

The New Interface Is There Is No interface - molecularbutter
http://tightwind.net/2012/02/the-new-interface-is-there-is-no-interface-2/

======
b1daly
I am a music producer and audio engineer, which these days means I labor at
the computer. I have come to the conclusion that the GUI as we know it is a
really bad interface at which to labor.

One of the fundamental problems is that it breaks our normal mind/body
connection. It is virtually impossible to develop any kind of muscle memory
using an interface that requires different physical movements for the same
act.

Using a application over time, we do learn to work in an unconscious, trance-
like state. But it requires a rigid posture to maintain visual connection with
the location of the mouse and the state of the interface. This leads quickly
to fatigue and potential repetitive strain injury.

I do think the touch interfaces are an improvement in this context (they
reconnect mind/body/application). But for something as labor intensive and
complex as audio production (or any media production) I don't think they will
be usable for sustained work (at least with existing interface metaphors).

I have developed a tool for use with Pro Tools audio software, the Hotkey
Matrix. It is a keyboard with pre-configured single key keyboard shortcuts. It
has a number of features which are distinct from the many other attempts at
control surfaces for audio software, and somewhat against the tenor of the
times.

The shortcuts are fixed. We have iterated the specific shortcuts and layout
over many years of production use. They are color coded, there are no modes or
pages, so the same function is always in the same place and it is easy to
target. It basically replaces and adds to the default keyboard shortcuts in
Pro Tools. Pro Tools has a nice set of default single key shortcuts, but since
it has so many, increasingly elaborate key bindings and two hands are required
to use them (some have four modifier keys).

I'm convinced this is a superior interface enhancement on a lot of levels. It
brings back some tactile response, and makes both muscle and mental
memorization a lot easier. Since production work is extremely repetitive, it
saves a thousands of keystrokes.

I think there is a long way to go in improving interfaces for complex media
software. The computer brings tremendous benefits and cost savings to audio
production, so there is no going back. It is now trivial to build up a virtual
studio environment in a laptop that would have literally cost millions of
dollars back in the 90s (not to mention insane electric bills). But the
awesome thing about old school analog production was that each parameter in a
project got its own dedicated knob/button/fader.

I miss those all those knobs/buttons/faders!

I'm also convinced that most software developers who make tools for
professionals never use their software as a professional does (they don't have
the time). Hence they make design decisions that turn out to be non-optimal
over long use. I've used a lot of audio applications, and IMO Pro Tools is the
best. My guess is that since they have a large installed base of professionals
and some kind of feedback mechanism from the user base, their updates tend in
the direction of increased usability (for pro users). Usability for apps that
are simple and used infrequently is very different, and it is here that the
comments of the OP are most on point.

Anyhow, I've wanting to run this by the HN community to see what people think.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTvhwtvw2sI>

------
drcube
Physical objects have/are interfaces too. What do you think handles, levers,
door knobs, gear shifters, file cabinets and flat surfaces are?

Between our senses and external reality, there will always be an interface.
The beauty of computers is we are much less dependent on the physical
properties of actual objects in designing those interfaces. Maybe that's what
the author is getting at, but I think they are saying it wrong.

~~~
tingletech
when I started doing user interface testing on websites in the mid/late 90s,
all the literature I could find about user testing in the engineering library
was related to industrial design / testing consumer products.

EDIT: it was probably more accurately the late 90s

~~~
potatolicious
In many ways, the industrial realm is still where the forefront of interface
design is, and covers an area far wider than anything software hopes to do
right now. In fact, I'd consider the industrial flavor of interface design to
be far truer to "interface design" than what we see in mobile/web, which is
often just "graphics design" in camouflage.

In industry, UI has consequences. A confusing readout may crash a plane and
kill hundreds. A warning that doesn't trigger under expected circumstances can
slice a man in two. A button that doesn't require enough force to push can
accidentally decapitate. The list goes on. What you get from that side are
incredibly usable, incredibly easy to understand, incredibly fault-tolerant
interfaces... that are ugly as hell.

Whereas from the mobile/web side we often see pointlessly obtuse, absurdly
minimalistic, confusingly designed interfaces that are works of art. We often
confuse these with "good interface design" because they are different, new,
and beautiful.

