Skip to main content

Touchy feely Windows might just work

I've been reading about Windows 8 recently, the totally redesigned Windows interface for the next version of the operating system, which owes as much to smartphones and iPads as it does to a traditional WIMP environment.

My first reaction was scepticism. Don't get me wrong - I love the touchy-feely interface on the iPhone and the iPad. When did manipulating things with a mouse last seem enjoyable - which the gesture-based interface does. But surely things are different on the desktop? The enjoyably reactionary IT minds at The Register certainly feel this way. Although they give a lot of coverage to the iPad, they sarcastically refer to it as a 'fondle slab', and so, by extension call Windows 8 'FondleWindows.'

The key phrase from their introduction to Windows 8 is: 'As even the iPad's biggest fans might admit, while it's a terrific viewing device, for office work it's actually a sub-optimal UI, for now. Nothing beats a mouse and a rich UI designed for a mouse.' And I found myself nodding sagely and agreeing with author Andrew Orlowski. But then I had second thoughts.

Anyone remember Minority Report? Weren't those gesture-interface screens cool? And really that's pretty much what happens with an iPad, but on a small scale. So think big. Yes, when it comes to simply piling in text you are going to use a keyboard. But for all the control aspects, working directly with the screen and gestures can be much more effective than anything in a standard WIMP. Part of the problem with Mr Orlowski's view is that it takes a very one-document-at-a-time attitude. When I'm writing a book I usually have seven or eight documents on the go at once. Maybe three Word files, at least as many browser windows and OneNote. Now imagine having all those on a big enough screen that each document appears at least the size of a piece of A4. Flipping content around, zipping from place to place - it is going to work so much better with gestures.

Don't get me wrong - when Windows 8 comes along, we aren't suddenly going to transform the way we interact with the desktop. But just as I've gone from working on a single 13" screen to dual 21" screens, I can imagine in some years time it'll be a massive touch screen, as well as a keyboard and mouse. And FondleWindows could just be the answer to making it a great experience.
Labels:

Comments

  1. cromercrox9 June 2011 at 09:35

    Gesture-based computing would be the future, except it's here now, and it's only the next stage. I fully expect that the next edition of OS, whether it'll be called ocelot or bandicoot or pink panther, will have a UI based on thought alone.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg9 June 2011 at 11:47

    The argument, Henry, (which I disagree with) is that it's fine for portable devices, but not the desktop, where on the whole it isn't here yet.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
118 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more