

Touché - interconnector
http://www.cmu.edu/homepage/computing/2012/spring/touche.shtml

======
rrmm
I always have a kind of negative reaction to these sorts of interfaces.

What I tend to see in this demo is how to make a doorknob unintuitive, how to
make music player functionality undiscoverable, how to accidentally lock
yourself out, how to frustrate a user whose mental model of the sensor is
incorrect.

I realize you have to approach new technology and interaction paradigms
optimistically, but all I can think of is my own frustration when an ill-
considered neato-feature is foisted on me when I least want it.

Like blue LEDs and touch sensitive buttons that lack a physical button (eg
atmel q-touch).

~~~
mseebach
I once got a recommendation for "The design of everyday things"
([http://www.amazon.co.uk/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-
Norman...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-
Norman/dp/0262640376)) with a warning: It will break the world for you,
because you'll go around noticing how things are designed counter-intuitively,
requiring large signs to explain what should be obvious. A good example:
"Push"/"pull" signs on doors. Multiple branches of humanity independently
developed the ability to design doors that any other human that understands
the concept of a door can figure out how to open. Then, suddenly, around 50
years ago, that knowledge apparently vanished, and we started to have to put
big "how to use" instruction stickers on one of the simplest and most
intuitive objects ever invented.

~~~
taeric
It may be that many things are counter intuitive, but it seems calling out
doors as something that has ever been intuitive is fallacious. Perhaps they
used to be more consistent, but it doesn't take a lot of effort to find
horrific accidents that happened years ago because doors weren't designed
well.

Not to mention, watching my kids learn different doors has been amusing. I
would think intuitive is the wrong word, so much as simple determination will
get you through most any door.

It seems more likely that around 50 years ago the technology and literacy
rates had finally advanced enough that push/pull signs could be easily
attached to commonly used doors.

~~~
mseebach
Yes, I exaggerated on artistic license, maybe a bit more than the anecdote
could carry. That doesn't change the fact that a door that adults in a
civilized country needs written instructions to operate is completely and
utterly broken.

~~~
taeric
I still disagree that this is at all a new found thing. There is a reason
building codes had to be drafted requiring exits to open out on buildings,
after all. (So, really, the design of the door shouldn't even matter. Adults
can remember that the main doors open out, right? :) )

I mainly question if it is truly a sign of a problem, as seems implicated by
it being brought up. Still seems to me that it just happens because the cost
for doing so is essentially nil.

~~~
mseebach
The fire exit issue is a separate one: The reason emergency exits need to open
out is that you can't count on being able to take a step back and open the
door in a panic. In non-panic situations (practically all of them), doors work
equally well opening in or out.

~~~
taeric
Yeah, but my point is two fold. First: Exterior doors to a building open out,
pretty much period.* So, the handle is moot. If people really gave much
thought to doors, they would be able to remember that, regardless of the
handle.

Second: The reason for the exterior doors to open out is rather obvious (once
you've considered the reason). Yet it was not originally in building code.
This implicates that many places do it "wrong." Or, at least, they did years
ago.

The first claim really just leads to "most people do not pay attention to such
every day things." Even if you get it wrong, you only lose a second at a door.
The penalty just isn't high.

The second is to say that it isn't like people were making flawless doors in
the past. (Though, I particularly dislike "pocket" doors. I think those have
fallen out of favour, thankfully.)

* Of course, I look at my house door and remember that residence entrances open in. Maybe that fundamental inconsistency is the true culprit here... :) I realize there is a good reason to keep the hinges internal to a house. So... not sure what to say about that.

~~~
mseebach
Emergency doors ( _not_ "exterior doors" as a whole) are to open out because
there might be a barrage on them in an emergency. Your house door isn't likely
to experience a barrage (or rather, the fire code forbids you from having too
many people in your house, partly _because_ it isn't fitted with proper
emergency exits for crowds).

This has nothing, what so ever, to do with whether or not a door is
intuitively designed. Also, whether or not you lose a second opening a door is
irrelevant (and you've just given the excuse for 1990's enterprise software UX
- as long as it's _possible_ to complete a task, who cares if it's easy or
intuitive. Everyone, it turns out, but it took a while to hammer that point
int).

The point is that "we" have the knowledge to design a door that is clearly and
immediately usable ( _without_ losing a second) by anyone who's ever used a
door - but sometimes "we" apparently chose not to use it. _That_ is the
conundrum outlined.

