Apple:
>>I designed the initial user interface concepts for iPad, iPod Nano, and half a dozen experimental hardware platforms. Initiated, designed, and prototyped over seventy concept projects, including radically reinvented interfaces for video editing, animation, drawing, learning, collaboration, mail, photos, and much more. Invented features for Mac OS X Lion. Worked with designers and engineers from all parts of Apple. Routinely presented to top-level management
Did he actually expect that the work he created would all be used? Or that if it wasn't used that he would be able to take that work (now property of Apple) and show it to the public? I don't think either positions can be considered reasonable.
Also, in general, direct manipulation of objects (mapped to real world gestures/physical object interaction) is not the end all be all of HCI. The use of abstraction in the pursuit of increased expressiveness and user input magnification is perfectly acceptable. Being able to immediately understand something is not more important than being able to efficiently accomplish a task repeatedly.
"The use of abstraction in the pursuit of increased expressiveness and user input magnification is perfectly acceptable. Being able to immediately understand something is not more important than being able to efficiently accomplish a task repeatedly."
Whoa that is a pretty strong statement you just made there. I'd say there are two pretty strong and valid camps about this -- one saying its important to understand immediately and another saying tis important to do a depth of work effeciently. Both have extremely valid examples of why their theory is better.
Ideally you would have a balance between the two. What put me off in his statement regarding working at Apple (aside from what seems to be some unrealistic expectations) was his statement that he became known for "pervasively direct-manipulation interfaces (where the user does his thing by moving and gesturing with meaningful objects, instead of relying on verb buttons and other indirect controls)." I think there's certainly a place for that sort of interaction, but I can see why Apple would not entirely embrace it to the exclusion of other types of interaction.
