*Use your fingerprint, your voice, a credit-card you can place in your wallet, a USB device, a password, a combination of these, etc.
Keys are very convenient, you can share them easily. Imagine having to go and program the voice recognition system in your car when you need someone to go to the shop for you. Other devices ( USB, credit card ) are just keys, but with a different shape. Most modern cars have engine immobilisers, which can only be deactivated by an RFID chip embedded in the key.
Quote:
Why are most pizzas circular when boxes are squared?
*We need more square pizzas, use all the space inside the box!
Im pretty sure that Alton ( good eats ) discusses the reasons why pizza should be spun. From memory it has to do with getting the texture of the pizza crust the way it is. Spinning, of course, results in a round pizza. With modern tech. we can make square pizza, but it takes time to change traditions. Besides, my favourite is the crust, and in a round pizza every slice gets some.
What you really need is to stop buying crap packaged pizza
Quote:
Why are soft-drinks sold on 355 ml (12 oz) and 600 ml (20 oz) cans and bottles?
*Sometimes I need smaller amounts of soda like 237 ml (8 oz), 192 ml (6.5 oz), 150 ml (5 oz), etc. But I guess those are european sizes, hard to find in America.
Distribution logistics. The drug store where I shop already has a row of freezers just to hold all of the different brands of drinks that are available. They dont have room to add even more varieties of size. Its not like smaller drinks would be cheaper ( the liquid is nearly zero cost - so smaller drinks dont save much money ), so you may as well just buy a .33 can and throw away what you dont want. Soda here is anything from 30 to 60 cents a can.
T9 is a great example of how new technology, combined with old interfaces, suddenly comes along and changes how we do things. But like all other things, it came along because there was a need. Like exposé has a sense to it when u use 10+ apps. but didn't when we were at 3 apps.
If people feel things work, it's not very likely they will try out anything new. That's just how evolution works.
They changed our "half-litre" beers into 0,4 EU standard beers several years ago, but we still hate it. Even though beer usually tastes better served in small servings...
Regarding the request for a pointing device that can be used in home position, there is such a thing, however you are unlikely to see it on a macintosh in the near ever. The nub or "clit" found on some laptops (technically called a trackpoint) is placed between 'g' 'h' and 'b' and requires only moving one's index finger a few centimeters. IBM owns the patent on it and charges a hefty license fee to those who wish to use it. While this device is much disparaged, it actually works quite well, and is debatably better than a mouse trackball or trackpad. See here for slightly more information. (As jessearl has noticed Toshiba is one of the very few companies that licenses the patent.)
Actually, getting back to the round can discussion, mmmpie is right that the liquid is essentially zero-cost, but this leads fairly directly to the reason for the can to be round: it is cheaper than a other shapes.
A circle is the two-dimensional shape with largest area for a given perimeter, so looking from the other side, we see that a cylinder of a given volume requires less material than any other kind of prism. And since the alumin(i)um in the can is far more expensive than the liquid inside the can, it is imperative for profit margins to be stingy with the material for the can.
(While a sphere with a particular volume would require even less alumin(i)um, it is fairly difficult to form a sphere. Also spheres are difficult to open, and flattened spheres lose most benefits in volume for a given amount of can.)
Also, as mmmpie suggested, the relative costs of container and contents explains why soft-drink companies generally do not offer smaller containers of their drinks. People, Americans at least, expect lower prices when they buy less, but the difference in cost is so small that it is not worthwhile to offer such a size to the general public. You see smaller cans as promotional items or on airplanes or in Europe because in these situations, the demand is high enough for the smaller size. (Many Americans will buy the absolute largest because they are suckers for cost per volume, they think of the value as opposed to what they need.)
(A side note, eight ounces is still considered a single serving on 16 ounce and larger beverage containers.)
Why are Soda cans round? And every other kind of can for that matter. A very ineffecient storage shape.
Well, my grandfather (an engineer)had to solve this problem for a canning company back in the 40's. His team found that a rectangular can did store efficiently and compactly, the problem was that the corners were also prone to dent and bust more. If you notice the items that do use rectangular cans are squat and the corners are not perfect 90 degree angles.
Yup, round cans are also stronger to crushing, meaning you can stack them higher in shipping without bursting the bottom ones.
Change the material, and this constraint can be modified - look at the paint company (I think it's Dutch Boy) that replaced the old metal 1gal paint can with a cubic plastic one with a replaceable twist lid. They can ship more efficiently, and consumers like them so much better that they nearly doubled their marketshare in 3 months.
