reg@lti2.UUCP (Rick Genter x18) (05/02/91)
I recently read an article in the March '91 issue of MacUser that
reviews PenPoint, GO Corporation's pen-based operating system. The
user interface is (or can be) entirely pen-driven. PenPoint supports
an optional keyboard, but its use is discouraged.
Is this really "the interface for the rest of us"? PenPoint 1.0 requires
that all written input be printed - no cursive writing. I assume that
this will be overcome in future releases (or with future technology),
but even so, a handwriting interface strikes me as, well, cumbersome.
The "pen" also strikes me as cumbersome; it's one more thing I have to
worry about breaking/losing/maintaining/whatever. Some of the features
of PenPoint aside from character input ("flicking" to scroll or page
through a document, and "tapping" to press a button) are nice, but can
also be accomplished through a touch screen without the nuisance of a
pen.
So what's the win? After reading the article, I concluded that PenPoint
will be good for a limited set of applications, usually revolving around
filling out forms in a non-time-critical environment. I can not see how
PenPoint would ever provide a comfortable environment for a "power" user,
or even for the everyday user.
How do others feel?
- reg
---
Rick Genter reg%lti.uucp@bu.edu
Language Technology, Inc.jaguar@arkham.wimsey.bc.ca (Jeremy Reimer) (05/03/91)
reg@lti2.UUCP (Rick Genter x18) writes: > I recently read an article in the March '91 issue of MacUser that > reviews PenPoint, GO Corporation's pen-based operating system. The > user interface is (or can be) entirely pen-driven. PenPoint supports > an optional keyboard, but its use is discouraged. > > Is this really "the interface for the rest of us"? PenPoint 1.0 requires > that all written input be printed - no cursive writing. I assume that > this will be overcome in future releases (or with future technology), > but even so, a handwriting interface strikes me as, well, cumbersome. > > The "pen" also strikes me as cumbersome; it's one more thing I have to > worry about breaking/losing/maintaining/whatever. Some of the features > of PenPoint aside from character input ("flicking" to scroll or page > through a document, and "tapping" to press a button) are nice, but can > also be accomplished through a touch screen without the nuisance of a > pen. > > So what's the win? After reading the article, I concluded that PenPoint > will be good for a limited set of applications, usually revolving around > filling out forms in a non-time-critical environment. I can not see how > PenPoint would ever provide a comfortable environment for a "power" user, > or even for the everyday user. > > How do others feel? I think it will find a limited market in people who work in places where a computer would otherwise not be convenient - someone checking out cars for insurance purposes, or anyone who might normally carry around a clipboard and pen with them might do well with the PenPoint system instead - they would not have to do much writing, hopefully, as this is one of the main weaknesses of the unit. That and its high price. I know doctors who would love a way to enter in something on a pad computer and have the data instantly linked to a desktop PC without having a secretary type in tons of little numbers. I don't think you'll see too many of them, though, despite the press. Think about it: 1) The Clipboard: Cost: $1.95 Durability: Drop it, smash it, do anything to it,it will survive Compatability: Unlimited for anyone who speaks the same language Transportability: Excellent Expandability: as many sheets of paper as you want 2) The PenPoint system Cost: Around $6000 Durability: Drop it, the LCD screen cracks, and it's toast Compatability: Limited depending on software available Transportability: Good, but don't lose the pen Expandability: On-board memory limited Which would you rather have? . . . . . ._)_--_ \|/ . . . . / * ]\ -=*=- Look out! The black stuntship's about . . . =___ __| /|\ to crash into the sun! "---- ==================================== Jeremy Reimer, aka =====jaguar@arkham.wimsey.bc.ca===== Sunny Vancouver BC The Jaguar. The Car ==================================== Canada, where it's the Cat, the Lunatic George: What time is it? fun, fun, fun... -------------------- Edmund: Three o'clock in the afternoon ------------------ THE COMFY CHAIR?!?! George: Oh thank GOD for that I thought I'd overslept!
mh2f+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Mark Hahn) (05/03/91)
there may be a market for technophobes in this country, but pens are practically a necessity for ideographic writing, like Japan. currently, the state of the art for typing kanji is to enter an English transcription, which is then converted into the Japanese syllabic alphabet (kana) and finally into Kanji (the latter is a many-many mapping.) not surprisingly, vast categories of the software market in Japan are sparse, since there's no general demand for such a clumsy system. regards, mark
jwtlai@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Jim W Lai) (05/03/91)
In article <9105021606.AA26962@lti2.lti.uucp> reg@lti2.UUCP (Rick Genter x18) writes: >I recently read an article in the March '91 issue of MacUser that >reviews PenPoint, GO Corporation's pen-based operating system. The >user interface is (or can be) entirely pen-driven. >So what's the win? After reading the article, I concluded that PenPoint >will be good for a limited set of applications, usually revolving around >filling out forms in a non-time-critical environment. I can not see how >PenPoint would ever provide a comfortable environment for a "power" user, >or even for the everyday user. I suspect users of ideographic languages would find it more useful. Sony has a "palmtop" computer, whose interface involves a stylus. I know it was released in Japan, but I haven't kept up with the North American market as of late.
caroma@ai.mit.edu (Carl R. Manning) (05/03/91)
In article <m80c22w164w@arkham.wimsey.bc.ca> jaguar@arkham.wimsey.bc.ca (Jeremy Reimer) writes:
... [Go Penpoint machines] ...
I don't think you'll see too many of them, though, despite the press. Think
about it:
1) The Clipboard:
Cost: $1.95
Durability: Drop it, smash it, do anything to it,it will survive
Compatability: Unlimited for anyone who speaks the same language
Unfortunately, computers often don't, and so if you want to use
information technology to manage the info written down, whether on
forms or notepaper, there is another translation step.
Transportability: Excellent
Expandability: as many sheets of paper as you want
And are willing to carry around with you.
2) The PenPoint system
Cost: Around $6000
Currently high, but will come down.
Durability: Drop it, the LCD screen cracks, and it's toast
Compatability: Limited depending on software available
Transportability: Good, but don't lose the pen
Expandability: On-board memory limited
Will be less limiting when networking is added.
