For a bit of entertainment check out this list of 12 Haptic Interfaces, via OObject.
There are some legitimately interesting and useful project listed, my favorites being the Haptic Radar and the Haptic Guitar Hero Game for Blind People. On the same token there are several slots that could have been much better represented by real technologies that are actively being researched… instead of just watching some guy play with soy beans.
In a recent WordPress update I managed to destroy all the images I had previously uploaded. There is a usability lesson in here somewhere, but I’ll have to ponder it another time. In the interim I’ll get the images uploaded again sometime this weekend.
Here is something I’ve recently started to question when working in Windows. When asking to “delete” a file, you are given a confirmation dialog to make sure that you wish to actually take this action.
At first thought, this is a good thing. If I’m going to delete something, I want my file manager to give me a good slap across the face to make sure that I really mean to destroy this file. But something isn’t quite right with this dialog when you inspect it more closely.
When you “delete” a file in Windows you are actually sending it to the recycling bin, as the dialog box points out. This is a non-destructive action, entirely reversible, which is implied by the metaphor of a recycling bin (or “trash”). Throwing a physical piece of paper into a real recycling bin does not require me to confirm my action, nor am I prevented from bending over and taking the paper back out of the bin if I change my mind.
I’ve been dealing with this for years and never thought about it… until I switched to a Mac, which does not ask me to verify these actions. I’ve since become conscious that GNOME (when I’m working in Linux) does not ask me to verify the “move to recycling bin” (aka: delete) action either. Both OSX and GNOME have realized that confirming this action is no longer necessary in a modern operating system using the “recycling bin” or “trash can” metaphor.
Perhaps Microsoft has fixed this in Vista, removing this unnecessary confirmation. I’m doubtful of that though.
A little clean up is being done with the limited number of posts I’ve made so far. I’m working on reducing the number of categories used, and using tags to refine the type of post within that category. I had already created a new category for just about each post, and they were much more specific then they needed to be. The new structure should be much cleaner. With a few more posts and prospects for this site I’ll be tweaking things a bit over the next several weeks until I have it all down. I’m also looking into a new site design. I like this one well enough, but I’d like something a little more unique. I’d also like to bring back some old content that has been with my sites for a long time — hopefully here too!
This is an exceedingly interesting demonstration from Shinodalabs, demonstrating a method to interact with virtual objects in open space. Feedback is also provided, allowing the user to “feel” the object as they interact with it.
I would be very interested in seeing this type of technology adapted into immersive environments, such as a CUBE or motion capture environment. Imagine bumping into a table! Just don’t try to sit in the chair!
via Sources and Methods.
I ran across the Linux Hater’s Blog a few weeks ago, and have been absolutely transfixed by it since.
The blog is a great perspective on how poor the usability of Linux is… it is really poor, in case anyone wasn’t sure. It is also very funny to read.
Much of the Linux community seems to have failed to see what this blog is really about. Possibly due, in part, to the very colorful language used on the blog. Instead of reading the posts and really looking into their meaning, the community has decided the author is simply a Windows fanboy who doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Reading into the posts, just a little, you realize that this blog is written by someone who knows a great deal about what he is talking about. I’d go as far to say that the author actually supports Linux, and wants to see it succeed… if only those responsible for the OS would wake up.
The attacks against the site have been typical of Linux Developers. Blinders on, they continue to miss the reasons why Linux has failed to make any significant inroads onto the desktop market. Although I doubt the Linux Hater’s Blog will open any of their eyes, we can hope.
A great blog to be following, if you don’t already! Much better then spending your time here, so why haven’t you left yet?
From Gizmag – TouchKit: the open source, multi-touch screen developer’s kit.
NOR_/D is offering an open source multi-touch screen framework for a little under $1600. It is amazingly affordable — opening the doors for a great deal of research into multi-touch interaction! At this price, it is tempting to bring one into the home.
I’ve been looking more and more into multi-touch recently, due to some efforts at work. It is simply amazing what people are doing out there with regular LCD monitors, infrared cameras and a screwdriver. I’m sure I’ll be putting up many more posts on this subject in the future.
The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) has a short article on adding touch to an 20″ or 24″ iMac.
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/06/18/troll-touch-your-imac-screen/
Touchscreens are often hailed as the downfall of keyboards and mice. Their usefulness in situations such as kiosks is well established, but the practical design concepts needed to transition the technology to a complete desktop solution are limited at best.
Adding touch into an environment creates many new interaction concepts that do not exist with a keyboard/mouse. Many concepts from the keyboard/mouse experience do not translate well into a touch environment either, making combining the two technologies difficult.
The technology is very interesting, especially as a step to bring touch “to the masses”. At $900, my iMac will remain touchless for now though.
This is something that I ran across using a version control system that perplexed me. It couldn’t hit me more as a poor case of alerting in an application.
ClearCase is a version control package owned now by IBM. I am unsure if we are using the latest version of this package, or if the company is too cheap to spring for an update. If it has been updated I only hope that things have gotten much easier to use.
This alert appears after attempting to check in files with out placing a WO in the comment field. The usability nightmare begins…
What is a WO, or a CI? Vague abbreviations in an alert are never a good idea. This is lessened due to the audience using this package, as they will generally know what is meant, but I still had to read this error a few times to get it right. WO = Work Order, a trouble report that is a commonly known abbreviation — but I see little reason not to just spell it out. CI = Check In… I think. I really am not sure. They spell out “check in” later, so why can’t we be clear!?
What really caught my eye though are the options available to us on this dialog. Yes, No and Abort.
First, what’s the question I’m answering to? The dialog does not ask anything, or infer anything, that would necessitate a Yes or No reply.
Abort!? That sounds really serious! I mean… damn! We’re going to abort… something… I think. The dialog tells me the application has already refused to check the file in, so what exactly am I aborting?
Ultimately, all three buttons do exactly the same thing. They all close the dialog and force you to begin the process over again. Something a single “Ok” or “Close” button would have done, with less confusion.
UPDATE:
Another time this error appears is when you type the required information is not inputed correctly. It must be typed in a very specific way, else the system yells at you. Notice that the error gives no clue as to what was done wrong, or the correct format to use.
Two highly anticipated games due for release by the end of year, Spore and Mass Effect (PC version), have the dubious distinction of using the latest version of SecuROM Digital Rights Management to “prevent” piracy. In this case the games must connect to a server every 10 days to verify that the copy you are running is legit. Is my copy going to suddenly go rogue 12 days after I register?
Both games are single player, offline games. They have no purpose to be connected to the Internet other then this security check. Don’t play for 11 days and then try to load the game while on a plane. Guess you’ll have to watch that in-flight movie after all.
No form of DRM has ever been user-friendly. It places unnecessary and excessive restrictions on users that just make the gaming experience less enjoyable. Having to keep the CD in the drive while I played a game (for no other reason then to make sure I actually still had the CD in my possession) was bad enough.
DRM is not necessarily a bad thing. I have no love for DRM, as I’m sure this blog will reflect in the future, but the notion behind DRM is good — the goal being to prevent people from illegally pirating software. That’s good. The problem is that every form of this insipid technology tends to go out of its way to make life difficult for legitimate owners of the digital media.
Apple’s DRM tends to be a favorite target, as iTunes explodes in popularity. Despite the fact you’ve legally purchased the music from the iTunes store, you can’t play it on any device that Apple doesn’t want you to.
You can follow more of this from Joystiq.
