Quote:
Amazing isn't it that just because we only can invent one way to do something that people think it's the only possible way.
I'd like to address the above quote as it seems to be a common misconception or a sly debate tactic when discussing tablets. Just because someone points out shortcomings in an an interaction technique does not mean that the person is close minded. Nor does it mean that the person thinks the current way is the only possible way. It simply means that they are critiquing the value of that type of interaction.
The quote also suggests that not much thought has been given to the merits of various interaction techniques. This is insulting to the tens of thousands of computer scientists, psychologists, and human factors scientists that have devoted decades to that very subject. Rest assured, they're not only interested in the subject, but they have implemented and empirically studied just about everything ever mentioned on these forums. With that said, they fully acknowledge that there is plenty of work left to be done and nobody in the field thinks we've reached the pinnacle of interaction design.
So please everyone, when people like me offer critiques of tablets, styluses, and touch-interfaces, don't resort to calling us close-minded. It isn't that tablet critics are stuck in their ways. Many of us have given the subject much thought for many many years. There is a vast body of scientific research along with real-world precedence to build upon.
Plenty of research has been done on finger vs stylus based interaction... Nib-equipped thimble-styluses, redundant screens so that screen content can be viewed with or without the finger in the way, shifted point of focus (as you suggested), electro-static tactile feedback, audible feedback, relative vs absolute positioning devices, etc, etc.
While technology will advance, the human body will remain static. That is why a discussion of tablets/styluses/touch-interfaces revolves around human factors. It is well established that humans will only carry around objects of certain shapes and sizes unless unusually motivated. This dictates the form of everything in the constructed world around us, including books, keys, wallets, credit cards, weapons, types of food, etc. The same is true for tools and architecture. This is why for the past thousand years, writing instruments and door knobs have remained largely unchanged. Pockets, carrying straps, and luggage provide another category of constraints for the types of objects humans are willing to deal with.
In other words, a truly enlightened view on the potential of tablets would acknowledge that there are certain influences and constraints that will never change. These are imposed by the human physique along with limited sensory and mental faculties.
Despite being well aware of long held principles in the human factors field, interaction designers constantly stray into designing and implementing supposedly dead-end interaction techniques. That intellectual curiosity exists, flourishes, and occasionally leads to unexpected advances. I can't wait to see what they come up with next.
So please, don't suggest that tablet critics are just rejecting ideas on these boards simply because they are short sided. Quite the opposite can be true. Some, like myself, are obsessed with HCI and are simply pointing out the tradeoffs between computing form factors and their associated interaction techniques. It is my opinion that the utility of tablets is almost always overestimated outside of certain select applications such as free-hand shape definition. This is why I believe that tablets will forever remain auxiliary computers, supplementing other types of computers which are more optimal for the vast majority of tasks.
Woah, that was long. Obsessed, did I mention obsessed?
Please carry on though... I'd like to encourage discussion on the subject despite getting peeved when people assume that this is new territory. Apple has done amazing things with the iPhone's interface. But really it is their implementation and application of already well understood technologies and principles that makes the iPhone revolutionary. What Apple did was find productive ways of applying them.
Anyway, as per my usual style after posting such a manifesto, I'll bow out and let others have their say.
