Leopard & Core animation ... Wired says it will change the desktop forever

8 Jun 2007 - 9:04am
7 years ago
24 replies
691 reads
Dave Malouf
2005

http://www.wired.com/software/coolapps/news/2007/06/core_anim

Can someone who is a cult of Mac person be so kind as to explain the
reality behind this hyped up article on "Core Animation" in the new
version of Mac OS X.

One person is quoted as saying its the best thing since Mac OS
delivered in 1984.

Just a little guy looking for a reality check.

-- dave

--
David Malouf
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixda.org/
http://motorola.com/

Comments

8 Jun 2007 - 9:19am
Jeremiah Peschka
2007

Core Animation can be compared to how DirectX helps out game developers.

Rather than having to code any kind of physics to make a window 'throwable',
a developer would simply mark the window as throwable and then the user
could chuck the window across the screen with their mouse (or whatever
actions have been coded in).

In essence, Core Animation supplies a pre-built set of effects that can be
called to make your UI appear more modern and responsive.

On 6/8/07, David Malouf <dave.ixd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.wired.com/software/coolapps/news/2007/06/core_anim
>
> Can someone who is a cult of Mac person be so kind as to explain the
> reality behind this hyped up article on "Core Animation" in the new
> version of Mac OS X.
>
> One person is quoted as saying its the best thing since Mac OS
> delivered in 1984.
>
> Just a little guy looking for a reality check.
>
> -- dave
>
>
> --
> David Malouf
> http://synapticburn.com/
> http://ixda.org/
> http://motorola.com/
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>

8 Jun 2007 - 9:42am
Will Parker
2007

On Jun 8, 2007, at 7:04 AM, David Malouf wrote:

> http://www.wired.com/software/coolapps/news/2007/06/core_anim
>
> Can someone who is a cult of Mac person be so kind as to explain the
> reality behind this hyped up article on "Core Animation" in the new
> version of Mac OS X.
>
> One person is quoted as saying its the best thing since Mac OS
> delivered in 1984.
>
> Just a little guy looking for a reality check.

I recently started putting together a UxD-oriented bookmark
collection at Ma.gnolia.com; take a look at the first two articles
referenced under my animation tag. These articles do an excellent
job of analyzing the details of Apple's past and future use of
animation from a UxD perspective.

http://ma.gnolia.com/people/grand_kibitzer/tags/animation

You can use animation for decoration, and the Wired article (at a
fleeting glance) appears to focus on that aspect. But you can also
use it to provide important cues to the user, which is a far deeper
integration of animation into the design.

- Will

Will Parker
wparker at ChannelingDesign.com

“I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If
that were the case, then Microsoft would have great products.” -
Steve Jobs

8 Jun 2007 - 10:41am
.pauric
2006

>From the wired article: "Disco is software for burning disks that
illustrates a new approach to interfaces: It smokes while it burns.
If you blow into your computer's microphone, the smoke blows across
your desktop."

Is there such a thing as 'Experience creep'?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=17082

8 Jun 2007 - 10:59am
Vishal Subraman...
2005

Oh yeah! Wasn't Flash supposed to take over the world?

> Is there such a thing as 'Experience creep'?

--
-Vishal
http://www.vishaliyer.com

8 Jun 2007 - 11:29am
Chris Bernard
2007

To me this sounds very similar to what WPF is designed to do for Windows. Presumably it will be a little more accessible to mainstream application developers than Direct X.

Like with all technology it will be used for good and evil. I suspect the 'blinking text' and 'skip intro' metaphor for Core Animation has yet to be created but for WPF applications it seems to be the 3D carousel interface for navigation. But things like WPF and Core Animation should make it easy to add subtly to interfaces that can convey emotion or delight. Notable examples of this exist today if one looks at products like Tivo, or how the log in screen on a Mac shakes at you if you enter the wrong password. Or even the cover flip interface on iTunes and with the iPhone. They are perhaps slightly on the gratuitous side but they are fun and pleasurable to use.

I remember a number of years ago when someone (I'm not sure who) characterized the forceful admonishments of a Usability guru as such, "If we are listened to what XXX had to say instead of grass in our front yards we would simply install concrete and paint it green."

