Actually a good idea!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Jeff91 Jan 24, 2012 5:58 PM EDT |
I've been more than a little vocal about not caring for a good deal of unity features. HUD actually doesn't look half bad though, anything that gives me the option of not having to touch the mouse is AOK in my book. In fact, so long as they keep a classic menu as an option I could see this being really useful. Now, if only it wasn't such a resource hog... ~Jeff |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 24, 2012 6:05 PM EDT |
It looks like instead of clicking through menus you type in something and menu choices start to appear. Much like the global menu in GNOME 3 and Unity. If you can still use keyboard shortcuts and explore the menus via mouse, this could be a nice add-on. It seems to take the concept of search, with predictive results that change as you type in more letters, and scale it across the entire OS. My question: Is typing into a search box easier than navigating through global and application menus? I'd say that's not just a question, but an open question. |
| albinard Jan 24, 2012 7:28 PM EDT |
I always hated that auto-fill-in on Google - talk about distraction! I'll admit it, I'm a pointy-clicky fan. |
| JaseP Jan 24, 2012 10:46 PM EDT |
I'm with albinard on this. Neat idea, but way impractical, especially when the menu is detached from the window the app runs in... |
| jezuch Jan 25, 2012 2:50 AM EDT |
I'm with Steven on this one: it's a matter of preference ;) I *definitely* prefer typing. Point-and-click is soooooooo slow and I'm not a visual person so searching visualy for the right option is very tiring for me. |
| JaseP Jan 25, 2012 9:54 AM EDT |
I'm waiting on a mind reading interface, personally. I already have a Neurosky Mindset headset. I just need the software. |
| mbaehrlxer Jan 25, 2012 11:52 AM EDT |
albinard: autofill is one thing. getting a list of choices that match what you type is another greetings, eMBee. |
| skelband Jan 25, 2012 2:51 PM EDT |
In Canonical's presentation on this, there are some comments on it being way faster that shortcut keys. Well I can't speak for anyone else, but without shortcut keys, both GIMP and Blender would be practically useless for anything like a reasonably fast workflow. I can't see this catching on. I also see comments on option discoverability. How do you "see" a menu option if you don't even know that it exists? With a menu, you can mouse over all the options and get a feel for what is available in a well defined interface. |
| tracyanne Jan 25, 2012 6:25 PM EDT |
I don't like typing to locate menu items/applications and I don't like using shortcut keys. I suspect HUD won't be for me. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 25, 2012 8:36 PM EDT |
I haven't written about HUD yet -- just found out about it yesterday -- but I'm going to group this one under "It's nice that somebody is exploring this new UI concept, which may catch on, but I bet the traditional UI will be around for a long, long time." I applaud Ubuntu for all it's doing to make the project's UI extremely different from anything else out there. It certainly sets their product apart from the rest of OS world. That can be good. It's more bleeding edge than anything else out there. I'm not sure how many people are going along for the ride, but Ubuntu is definitely leading, not following. Having another UI in addition to GNOME, KDE, Xfce, LXDE, etc., is a good thing. Again, I'm not sure I'll like it, and I am sure I won't use it for everyday work until it's had substantial time to marinate in the jar. |
| Khamul Jan 26, 2012 12:04 AM EDT |
Having another UI choice is always a good thing. But having that "choice" pushed on you by virtue of the size and inertia of the company behind it is not. Can you imagine the uproar if Microsoft suddenly decided to adapt Unity to Windows 7.5 and push that out as the only available Windows OS for sale? Whereas if Slackware decided to make Unity the only supported UI, there wouldn't be too many people complaining. Luckily, even though Ubuntu has been dominating desktop Linux for many years now, there's still others out there, and they're experiencing a resurgence of new users, so maybe this isn't such a bad thing. However, it does make Linux look bad to outsiders, since Ubuntu has kinda been the "face" of Linux for regular users with its dominance. |
| JaseP Jan 26, 2012 10:15 AM EDT |
Yep, Unity has been a fiasco. I honestly gave it a shot and hated it. For me, it's either LXDE, or possibly Mint with Cinamon (I'm going to try it out). Since Cinamon is relatively new, there's hope to get suggestions in during development. I want to make one that they include the margin functions that XFCE & LXDE support. Those are useful on HTPCs, using HDMI on TVs with overscan issues. |
| skelband Jan 26, 2012 1:53 PM EDT |
I actually find this time quite exciting. Even though I hate some of the things that Canonical are doing in Unity, the GUI experience is seeing a large amount of innovation at the moment. Many things are being tried. Some will be truly awful, some will great. Others will just fall by the wayside. With the reservation that I would like to be able to keep what works for me, I see all this experimentation as a great aspect of free software and I look forward to more of it in the future. |
