|
|
|
|
|
|
by azinman2
2484 days ago
|
|
|
Oi. I’m guessing the author is young and doesn’t know that much work was put into spatial UI in the 80s/90s and flopped for good reason: we might live in a 3D world, but that doesn’t mean computers should emulate that... the world doesn’t change dynamically in front of me like with a computer. Turns out that computers are hard and complicated, and simplifying their interaction works best. That and most of these problems can be solved in other, better ways... for the actual parts that are worth answering (no one is asking who is everyone meeting with now, and tiny avatars don’t answer that any better than a simple list). |
|
|
Deep learning was a cool but impractical idea in the 80's and 90's. In-browser payments were laughed out of the room when Netscape and Microsoft tried proposing them to banks and credit card firms in the 90's.
Part of what the author is saying is that, maybe with our current toolset, we can find that the "simpler" interactions are more physical and interactive now than tapping and clicking.
Sometimes people actually are asking questions like "Who has meetings right now? Which rooms can I bump people from? Did half my group go somewhere that I should be joining?" and a list in Outlook doesn't always fit the bill. Sometimes I need to know where activity is in a building, and just giving me a list of zones or spaces in the building is indeed simpler, but less contextual than, for example, seeing a map with avatars.
There's something good about making what's old new again. It does happen that things we've decided are out of reach or impractical have a novel solution waiting in current capabilities.