I really wish those of us in web/mobile can get off our high horses and learn
a bit from un-sexy things like metal presses, diesel locomotives, and airplane
cockpits.

~~~
jonah
Donald Norman's The Design of Everyday Things [1] and Turn Signals Are the
Facial Expressions of Automobiles [2] are must-read classics about human
interfaces in both physical and "computer" realms.

[1] <http://www.jnd.org/books.html#33> [2] <http://www.jnd.org/books.html#34>

------
digitailor
_Interface_ : A point where two systems, subjects, organizations, etc., meet
and interact. -(First Google definition, and the one that I was taught)

I think the author is confused. He isn't talking about interfaces, he's
talking about functionality. In his examples of mobile applications, interface
is actually _everything_ : the app is a point of overlap between the user's
singular need and the tool that provides a targeted solution. (We can argue
over the distinction of _user interface_ vs. _interface_ , but I posit the
former follows the latter.)

In other words, the mobile app interface is not non-existent, but perfect: a
single point of overlap between need and function.

From the article: _That’s precisely what a tool is: something which requires
very little explanation for how to use it, because it is designed so precisely
for its purpose, that how to use it is obvious. If you’re trying to dig a hole
with your hands, you don’t need much explanation for how to use a shovel.
“This is the handle” is about the extent of it._

That's an example of a perfect interface, not no interface!

------
PostOnce
In some cases, mobile apps force you to put shit IN THE WAY of what the user
is doing because of a lack of hardware interface for the user.

Game on an iPhone? Sorry, I'm going to need to stick buttons in the way of
your visuals. So, you had a 3.5 inch display area, already small enough, and
now you have to stick buttons and joysticks and touch menus on it. If not
qwerty, at least throw me two or three buttons. Bah.

~~~
mreid
I think you are making the author's point for him. A game that requires a
virtual joypad is not a game that is well designed for a phone. It's using a
hammer to put in a screw. There are plenty of iPhone games that do not use the
virtual buttons interface.

~~~
PostOnce
And the vast majority of those games are terrible. Partially because of a low
budget, partially because of a low barrier to entry for the developers, and
partially because touch screens are terrible interfaces for human beings to
interact with where precision (positioning, timing, speed of repetition, among
others) is concerned.

Some genres make sense for touch (RTS, Angry Birds), some don't.
Accelerometers are flaky.

My point was that I believe phone designers are sacrificing substance for
style. The iPhone has space for at least 4 more buttons without a slide-out.

Touch-only phones are a fad. Buttons will be back. Watch.

~~~
wisty
And? The whole point is, you can have totally new modes of control. They are
crappy modes of control, but they are _fun_ , and that's the point of games
anyway.

It would be nice to have a joypad, so you can still play stuff that's
following the old generation. Nintendo would have sold a joypad with it,
because Nintendo makes everything backwards compatible with the last
generation. You can play GameCube games on the Wii, and some of them are
pretty good, having learned all the rules for the old interface.

I'm not sure buttons will be back. A touch-pad on the back, which displays
your inputs on the front might replace them for most things. They'd need to be
pressure sensitive, and have some kind of dynamic calibration (because
pressure sensitive stuff is either oversensitive, or doesn't register
anything), but it's not impossible (I think). It would be an interesting AI
question - how to differentiate clicks, "swishes", and fat fingers; but that's
the only real barrier I can think of.

~~~
unimpressive
Recently I bought a Sanza Fuze. Largely because I wanted an _audio player_ ,
and not a locked-pocket-computer that happens to play music. What I learned
from the experience is that touch sucks as a universal interface.

0) It is not always obvious what gestures to make to have the device perform a
certain action. For something that I will pull out many times and interact
with while doing something else, I should never have to think about how to do
something.

1) In the cases where there are multiple gestures one can make at one screen,
it is very often that _you_ will make the wrong one or the machine will
interpret your gesture incorrectly. This sucks. Having to memorize gestures
brings us back to the era where most applications were navigated by keyboard
shortcut. (In fact, I would prefer the keyboard shortcuts. At least those are
non-ambiguous.)

2) Touch screens are quite possibly the best way invented by man to smudge
display hardware. Even when a touchscreen has been forgone in favor of a touch
pad below the display. Between greasy, sticky, food, dirty hands, and just
plain wear, I basically have to constantly damage my display to interact with
the device. Which is why most people end up getting a case. (Case-hell is its
own subject really.)

3) Specifically for the case of video games, there is nothing more frustrating
then the _interface_ effecting your ability to play the game. Considering that
the latency of wireless controllers is considered too much by the most
hardcore of gamers, it stands to reason that touch interface will be
universally looked down upon by anyone playing anything more complex than say;
wii bowling.

Addressing your concept of a touch pad on the back to save the poor screen.
Your forgetting that most people hold mobile devices in such a way that a
touch pad on the back would be constantly triggered simply by holding the
device with a firm grip. (And encouraging people to hold it with anything less
is a bad idea considering how fragile they are.)

I expect buttons to be around for a _long_ time to come.

------
54mf
The problem with interface-less mobile apps is that the interface provides
critical cues to the user about functionality. Phrases like, "...a finicky
piece of artifice that we have to strain to understand" is only indicative of
a _poorly designed_ interface, not all of them.

The beauty of technology is that its software transcends the physical realm.
Software does things paper cannot. While specific physical metaphors often
apply to software, especially with touch-based interfaces, to avoid taking
advantage of the inherent non-physical nature of an application is a terrible
mistake at the expense of true usability and functionality.

------
joejohnson
_That’s precisely what a tool is: something which requires very little
explanation for how to use it, because it is designed so precisely for its
purpose, that how to use it is obvious._

Oh, that's what a tool is? :)

------
jasonkolb
This is exactly why Siri is important. It is context aware and stays out of
your way until you need it. I am very bullish on voice-driven apps of all
kinds.