Chris Bernard
Microsoft
User Experience Evangelist
chris.bernard at microsoft.com
312.925.4095

Blog: www.designthinkingdigest.com
Design: www.microsoft.com/design
Tools: www.microsoft.com/expression

"The future is already here. It's just not evenly distributed." William Gibson

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of David Malouf
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 9:04 AM
To: IXDA list
Subject: [IxDA Discuss] Leopard & Core animation ... Wired says it will change the desktop forever

http://www.wired.com/software/coolapps/news/2007/06/core_anim

Can someone who is a cult of Mac person be so kind as to explain the
reality behind this hyped up article on "Core Animation" in the new
version of Mac OS X.

One person is quoted as saying its the best thing since Mac OS
delivered in 1984.

Just a little guy looking for a reality check.

-- dave

--
David Malouf
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixda.org/
http://motorola.com/
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

8 Jun 2007 - 11:45am
Dan Saffer
2003

On Jun 8, 2007, at 8:41 AM, pauric wrote:

>> From the wired article: "Disco is software for burning disks that
> illustrates a new approach to interfaces: It smokes while it burns.
> If you blow into your computer's microphone, the smoke blows across
> your desktop."
>
> Is there such a thing as 'Experience creep'?

But imagine the ambient possibilities. What is the smoke blew and
changed not if the user has to do something (blow) but from just the
ambient noise in the room? One can imagine a lot of subtle touches
like these. Our computers are all mostly equipped with microphones
and cameras now and can presumably see and hear a little. Why do we
continue treating them as blind and deaf?

Dan

8 Jun 2007 - 11:55am
.pauric
2006

Chris, there's no question Delight is good. I'm wondering how we
define the boundary lines between usable|cool|distracting

What usability test tools are there to appraise how quickly some of
this stuff gets old?

Its not hard to see how Core and similar technologies can immerse the
user in the interface, inducing a state of Flow more easily.

I am for it. But I also have a hunch that as the interface becomes
more stylized, intricate, animated etc, you also narrow the range of
users who truly groove on it.

Results: low end novices get a little overwhelmed, high end power
users feel hindered. And on the upper fringe as time goes on they
get increasingly frustrated with their singing/dancing windows.

Again, I'm for it, but what are the UI methodologies for knowing
when we've gone too far? They probably exist, some may need
updating.. Jared?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=17082

8 Jun 2007 - 12:01pm
Trip O'Dell
2007

>
>One person is quoted as saying its the best thing since Mac OS
>delivered in 1984.

More Cowbell!

8 Jun 2007 - 12:08pm
.pauric
2006

Dan: "Why do we continue treating them as blind and deaf?"

While not disagreeing with you Dan, to take it to the extreme you
have an object d'art, an electronic lava lamp.

At is -very- core, the computer is a tool for accomplishing tasks.
Thats not to say you cant dress it up a little. Apple is making a
good business out of cool, timeless design.

But, when you let a bunch of developers loose, and reading the
article.. it's all developers gushing about the tech, you have let
the horse bolt out of the stable. A reason I would say why the
iPhone isnt open to 3rd party apps. Take the appleTV, there's a
decent bunch of hacks for it, including a youtube viewer. Apple went
and added in the youtube functionality themselves - very wise.

But, how do you control what 3rd party developers will do with your
controls on their apps. Guidelines? tools for testing when they're
doing too much?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=17082

8 Jun 2007 - 12:16pm
biankamcgovern@...
2007

These "interfaces" creep me out. Some designers seem to think that the
user is bored all the time. In this case it seems that the designers
were bored and the result is an extremely gimmicky interface which I
doubt creates a good user experience. I prefer burning apps which act
in the background and leave me alone.
Bianka

On 6/8/07, Dan Saffer <dan at odannyboy.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 8, 2007, at 8:41 AM, pauric wrote:
>
> >> From the wired article: "Disco is software for burning disks that
> > illustrates a new approach to interfaces: It smokes while it burns.
> > If you blow into your computer's microphone, the smoke blows across
> > your desktop."
> >
> > Is there such a thing as 'Experience creep'?
>
> But imagine the ambient possibilities. What is the smoke blew and
> changed not if the user has to do something (blow) but from just the
> ambient noise in the room? One can imagine a lot of subtle touches
> like these. Our computers are all mostly equipped with microphones
> and cameras now and can presumably see and hear a little. Why do we
> continue treating them as blind and deaf?
>
> Dan
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>

8 Jun 2007 - 12:22pm
Dan Saffer
2003

On Jun 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, pauric wrote:

> At is -very- core, the computer is a tool for accomplishing tasks.