You know, it would be an improvement if it became customary to make keyboards without numeric pads. It makes sense that the mouse surface should begin as close to the touchtyping keys as possible. The numpad, which probably one in ten people uses in any meaningful capacity, is located exactly where the mouse should be for a righthanded person.
The numpad is a special purpose device, much more so than a two-button or wheel mouse.
Yes. I've got a better idea! Let's use Apple's one-button mouse as the numeric keypad. To enter a number, one simply clicks the single mouse button, while simultaneously holding down a single modifier key! It will be far easier that using a silly number pad. The modifier keys could even be arranged into to their very own region on the keyboard, like in a square, three on a side. It would be revolutionary.
Here's another idea: keyboards are for data input, and mice are for GUI interaction. Notice how mice have changed radically since the 80s, while number pads are essentially the same? Thats because our base 10 number system has remained the same, while the GUI has evolved. GUIs are sufficiently complex to need at least two buttons and a click scrollwheel on the mouse.
You want something innovative for a computer? Design a clapper that can ut my Mac to sleep, shut it down, or restart it. Alternatively, try designing a glory hole for the towers and see what most people really use their computers for.
There's a reason why airplane fuselage is round. Strongest shape out there.
For strength, yes, round is extremely good. For packing, it's not. You lose ~21.5% of the space for each circle vs. an equivalent square. For shipping mass quantities, round is less efficient than square/rectangular.
After approximately 25 years of personal computing, why are we still using:
1) A completely counter-ergonomic command interface that looks almost exactly like some kind of mutated hybrid of an old-style typewriter and old-style adding machine (number pad).
2) Another completely counter-ergonomic graphical user interface device that look like a rodent with a couple of buttons on it.
3) A conter-intuitive system of managing and laying out applications on a computer screen, which still looks much like an old-style television screen.
We still use them because they are the easiest to learn and use. There is an argument for how the keys are arranged in a 100+ key keyboard, but having said number of keys is the least demanding on the brain and on the hands. Likewise, the mouse is the least demanding on the brain in terms of usage and dexterity.
For software interfaces, I think its the same. GUIs are the least demanding to learn and use.
Quote:
For example, why hasn't anybody come up with a Tekwar-style keyboard (ie a keyboard that's split in two onto each arm of a computer armchair), or a GUI interface system that doesn't require moving my right arm back and forth from my keyboard to my mouse all the time.
Get yourself a FrogPad and a mouse, and see how it goes.
Quote:
It would be nice to see some radical innovation in user interface design, for a change.
For PDA style devices, I think a new user interface is definitely required, some sort of finger interface with a nice set of widgets and maybe a thumb-board.
For computers, we can move up the cognitive scale and use a natural language interface, user input would still be keyboard or voice, combined with storage interface that stores every little thing done on the computer?
Yes. I've got a better idea! Let's use Apple's one-button mouse as the numeric keypad. To enter a number, one simply clicks the single mouse button, while simultaneously holding down a single modifier key! It will be far easier that using a silly number pad. The modifier keys could even be arranged into to their very own region on the keyboard, like in a square, three on a side. It would be revolutionary.
Your sarcasm fails to be funny and it fails to make a point. On a keyboard without numpad there is already a button for each number and symbol that would be on the numpad if there was one. Having a numpad gives you three things: worse mouse ergonomy, less desk space, and capability to touch type numbers and calculations. Seeing how barely anyone I know outside computer professions can even touch type, I have a very hard time believing the base of numpad-touchtyping users is big enough to justify including a numpad in every single keyboard. Even if a person uses a numpad it would still be better if it was out of the way until it's needed.
A numpad is a self-contained unit, making it the easiest thing in the world to attach by USB.
Is it that hard for a Mac user to believe less can be more and modular is definitely better than fixed?
3) A conter-intuitive system of managing and laying out applications on a computer screen, which still looks much like an old-style television screen.
I wonder how this could be done intuitively.. AFAIK computers are not a part of our genetic heritage so what kind of intuition are one to build a GUI upon? I think the paradigm of windows, menus and icons is pretty good actually.
I wonder how this could be done intuitively.. AFAIK computers are not a part of our genetic heritage so what kind of intuition are one to build a GUI upon? I think the paradigm of windows, menus and icons is pretty good actually.
Isn't the windows paradigm quite similar to the frying pan? We would have had circular pans instead of square windows and jars contaning ingredients instead of folders and files.