~~~
taeric
I know it isn't exterior doors as a whole. But the vast majority of doors you
will encounter on a public building have to be usable in an emergency. So, I
think you'll be hard pressed to find one that doesn't open out. (Again, unless
you drop into residential doors.)

Your point that we have the knowledge to make doors that are immediately
usable is just something I don't believe. I've seen people use doors
incorrectly that fit the guidelines of that book. Hell, I think I've done so
myself. And, I argue that this is almost completely related to the consistency
of how a door opens. Not the handle. (e.g., after years of living in a high
rise where the entrance opened out and all I did was go to public buildings
where all doors open out, not too shockingly, I was more prone to opening
house doors incorrectly.)

My argument was never that "so long as it is possible..." The argument I put
forth was more that the cost for getting a door wrong is ridiculously low, so
people don't put that much thought into it. On either side of the isle. (Well,
designers want doors to be pretty.) Your 90s example is attacking things where
the cost was actually high, but the designers didn't care.

I think you can basically sum up my viewpoint with the common attack on
intuitive designs that nothing is truly intuitive in and of itself. Pretty
much everything is leveraged on something you have previously learned. If it
seems intuitive, it is really just familiar. In the case of doors, the
familiar behaviour trumps any design decisions. (If you have some good studies
against this, by all means I'm game to read them. More than just the book that
started this thread, though.)

------
pirateking
This is too cool. I cannot wait to try how a manipulatable material and
holographic interface feels.

Glad to see Bret Victor's important rant[1] resonating as well.

Does anyone have any tips about getting involved with this area of work? Any
good forums or open source projects?

[1]
[http://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesi...](http://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign)

~~~
raphman
There is little "open source" research on hardware for novel user interfaces.
Most of this stuff is published at scientific conferences like CHI, UIST, ITS,
TEI. As "novelty" is quite important for publishing one's work at these
conferences, there is little incentive for doing open research.

Some nice stuff and communities can be found at <http://nuigroup.com/forums>
or <http://hackaday.com/>

(btw: Bret Victor apparently pulished his rant _after_ Touché had been
submitted to CHI.)

~~~
pirateking
I figured. Thanks for the links though, lots of interesting stuff there.

(I remember seeing this video when it was posted months ago as well, but
thanks for clarifying the timing as to which event came first.)

------
swohns
These guys did a killer demo at NYTM. Very cool demo of turning a plant into
an instrument (they played an orchid on stage). There was a good question
about detection of differing touches of the doorknob, this could totally
replace the key some day!

~~~
josh_blum
How can this differentiate between users though? Can the frequency be
replicated?

~~~
stephengillie
Some of that may depend on precision - how precise is the sensor? Can it pull
a fingerprint, so it will basically do a fingerprint scan to authorize door
unlocking?

I'm reminded of #66 on the Evil Overlord list - _My security keypad will
actually be a fingerprint scanner. Anyone who watches someone press a sequence
of buttons or dusts the pad for fingerprints then subsequently tries to enter
by repeating that sequence will trigger the alarm system._

<http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html>

~~~
hrayr
#99 Any data file of crucial importance will be padded to 1.45Mb in size.

Ah, sign of the times. This list was compiled in 1996.

------
babebridou
I might be going on a tangent here, but I can't help thinking there's
something wrong with product names for the past few years. We're now naming
things with incredibly common words, changing their very meaning into
something else. Facebook, Touché, Bonjour, Spaces, Windows...

For some reason, it's creeping me out. I'm afraid to see one of those next big
thing named Lundi, Ball, Tisch or Hora. It's like we're robbing our languages
of their meaning, bit by bit, for commercial purpose.

We can do better than that, can't we?

~~~
icebraining
With some exceptions, I don't think brand names are eclipsing the common
definitions of the words, but just appending new definitions to them, which
can easily be distinguished based on context - not unlike any other non-
branded word with multiple definitions.