It looks like you're attacking the current implementation, which is
fine---but don't confuse the current implementation with the reasons
behind the excitement over the development of this technology. My
impressions about this excitement are:
o The current GO Penpoint machine is targetted at developers who want
to develop and test applications for Penpoint in anticipation of a
blossoming market. I don't think Go is planning on marketing its
machine at all to the mass market; instead it is marketing Penpoint
to many manufacturers who are developing their own (hopefully
cheaper) Penpoint machines.
o Penpoint machines open up information technology to many new
markets where workers must be standing and walking around in their
work. They may not seem useful for people who work at a desk and
can type. However, a clipboard interface may be more flexible and
much easier to use when standing than a laptop or a pushbutton
palmtop. The opening of a large new market is an important
opportunity (for both impact on society and profitability).
o Penpoint machines will soon be integrated with local and wide area
wireless networks, similar to those already in use in the machines
used by FedEx drivers and IBM support technicians. In this
information age, I don't need to tell you how important quick
transmission of and access to new, up-to-date information can be
for many applications. Wireless information networks (WIN?) enable
not only client-server applications (communicating with home-base
database) but also peer-to-peer applications such as transmitting
notes, slides, etc., among the machines of people in a meeting, at
a conference, or mingling and making contacts. (Smaller versions
with a convenient enough interface may replace the time-planners,
notebooks, etc. many people carry around.)
o The pen interface may be better suited for languages whose written
form is not based on a small alphabet suitable for keyboards (as
others have already mentioned), thus potentially opening up markets
for more basic computing services in other parts of the world.
So yes, you may not see too many of them in the next 6 months, and may
never see many of the GO machines in particular. If you're reading
netnews, there's probably a good chance your work is at a deskbound
networked workstation, so you may not have much need for one. But
many people see the Penpoint technology as opening up many new markets
in the next few years, and are excited by these opportunities.
Just my impressions.
Cheers,
CarlManning@ai.mit.edurcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (05/04/91)
reg@lti2.UUCP (Rick Genter x18) writes: > I recently read an article in the March '91 issue of MacUser that > reviews PenPoint, GO Corporation's pen-based operating system. The > user interface is (or can be) entirely pen-driven. PenPoint supports > an optional keyboard, but its use is discouraged. > > Is this really "the interface for the rest of us"?... I suspect the novelty of a "writing" interface will wear thin pretty quickly for anyone who has to enter a lot of information. This past weekend, I had to hand-write a lot of material for the first time in years. (I've normally got my hands on a keyboard for 8-10 hours a day.) Sheesh, my hand is *still* sore, and it's Friday! I've only now realized how much more work (and how much slower) it is to hand-write than to type. There are some obvious applications (mentioned in other followups) for a pen interface, but I think it's a lot more of an interface for specialized situations than the "wave of the future" some folks seem to think. Perhaps a pen interface will help bootstrap the keyboard-phobic? That is, they could start with a pen and move to a keyboard once they're more com- fortable. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...If you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind.
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (05/04/91)
mh2f+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Mark Hahn) writes: > ...pens are practically a necessity for ideographic writing, like Japan. > currently, the state of the art for typing kanji is to enter > an English transcription, which is then converted into the Japanese > syllabic alphabet (kana) and finally into Kanji (the latter > is a many-many mapping.)... It does seem clumsy to our alphabet-oriented minds, but I don't think it's quite as bad as Mark makes it seem. With a Japanese keyboard, you don't need to start with romaji; the kana are already on the keyboard. That reduces the number of keystrokes by about a factor of two from what Mark explains. The typical action is to type two or three kana and hit a special "convert" key to get the kanji. The many-many problem Mark mentions is handled as follows: normally "convert" gives you the most-likely kanji for which you've just entered the pronunciation (kana). If that's not the right one, you hit "convert" again to get the next possibility. The con- venience of this method is critically dependent on the frequency with which the "right" kanji is presented first. Still, after all, it takes a few keystrokes to get a kanji, and a "word" as we conceive it is typically one or two kanji. The number of keystrokes to express a given thought should be comparable between kanji entered as above and English; it's certainly within a factor of two. On the other side, I would expect recognition algorithms for kanji to be pretty accurate, since there is a lot of convention for the order and direction the strokes are made...the problem of recognizing as it is written looks (from a naive view:-) to be considerably easier than an OCR problem. But I wonder what the actual ratio of writing:typing speed is for kanji... and I also wonder what future developments might help one or the other. Just for example, would contextual analysis help the probability of presenting the right kanji first in the keyboard method? (As far as I know, existing methods use strictly static ordering of kana->kanji mappings, although my info could be out of date. Anyone know otherwise?) -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...If you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind.
mccoy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jim Mccoy) (05/05/91)
In article <1991May3.204023.6661@ico.isc.com>, rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: |> reg@lti2.UUCP (Rick Genter x18) writes: |> > I recently read an article in the March '91 issue of MacUser that |> > reviews PenPoint, GO Corporation's pen-based operating system. The |> > user interface is (or can be) entirely pen-driven. PenPoint supports |> > an optional keyboard, but its use is discouraged. |> > |> > Is this really "the interface for the rest of us"?... |> |> I suspect the novelty of a "writing" interface will wear thin pretty |> quickly for anyone who has to enter a lot of information. |> |> This past weekend, I had to hand-write a lot of material for the first time |> in years. (I've normally got my hands on a keyboard for 8-10 hours a day.) |> Sheesh, my hand is *still* sore, and it's Friday! I've only now realized |> how much more work (and how much slower) it is to hand-write than to type. What if they already enter a lot of information by pen and paper? I can point out a HUGE market for thkese machines if/when they ever drop in price: education. As a college student, I would kill for one of those machines right now. I write many pages of notes by hand, use several notebooks for different classes. I can write notes by hand much faster than anyone I have ever known can type, and my notes have spatial and visual cues that your would find difficult to reproduce if just using a keyboard. |> |> There are some obvious applications (mentioned in other followups) for a |> pen interface, but I think it's a lot more of an interface for specialized |> situations than the "wave of the future" some folks seem to think. The pen based interface has a much greater chance of being accepted by the masses than a keyboard. It is something they use every day, something they will easily assimilate into their everyday routine. Most people on this planet have no idea how to type faster than hunt-and-peck, but a lot more of them can use a pen to write with. |> Perhaps a pen interface will help bootstrap the keyboard-phobic? That is, |> they could start with a pen and move to a keyboard once they're more com- |> fortable. No one will go back. Once the pen-based interfaces arrive you will see massive changes once the machines acheive critical mass. For example, apply some of the abstract forms of your arguments to the introduction of the Mac and see its impact now; people said many of the same things about the Mac, but no one can deny the impact visual computing and "window interfaces" has had. It is kind of interesting, but I think that every statement you made in your followup was at one time given as a reason why the Mac and window based computing would never catch on.... jim -- Jim McCoy | "I'd love to stay and chat, but I'm mccoy@acns.nwu.edu | having an old friend for dinner." #include <disclaimer.h> | --Hannibal Lector
torek@HORSE.EE.LBL.GOV (Chris Torek) (05/05/91)
I rarely comment on anything that appears on this list---my crystal ball has been out of order for years---but this talk of making computers act like pen-and-paper reminds me of something I posted to comp.editors just three days ago. I will reproduce it here, with the caveat that I do not know whether emulating pen-and-paper is an example of what I am talking about. Only time will tell. I will note here that at least some forms of shorthand are ambiguous, requiring someone who understands the language and/or remembers part of the conversation to transcribe into `long form'. A coarse peach is Sam big you us two. :-) Chris [excerpt from article <12686@dog.ee.lbl.gov>] Whenever a new technology comes into existence, people spend an enormous amount of effort on making it look like previous technologies, with ridiculous (and often hilarious) results. It takes time, and often the retirement of those with inflexible minds, for the technology to acquire its own `natural' model. (Some would use the word `paradigm' here, but `paradigm' means `example': in particular, an example that is used to illustrate the underlying model.) For a long time automobiles were considered `horseless carriages' and much effort was put into making them look and act like carriages- without-horses. If someone had been able to figure out how to `blow out' electric lights, you would have had to pick up the chimney on your lamp, rather than turn the switch. The standard answer on picking up the telephone was once `Ahoy'. (People thought of telephones as speaking tubes, like those found on ships.) It all boils down to the fact that using an existing object as a reference model makes it easier to `think about' the new technology, but it also acts as a trap: it keeps people from considering alternatives.