Your sarcasm fails to be funny and it fails to make a point. On a keyboard without numpad there is already a button for each number and symbol that would be on the numpad if there was one. Having a numpad gives you three things: worse mouse ergonomy, less desk space, and capability to touch type numbers and calculations. Seeing how barely anyone I know outside computer professions can even touch type, I have a very hard time believing the base of numpad-touchtyping users is big enough to justify including a numpad in every single keyboard. Even if a person uses a numpad it would still be better if it was out of the way until it's needed.
A numpad is a self-contained unit, making it the easiest thing in the world to attach by USB.
Is it that hard for a Mac user to believe less can be more and modular is definitely better than fixed?
Ever enter numerical data on a computer? When you're typing, the number row at the top works well, but if you're only entering numbers, then the keypad works better.
Sure, Apple could just chop the keypad off and force users to buy one, but then lots of users would be pissed off that they have to throw out both the mouse and keyboard when they buy a new Mac. Maybe a better solution would be to sell computers without any input devices, and let the consumer pick out their own when they buy (or keep their own from their last computer).
The sarcasm is aimed at the ridiculous one-button mouse, and the idea that key-combos are easier to use than single, dedicated keys.
Ever enter numerical data on a computer? When you're typing, the number row at the top works well, but if you're only entering numbers, then the keypad works better.
Sure, Apple could just chop the keypad off and force users to buy one, but then lots of users would be pissed off that they have to throw out both the mouse and keyboard when they buy a new Mac.
Yes, I have used a keypad, though I have not had one for a long time due to using only laptops. (Hey! There's another point for having a separate keypad... laptop keyboards are generally fine for typing, and if you only need to have the keypad it makes little sense to force the user to buy a whole keyboard that doesn't even fit in a laptop bag.) I don't work with numbers, so even if can use the keypad I don't really need it. Most people can't even use it right.
I fail to see why the users who have the separate USB keypad would have to throw away what they have. Actually I think less stuff would be thrown away, since keypad users could use their keypads as long as they are good, and switch keypads independent of keyboard and vice versa. Meanwhile the rest of the people would never throw away a good unused keypad along with an old keyboard, since they never had a keypad. Apple would just sell keyboards and mice along with the computers as before, and sell an accessory keypad to whoever wants it.
Can you give me just one simple reason why the current model is better than having a separate USB keypad?
Quote:
Maybe a better solution would be to sell computers without any input devices, and let the consumer pick out their own when they buy (or keep their own from their last computer).
It is common sense to offer computers BTO without input devices. Actually, I didn't realize Apple only offers this on the mini till you mentioned it. As if Powermac users need handholding with input devices...
Comments
Originally posted by monkeyastronaut
Other things I question:
Why do we use keys to turn on our cars?
*Use your fingerprint, your voice, a credit-card you can place in your wallet, a USB device, a password, a combination of these, etc.
Keys are very convenient, you can share them easily. Imagine having to go and program the voice recognition system in your car when you need someone to go to the shop for you. Other devices ( USB, credit card ) are just keys, but with a different shape. Most modern cars have engine immobilisers, which can only be deactivated by an RFID chip embedded in the key.
Why are most pizzas circular when boxes are squared?
*We need more square pizzas, use all the space inside the box!
Im pretty sure that Alton ( good eats ) discusses the reasons why pizza should be spun. From memory it has to do with getting the texture of the pizza crust the way it is. Spinning, of course, results in a round pizza. With modern tech. we can make square pizza, but it takes time to change traditions. Besides, my favourite is the crust, and in a round pizza every slice gets some.
What you really need is to stop buying crap packaged pizza
Why are soft-drinks sold on 355 ml (12 oz) and 600 ml (20 oz) cans and bottles?
*Sometimes I need smaller amounts of soda like 237 ml (8 oz), 192 ml (6.5 oz), 150 ml (5 oz), etc. But I guess those are european sizes, hard to find in America.
Distribution logistics. The drug store where I shop already has a row of freezers just to hold all of the different brands of drinks that are available. They dont have room to add even more varieties of size. Its not like smaller drinks would be cheaper ( the liquid is nearly zero cost - so smaller drinks dont save much money ), so you may as well just buy a .33 can and throw away what you dont want. Soda here is anything from 30 to 60 cents a can.
If people feel things work, it's not very likely they will try out anything new. That's just how evolution works.
They changed our "half-litre" beers into 0,4 EU standard beers several years ago, but we still hate it. Even though beer usually tastes better served in small servings...
Actually, getting back to the round can discussion, mmmpie is right that the liquid is essentially zero-cost, but this leads fairly directly to the reason for the can to be round: it is cheaper than a other shapes.
