The meta problem with all this desktop UX design discussion is that it's not actually very problem driven.
Many of us solve our UI problems and we land into our own happy minima.
Many of the UX "solutions" are either invented problems or not my problems or worse, grinding some anti-me agenda.
Like many, a lot of my UX improvements have been to simplify the UI. Tiling, with just a few windows per virtual desktop in herbstluftwm: kitty, emacs, browser and some rare transient application (usually PDF or image viewer).
The idea in the screen shot horrifies me. Why would I buy an expensive high pixel monitor just to use only 10% of it to display a single window? Why would I want to waste CPU to animate the migration of a full window to a single button icon (another example given)?
These UI "innovations" are great for movie props but do they actually help in reality? Not that I see. The "stagnation" of UI to me is more a plateau. Anything truly new must be driven by new "I", no input/output channels between user and computer.
The one interesting idea I saw in the article was Lifestreams. I think storage and recall is something that needs improvement and new ideas because for me that is a problem. I produce and consume too much info while recalling it is hard and while also I often do not produce or consume info that I wish I had.
Again, it's the I/O that drives the progress.
I don’t find the ideas proposed in the talk (and this article based on it) terribly offensive, but that’s not because of anybody being more right or wrong.
Desktop UX I think is a much more deeply personal and subjective thing than many care to admit. A setup that’s one user’s nirvana can be another’s anathema (case in point: the tiling setups beloved by many in the tech sphere drive me crazy).
While some underlying principles track between different solutions, I don’t think it’s possible to build a desktop that works well for everybody. We all have different mental models, ways of thinking, ways of working, and formative experiences with technology and that all goes into what we find most ergonomic and comfortable. It’s very similar to how radically people’s physical workspaces can differ from each other.
So the best thing to do I think is to ensure that a wide variety of meaningfully different desktops are available so as many users can find one that’s a reasonably close match to their style. Trying to pose a single desktop as “most correct” and shoehorning all users into it is a recipe for failure. Maybe the futuristic concept desktop is the right choice for someone even if most would prefer something more traditional.
frumiousirc · · focus · HN ↗
Many of us solve our UI problems and we land into our own happy minima.
Many of the UX "solutions" are either invented problems or not my problems or worse, grinding some anti-me agenda.
Like many, a lot of my UX improvements have been to simplify the UI. Tiling, with just a few windows per virtual desktop in herbstluftwm: kitty, emacs, browser and some rare transient application (usually PDF or image viewer).
The idea in the screen shot horrifies me. Why would I buy an expensive high pixel monitor just to use only 10% of it to display a single window? Why would I want to waste CPU to animate the migration of a full window to a single button icon (another example given)?
These UI "innovations" are great for movie props but do they actually help in reality? Not that I see. The "stagnation" of UI to me is more a plateau. Anything truly new must be driven by new "I", no input/output channels between user and computer.
The one interesting idea I saw in the article was Lifestreams. I think storage and recall is something that needs improvement and new ideas because for me that is a problem. I produce and consume too much info while recalling it is hard and while also I often do not produce or consume info that I wish I had.
Again, it's the I/O that drives the progress.
cosmic_cheese · · focus · HN ↗
Desktop UX I think is a much more deeply personal and subjective thing than many care to admit. A setup that’s one user’s nirvana can be another’s anathema (case in point: the tiling setups beloved by many in the tech sphere drive me crazy).
While some underlying principles track between different solutions, I don’t think it’s possible to build a desktop that works well for everybody. We all have different mental models, ways of thinking, ways of working, and formative experiences with technology and that all goes into what we find most ergonomic and comfortable. It’s very similar to how radically people’s physical workspaces can differ from each other.
So the best thing to do I think is to ensure that a wide variety of meaningfully different desktops are available so as many users can find one that’s a reasonably close match to their style. Trying to pose a single desktop as “most correct” and shoehorning all users into it is a recipe for failure. Maybe the futuristic concept desktop is the right choice for someone even if most would prefer something more traditional.