v092pxca@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul D Fly) (05/05/91)
In article <9105021606.AA26962@lti2.lti.uucp>, reg@lti2.UUCP (Rick Genter x18) writes... >I recently read an article in the March '91 issue of MacUser that >reviews PenPoint, GO Corporation's pen-based operating system. The >user interface is (or can be) entirely pen-driven. PenPoint supports >an optional keyboard, but its use is discouraged. > >Is this really "the interface for the rest of us"? PenPoint 1.0 requires >(stuff deleted) I can type a lot faster and with more comfort then I can write...and I never even learned how to type! Paul Fly
chou@steelhead.cs.washington.edu (Pai Hsiang Chou) (05/05/91)
In article <9105021606.AA26962@lti2.lti.uucp> reg@lti2.UUCP (Rick Genter x18) writes: >I recently read an article in the March '91 issue of MacUser that >reviews PenPoint, GO Corporation's pen-based operating system. The >user interface is (or can be) entirely pen-driven. PenPoint supports >an optional keyboard, but its use is discouraged. > >Is this really "the interface for the rest of us"? >... >The "pen" also strikes me as cumbersome; it's one more thing I have to >worry about breaking/losing/maintaining/whatever. >... >So what's the win? After reading the article, I concluded that PenPoint >will be good for a limited set of applications, usually revolving around >filling out forms in a non-time-critical environment. I can not see how >PenPoint would ever provide a comfortable environment for a "power" user, >or even for the everyday user. > >How do others feel? I don't think the pen interface will replace keyboard in what we know as computers today; rather, it will fill the gaps that are not covered by keyboard and mouse, particulary in portable applications. A keyboard is something that really can't be miniaturized too much. A tiny, calculator-sized keyboard is simply unusable. A standard sized keyboard takes up a significant amount of space. To input graphics, you need either a mouse or a pen. A mouse requires a flat surface, or you can use a trackball, but again, neither can be easily miniaturized. Some alternative mouse devices like a sliding/rolling bar (I forget the name) may save space, but they are not as natural as a pen for inputting quick and dirty graphics. By eliminating the keyboard and the mouse, you can use the space for more screen area and battery pack which are two valuable resources in a notebook computer. We are used to the one centralized computer model, but consider the trend towards distributed computing. What if you want to carry several computers, some of which might be special purpose (e.g. pocket dictionary)? The Franklyn dictionary computer is a good example. The keyboard takes up most of the top surface, but it is too tiny to be ergonomic. Yet its display gives you only two lines at a time -- but I don't want to have to scroll back and forth to see both the definition and synonyms at the same time. Then the pen will be a big win in this case. It would be nice if the same pen can be used on different computers so that I only have to carry one around, or borrow somebody elses if I lose mine. I would rather carry a pen with several keyboardless notebook computers than several tiny-screened computers, each with their own keyboard and trackball. Pai Chou chou@june.cs.washington.edu
chou@steelhead.cs.washington.edu (Pai Hsiang Chou) (05/05/91)
In article <Uc8Btjq00Vpb8IIFME@andrew.cmu.edu> mh2f+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Mark Hahn) writes: >there may be a market for technophobes in this country, >but pens are practically a necessity for ideographic writing, like Japan. >currently, the state of the art for typing kanji is to enter >an English transcription, which is then converted into the Japanese >syllabic alphabet (kana) and finally into Kanji (the latter >is a many-many mapping.) not surprisingly, vast categories >of the software market in Japan are sparse, since there's no general >demand for such a clumsy system. > >regards, mark It is NOT a necessity, just easy of learning. In Taiwan, where traditional Chinese characters are used, the most popoular input method is a stroke based system which assigns shapes to the keys, and any character can be entered using anywhere between 1 to 5 keys, unambiguously. It is very efficient once mastered. The champion from a recent contest was a 17-year-old girl who could enter 190+ Chinese characters a minute. However, this input method requires about 3 months of training, so the learning curve is quite high. Pai Chou chou@june.cs.washington.edu
mason3@husc9.harvard.edu (Richard Mason) (05/05/91)
Two reasons for using pen technology have already been repeatedly cited:
(1) It's a better input device for many-letter alphabets (not necessarily
just Japanese -- consider that a mathematician can use a pen to write
Greek letters, mathematical symbols, etc. without hitting
<shift>-<option>-<control>-<widget>-<Q>-LETTER
or switching to a special font.)
(2) It's more portable than a keyboard and can be used to take notes
while standing up.
I'd like to add a third reason:
(3) Holding a pen in your hand makes it easy to switch instantly between
text and graphics, and combine both in the same file/document.
You can easily scribble a sketch in the margin of your computerized
notes. On a keyboard system, you'd have to leave the keyboard and
reach for your mouse or sketch tablet (and I think the pen is a much
superior graphics tool to the mouse).
Also, to return to mathematics again, consider how much easier it
would be if one could enter equations into a computer in the same
way one writes them on paper, i.e. with numerators and denominators,
limit symbols, summation symbols, integration symbols, etc. etc.
A pen-based system could remove the need for TeX.
So I think there is a case to be made for a pen interface. Mind you,
for the "interface of the future", my money is still on voice recognition.
;-)
--
"These things are pure science fiction! And yet they are all true."