A circle is the two-dimensional shape with largest area for a given perimeter, so looking from the other side, we see that a cylinder of a given volume requires less material than any other kind of prism. And since the alumin(i)um in the can is far more expensive than the liquid inside the can, it is imperative for profit margins to be stingy with the material for the can.
(While a sphere with a particular volume would require even less alumin(i)um, it is fairly difficult to form a sphere. Also spheres are difficult to open, and flattened spheres lose most benefits in volume for a given amount of can.)
Also, as mmmpie suggested, the relative costs of container and contents explains why soft-drink companies generally do not offer smaller containers of their drinks. People, Americans at least, expect lower prices when they buy less, but the difference in cost is so small that it is not worthwhile to offer such a size to the general public. You see smaller cans as promotional items or on airplanes or in Europe because in these situations, the demand is high enough for the smaller size. (Many Americans will buy the absolute largest because they are suckers for cost per volume, they think of the value as opposed to what they need.)
(A side note, eight ounces is still considered a single serving on 16 ounce and larger beverage containers.)
originally posted by Brendon
Why are Soda cans round? And every other kind of can for that matter. A very ineffecient storage shape.
Well, my grandfather (an engineer)had to solve this problem for a canning company back in the 40's. His team found that a rectangular can did store efficiently and compactly, the problem was that the corners were also prone to dent and bust more. If you notice the items that do use rectangular cans are squat and the corners are not perfect 90 degree angles.
Change the material, and this constraint can be modified - look at the paint company (I think it's Dutch Boy) that replaced the old metal 1gal paint can with a cubic plastic one with a replaceable twist lid. They can ship more efficiently, and consumers like them so much better that they nearly doubled their marketshare in 3 months.
There's a reason why airplane fuselage is round. Strongest shape out there.
Originally posted by Gon
You know, it would be an improvement if it became customary to make keyboards without numeric pads. It makes sense that the mouse surface should begin as close to the touchtyping keys as possible. The numpad, which probably one in ten people uses in any meaningful capacity, is located exactly where the mouse should be for a righthanded person.
The numpad is a special purpose device, much more so than a two-button or wheel mouse.
Yes. I've got a better idea! Let's use Apple's one-button mouse as the numeric keypad. To enter a number, one simply clicks the single mouse button, while simultaneously holding down a single modifier key! It will be far easier that using a silly number pad. The modifier keys could even be arranged into to their very own region on the keyboard, like in a square, three on a side. It would be revolutionary.
Here's another idea: keyboards are for data input, and mice are for GUI interaction. Notice how mice have changed radically since the 80s, while number pads are essentially the same? Thats because our base 10 number system has remained the same, while the GUI has evolved. GUIs are sufficiently complex to need at least two buttons and a click scrollwheel on the mouse.
You want something innovative for a computer? Design a clapper that can ut my Mac to sleep, shut it down, or restart it. Alternatively, try designing a glory hole for the towers and see what most people really use their computers for.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Round? Inefficient?
There's a reason why airplane fuselage is round. Strongest shape out there.
For strength, yes, round is extremely good. For packing, it's not. You lose ~21.5% of the space for each circle vs. an equivalent square. For shipping mass quantities, round is less efficient than square/rectangular.
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
After approximately 25 years of personal computing, why are we still using:
1) A completely counter-ergonomic command interface that looks almost exactly like some kind of mutated hybrid of an old-style typewriter and old-style adding machine (number pad).
2) Another completely counter-ergonomic graphical user interface device that look like a rodent with a couple of buttons on it.
3) A conter-intuitive system of managing and laying out applications on a computer screen, which still looks much like an old-style television screen.
We still use them because they are the easiest to learn and use. There is an argument for how the keys are arranged in a 100+ key keyboard, but having said number of keys is the least demanding on the brain and on the hands. Likewise, the mouse is the least demanding on the brain in terms of usage and dexterity.
For software interfaces, I think its the same. GUIs are the least demanding to learn and use.
For example, why hasn't anybody come up with a Tekwar-style keyboard (ie a keyboard that's split in two onto each arm of a computer armchair), or a GUI interface system that doesn't require moving my right arm back and forth from my keyboard to my mouse all the time.
Get yourself a FrogPad and a mouse, and see how it goes.
It would be nice to see some radical innovation in user interface design, for a change.
For PDA style devices, I think a new user interface is definitely required, some sort of finger interface with a nice set of widgets and maybe a thumb-board.
For computers, we can move up the cognitive scale and use a natural language interface, user input would still be keyboard or voice, combined with storage interface that stores every little thing done on the computer?
