[ziburski]

This is exactly the idea of Desktop Neo. If tablets and phones are used for consumption, the desktop can be focused on productivity.

I don't want to replace the complexity of the desktop with interfaces that are easier. I want them to be better, to be more efficient for professionals.

Concepts like panels, tags and touch input are probably way harder to understand than windows, folders and mouse input. But it doesn’t matter, because professionals spend so much time on desktop computers that it's worth the effort to master the interface.

[semi-extrinsic]

> I want them to be better, to be more efficient for professionals.

This is a good goal. But gestures and multitouch will not lead you on the path to that goal. Consider tiling window managers like awesome or i3, that already today help programmers (myself included) be more efficient. They achieve this by reducing time-consuming dragging, dropping, resizing and clicking actions either by replacing them with keyboard shortcuts or simply by automating them away. A UI where you have to move your hands even further (distance keyboard-screen > distance keyboard-mouse) will actually decrease productivity (and likely cause RSI problems as well).

I realise this is a mockup/concept design. But if you want to pursue the idea further, I very much recommend using a tiling window manager for an extended period of time, to learn from that paradigm.

[joepvd]

The mockup interface of i3 + graphical rofi[1] + touch/mouse integration.

This is a very powerful paradigm to pursue: An intuitive version of tiling WMs that appeals to everyone. Go, ziburski, go!

[1]: https://davedavenport.github.io/rofi/#window-switcher

[ddingus]

I do think you are on a good path with tags.

Back when I went to Gmail from a folder type email representation, it was hard at first. But search proved superior. Basically, a lot of organizational time investment had no return. Getting better at search always has a return, and you save all the laborious folder management.

I've taken to one or two big directories filled with reference material, docs, pictures, etc... search generally pays off.

Smarter tagging is likely to work in similar ways.

[gedy]

My beef with search-based, tag-based UIs are they are not great at browsing content. Sometimes I want to just review and look at older content, not search for one particular thing.

[ddingus]

I will plug in a date, but yes, agreed.

[munchbunny]

As a developer, I unfortunately have to live in a fundamentally different paradigm where file systems are inescapable (unless OSes change dramatically under the hood), keyboards are essential, etc. etc.

But when I'm not trying to write code I can see this working.

[PuffinBlue]

This is a long response, but I think it might be useful to read.

There are a lot of attempts to redesign the desktop or do some clever thing to increase productivity but all of them tend to forget the fundamentals of interacting with the computer. The forget why what we have is successful and seem unclear as to what they are trying to move towards as an improvement.

That probably seems like a bold statement so lets look at a few things.

Lets look at why something like paper is still around. Do we care that one piece of paper might hide behind another in a stack of papers on a desk, is that a terminal failure of the medium? I'd say no. Just like windows hiding others, it's not a fundamental issue that needs solving.

Why else might paper be successful? I'd suggest it's not the paper itself, it the way we interact with paper. We don't use our hands to mark the paper, we use tools, we use pens, brushes, pencils, chalks and all manor of things. Paper is a tool that allows us to get the best from a range of our 'marking' tools.

Like wise, if we are to interact via touch with the desktop, it stands to reason that to get the best from the experience we need to have a range of tactile tools to do so. We need our keyboard, our mice, our touch pads, touch screens and stylus'. Concomitantly, we need our desktops to allow us to get the most out of these interaction tools.

To my mind, the problem with the desktop isn't that it needs a fundamentally more restrictive use pattern, it needs a better use of the available control mechanisms.

Let's think about why Vim is so enduring and successful. Vim only does one thing, manipulates text and it's got a mode of operation totally alien to many who've used a text editor. Yet for decades now it's what many gravitate towards as the pinnacle of interacting with text on a computer (shout out to Emacs folks, this is just an example!).

Vims's method of operation seeks to ruthlessly release the power of the keyboard to offer huge benefits in terms of productivity and manipulation.

What is your design seeking to ruthlessly release from the power of our interactive devices? Why are our existing tools better for interacting with your design than a traditional desktop? what power are you releasing from them?

All of this is to say that whilst you may redesign the desktop and have clever (and useful) schemes to increase productivity, these designs don't pay enough attention to the things we use to interact with the computer, and so don't offer true lasting benefit and therefore don't catch on or endure.

If you redesign the way the desktop works, you need to either re-imagine the tools we use to interact with it or take measures, without pity or care for convention, to release the power of the existing ones.

Apple's done an interesting job in this area in it's move to bring touch gestures into the control of the desktop, but I'd don't think it's hardly been a fully realised opportunity.

[egypturnash]

polite spelling correction: it's "all manner of things", not "all manor of things".

[PuffinBlue]

Ack.