-M.O. Rabin
===================================================================
Richard Mason | mason3@husc9.harvard.edu | All opinions are my own.gd@geovision.gvc.com (Gord Deinstadt) (05/05/91)
mccoy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jim Mccoy) writes: >What if they already enter a lot of information by pen and paper? I >can point out a HUGE market for thkese machines if/when they ever drop >in price: education. As a college student, I would kill for one of >those machines right now. I write many pages of notes by hand, use >several notebooks for different classes. I can write notes by hand >much faster than anyone I have ever known can type, and my notes have >spatial and visual cues that your would find difficult to reproduce if >just using a keyboard. Having recently gone back to school, I sympathise... but I can type a lot faster than I can write. And I can type in the dark, which is useful when viewing slides (actually, I can write in the dark too; the problem is reading it afterwards!). So if I had the choice I'd take a laptop with a full-size keyboard. But I'd want a stylus for entering the graphical bits. I'd like to type in my exams too. On one exam I was asked to write 5000 words in 3 hours; my physical limit is about 1200/hour when hand writing (my fingers just won't move faster). When I was in school the first time, studying electronics, none of this was a problem. Most of my notes were graphical (schematics and charts); most of my exam time was spent calculating and drawing. Now I'm taking humanities things are very different. -- Gord Deinstadt gdeinstadt@geovision
andrew@trlamct.trl.oz.au (Andrew Jennings) (05/06/91)
> > So what's the win? After reading the article, I concluded that PenPoint > will be good for a limited set of applications, usually revolving around > filling out forms in a non-time-critical environment. I can not see how > PenPoint would ever provide a comfortable environment for a "power" user, > or even for the everyday user. > > How do others feel? > You should get hold of a video from the Human Factors Worshop of ACM, I think it was the 1989 or 1990 conference. Some people from IBM Yorktown Heights demonstrated a pen type interface. Mostly its useful for drawing diagrams. You might like to compare how long it takes to draw a rough diagram with a pen (around 5 minutes) with how long it takes even with a high end desktop publishing system (around 45 minutes). With the pen you can rough draw and then snap to a clear line. You can outline a character then snap it to a printed character in the font of your choice. See also a recent special issue of Byte on pens and laptops. You can't use a laptop in a car with a mouse. As per the cursive script, I think this may take a few more years yet, but it is by no means impossible. Especially if we train the system only to recognise <your> handwriting. a.jennings@trl.oz.au phone : 61 3 541 6241 fax : 61 3 543 8863 Andrew Jennings AI Systems Telecom Australia Research Labs
brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (05/06/91)
In <9105042144.AA22495@horse.ee.lbl.gov> torek@HORSE.EE.LBL.GOV (Chris Torek) writes: >It all boils down to the fact that using an existing object as a >reference model makes it easier to `think about' the new technology, >but it also acts as a trap: it keeps people from considering >alternatives. Is this a warning about using the "pen and paper" analog or the "typewriter" keyboard analog? In essence the computer does not have any "nature" reference model. It is simply a device for storing and manipulating information. The data is the thing that has a natural reference model. How you want to relate to a computer will depend on what sort of information you store in it. Whether you prefer a WYSIWYG text editor or a page makeup language depends on whether you are interested in the content of the document or the way in which it is typeset. No-one can deny that the typewriter keyboard is efficient at encoding large amounts of "textual" information. Whether it is right for your particular application depends on whether your information is essentially textual (computer control commands are not) and on whether you have need of rapid information flows. Even if you fulfill these criteria it is likely that voice recognition is a more useful interface than the keyboard. PS If you think computer control is essentially textual try imagining yourself saying <control>-h <control>-h <shift>-J <shift>-I to a voice recognition system (or a human secretary). Pen based interfaces will be very useful to people who handle a low volume of textual information or information that is essentially graphical in nature or need a non-invasive interface. An effective pen interface would be infinitely preferrable to a mouse interface for manipulating screen objects in a GUI. -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about.
msucats@att1.Mankato.MSUS.EDU (msucats) (05/06/91)
> Two reasons for using pen technology have already been repeatedly cited: > (1) It's a better input device for many-letter alphabets (not necessarily > just Japanese -- consider that a mathematician can use a pen to write > Greek letters, mathematical symbols, etc. without hitting > <shift>-<option>-<control>-<widget>-<Q>-LETTER > or switching to a special font.) > > (2) It's more portable than a keyboard and can be used to take notes > while standing up. > > I'd like to add a third reason: > (3) Holding a pen in your hand makes it easy to switch instantly between > text and graphics, and combine both in the same file/document. > You can easily scribble a sketch in the margin of your computerized > notes. On a keyboard system, you'd have to leave the keyboard and > reach for your mouse or sketch tablet (and I think the pen is a much > superior graphics tool to the mouse). I'd like to add a fourth reason: (4) Not all applications involve enough user input to require a keyboard. Browsing through files and reading netnews, for instance, comprise mostly a few, low-bandwidth user responses. If hypertext systems start to show up, it seems likely that they would be similar. For example, I prefer to absorb information away from my workstation, so I tend to print out more documents than I should. But if I had a small enough notebook computer (with a big enough screen) I'd use it instead of trees. My threshold for "small enough" is "flat and no keyboard," which would limit the amount of input I could do. But if all you're doing is tapping the space bar most of the time, who needs a keyboard? Handwriting seems sufficient for most of the email and posting I do. In other words, pen-based portables have a niche as surrogate books as well as computers. To this end, it'd be nice if their screens were touch-sensitive, so users could "turn the page" without grabbing for the pen. (I want Smalltalk for my pen-portable, but that's another story.) -- // Jay Carlson \X/ msucats@att1.mankato.msus.edu
George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray) (05/06/91)
GO are doing the right thing licensing their operating system
for many platforms. In the early stages of acceptance this will
foster great price competition among hardware vendors, like Windows
does today.
Wide-area wireless networking, however, may prove difficult
to implement over the muliplicity of operating systems and
protocols we use today.
Nevertheless, I think they will be quite popular.
Notebook computers will be first widely used by consumers,
not producers, of information. The GO book interface is a great
metaphor. Most people are readers. To quote Chance* (the gardner)...
"I like to watch..."
When these devices are connected to the wireless networks, there will
be plenty to read. Until then it will be aquired by drawing, typing, and
'physical' information transfer (floppies & LANs).
Let's face it - the "installed-base" for books and pens is pretty large.
If the GO illusion is anything like the BYTE and MacUSER articles,
they will be inviting people to experiment with a computer using the
tools they already know.
* Chance The Gardner, played by Peter Sellers in the movie "Being There".