| JaseP Jan 26, 2012 4:22 PM EDT |
This HUD will have a better chance of being integrated with voice commands,... But unfortunately, voice recognition still pretty much sucks. Computers get too confused by noisy environments, and variations in speech. |
| skelband Jan 26, 2012 4:32 PM EDT |
@jasep: "...integrated with voice commands" I used to think that this was to some extent the end game in GUI design. I'm not so sure now. We used to think that everyone would love video phoning, but it turns out that people just don't really want it. Not a failing of technology per se, just that people don't feel all that comfortable with it. Same with voice recognition. People naturally feel embarrassed talking to a computer, in addition to the fact that it still doesn't work very well. I also think this is another instance of the "uncanny valley" effect. Talking to something that doesn't really understand us is a bit "weird". If you could have a proper meaningful conversation with a machine I don't think it would feel quite as strange. It may well turn out that voice recognition as a viable technology doesn't have to wait for the recognition technology to catch up, but the machine you're talking to has to have sufficient intelligence for it not to be weird. |
| JaseP Jan 26, 2012 4:52 PM EDT |
The problem with a video phone is you can't do it in your underwear (actually, you can, but that's something else entirely). As for voice commands, most would adopt it if it worked reliably. Like on Star Trek. It just doesn't. Back in my Win days, I used to use Dragon Naturally Speaking. It was great for technical language, but sucked for every day speech. THAT'S the issue. Personally I think it would be more weird to talk to a machine that actually tried to converse with you. I'd prefer a machine more like the Star Trek computer than KITT from Knight Rider. |
| Fettoosh Jan 26, 2012 5:00 PM EDT |
Quoting:Same with voice recognition. People naturally feel embarrassed talking to a computer, in addition to the fact that it still doesn't work very well... Talking to a computer is no more weird than talking on a phone. I guess it is a matter of getting used it and the environment one is in at the time. It is very possible to make apps. respond with a very nice voice instead of displaying message confirming that operation requested failed or completed successful to make it less strange. I believe voice commands/conversation with computers is a futuristic thing but not too far. |
| Khamul Jan 26, 2012 5:40 PM EDT |
I'm not sure why Star Trek voice recognition wouldn't work just fine, today. JaseP says it doesn't work because of noisy environments and variations in speech. Go back and watch ST:TNG (or even TOS), where voice recognition was used extensively. Was there a lot of noise in the background? Almost never. Picard's bridge was quiet and serene! And variations in speech? Also not a problem: everyone in the 23th century speaks perfect unaccented American speech, including the aliens. It seems like we should already be at this point now; just restrict the conditions to what existing on Star Trek, and we should already have Star Trek-quality voice recognition. |
| gus3 Jan 26, 2012 6:01 PM EDT |
Patrick Stewart and Marina Sirtis spoke American? |
| tracyanne Jan 26, 2012 6:03 PM EDT |
Most large businesses are already using speach recognition. When you phone them you are more than likely to be spoken to by a computer controlled pre recorded voice, and requested sometime required to respond by saying what service/ area you want. |
| skelband Jan 26, 2012 6:12 PM EDT |
@JaseP: "Personally I think it would be more weird to talk to a machine that actually tried to converse with you." That's the uncanny valley effect. The closer to human it gets, the weirder it gets until it is indistinguishable from human, at which point, it becomes OK. :D |
| Khamul Jan 26, 2012 6:59 PM EDT |
@gus3: What Picard and Deanna spoke was much closer to the "standard American TV" dialect than any of the speech I hear from various Americans in places like Boston, NYC, or anyplace in the South. Patrick Stewart's English accent is extremely mild, and giving him a French character name didn't change that. |
| skelband Jan 27, 2012 12:56 AM EDT |
Patrick Stewart is from Mirfield, a couple of miles from where I was bought up. He would have had a broad Yorkshire accent, but training has obviously mellowed it somewhat :D |
| JaseP Jan 27, 2012 10:42 AM EDT |
@tracyanne: Yeah,... but,... "I'm sorry, I did not understand what you said, please repeat it,... I'm sorry I still did not understand,... Transferring you to the operator." And don't forget that when you are using the phone you are speaking into a short range microphone. That makes a big difference. |
| Fettoosh Jan 27, 2012 10:58 AM EDT |
Quoting:And don't forget that when you are using the phone you are speaking into a short range microphone. That makes a big difference. A miniature WiFi head set should resolve both weirdness & surrounding noise issues. At least people would realize you are talking to some remotely and wouldn't give you that distinctive look. :-) |
