Apple's iOS doesn't use windows, all apps are full-screen. IOS doesn't have a menu bar, only an info bar (time, power, cell reception, etc). It doesn't even use a pointing device, and there's no onscreen pointer -- you can use your finger to 'click' (touch) and drag, but you can't point.
Window, Icon, Menu, Pointing device. Only the icons survived.
There's no desktop metaphor either in iOS: no recycle bin, no central file cabinet to browse through, no desktop to arbitrarily place things on, no way to make file folders.
* (W) You are presented with modal dialogs (a form of window) at various points in many iOS interfaces - ditto for Android.
* (I) The main way of representing an application is via an icon.
* (M) There are definitely menus in Android. I'd argue that there are also even menus in iOS - lists of options that are allow you select which operation you'd like to perform (e.g. mail settings menu).
* (P) You can point - you use your finger. You can't hover.
It's not really that ground-breaking - it's a relatively small iteration.
When using Mac OS X, no matter what you do, there's always a menu bar at the top of the screen. Until recently, all Mac OS X apps had window chrome, even when the application window was maximized. IOS doesn't have any of that -- there are specific situations in which you are presented with a modal dialog or a menu, but they aren't GUI elements that are always onscreen.
Then there's the pointing. In iOS, you can't just point -- to touch is to point+click.
I don't understand why these distinctions make any difference? Fundamentally - I think the core elements are very similar - the differences are necessary due to the constraints of mobile devices. Perhaps implementation differs - but I don't see how this makes my point less true.
Are you stating that we actually are making use of interfaces which are groundbreaking (in a similar way to those presented in the article)?
We often don't notice many "ground breaking" shifts while in the midst of them. The internet or hyper-linked docs took their time to be called "ground breaking" with hindsight.
Rgd the iPad/touch I have an indicator though - my son got used to slide-unlocking my ipod touch when he was 2yrs old, to play drums on it. Ever since he did that, he'd try to touch my laptop screen and expect things to happen. He'd totally ignore the keyboard! That's a ground shift in interfaces for me :)
I doubt we'll see another leap as huge as from CLI to GUI. But as incremental improvements in user interfaces go, I find iOS (and multitouch control in general) pretty significant.
I doubt we'll see another leap as huge as from CLI to GUI
Unless you have a particular reason to believe that GUI is the end of evolution, then there's room for massive change.
Circumstances suggest that wimp is not the last word on user interfaces. Some factors to think about:
* The GUI has grown during an era of groups fighting to establish platforms, when there were constant newcomers to the scene which caused a large emphasis on creating systems that are as newcomer-friendly as possible. Those circumstances will change.
* As the scale of data increases, user interface needs change. Consider the progression from flat file structure, to directories on a single machine to searching through large datasets, and the different tooling we use. I deal with large numbers of small files, and have built custom tools to allow myself not to drown in scale. GUI tools and CLI directory systems are inadequate.
* A lot of GUI has been driven by the need to make glossy things that sell, rather than things that are useful. Look at changes to Windows since XP. As free software eats away at territory that is currently commercially viable, this will change. We won't have companies pushing gaudy bells and whistles that have shifted platforms over the last fifteen years. Stability increases in value.
* Plenty of power users have never been happy with the WIMP approach, and consider it a leap backwards from the CLI. 1980s word processing users, unix users, people who knew menu-driven mainframe systems before being "upgraded" to less-useful GUI replacements. There's strong interface loyalty to the Bloomberg interface from people who have also dealt with GUI and CLI tools, despite significant problems in that system.
It's unusual to know about groundbreaking things before they happen. I expect our grandchildren will look back at screenshots of today's candy interfaces and ask how we took it seriously.
your comment made me think of the striking resemblance of the modern mobile OS (iOS, Android) to the icon boards used to try and develop communications with other homonids.
I'm definitely not saying this to make fun, many people have commented how this new UI paradigm is so easy even their toddlers can learn to use it at some level.
Window, Icon, Menu, Pointing device. Only the icons survived.
There's no desktop metaphor either in iOS: no recycle bin, no central file cabinet to browse through, no desktop to arbitrarily place things on, no way to make file folders.