George Bray
CSIRO Division of Information Technology > Phone: +61 2 887 9307
PO Box 1599 North Ryde 2113 AUSTRALIA > Fax: +61 2 888 7787
Internet: George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU > CompuServe: 72711,253derek@sun4dts.dts.ine.philips.nl (derek) (05/06/91)
I think that the eventual interface must be the touch screen. Most non- writing interfaces depend on selection. Here then the touch screen software can bring up the menu, and you just tap the selection you want. The pen interface is interesting, and can be used in conjunction with the touch screen for those times when a note is to be input. For word-processing applications I really don't see it as a solution. How many professional writers went away from longhand to typewriters to wordprocessors for exactly this reason? Those that still need to be "in contact" with their work will continue to use pen and paper and a secretary, the rest will stick to the keyboard. I'm a writer, and for long text input, as a previous contributor mentioned, the keyboard is by far the best (i.e. least painful) method to use. Best Regards, Derek Carr DEREK@DTS.INE.PHILIPS.NL Philips I&E TQV-5 Eindhoven, The Netherlands Standard Disclaimers apply.
urban%hercules@RAND.ORG (Michael Urban) (05/07/91)
Excerpts from mail: 4-May-91 Re: the interface for the r.. Chris Torek@horse.ee.lbl (1810) > Whenever a new technology comes into existence, people spend an > enormous amount of effort on making it look like previous technologies, with ridiculous (and often hilarious) results... I noticed this at TRW years back, when the people who wanted a `paperless office' really meant filling in forms on screens instead of on paper. My comment at that time was that if the automobile had been designed the way computers are used, the engine would have four legs and take gasoline-soaked hay through its mouth. To this day, I think that computer use took a bad turn somewhere in the late sixties. Instead of using computers to re-think office procedures and reduce paperwork and the amount of data that people have to deal with, we have instead created an inhumanly overheated demand for data. The forms that people fill out are longer and more frequent than they were, say, 20 years ago (I recently had occasion to look at my father's 1040 for 1971. Less paper than my forms, and my father owned a small business). More memory and faster processing just means more and bigger forms. I am, of course, not a Management type, nor have I any expertise in office procedures. But, somehow, using computers to do everything the Same as Always (just More and Faster) seems unimaginative to me... Hm. As I was typing that paragraph, my brain threw me an irrelevant and purely visual image of a placid Imperial Chinese residence in the most bustling section of Shanghai. Either I need to get something to eat, or my subconscious is trying to draw an equation between the incredibly bureaucratized structure of Imperial China and today's garbage-data explosion. Mike PS. If you decide to visit LA during the next six weeks, our Renaissance Faire runs until 9 June. I am there on Saturdays. If you do somehow manage to contain your eagerness, the Northern California edition (same management, many of the same cast, and very much the same show) runs in Marin County in September.
urban%hercules@RAND.ORG (Michael Urban) (05/07/91)
Damn, that last message was intended for Chris Torek, not the list (who screws the From: lines, anyway)
LL23@NEMOMUS.BITNET (Karen Kay) (05/07/91)
> > Two reasons for using pen technology have already been repeatedly cited: > > (1) It's a better input device for many-letter alphabets (not necessarily > > just Japanese -- consider that a mathematician can use a pen to write > > Greek letters, mathematical symbols, etc. without hitting > > <shift>-<option>-<control>-<widget>-<Q>-LETTER > > or switching to a special font.) > > I came in in the middle of this conversation, so I may have missed something, but I thought that the pen interface has proved problematic for Japanese? For all the reasons that one might think--letters have to be written exactly, in a certain fashion, or they become unreadable. Is this not true? Karen Kay Asst. Prof. of Japanese Northeast Missouri State University LL23@NEMOMUS
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (05/07/91)
mccoy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jim Mccoy) writes: [I had said] > |> This past weekend, I had to hand-write a lot of material for the first time > |> in years. (I've normally got my hands on a keyboard for 8-10 hours a day.) > |> Sheesh, my hand is *still* sore, and it's Friday! I've only now realized > |> how much more work (and how much slower) it is to hand-write than to type. > ...As a college student, I would kill for one of > those machines right now. I write many pages of notes by hand, use > several notebooks for different classes. I can write notes by hand > much faster than anyone I have ever known can type,... Without pointing it out, we've directly contradicted one another. I made my statement about speed rather offhand, without checking it. After seeing Jim's note, I decided to test it. On straight prose, I can type about twice as fast as I can write. (This includes time making corrections as I typed, since I'm not terribly accurate.) I think the 2x factor matters; I also think typing is less tiring for the long term. >...and my notes have > spatial and visual cues that your would find difficult to reproduce if > just using a keyboard. A good point for a pen-type interface...although I'm now wondering how one goes between the mode where the pen input is textual (you want to write and have the input scanned into letters and symbols from a known alphabet) versus graphical (you're drawing a diagram or a doodle, and don't want the OCR software to try to make sense of it). I'm not saying it can't be done; I just wonder how it works. > The pen based interface has a much greater chance of being accepted by > the masses than a keyboard. It is something they use every day, Assuming the interface is done reasonably well, you may be right. But there's also Chris Torek's point, which leads to the following reasoning: Should we really be comparing computer-made-to-look-like-typewriter with computer-made-to-look-like-keyboard? Or should we be looking for a new model of interaction not constrained to be so similar to an existing one. Frankly, both keyboard and pen seem fairly primitive. (We need some imagi- nation! Where's Mocsny when you need him?:-) There's voice as another form of input, but it's utterly one-dimensional. (No, I'm not going to sing to my computer.) > |> Perhaps a pen interface will help bootstrap the keyboard-phobic?... ... > No one will go back. Once the pen-based interfaces arrive you will > see massive changes once the machines acheive critical mass... That's an awfully bold prediction. It assumes that the pen-based inter- face can work smoothly and efficiently--I don't doubt that. But it also assumes that it will be more effective than the keyboard for most of the market, which I can't convince myself, and it also assumes that nothing better comes along in the meantime. >...For > example, apply some of the abstract forms of your arguments to the > introduction of the Mac and see its impact now; people said many of > the same things about the Mac, but no one can deny the impact visual > computing and "window interfaces" has had... You're right, but although the Mac has been successful in its corner, "visual computing and window interfaces" are still in their infancy in what some folks like to call the "serious computing" world. I can see the pen augmenting the keyboard; I can't see it supplanting it. The analogy to the Mac world is that the visual/pictorial aspects added to text; they didn't supplant it. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...If you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind.
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (05/07/91)
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) steps on his thumb: >...there's also Chris Torek's point, which leads to the following reasoning: > Should we really be comparing computer-made-to-look-like-typewriter with > computer-made-to-look-like-keyboard?... s/keyboard/clipboard/ -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...If you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind.