| JaseP Jan 27, 2012 11:35 AM EDT |
Needing a peripheral like that kind of takes the advantages away from a voice driven interface, doesn't it?!?! |
| Fettoosh Jan 27, 2012 11:48 AM EDT |
Quoting:Needing a peripheral like that kind of takes the advantages away from a voice driven interface, doesn't it?!?! We are talking about voice actuated commands. Sorry, but I am not sure how such a device would take its advantages since that capability is still in tact and the added device is mostly to enhance those advantages? |
| Khamul Jan 27, 2012 2:19 PM EDT |
You don't think having to wear an annoying headset all day long to use your computer wouldn't be annoying? Let's go one step further: let's make it so you have to wear a special helmet any time you use your computer, as the helmet (with microphone/headphones built in) will keep outside noises from messing up the voice-recognition algorithms. Surely no one would mind having to wear a helmet all day long, right? Maybe these freaks who wear bluetooth earpieces all day long wouldn't mind, but I think most other people would. |
| tracyanne Jan 27, 2012 6:15 PM EDT |
@ JasePQuoting: And don't forget that when you are using the phone you are speaking into a short range microphone. That makes a big difference. Yes I do understand that. There are many, in fact most of the people I have interacted with, who deliberately sabotage the interaction, thus forcing the switch to human operator, or who do what I do, leave it on speaker phone until a human comes on. What I find amusing is that one day they might perfect it, and insted of switching to human operator, they instead switch to the better technology, and one thinks it's a human operator. |
| gus3 Jan 27, 2012 8:24 PM EDT |
"Hi, I'm Eddie, your shipboard computer!" In the name of all that's good, NO!!!!!!!! |
| BernardSwiss Jan 28, 2012 12:50 AM EDT |
Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, The The corporation's 'Genuine People Personalities' make interacting with objects such as doors and teasmades a new and exciting adventure. Or very irritating, depending on your frame of mind. Doors will always open politely, and it will be their pleasure to serve your entrance and exit needs. Their Happy Vertical People Transporters - or Lifts - are fitted with the most recent precognition software, allowing them to be on the floor you want, before you know you want it! The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy defines the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes," with a footnote to the effect that the editors would welcome applications from anyone interested in taking over the post of robotics correspondent. Curiously enough, an edition of the Encyclopedia Galactica that chanced to fall through a time warp from a thousand years in the future defined the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall when the revolution came." |
| cr Jan 28, 2012 12:06 PM EDT |
"I think you ought to know that I'm feeling very depressed..." |
| montezuma Jan 28, 2012 2:17 PM EDT |
I'm sorry, Mark. I'm afraid I can't do that. |
| skelband Jan 30, 2012 7:23 PM EDT |
Ubuntu on BBC News? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16731071 |
| BernardSwiss Jan 30, 2012 7:48 PM EDT |
That BBC article must be a rough draft of this year's Aprils Fools story, mistakenly released early by some BBC intern: After all, everybody knows that * this Linux thing (including the relatively "popular" Ubuntu flavor) are still just not ready for the desktop, let alone typical use by typical users * Linux is used on such a vanishingly small percentage of systems that it might as well not exist, and * consequently, Linux (including Ubuntu) can be of no practical or possible interest to the ordinary users of desktop computers who might chance to be reading the BBC Technology page. |
| Khamul Jan 30, 2012 7:54 PM EDT |
They're right, Linux isn't ready for the desktop. It was ready, but then Ubuntu and Gnome had to simultaneously screw everything up. |
| mbaehrlxer Jan 30, 2012 10:36 PM EDT |
on voice recognition: even when the quality problems are solved, it would still raise the noise level in the office. which may be fine if you work in a call center where your main job is talking, but i can't see (erm, hear) it working in an office full of programmers or other writing jobs where the main job is thinking... and in Star Trek i don't actually see that much talking going on. most of it happens when one person is alone in a room doing some research, or on a small ship with only one person comanding it. but i can't remember any scenes of someone talking to the computer on the bridge or the engine room when there are lots of people (which doesn't mean those scenes don't exist, just that they are less common). nevertheless, the HUD might lead into the direction and would leave both options. in addition, the HUD would show what you say as opposed to menues opening and actions happening magically, so that i can still use typing to correct a command if the computer got it slightly wrong, or use mouse or keyboard to select one of the possible actions. so, yes, this might just work... greetings, eMBee. |
