configuration section in settings. Another good source of haptic controls are mice with their wheels, and, more rare, game pads with joysticks. Neither is assumed to be connected to an average laptop though, which limits their use in interfaces, however optional.

laxk 2y ago

We can say whatever we want, but aesthetically the site just delivers. :)

j45 2y ago

Maybe interfaces are self-interested instead of interested in the outcomes of the user, which might not align with the creators of the interface.

peter_vukovic 2y ago

An article on user interfaces that is barely usable on a mobile phone due to scroll hijacking is hardly making a convincing point.

moribvndvs 2y ago

I think the article laments over a lack of something that interfaces have legitimately embraced for some time. Gestures, audio control, interactivity, visualizations, and so on are all things we’ve seen an increase in over the decades, not vise versa. Whether it’s done to a degree and in a manner that suits the author is another matter. That in itself leads to another rebuttal: As someone who is easily overwhelmed by their senses, simplicity and accessibility should be the priority. Surely, there are times when a rich interaction can be extremely useful (why just talk about physics when you can also let the reader interact with the concepts[0]). On the other hand, it’s easy to become flustered when someone imposes their artistic flair, conceptual model, or worse (when businesses weaponize interfaces against the user). I look at the author’s note organization mock up and I feel legitimate anxiety as it looks like little more than chaos on the screen. 0 - https://ciechanow.ski/airfoil/ https://ciechanow.ski/airfoil/

mollerhoj 2y ago

ironic how broken this site on my phone

throawayonthe 2y ago

[dead]

hackburg 2y ago

[dead]