
Skin Deep Usability (Microsoft Surface) - pmjordan
http://kinesismomentum.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/skin-deep-usability/
======
iigs
_The whole experience was probably best summed up by Amanda who, when asked
why it was taking us so long to get the machine up and running, and why we all
looked so unhappy, replied “Oh, it’s just so…Microsofty.”_

This is exactly the problem with this device. My memories of my five minutes
with one:

1) From a distance: It looks like a giant iPod touch under glass. They are
better replicas of iPods than the giant LCD/Plasma screens with an iPod-alike
shell at the front of the Apple store.

2) Up close: You can tell it's DLP projected. The image quality was a sizable
step down from the gorgeous LCD of the iPod. I think it would have been better
to work with a plasma vendor to make a plasma with a thick glass surface.

3) First touch: The top, maybe 1mm or less, of the glass top is soft. You
_really_ get the feeling that you could damage it with your fingernail or a
tile cup coaster, or other things you could reasonably expect to do to a table
top. To their credit, the one I looked at was absolutely pristine, so perhaps
it's a perception thing.

4) Other: The stupid white Windows mouse pointer was always on and dead center
on the screen. The whole time. It didn't follow the touches, which would have
felt unpolished but understandable, it just stuck out like a scab. This kind
of thing has to make Steve Jobs cackle with glee.

Overall it looks like a solution in search of a problem, and I can't for the
life of me figure out why anyone would pay that kind of money for something so
superficially polished but so lacking in technical engineering.

~~~
potatolicious
2) It has to be DLP projected - there's an infrared camera below the screen
that captures your touches - which means that there can be no obstruction
between the camera and the table top (like, oh, say, a plasma screen).

3) This is a pliant silicon surface and necessary with the sort of tech that
Microsoft is implementing. This is somewhat sad, since hobbyists (look up
NUIGroup if you are interested) have gotten better results with a pure glass
surface (which obviously takes a lot more punishment).

This is the difference between Apple and Microsoft - attention to detail. MS
will get the core bullet point features working, but when using it there are
so many rough edges and little things that irk you that ultimately you have a
negative experience, despite the fact that the machine is perfectly
functional.

~~~
iigs
_This is somewhat sad, since hobbyists (look up NUIGroup if you are
interested) have gotten better results with a pure glass surface_

I think this is what bothers me most about it. There are probably at least a
dozen different ways to achieve a display of this type and it seems like this
one is compromised in each dimension. This would be entirely reasonable for a
hobby project or a Google 20% time style corporate internal project, but it's
way short for something with a nearly $20k price tag and tons of very self-
flagellating promotion.

~~~
potatolicious
In MS's defense these new methods for multi-touch were not known (or even
invented) when the Surface was in the initial design stages - the multitouch
field is evolving radically month-to-month, it's impossible for a commercial
product to keep up.

The most interesting sensing method IMHO right now is the combined emitter-
receiver package, where light reflected from touches induce back voltages on
the LEDs serving as backlights themselves. This is pretty elegant, and would
allow us to use _far_ superior display technology like plasmas and LCDs, not
to mention allow the whole thing to finally approach flat screen TV thickness.

It's pretty expensive though - imagine an array of pure-white LEDs big enough
to cover your 65" plasma TV... and the electronics to process all of this
data.

------
buugs
I don't think it took them half an hour to plug it in and if it did maybe they
should stay away from new technology... seriously.

~~~
tvon
Yeah, I have no doubt that the device is somewhat unintuitive to setup, but
given the size of the machine it wouldn't take them half an hour to physically
search it for a place to plug it in.

------
alexitosrv
So, just by curiosity, I would like to know (it didn't get mentioned in the
article) what is the use case for a device like that?

~~~
tvon
Microsoft Surface Demo @ CES 2008:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxk_WywMTzc>

Every time I see a Surface demo I'm struck at the whole "display photos as a
jumbled mess, just like real photos!" thing. It just seems so... idiotic.

Anyway, there does seem to be some potential with Surface but it does seem
like a bit of a waste in the hands of Microsoft.