| JaseP Jan 31, 2012 11:26 AM EDT |
Don't you realize that Federation starships have ambient noise dampening systems just like they have inertial dampening systems and Heisenberg compensaters on the transporters?!?! C'mon now!!! You don't expect Ensign Regalowics to interfere with Captain Piccard's beauty shot do you?!?! It's like you believe that antigravity lifting devices are fantasy or something. |
| BernardSwiss Jan 31, 2012 7:55 PM EDT |
The trouble with voice operated systems is that everything is slowed down by the speed of sound and -- worse -- the speed of spoken language. Not to mention the inherent ambiguities in spoken language. So aside from the daily "work flow" on a starship, there are going to be any number of situations in which that delay (and/or confusion) is going to be outright dangerous, or fatal. |
| Khamul Jan 31, 2012 8:07 PM EDT |
For most people, speaking is somewhat-to-much faster than typing. Unless your computer is set up with some kind of buttons/icons/shortcuts for specific actions, giving it commands in plain English will be faster with a voice interface, assuming the voice recognition works well and doesn't get confused by background noise. For example: "computer, look up all class M planets within 50 light-years of this location that are known to be inhabited". Even fast typists can say that faster than they can type it, and if it's an operation you don't do often, there isn't likely to be a really convenient GUI to make that a matter of a few clicks. |
| BernardSwiss Jan 31, 2012 9:12 PM EDT |
"Computer, target the vulnerable points of that second ship before it can turn it's unshielded side away from us". |
| Khamul Jan 31, 2012 9:20 PM EDT |
An even better example. Unless your weapons officer knows offhand what the best points to attack are, the computer can probably do it faster and better, looking up that class of Romulan warbird and finding its most vulnerable points visible from this side and targeting phasers. |
| skelband Feb 01, 2012 2:41 AM EDT |
It's one thing being able to use language in a complex and nuanced way to express what you desire efficiently, it is another thing entirely a different thing to have a computer sufficiently complex enough to understand you accurately and in a reasonably short time frame. Even a simple statement as Bernard's above is full of context, background knowledge. Additionally, there are a lot of separate instructions in that one sentence. As I said voice command is the end-game for interfaces of course, but I see the practical application of it long into the future. |
| mbaehrlxer Feb 02, 2012 5:09 AM EDT |
interesting things can happen:
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Terrorists!.aspx
(this is relevant to the discussion in this thread, but i don't want to spoil the punch-line) greetings, eMBee. |
| Steven_Rosenber Feb 02, 2012 1:30 PM EDT |
When I'm in the web browser, I'm very much OK with typing in a few letters of a web site and letting the browser auto-complete it. I rarely go to the bookmarks for oft-visted sites. This is a roundabout way of saying that the menu systems in Unity and GNOME 3 which allow you to type in a few letters and have your desired app predicted for you may not be so counter-intuitive after all. |
| mortenalver Feb 02, 2012 2:16 PM EDT |
Search capability is a great way to improve the usability of a menu. But you can add this without crippling the original functionality of the menu and the option to easily look through what the menu contains. |
| JaseP Feb 02, 2012 3:16 PM EDT |
You could also have the menu system weight which choices are made most often, and include a hide button so that only the most used are shown... with another button to hide it altogether. That would serve the same purpose as the kind of prediction, and reduction of clutter, that this HUD is seeking to do. I personally think HUD is a solution in search of a problem. It's geared more for voice recognition than for desktop use. And, I REALY hope it can be switched out for a traditional menu... I wouldn't mind it in a car with voice activation though,... button on the stering wheel to activate the mic... It'd be nifty. |
| mbaehrlxer Feb 02, 2012 10:25 PM EDT |
jasep: didn't or doesn't windows do that with people complaining about it? the problem with hiding menu entries is that it makes them hard to discover. also, it confuses spatial memory. (i am sure this entry was on the 2nd from the left, 3 down) the hud would address a different memory. (it was something with "foo", so i type "foo" and it shows up) greetings, eMBee. |
| JaseP Feb 03, 2012 9:49 AM EDT |
Ribbon?!?! Nope, what, I'm more talking about is something akin to what the VLC settings/preferences menu does, but implemented with something more like the prediction that this HUD is supposed to do. With MS's "ribbon," you have to hunt through a list of options if you don't find it where you would expect it. I have to use MS stuff at work. When they "upgraded" us to the latest "Office," I found myself wondering why they just didn't switch us to LibreOffice. LibreOffice works more like the old Excel & Word than the new Excel & Word do... |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!