I am going to disagree with you right from the get-go. There has been
this reductionist trend lately about "What a Computer is Good For"
and it usually devolves down to this level of drudgery: accomplishing
tasks. Ho hum. When we all know that computers--especially networked
computers--are so much more. At XEROX Parc in the early 70s they had
they biggest breakthroughs after Bob Taylor urged them to stop
thinking about the computer as a task machine and instead as a
communication tool. 35 years later, we should do no less.

>
> But, when you let a bunch of developers loose,

OMG! Developers Gone Wild!

> But, how do you control what 3rd party developers will do with your
> controls on their apps. Guidelines? tools for testing when they're
> doing too much?

Of course there is going to be some excesses. (See: Flash, circa 1997-
Present). But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. And
here's another metaphor: the cream rises to the top. We'll eventually
find a balance with animation through trial and error and the
leveling hand of the marketplace.

The developers and early adopters will go wild and hopefully push the
envelope and we'll undoubtedly see some crass, over-the-top
animations. But we'll also undoubtedly see some cool stuck that will
stick and become part of our interaction design lexicon.

Dan

8 Jun 2007 - 12:33pm
Chris Bernard
2007

Well, I'd love to hear Jared's thought on this (and suspect Don Norman has some good insights too) but I suspect anyone that measures 'satisfaction' of an overall experience in usability testing independent of the normal measures of time on task, level of completion, Level I, II, or III errors etc. probably does this by default. And satisfaction has a lot to do with pragmatic things that we can measure around function and context but also captures (albeit qualitatively) those fuzzy things like delight and esthetics.

In my early days at IBM I used to think that measuring satisfaction was a waste of time, thinking... "I don't care how satisfied they are! Can they complete the task? How many errors did they make?" But over time (and I'm being anecdotal) I came to realize that satisfaction is important, as important, as usability because our satisfaction is what ultimately fuels our overall impression of an interaction.

I've tested apps that work great but that users dislike because of the way they look or the fact I've perhaps made things easier but unfamiliar (anyone that's redesigned a green screen app. For experienced users has probably encountered the same challenges).

I've also tested apps that I know kind of suck but that score very highly on satisfaction because people simply enjoyed using the applications, warts and all.

I'm not sure we have a great set of processes to measure this stuff yet and my take away is that making things fun and delightful (designing for emotion as it were) seems to just make people feel better when they use something. But the fact that it can hide a multitude of sins or make a user feel great about an experience that could be better should not be lost on us either.

>From a IxD perspective I guess the best mental model I use for this today comes from Jon Maeda and focuses on the three keys he outlines in his book 'The Laws of Simplicity.' Which focus on...

AWAY (More appears less by simply moving it far, far away)

OPEN (Openness simplifies complexity)

POWER (Use less, gain more)

I could use the redesign of Office 2007 as an example here and it's a good one when we look at all the skill sets that use Office. The Ribbon and it's contextual tabs focus on the AWAY. We hide things you don't need to see depending on what you're doing and they reappear when you need them. We focus on the OPEN by using real time previews of changes that a user may make in the application versus making a user step through 10 steps in a dialog box (although we still have room for improvement). And finally, we focus on POWER by letting folks do in the 07 version of PowerPoint, Word or Excel that in the past would have required external and specialized applications.

I don't presume to be canonical here but if we look at things like Core Animation or WPF or (insert technology here) through this lens I think we can tailor roadmaps that guide the intelligence applications of what some of these new innovations can bring us.