) (05/07/91)
chou@steelhead.cs.washington.edu (Pai Hsiang Chou) writes: > A keyboard is something that really can't be miniaturized > too much. A tiny, calculator-sized keyboard is simply unusable. > A standard sized keyboard takes up a significant amount of space. Only if you assume one character per key. > To input graphics, you need either a mouse or a pen. Or a finger or a trackball or a joystick. Why do people in this newsgroup make so many assumptions about what is and what is not acceptable as an input device? > It would be nice if the same pen can be used on different computers > so that I only have to carry one around, or borrow somebody elses > if I lose mine. I would rather carry a pen with several keyboardless > notebook computers than several tiny-screened computers, each with > their own keyboard and trackball. What on earth do you want several notebook computers for? I want everything in the *one* computer, so I can copy a dictionary definition into a piece of mail, stick a diagram into a diary entry, and so on. mathew
) (05/07/91)
msucats@att1.Mankato.MSUS.EDU (msucats) writes: > (I want Smalltalk for my pen-portable, but that's another story.) Sounds like you want the Active Book. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the Active Book Company will get their product out the door quickly enough to avoid having it killed off by GO. They're cutting it very fine. I wonder if they read this newsgroup? mathew
markr@and.cs.liv.ac.uk (05/07/91)
> As per the cursive script, I think this may take a few more years yet, but it > is by no means impossible. Especially if we train the system only to recognise > <your> handwriting. This could bring about a revolution in computer security. Imagine a machine that ONLY responds to YOUR handwriting. Instead of "login,password" we could have "sign here to access your account sir". :-) Mark
) (05/07/91)
urban%hercules@RAND.ORG (Michael Urban) writes: > To this day, I think that > computer use took a bad turn somewhere in the late sixties. [...] > More memory > and faster processing just means more and bigger forms. This is because bureaucracy takes advantage of the new technology in order to increase its own power and importance, rather than to increase its efficiency and decrease its impact on our lives. Bureaucrats ask for data they don't need because they can afford to store it away in the hope that it will be useful to them at a later date; or because it makes them look important; or because it allows them to have one enormous handle-everything form instead of several smaller ones. Unfortunately, there aren't enough people willing to say "you don't need to know that". Example: I have a standing order set up at my bank to pay the rent on the house I live in. The set amount is automatically debited from my account each month and credited to the landlord's account. Recently, some sort of change required that the rent be increased by 94p. I went along to the bank, and asked them to make the change. The drone behind the counter handed me a form. I filled in my name and address, the name of the destination account and destination bank, and wrote an instruction to increase the amount by 94p. (I listed both the old amount and the new amount.) I signed the form and handed it back. The drone explained that I needed to fill in my account number and bank sort code, the destination bank account number and sort code, and the addresses of both banks. Now, a lot of people would have given in and filled in all that information. I didn't, partly because I was too lazy to go home and look up the details. I explained that they had enough information to find my account details -- there can't be that many people called "mathew" in their database, and there will only be one at the address I had written down. I wasn't giving them any extra work, since they have to find the details anyway to cancel or amend the old standing order. And they damn well ought to know their own address anyway. The next protest from the drone was that they needed to make sure they didn't change the wrong standing order. Fair enough; I explained that there were only two standing orders, that they were to different names and bank accounts, and that they differed by two orders of magnitude. I had given the name, bank name and amount, so there was no chance for confusion. The drone went away and checked with a superior. The superior nodded. I left them to deal with it. mathew
chou@steelhead.cs.washington.edu (Pai Hsiang Chou) (05/08/91)
In article <Rm3k21w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (CNEWS MUST DIE!) writes: >chou@steelhead.cs.washington.edu (Pai Hsiang Chou) writes: >> A keyboard is something that really can't be miniaturized >> too much. A tiny, calculator-sized keyboard is simply unusable. >> A standard sized keyboard takes up a significant amount of space. > >Only if you assume one character per key. no, the keys on today's keyboards are already overloaded. Shift/Option/Command/Control/... If you want to go to the extreme, anything can be input 1 key -- using Morse code! My point is ergonomic key size. It has nothing to do with overloading the keys. Even a numeric keypad is too cumbersome in a portable environment. >> To input graphics, you need either a mouse or a pen. > >Or a finger or a trackball or a joystick. > >Why do people in this newsgroup make so many assumptions about what is and >what is not acceptable as an input device? OK, maybe I should have changed my line to "I would use". My fingertip isn't sharp enough to give me satisfactory precision I want. Besides, I wouldn't want to smear the display with my fingerprints or scratch it in case I forget to clip my fingernails. >What on earth do you want several notebook computers for? I want everything >in the *one* computer, so I can copy a dictionary definition into a piece of >mail, stick a diagram into a diary entry, and so on. The reasons people today don't want to carry several computers are 1) they are expensive, and not too many people can afford more than one. 2) PCs today don't talk to each other very well, 3) they need their own I/O devices (which make them cumbersome to carry around). But since this is a futures discussion group, I don't think we should be limited to what computers can do today. (10 years ago, some people were asking "Why would you ever need more than 64K in your personal computer?") The reason I think several notebooks will be more usable than one notebook with windows is simple: you can never have enough screen space (or I should say, "I can always use more screen space"). But there is a limit to how big a screen size can be before it gets too big to carry. So the solution is to carry several screens. Everything is getting more and more computing power. So a screen in the future is probably not just a screen any more, but it may have even more computing power than the most powerful personal computer we know today, but it may be very cheap. It will probably have handwriting recognition and application programs built in to it. There may or may not be a central processing unit. And we will probably not think of them as a "computer", but probably more like a smart display device. If you want to cut and paste from one computer to another with a pen, you might be able to do it with a smart pen which effectively sucks the data from one screen, stores it in its own memory buffer, and inject the data into the target screen. (Who says a pen can't be some sort of computer?) Why, it might even have a built-in voice recognition chip, and you can dictate into it, walk around, then click a button on the pen to paste your words into your document. (maybe you don't use voice recognition input, but who knows if your great great grandchildren would even consider using anything else?) At the same time, your notebooks may communicate with each other by wireless means, by fiberoptics, or whatever. I am definitely not thinking in terms of DOS or Macintosh with a much faster processor in a smaller box. Pai Chou chou@june.cs.washington.edu
e-reuter@UIUC.EDU (Erik Reuter) (05/08/91)
Has anyone gotten a UPS package lately? They seem to be using some new "clipboard" computer. It is mostly a keyboard, but it has a signature pad that you sign, and the signature shows up on the little LCD screen above. The signature part actually works pretty well, even though I would much prefer to actually write on the screen. The signature doesn't look very good on the low-res screen. I wonder if it digitizes the signature in more detail than shows up on the screen, presumably for uploading to the big computer at the end of the day. It is a little worrisome to have your signature stored in a computer's memory. I hope they have good security. I asked the UPS man a few questions, and apparently this was his first day with the device. Ironically, he was running late, so I didn't get much time to question him about it. Anyone else have any experiences with it? Erik Reuter e-reuter@uiuc.edu
) (05/08/91)
