One major drawback to a touch screen is that the user’s own input device (figure, hand, etc) obstructs the very interface objects they are trying to interact with. This fact, coupled with egonomics of how a user would hold an e-reader-targeted tablet (if the rumors are true), makes the on screen traditional keyboard even more awkward.
Imagine relaxing on your couch reading some online blog/book/site and you are promted to type something (a note in the margin, a password, a search term). You are then presented with the mock up. What do you do? Awkwardly hold the super thin device with one hand, stabalizing it with your stomach and typing with one hand? I hope not!
If this use case is intended to be supported on the currently-imaginary device, I’m thinking (ok, hoping) Apple has something cool up their sleeves. Here are a few alternatives that could have been considered:
Touch Everywhere: Touch sensors that extend beyond the screen (sides, back, etc) could actually put “controls at your finger tips”, regardless of where your hands are holding the device. Controls on the back also lend it self providing tactile feedback, but that’s a whole other blog post.
Alternate input device: A stylus seems like an appropriate input to a tablet, and does only require 1 hand to use. Drawbacks include speed of input, but that could be addressed with really good recognition software.
Although, I think it’s likely their will be a stylus, I’m really hoping for the first alternative. Kind of like how the magic mouse brought touch sensors to the surface of the mouse, I don’t think alternative #1 is too crazy. Thoughts>
In September of 2008, my design partner Katie Cerar and myself set out to redesign the television viewing experience for our 4th year design project. Eight months later, the resulting prototype was a very well validated design.
In previous posts I promised a recording of the formal technical presentation delivered. However due to some technical difficulties, we were unable to capture the presentation.
Instead, check out this video story board that details the design!
Disclaimer: This was a commentary I wrote for my class that looks at the impact of design on society. People who know me well, know I would never say something is “impossible”, it just may be out of reach right now…but this was written to meet the objectives of the assignment.
Could they be engineered to show loyalty or to get anger?
Will [they] enrich our social lives?
Will they compete for sexual partners?
As a designer, my traditional stance on subjects such as these, is nothing is impossible with the right design. However in the case of the humanoid robots advancing to the point of blurring the line between humans and robots, I don’t think this is likely to happen anytime soon.
Looking at the MAYA principle, designs must be “most advanced yet acceptable” [1] . A humanoid robot acting as friends and/or potential sexual partners far exceeds the level of what is “acceptable”. Consider the recent passing of Proposition 8 in the state of California. If humans can’t accept the idea of two humans (regardless of gender) acting as sexual partners they can’t be expected to accept a genderless robot playing the roll.
The article sites proof that children have empathy for toys and as such it’s reasonable to expend that principle to adults. Children’s brains are still developing as they explore their environment. This fact explains why they mimic adults (a parent with a baby) while playing with a doll. It also explains the social contract that makes it acceptable for children to behave in this way. This social contract could not be violated by adults or they would be regarded as developmentally challenged. Imagine a grown man on a subway tending to every need of a plastic doll. This is the very same social contract that would prevent humanoid robots from replacing human relationships.
Designing a robot to replace human relationships is an example where “the interests of technology experts may clash with those of the general public” [2]. In this case, the research being done will help understand the human brain and advance the field of cognitive science. As such robots can still benefit society both in the research that results and the function they can provide. It is important that the way they are represented considered MAYA and social contract discussed to ensure their success. This representation must focus on the robot as a tool, strictly inanimate object that is purchased to solve a problem (like a blender) and not to replace human relationships or interactions.
As always, thoughts and ideas are always welcome!
References
1. University of Waterloo, STV 202 Fall 2008 Course Notes. Culture.
2. University of Waterloo, STV 202 Fall 2008 Course Notes. The Human Being & Design Culture.
NBD was my original free blog (nakedbydesign.wordpress.com). Its name was the result of a debate about the most well design user interface. I thought it was cute, but I wanted a domain name that had a stronger indicator of the topic of the blog...and nakedbydesign.com was taken :(
Just saved the day by building a form to log issues...unfortunately they are thanking someone named melinda....story of my life ;) http://twitter.com/melinam