When designers, or more often, developers ask me what can/should they do with WPF I usually suggest they go pick up a copy of Jenifer Tidwell's Designing Interfaces first to get familiar with an interaction design vocabulary to provide a foundation for how to use WPF appropriately. I suspect and actually know that the concept of emotion in design is going to get a lot more play in MS research and I would expect that all the usual suspects are starting to think about this more. Some of the paradigms for how to best take advantage of this new technology haven't been well formed yet.

Chris Bernard
Microsoft
User Experience Evangelist
chris.bernard at microsoft.com
312.925.4095

Blog: www.designthinkingdigest.com
Design: www.microsoft.com/design
Tools: www.microsoft.com/expression

"The future is already here. It's just not evenly distributed." William Gibson

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of pauric
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 11:55 AM
To: discuss at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Leopard & Core animation ... Wired says it will change the desktop forever

Chris, there's no question Delight is good. I'm wondering how we
define the boundary lines between usable|cool|distracting

What usability test tools are there to appraise how quickly some of
this stuff gets old?

Its not hard to see how Core and similar technologies can immerse the
user in the interface, inducing a state of Flow more easily.

I am for it. But I also have a hunch that as the interface becomes
more stylized, intricate, animated etc, you also narrow the range of
users who truly groove on it.

Results: low end novices get a little overwhelmed, high end power
users feel hindered. And on the upper fringe as time goes on they
get increasingly frustrated with their singing/dancing windows.

Again, I'm for it, but what are the UI methodologies for knowing
when we've gone too far? They probably exist, some may need
updating.. Jared?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=17082

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

8 Jun 2007 - 1:04pm
Dan Saffer
2003

On Jun 8, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Bianka McGovern wrote:

> In this case it seems that the designers
> were bored and the result is an extremely gimmicky interface which I
> doubt creates a good user experience.

We should be careful labeling a technology or product a gimmick until
its potential has been examined and explored. Assuredly many of the
things we think of as natural now were perceived as gimmicks
initially. The GUI, for instance.

Dan

8 Jun 2007 - 1:12pm
dani malik
2005

Also, there is nothing "natural" about our current interfaces,
nothing that we instinctually, primitively understand. We had to
learn it. I think often animations help approximate the physical
world and help users tap into a mental model that they do understand
on a gut level, with things like direct manipulation/drag and drop.

I'm obviously taking into account the difference between UI
animations and graphic animations that don't inform the UI. But
then I kind of like those too.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=17082

8 Jun 2007 - 1:13pm
.pauric
2006

Dan, until we communicate (socially) with the computer we are -using-
the computer to communicate with others. Leisa sums up the flaw of a
reductionist view of using a computer
http://www.disambiguity.com/the-non-zero-sum-game-of-social-networking/
I agree with you about tasks and networked computer realm, but what
has core got to do with social?

David M. linked to a great article that underlines my take:
http://www.humanized.com/weblog/2007/06/05/iterative_design_isnt_design_by/

The problem as I see it, following the process on Aza's post, it
might go a little something like this...

Goal> Built an interface that delights
Solution> Core

Refined goal> Built an interface that delights but doesnt confuse or
hinder.
Solution> Core guidelines/metrics

New goal> Define delight guidelines (work with me here..)
Solution> Understand what delights and what frustrates users.

>From that final goal we should have a fairly clear set of constraints
for the design based upon what users do when in front of a machine.

Again I agree with the flaws of being too reductionist when it comes
to the complex mental map people have with the platform (delibrately
avoiding the words task, activity relationship here) but core isnt
about IA, workflow, social relationships. Tweaking the presentation
layer, for me, can have a direct impact on how approachable the
tasks, activities, platform, relationships etc etc is used.

Yes the 'market' will decide as you point out. But then... the
field of usability would exist if that really worked (o;

"But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

Just to make the point again - I'm for this. How do we constrain
the usage? I understand you see something here I do not and as
always.. I'm usually wrong more that 4/3rds of the time.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=17082

8 Jun 2007 - 1:31pm
biankamcgovern@...
2007

The technology has potential, no doubt about it. I just think that the
examples "AppZapper" and "Disco" are bad examples. Metaphors help
users to understand an application but the metaphor of smoke for
"burning a cd" is simply wrong. In this context "burning" means
something like "etching" and not "destroying by fire". And what is the
function of the smoke other than entertainment? I'm sure after playing
around with this toy for a day it becomes indeed "boring".