chou@steelhead.cs.washington.edu (Pai Hsiang Chou) writes: > In article <Rm3k21w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (CNEWS MUST DIE!) w > >chou@steelhead.cs.washington.edu (Pai Hsiang Chou) writes: > >> A keyboard is something that really can't be miniaturized > >> too much. A tiny, calculator-sized keyboard is simply unusable. > >> A standard sized keyboard takes up a significant amount of space. > > > >Only if you assume one character per key. > > no, the keys on today's keyboards are already overloaded. > Shift/Option/Command/Control/... If you want to go to > the extreme, anything can be input 1 key -- using Morse code! I have a keyboard with five keys and two shifts. It allows me to type all the characters I need. Remember, you have 32 combinations of 5 keys; combine that with two shifts and you have enough for the full ASCII character set. Add a graphics mode / text mode switch and you can do extended ASCII. > >> To input graphics, you need either a mouse or a pen. > > > >Or a finger or a trackball or a joystick. > > OK, maybe I should have changed my line to "I would use". > My fingertip isn't sharp enough to give me satisfactory > precision I want. Besides, I wouldn't want to smear the > display with my fingerprints or scratch it in case I > forget to clip my fingernails. Who said anything about using your finger on the *display*? Look at the Psion MC machines. They have a fingertip touch-pad. > >What on earth do you want several notebook computers for? I want everything > >in the *one* computer, so I can copy a dictionary definition into a piece of > >mail, stick a diagram into a diary entry, and so on. [...] > The reason I think several notebooks will be more usable than one > notebook with windows is simple: you can never have enough screen space > (or I should say, "I can always use more screen space"). > But there is a limit to how big a screen size can be before it gets too > big to carry. So the solution is to carry several screens. ...and attach them to the same computer. You still don't need several computers. > If you want to cut and paste from one computer to another with a pen, > you might be able to do it with a smart pen which effectively sucks > the data from one screen, stores it in its own memory buffer, and > inject the data into the target screen. > (Who says a pen can't be some sort of computer?) I'd rather cut and paste on the same computer -- that way I can have proper transclusion rather than static inclusion (i.e. when I change the spreadsheet, the copy in another document can be updated automatically). > At the same time, your notebooks may communicate with each other by > wireless means, by fiberoptics, or whatever. Yes; however, the chances of all the computer manufacturers settling on a single standard for data interchange, and that standard being a good one, seem remote. mathew
Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) (05/09/91)
Re the pen vs. keyboard, mouse, bat, etc.: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >Assuming the interface is done reasonably well, you may be right. But >there's also Chris Torek's point, which leads to the following reasoning: >Should we really be comparing computer-made-to-look-like-typewriter with >computer-made-to-look-like-keyboard? Or should we be looking for a new >model of interaction not constrained to be so similar to an existing one. >Frankly, both keyboard and pen seem fairly primitive. When screens will be displaying 3D scenes, we're going to need a way of indicating the depth of what we're pointing at. One possibility is a pen that has a depth control; it shows up as an extendable rod that grows and shrinks as you move the sliding button with your thumb... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "And when they die by thousands why, he laughs like anything." G Chesterton
gordd@geovision.gvc.com (Gord Deinstadt) (05/09/91)
chou@steelhead.cs.washington.edu (Pai Hsiang Chou) writes: >The reason I think several notebooks will be more usable than one >notebook with windows is simple: you can never have enough screen space >(or I should say, "I can always use more screen space"). >But there is a limit to how big a screen size can be before it gets too >big to carry. So the solution is to carry several screens. IMO the "Private Eye" is a better solution - and it is available now. This is a tiny device that you wear in front of one eye that projects an image onto the retina. The only problem I envision is that the same people who walk around all day with a Walkman in their ears will also walk around with a Private Eye over one eye. But eventually those people will lose touch with reality entirely, starve to death or whatever, and not bother the rest of us any more. :-S -- Gord Deinstadt gdeinstadt@geovision
brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (05/09/91)
In <1991May8.173534.26272@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes: >When screens will be displaying 3D scenes, we're going to need a >way of indicating the depth of what we're pointing at. One possibility >is a pen that has a depth control; it shows up as an extendable >rod that grows and shrinks as you move the sliding button with >your thumb... Oh while we are talking 3D displays, why not simply let you move your hand around whithin the display and pick up and use virtual objects such as pens or keyboards or compasses or rulers or whatever you like. -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about.
josh@happym.WA.COM (Joshua_Putnam) (05/10/91)
In <9105072254.AA03163@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> e-reuter@UIUC.EDU (Erik Reuter) writes: >Has anyone gotten a UPS package lately? >They seem to be using some new "clipboard" computer. It is mostly a >keyboard, but it has a signature pad that you sign, and the signature shows >up on the little LCD screen above. Yes, they are converting to digitized signatures to save time and space at the main office, or so I'm told. No need to keep all the paper records. >The signature doesn't look very >good on the low-res screen. I wonder if it digitizes the signature in more >detail than shows up on the screen, presumably for uploading to the big >computer at the end of the day. It is a little worrisome to have your >signature stored in a computer's memory. I hope they have good security. I hope the quality is no better than appears on the screen. That would provide better security than most systems I can think of -- anyone who accepts that grainy a signature would probably accept Don L. Duck's signature, too. The system does not require a complete signature, however, just a first initial and last name will do. I certainly hope nobody would accept an obviously digitized incomplete signature outside of very narrow circumstances, like verifying that a package was received. >I asked the UPS man a few questions, and apparently this was his first day >with the device. Ironically, he was running late, so I didn't get much time >to question him about it. Anyone else have any experiences with it? Our UPS driver was frequently late when they started using the computer clipboard. It was not 100% reliable, so he had to switch back to pen & paper frequently. Also, the driver apparently has to "clarify" the signature -- enter the name on the keyboard. They were supposed to do this back in the days of paper, too, but I believe the computer is more demanding. (Not all paper signatures required clarification -- some people actually have legible handwriting.) I haven't asked what the drivers are supposed to do when they leave a package without getting a signature. I suppose there must be a key for that. -- Josh_Putnam@happym.wa.com Happy Man Corp. 206/463-9399 x102 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399 fax x108 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor. (NextMail Info. free (sample $20): E-mail patty@happym.wa.com. okay too)
porten@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeffrey Porten) (05/10/91)
In article <1271@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au writes: >Oh while we are talking 3D displays, why not simply let you move your >hand around whithin the display and pick up and use virtual objects such >as pens or keyboards or compasses or rulers or whatever you like. Do you have any idea how hard it would be to get people to use an interface where they see themselves picking up an object, but receive NO other tactile feedback? Sight alone in NO way would be able to give the sort of input needed to handle objects; could you type if your hands were entirely numb and you had no way of knowing which keys you hit until you saw the results? Extending the Mac interface to this sort of 3D system, I can just picture thousands of users "fumbling" files into the trashcan, opening the wrong files, etc. -- Jeff Porten, Annenberg School for Communication, UPenn Graduate Group in American Civilization, UPenn As per usual, my opinions are my own, not Penn's, Pugwash's, or anyone else's.