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Yes. I've got a better idea! Let's use Apple's one-button mouse as the numeric keypad. To enter a number, one simply clicks the single mouse button, while simultaneously holding down a single modifier key! It will be far easier that using a silly number pad. The modifier keys could even be arranged into to their very own region on the keyboard, like in a square, three on a side. It would be revolutionary.
Your sarcasm fails to be funny and it fails to make a point. On a keyboard without numpad there is already a button for each number and symbol that would be on the numpad if there was one. Having a numpad gives you three things: worse mouse ergonomy, less desk space, and capability to touch type numbers and calculations. Seeing how barely anyone I know outside computer professions can even touch type, I have a very hard time believing the base of numpad-touchtyping users is big enough to justify including a numpad in every single keyboard. Even if a person uses a numpad it would still be better if it was out of the way until it's needed.
A numpad is a self-contained unit, making it the easiest thing in the world to attach by USB.
Is it that hard for a Mac user to believe less can be more and modular is definitely better than fixed?
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
3) A conter-intuitive system of managing and laying out applications on a computer screen, which still looks much like an old-style television screen.
I wonder how this could be done intuitively.. AFAIK computers are not a part of our genetic heritage so what kind of intuition are one to build a GUI upon? I think the paradigm of windows, menus and icons is pretty good actually.
Originally posted by Henriok
I wonder how this could be done intuitively.. AFAIK computers are not a part of our genetic heritage so what kind of intuition are one to build a GUI upon? I think the paradigm of windows, menus and icons is pretty good actually.
how about cooking?
we could have a frying-pan interface!
Originally posted by New
we could have a frying-pan interface!
Isn't the windows paradigm quite similar to the frying pan?
Hmm.. It's kind of like VäporOS way back when..
Originally posted by New
how about cooking?
we could have a frying-pan interface!
But then only women and French people could use computers!
Originally posted by Gon
Your sarcasm fails to be funny and it fails to make a point. On a keyboard without numpad there is already a button for each number and symbol that would be on the numpad if there was one. Having a numpad gives you three things: worse mouse ergonomy, less desk space, and capability to touch type numbers and calculations. Seeing how barely anyone I know outside computer professions can even touch type, I have a very hard time believing the base of numpad-touchtyping users is big enough to justify including a numpad in every single keyboard. Even if a person uses a numpad it would still be better if it was out of the way until it's needed.
A numpad is a self-contained unit, making it the easiest thing in the world to attach by USB.
Is it that hard for a Mac user to believe less can be more and modular is definitely better than fixed?
Ever enter numerical data on a computer? When you're typing, the number row at the top works well, but if you're only entering numbers, then the keypad works better.
Sure, Apple could just chop the keypad off and force users to buy one, but then lots of users would be pissed off that they have to throw out both the mouse and keyboard when they buy a new Mac. Maybe a better solution would be to sell computers without any input devices, and let the consumer pick out their own when they buy (or keep their own from their last computer).
The sarcasm is aimed at the ridiculous one-button mouse, and the idea that key-combos are easier to use than single, dedicated keys.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Ever enter numerical data on a computer? When you're typing, the number row at the top works well, but if you're only entering numbers, then the keypad works better.
Sure, Apple could just chop the keypad off and force users to buy one, but then lots of users would be pissed off that they have to throw out both the mouse and keyboard when they buy a new Mac.
Yes, I have used a keypad, though I have not had one for a long time due to using only laptops. (Hey! There's another point for having a separate keypad... laptop keyboards are generally fine for typing, and if you only need to have the keypad it makes little sense to force the user to buy a whole keyboard that doesn't even fit in a laptop bag.) I don't work with numbers, so even if can use the keypad I don't really need it. Most people can't even use it right.
I fail to see why the users who have the separate USB keypad would have to throw away what they have. Actually I think less stuff would be thrown away, since keypad users could use their keypads as long as they are good, and switch keypads independent of keyboard and vice versa. Meanwhile the rest of the people would never throw away a good unused keypad along with an old keyboard, since they never had a keypad. Apple would just sell keyboards and mice along with the computers as before, and sell an accessory keypad to whoever wants it.
Can you give me just one simple reason why the current model is better than having a separate USB keypad?
Maybe a better solution would be to sell computers without any input devices, and let the consumer pick out their own when they buy (or keep their own from their last computer).
It is common sense to offer computers BTO without input devices. Actually, I didn't realize Apple only offers this on the mini till you mentioned it. As if Powermac users need handholding with input devices...