Bianka

On 6/8/07, Dan Saffer <dan at odannyboy.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 8, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Bianka McGovern wrote:
>
> > In this case it seems that the designers
> > were bored and the result is an extremely gimmicky interface which I
> > doubt creates a good user experience.
>
> We should be careful labeling a technology or product a gimmick until
> its potential has been examined and explored. Assuredly many of the
> things we think of as natural now were perceived as gimmicks
> initially. The GUI, for instance.
>
> Dan
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>

8 Jun 2007 - 2:15pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Jun 8, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Chris Bernard wrote:

> I remember a number of years ago when someone (I'm not sure who)
> characterized the forceful admonishments of a Usability guru as
> such, "If we are listened to what XXX had to say instead of grass
> in our front yards we would simply install concrete and paint it
> green."

I don't know if it's meaningful, but I've removed all the grass from
my yard and have converted it to woodland.

Really.

No, really. I have.

I'm serious. No, really.

Nevermind.

Jared

8 Jun 2007 - 2:43pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

Pauric wrote:

> Results: low end novices get a little overwhelmed, high end power
> users feel hindered. And on the upper fringe as time goes on they
> get increasingly frustrated with their singing/dancing windows.
>
> Again, I'm for it, but what are the UI methodologies for knowing
> when we've gone too far? They probably exist, some may need
> updating.. Jared?

Chris Bernard wrote:

> Well, I'd love to hear Jared's thought on this (and suspect Don
> Norman has some good insights too) but I suspect anyone that
> measures 'satisfaction' of an overall experience in usability
> testing independent of the normal measures of time on task, level
> of completion, Level I, II, or III errors etc. probably does this
> by default. And satisfaction has a lot to do with pragmatic things
> that we can measure around function and context but also captures
> (albeit qualitatively) those fuzzy things like delight and esthetics.
>
> In my early days at IBM I used to think that measuring satisfaction
> was a waste of time, thinking... "I don't care how satisfied they
> are! Can they complete the task? How many errors did they make?"
> But over time (and I'm being anecdotal) I came to realize that
> satisfaction is important, as important, as usability because our
> satisfaction is what ultimately fuels our overall impression of an
> interaction.

Why does everyone keep looking at *me*? What the hell do I know about
this stuff?

As for techniques for measuring delight, we're a little light on
these. Traditional user research methods focus on measuring
frustration, which is the opposite end of the scale. Measuring gross
frustration is easy. Measuring subtle frustration is more difficult,
but we still do ok with it.

Delight is not something traditional methods have explored well. We
can tie things into brand engagement, but that's a rough correlation.
Satisfaction doesn't really work, since there's no real standard for
satisfaction. (What satisfies me could piss you off, either because
your standards are higher than mine or you have different values than
me.) Measuring delight is something we need to do more work on.

Measuring long term effects is something we do know how to do, but,
most people don't do it. That's because long-term measures are
expensive to execute and analyze, primarily due to the crudeness of
our techniques.

We do look at delta values (does the user find "more" of some
quality, like satisfaction or delight, with one design alternative
than with another?), but we don't have a good way to assess standard
measures, especially if we want to provide some aggregate notion of
the attribute across multiple individuals.

But, we're working on it...

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: jspool at uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks

8 Jun 2007 - 2:50pm
Dave Malouf
2005

Jared,
I don't think you are the guru in question ... I mean your swag
says, "It depends" ... you are not known for admonishments. ;)

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=17082

8 Jun 2007 - 3:17pm
.pauric
2006

Jared: 'Woodland'

Waiting for the UIE virtual seminar 'How to design for Lawn 2.0'

In the lawn 1.0 era designers implemented patterns of static grass.
Our research is showing us that today's designers, faced with a
desire to utilise more organic lawn structures, are looking to
natural patterns that interface users and nature in a more intuitive
interaction flow.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=17082

8 Jun 2007 - 3:33pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Jun 8, 2007, at 4:17 PM, pauric wrote:

> Jared: 'Woodland'
>
> Waiting for the UIE virtual seminar 'How to design for Lawn 2.0'
>
> In the lawn 1.0 era designers implemented patterns of static grass.
> Our research is showing us that today's designers, faced with a
> desire to utilise more organic lawn structures, are looking to
> natural patterns that interface users and nature in a more intuitive
> interaction flow.

