[simonholroyd]

I'm not sure why press, media, futurists insist on pushing the idea that the future of user interaction is via replicating 3-dimensional physical interaction. There's a reason the keyboard, mouse and (small) touch screen are so successful as input devices. They each create an huge degree of meaning with a high level of precision, for relatively tiny physical movements.

While a 3-d interface that mimics reality might be more intuitive to a first-time user, it is vastly less efficient for an experienced user trying to get work done. A 3-d desktop is an accurate mental model but it doesn't need to exist on a screen if it exists in my head. I can move through the z axis of my desktop faster with alt-tab than I could ever move, shuffle, re-order a stack of documents with my hands in a 3-d environment.

* EDIT: tv and movies (eg. minority report) probably have a clear incentive to favor input devices where the audience can more easily see what's happening. 3-d works better there.

[mixedbit]

I agree and I think it is impossible to create an interface that is optimal for both inexperienced and power users. For users that are using a piece of software frequently, say few hours a day, intuitiveness of an interface should not matter, just efficiency.

I'm often surprised when I see professional programmers turning on some fancy 3D destop effects. Sure, these look nice, but they are only distracting and counter productive when you are using an environment several hours a day.

tl;dr xmonad rocks

[chimeracoder]

For power users, the word 'intuitive' doesn't even make sense. There's nothing 'intuitive' about hjkl, but when I tried switching from wmii to i3, the very first thing I did was switch their navigation keybindings back from jkl; to hjkl. Yes, the reasons for hjkl are historic and arbitrary, but I don't care - I don't want to relearn yet another set of muscle memories when I don't have to.

Even vim on the whole is completely 'unintuitive'. That's the whole reason vimtutor exists. But, the couple of hours I've spent (combined) over the last few years learning how to use it has paid off in full and with dividends in terms of my productivity - and I hopefully have many more decades of life to recoup that investment many more times over.

> I'm often surprised when I see professional programmers turning on some fancy 3D destop effects. Sure, these look nice, but they are only distracting and counter productive when you are using an environment several hours a day.

I couldn't find these more annoying. Web interfaces tend to be the worst (because they're highly uncustomizeable). I don't want a slick, 3 second animation where the tab wiggles and slides every time I want to change the page (I'm looking at you, AmEx). I know where I want to go, and I just want to get there immediately. Every second that I'm delayed by flashy animations in something that I need to use several times a day just makes me despise the product a little bit more each time.

Outside of very specific applications/domains (gaming, simulations, etc.), I don't want anything to replace my keyboard. As GP said, nothing (including the mouse) can beat the keyboard for allowing maximum control and precision with minimal movement.

[JasonFruit]

Maybe a better word than 'intuitive' is 'obvious', or even 'blatant'. For a user inexperienced with the application and unfamiliar with interface conventions, the most effective interface is one whose most basic features scream, "Here I am!" A skilled, experienced user needs the opposite — everything should be available at the press of a key, and he or she knows which key it is; anything that calls attention to itself and is not the work at hand is a distraction, and needs to go hide.

[alexsb92]

> I'm not sure why press, media, futurists insist on pushing the idea that the future of user interaction is via replicating 3-dimensional physical interaction. There's a reason the keyboard, mouse and (small) touch screen are so successful as input devices. They each create an huge degree of meaning with a high level of precision, for relatively tiny physical movements.

While the advantages you mention of a keyboard/mouse/touchscreen are correct, I would not say that is the reason they are so successful. The reason they are so successful is because up until recently there was no competition to either of these. They are the default winners in the world of today, because they were the only ones racing yesterday.

[afiler]

When Doug Engelbart presented the Mother of All Demos back in 1968, he introduced both the mouse and the chorded keyboard, yet the chorded keyboard never caught on. And in 1968, the mouse was a new competitor to the light pen, which had been introduced in 1952. And just in case you don't think the light pen got a fair shake, remember that the IBM PC came with light pen support on both the CGA and EGA cards, and with support in the BIOS and in BASIC. There was no support for the mouse.

[mayank]

It's a natural progression in tech predictions. I remember the same thing in the late 90s with VRML (Virtual Reality Modeling Language, with a plugin available for Netscape). I never quite got how walking through a "virtual 3D store" was a good experience, but PC Magazine and others at the time seemed to think it was somehow the future of the web.

Edit: some VRML links for the nostalgic: [1] http://books.google.com/books/about/PC_Magazine_Programming_...