And we also gain new common words from brands that become generic, like
Tabloid or Bikini.

~~~
stonemetal
_And we also gain new common words from brands that become generic, like
Tabloid or Bikini._

Bikini isn't a brand that became a generic word. It is a loan word from the
native Marshall Islanders(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_Atoll>), that
was stolen for a brand then became generic. Which ironically proves his point.

~~~
icebraining
_Bikini isn't a brand that became a generic word_

It is. The fact that the brand name itself was derived from an existing proper
noun doesn't change that fact.

And speaking of language abuse, I feel that some day the verb 'steal' will be
synonymous with every possible offense. How does one _steal_ an island name?

------
davidtyleryork
Go CMU! We might not start as many startups as MIT but our research is some of
the best in the world. #proud

~~~
Nav_Panel
Always HCI (or Robotics) too. It's like, you never actually see what they're
doing but it's always awesome (except for that large robot in some room on NS
second floor right near the Wean bridge, but that might not be HCI). Also
#proud :)

~~~
epenn
I think (?) the room on NS 2 you're thinking of is part of the Quality of Life
Technology Center. <3 CMU and #proud. Can we all agree that the robot in the
Gates 3 lounge area is somewhat creepy-looking though? His avatar looks like a
cross between Julian Assange and Andy Warhol.

------
atpaino
Google must be all-over this for their Glasses. Seems like it would be a great
solution to the input problem with them.

------
akavi
I really liked the demo controlling the music player; it struck me as the one
I'd be most likely to actually see in the near future (The door with the
different signs was neat, but requires a bit more hardware).

I'm curious where the sensors were placed for that one (I couldn't see them on
the guy's arms) and if say, getting caught in the rain or a really dry day,
would throw it on the fritz.

~~~
lewisgodowski
Aren't the sensors placed within the door? Or am I missing something?

------
lewisgodowski
I believe Avatar Land at Walt Disney World will include this technology for
interacting with the Tree of Souls and other plant and wildlife.

------
akennberg
Medicine and military applications would be great!

Dentist: How dentist grips the tool indicates how it behaves. Eg. control
speed of a rotary tool like a drill based on a grip.

Doctor: Patient giving doctor feedback with their hand.

Military: For some guns, one finger on the trigger does a single shot for
precision, two fingers does bursts for rapid fire.

------
akeck
I think this tech could give robots much more data from physical human
contact.

------
est
Is forecasting baby urination possible with sensing electrical signals?

~~~
antidoh
What would you do with that information? The diaper gets wet, sometime today.

~~~
cgislason
Potty training; put baby on the toilet before the diaper gets wet. Babies can
be "trained" a remarkably young age, if the parents can predict urination.

~~~
R_Edward
Sounds more like training the parents.

------
Mordor
"recognition rates approaching 100%" - how many times do we hear this?
Basically it doesn't work, except for a set of carefully constructed
circumstances.

------
mleonhard
This could be used to give robots a sense of touch over their entire bodies.

------
nerdfiles
Considering that autistics and empaths tend to have remarkably rich gestural
languages for communicating a wide array of non-verbal units of meaning, or
even propositions, and further that allocentric language may present scoped
indexicals (and not to mention Ame. Sign Language), we may have an opportunity
to develop interestingly rich gestural/touch APIs from the mechanics of
neurologically rooted gestures which describe or underpin norms of highly
complex, spontaneously emergent non-verbal communication.

For instance, would finger-flipping or self-stimulation be considered "noise"
to such a system, or would the system be configurable or adaptive or "fuzzy"
enough to make successful interpretations of various deviant forms of model
human behaviors? (I'm wondering the intersection between these types of
interfaces and the training (or, say, auto-designing) of them via neural
networks.)

------
jQueryIsAwesome
Whenever I want to feel excited about the future I just look at this video;
seriously is really magic stuff. Changing your bathtub temperature with one
gesture of your hand in the water; changing the channel by a simple gesture in
the couch, the use-cases are virtually unlimited. Also if one day it becomes
even more sensitive it could transform any object into a fingerprint detector!

~~~
manveru
You might want to watch <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm5TdgQj7vg> then.

------
yozmsn
This is kinda old, I saw a video about this on the verge a couple months
ago...

~~~
czr80
Yes. We must hide it away and never speak of it again.

