I've been anticipating the ZUI for ages. eg It's the correct answer for a window manager. It's the only way to maintain continuity, preventing users getting "hyperlost", kinda like what breadcrumbs try to accomplish.
Did you see the new flashy zooming Calendar transitions in the WWDC Mavericks demo? It appears to have the right balance between zooming and level of detail (LOD). Me want!
FWIW, I did not anticipate the dynamic 2.5D in the forthcoming iOS 7. That's gonna be huge.
for which I have fond memories.
I've known of Archy and The Humane Interface for about ten years, and it's funny how more and more interfaces are converging towards the interaction style defined by it (with some tweaks because of backwards compatibility and-or because some of the ideas in the book have been tested and improved since then).
All this was done in a zoomable interface, so it was very easy to navigate the sets. The system was a huge success.
Here is a short video. Sorry about the quality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLy6Qj7MNOo
As Steve Yegge points out in Effective Emacs (https://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/effective-emacs), mousing through a menu is very inefficient, even when you're learning or exploring. They don't scale well, can't possibly cover all the options, and once you've dug down two or three deep, you're sort of trapped. Whereas with decent tab completion, you can backward-kill or just plain <DEL> your way back up the heierarchy.
- persistence + universal undo: Versions and Time Machine
- leaping: missing (although OSX strives to support both fn/alt/cmd+stuff and a reduced set of emacs keybindings, it's a far cry from doing it anywhere)
- commands: services. Also, the 'bundle' architecture, of which applications are a specific instance of aims to make self contained components that add features to the system.
- zoomworld: Exposé/Mission Control/App Exposé (with open/minimized/MRU). Also, Finder inline previews, then QuickShow and finally the document opened in the corresponding app.
Again all of this is in a reduced form, and applied to a pre-existing WIMP environment. None of those features existed on OSX 10.0, and it gradually evolved to have them.
This is one point of Raskin's design where the rationale is sound, but the solution he found was sub-optimal. Instead of a "pure" quasimode, modern interfaces do incremental searching following the search box style introduced by Firefox, with a persistent dedicated and non-obtrusive search field.
I find that this is a superior interaction, and it still can be considered non-modal. The style has spread to notifications too, with browsers showing small rectangles above and below the window instead of an obtrusive modal alert dialog.
It's so sad that the project died. The interface was very promising and I long for that keyboard I never used.
That book has been much more influential than it may seem - all the good interface designers seem to know it or at least follow its principles.
I would pay good money (a few hundred dollars, easily) for a mechanical keyboard that had those two additional keys under the space bar, as well as a vertical F-key cluster left of the main typing area, as seen on old IBM PC/AT keyboards.
Raskin coined the term 'pseudo-mode'. The difference between a pseudo-mode and a mode is the difference between the SHIFT key and the CAPS-LOCK key (for entering uppercase letters). The latter frustrates while the former goes unnoticed because it works so well.
If you are in any way involved with usability, read The Humane Interface:
Reducing scope also allows you to avoid relying on modifier keys (which I have always found to be a pain point for wide adoption.)
I might be dumb but if somebody don't sell commercial licenses why would they restrict the usefulness by adding restrictions on commercial usage?
Edit: style. And a possible reason - maybe they have used a non-free library with a non-commercial only clause?