cb@zitt (Cyberspace Buddha) (05/10/91)
brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes: > Oh while we are talking 3D displays, why not simply let you move your > hand around whithin the display and pick up and use virtual objects such > as pens or keyboards or compasses or rulers or whatever you like. Ah, the joys of Cyberspace... Gimme my glove and goggles. Cyberspace Buddha
de@helios.ucsc.edu (De Clarke) (05/12/91)
More information on "The Private Eye" please! Manufacturer? Cost? Availibility? Video format? Known ergo problems due to focussing one eye in a radically different plane? .............................................................................. : De Clarke, Computing Resources Mgr. UCO/Lick Observatory, UCSC : : de@helios.ucsc.edu The Regents don't often agree with me nor I with them. : : de@portal.bitnet "Praise the Net, and pass the information..." :
bmb@bluemoon.uucp (Bryan Bankhead) (05/12/91)
porten@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeffrey Porten) writes: > In article <1271@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au writes: > >Oh while we are talking 3D displays, why not simply let you move your > >hand around whithin the display and pick up and use virtual objects such > >as pens or keyboards or compasses or rulers or whatever you like. > > Do you have any idea how hard it would be to get people to use an interface > where they see themselves picking up an object, but receive NO other > tactile feedback? Sight alone in NO way would be able to give the sort > of input needed to handle objects; could you type if your hands were > entirely numb and you had no way of knowing which keys you hit until > you saw the results? Extending the Mac interface to this sort of 3D > system, I can just picture thousands of users "fumbling" files into the > trashcan, opening the wrong files, etc. People manage to do some prety sophisticated virtual manipulation in video games with just visual inuput. I think people will adapt just fine. Any system this sophisticated will have the capacity to recover from errors gracefully. In any case typing is noth the kind of operations this sort of system will be used for, but doing system junk. Just think, being able to use ALL the mail tools on internet without leafing through a phone book sized manual. It would be just like using a GUI only more so. This is from bmb@bluemoon.uucp bmb%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yet
isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account) (05/14/91)
In article <y9JT27w164w@bluemoon.uucp> bmb@bluemoon.uucp (Bryan Bankhead) writes: >porten@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeffrey Porten) writes: >> In article <1271@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au writes: >> >Oh while we are talking 3D displays, why not simply let you move your >> >hand around whithin the display and pick up and use virtual objects such >> Do you have any idea how hard it would be to get people to use an interface >> where they see themselves picking up an object, but receive NO other >> tactile feedback? Sight alone in NO way would be able to give the sort >People manage to do some prety sophisticated virtual manipulation in video >games with just visual inuput. I think people will adapt just fine. Any >system this sophisticated will have the capacity to recover from errors >gracefully. In any case typing is noth the kind of operations this sort I agree with Jeffrey Porten, this will be difficult. A video game gives you tactile feedback, whether it's from feeling how far you have turned a knob, or how far down a button is pressed, or whatever tactile feedback you have, there's almost always some... There's also the problem of holding your hand/finger above the button, without drifting into it when your not watching YOUR HAND, instead of something interesting. This could be simulated by simple force-feedback on the fingers when they approach within a certain virtual distance of a virtual object. The force could be dependent on the "hardness" of an object or actuating force of a virtual 'button'. There's still the problem of drifting, though, this only warns of possible drift, Ideally you'd like your hand resting on or grasping your virtual thingummy. This could be done by having the user have to overcome the force of the feedback actuator/stimulator. This might make problems, of everything in the VR having a virtual tactile "skin", but i think it would be better than sticking your hand thru a wall without any feeling, or pushing oneself away from it w/o any feeling. Mike_Schechter@isr.syr.edu -- Mike_Schechter@isr.syr.edu | XLII,B,+3dB,Non-Nak | Make Tapes, Not War
robertj@Autodesk.COM (Young Rob Jellinghaus) (05/14/91)
In article <42908@netnews.upenn.edu> porten@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeffrey Porten) writes: >Do you have any idea how hard it would be to get people to use an interface >where they see themselves picking up an object, but receive NO other >tactile feedback? Sight alone in NO way would be able to give the sort >of input needed to handle objects; could you type if your hands were >entirely numb and you had no way of knowing which keys you hit until >you saw the results? Extending the Mac interface to this sort of 3D >system, I can just picture thousands of users "fumbling" files into the >trashcan, opening the wrong files, etc. I don't get it. You get no tactile feedback from using the mouse--the only feedback is something getting highlighted or selected on the screen. How is this any different from cyberspace? You reach out to grab some- thing and as you touch it it glows brighter? No ambiguity whatsoever. Even less, in fact, if you add sound. Take a look at SonicFinder on the Mac--as you click on something you hear a tone, dropping something into the trash can creates a "crash" noise... there's no reason lack of tactile feedback need impact the usability of a well-designed cyberspace. -- Rob Jellinghaus | "Next time you see a lie being spread or Autodesk, Inc. | a bad decision being made out of sheer robertj@Autodesk.COM | ignorance, pause, and think of hypertext." {decwrl,uunet}!autodesk!robertj | -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_
isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account) (05/15/91)
In article <4823@autodesk.COM> robertj@Autodesk.COM (Young Rob Jellinghaus) writes: >I don't get it. You get no tactile feedback from using the mouse--the >only feedback is something getting highlighted or selected on the screen. >How is this any different from cyberspace? You reach out to grab some- >thing and as you touch it it glows brighter? No ambiguity whatsoever. >Even less, in fact, if you add sound. Take a look at SonicFinder on the >Mac--as you click on something you hear a tone, dropping something into >the trash can creates a "crash" noise... there's no reason lack of tactile >feedback need impact the usability of a well-designed cyberspace. As i may not have stressed in a previous followup, it's not so much the lack of feedback when you do actions - it's the lack of feedback of position - try this experiment if you have the equipment - using a sonic stylus or a digitizer tablet hold the stylus/cursor about an inch off the digitizing surface while the computer is tracking it's motion. Now look away and talk to someone, for thirty seconds or so watching neither the screen or device, and your position will probably have wandered a good .5-2" (more if your elbow is in the air) Now take a paper clip and bend it so it sticks up in the air.. put it where you where holding the stylus and touch your finger to it and look away for the same time... your drift will be about .1" maximum because you'll feel it when you stop touching the paper clip. And it doesn't take a whole lot a feedback force for this kind of position sensing, as a paper clip is easily pushed out of position. -- Mike_Schechter@isr.syr.edu | XLII,B,+3dB,Non-Nak | Make Tapes, Not War
gordd@geovision.gvc.com (Gord Deinstadt) (05/15/91)
de@helios.ucsc.edu (De Clarke) writes: >More information on "The Private Eye" please! I'll see what I can dig up. At best I have some articles in Popular Science type magazines. Anyone with better info is invited to post. I recall that at this point they're selling samples only, at a fairly high price ($700?). And they are in black & red monochrome only - they use a bar of LEDs mechanically scanned at the frame rate. Once in volume production they should be quite cheap. The resolution is not very good. The optics make the image appear to be at infinity or some reasonable distance, so if the wearer is walking around there shouldn't be a focus problem. -- Gord Deinstadt gdeinstadt@geovision.gvc.com