~~~
nchlswu
I think Siri is important in a variety of ways, but voice driven apps in the
traditional model (a la Siri) aren't how I perceive the future of interfaces
to be.

You wouldn't use Siri on a date, or in public would you? There are just some
important issues that are raised by Siri that a lot of people sort of neglect.
I don't think voice apps will be successful in a broad, paradigm shifting way.
But, they will have their niche and there will be some fundamental princples
that are learned.

~~~
icebraining
Voice driven apps like Siri are one step away from being thought-driven apps,
though. Full conscience interfacing is still a pipe dream, but word
recognition from brain patterns already has proofs of concept.

~~~
nchlswu
I definitely agree, and I do think Siri and the like are very important steps
to get there. I just don't think in the short term (relative short term) that
these apps can gain enough traction in the wide scope that is championed by
some of the proponents for voice apps.

------
endtwist
You effectively just described what "good design" is -- so effortless, it's
invisible.

This isn't a new concept, but with the recent focus on design in startups, I
guess it's finally coming to light outside the design community.

~~~
jilebedev
When I write, the majority of my time is spent in diligent focus, refining
what I call the "firehose of emotions" that was my first draft.

Thus -- a connecting thought from communication theory: "I didn't have time to
write a short letter, so I've written a long one instead." - attributed to
Blaise Pascal, Mark Twain.

Good communication is clear and simple: in conveying the message, it connects
both the hearts and the brains of the author and the reader. This idea of
simplicity isn't unique to hardware design, or software code, or written
communication, or math ... but I don't believe that's the key takeaway. The
point is that it's so difficult to understand and appreciate how much time and
effort it takes, spent by talented and focused people, before the solution
becomes simple and clean.

------
robgibbons
There is still an interface. Anything you interact with, by nature, has an
interface. It's just become so intuitive you don't think about it, or need to
learn it. It's just obvious.

------
vishaldpatel
Wall of text. Definitely No Interface >.<

------
dreamdu5t
No. Computer interfaces are increasingly virtual.

"The New Interface Is There Is No Interface" is an oxymoron.

------
recoiledsnake
Is it just me or did the author just write a whole article about the Metro UI
without actually naming it?

[http://windowsphone.interoperabilitybridges.com/media/42139/...](http://windowsphone.interoperabilitybridges.com/media/42139/panorama.png)

[http://weblogs.asp.net/blogs/bsimser/MetroDesign_thumb_6D6BF...](http://weblogs.asp.net/blogs/bsimser/MetroDesign_thumb_6D6BFA59.png)

It seems to be the only UI around that eschews window chrome and faux 3d and
focuses on the content.

------
ThaddeusQuay2
I posit that the old interface could be the new interface. For example, I'm
willing to bet that most people spend most of their online time using complex
interfaces to acquire tiny, yet important to them, bits of information. By
"complex", I mean something like Facebook compared to the information
retrieved, which could be something as simple as your best friend's status.
So, imagine replacing Facebook in the browser with Windows Notepad plus an EXE
made using AutoIt. The EXE would run in the background, regularly getting that
important friend status, then "typing" it into the assigned Notepad window.
Sure, you could argue that this does not replace Facebook in the browser, but
it gives you a new way of utilizing an old interface, while also giving you
features that the complex interface might not have, such as being able to
easily save a history of your friend's status messages. I'm not saying that
this should be an actual product, although it does have some potential.
Rather, I'm pointing out that old interfaces can be repurposed.

------
Craiggybear
Your interface has to be a metaphore for a real-world process. If it isn't
then you are a) doing it wrong or b) there is no direct mapping to a real-
world process.

~~~
icebraining
_Your interface has to be a metaphore for a real-world process._

Why?