Now there's an innovative idea!

Jared

8 Jun 2007 - 3:35pm
Alexander Baxevanis
2007

I wouldn't take "ambient" so far, but the potential for some ambient
interactions is certainly there.

Take a look at this screenshot:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/futureshape/536286900/

Although most of the application window is obscured, the smoke around
it can give you an "ambient progress indication" that CD burning is
still going on (not sure if the designers actually had this in mind,
but it didn't take me long to think of this example).

Humans are accustomed to looking for such subtle hints in their
environment: the steam coming out from the pot on the hob can tell us
that the food is still cooking, we can understand from the sound that
different domestic machines are working, the shade of light in the
corridor can tell us that we forgot to switch of the light in the next
room. All this happens subconsciously, without our brain consciously
monitoring all these variables.

In short we don't need to look at a progress bar or a status indicator
for many things around us -- why not simplify a few computer tasks by
offering ambient animations?

On 6/8/07, Dan Saffer <dan at odannyboy.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 8, 2007, at 8:41 AM, pauric wrote:
>
> >> From the wired article: "Disco is software for burning disks that
> > illustrates a new approach to interfaces: It smokes while it burns.
> > If you blow into your computer's microphone, the smoke blows across
> > your desktop."
> >
> > Is there such a thing as 'Experience creep'?
>
> But imagine the ambient possibilities. What is the smoke blew and
> changed not if the user has to do something (blow) but from just the
> ambient noise in the room? One can imagine a lot of subtle touches
> like these. Our computers are all mostly equipped with microphones
> and cameras now and can presumably see and hear a little. Why do we
> continue treating them as blind and deaf?
>
> Dan
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>

8 Jun 2007 - 5:17pm
natekendrick
2005

Some of us quickly labeled MS Surface as kinda gimmicky, or at least
opaque from an interaction standpoint.

Its all about thin slicing... we have gut reactions. Gut reaction to
Core Animation is - yes, its developers gone wild! and that's never a
good thing.

Just like its never a good thing when designers go wild. We get
things like Bang and Olufsen - terribly overpriced items for the sake
of form and form only.

I'm sorry but from the article... Delicious Library, while a
revelation in visual design, was not a revelation in gui design. The
young whippersnapper designer may be talented, but he's no prophet of
the next-generation sea change of the gui. I mean come on... no else
is up in arms by his (Shipley's) comments in the Wired article?

All flash (haha, Flash user interfaces are terrible) and no substance
I say.

-N

On Jun 8, 2007, at 11:04 AM, Dan Saffer wrote:

>
> On Jun 8, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Bianka McGovern wrote:
>
>> In this case it seems that the designers
>> were bored and the result is an extremely gimmicky interface which I
>> doubt creates a good user experience.
>
> We should be careful labeling a technology or product a gimmick until
> its potential has been examined and explored. Assuredly many of the
> things we think of as natural now were perceived as gimmicks
> initially. The GUI, for instance.
>
> Dan
>

8 Jun 2007 - 8:42pm
Will Parker
2007

On Jun 8, 2007, at 1:17 PM, pauric wrote:

> Jared: 'Woodland'
>
> Waiting for the UIE virtual seminar 'How to design for Lawn 2.0'
>
> In the lawn 1.0 era designers implemented patterns of static grass.
> Our research is showing us that today's designers, faced with a
> desire to utilise more organic lawn structures, are looking to
> natural patterns that interface users and nature in a more intuitive
> interaction flow.

We here at Channeling Design headquarters advocate autonomous
'genetic' design trials for Lawn 2.0 installations that mimic the
natural meadow-to-forest succession. Absolutely zero maintenance
infrastructure required.

- Will

Will Parker
wparker at ChannelingDesign.com

“I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If
that were the case, then Microsoft would have great products.” -
Steve Jobs

Syndicate content Get the feed