When the original macintosh arrived at the stage back in the eighties, computers became a bit more human-friendly, but it was limited to the constraints of the then available hardware. It put away the text-based interface and introduced the graphic interface. It used the desktop metaphor to create this graphic environment. But this metaphor has had its day.
Many people don't understand the desktop metaphor since they don't have a desktop and have never used one. Also, it is a metaphor, it's to translate the computer environment to something humans understand. But what if they don't understand the metaphor? For example, many people just don't 'get' the Windows Explorer or the Mac OS X finder. The desktop metaphor does not seem to fit in how people think.
Every time you see a person enter a URL like www.youtube.com in the google search field, you will realize that we still have a long way to go.
Most people did not seem to realize back then that the release of the iPhone wasn't that important, but the release of iOS. The iPhone was the first smartphone (a word most people are not familiar with) that did away with a stylus or hardware keyboard. It uses what is closest to us: our fingers. A totally new user interface, one that is very natural and close to us, is now available.
Using touch as input required a total redesign of the entire user interface. All other interfaces were designed around hardware keyboard and mouse devices. Fingers are big, and are obstructing the view. But it allows for a more direct interaction with a device. And now all new smart phones sport a touch interface.
Rumors of an Apple tabled existed for long, but it was very clear when the iPhone was released that if Apple would release a tablet, it would run this new iOS operating system.
When the iPad was released, it became an instant hit. As of today, there is no device on the market that can be truly called a competitor. But why is this so? The ground work has been done by the iPhone. Most people with an iPhone will notice that aside from some performance issues in the past, the device just always worked. It was instantly available to sent an email, look something up on wikipedia or find the nearest Starbucks. An iPhone just always works. No boot. Very reliable. And an interface that makes you happy.
Why does iOS make people happy? Because it provides a user interface that is human. People understand it instinctively. Any person of any age or background will be able to use an iOS device within minutes. The interface doesn't make you look like you are dumb because you just don't understand how it works. It not only works, it is easy to use and you are not afraid to break anything.
The iPhone and the iPad are learning a lot of people not to fear computers.
The iOS does away with the old desktop metaphor, but so does Symbian or similar interfaces. It is the combination with touch and the well thought out interface that sets it apart from other mobile operating systems. Even when the iOS platform did not have native applications, people still bought it and not only because Apple released a new shiny toy.
However, the app store on iOS has created a very special and important environment. People can finally install and remove applications in an extremely simple way. They don't need to be scared that some program will crash your computer either while installing it, using it, or removing it. The whole iOS ecosystem creates an environment wherein people don't need any help any longer from other people. They are finally in control. They don't need to be afraid of their computer.
This trend will affect the old-school user interfaces such as Mac OS X. How it will turn out is anybodies guess. But there is at least a small trend to 'eradicate' the finder as much as possible. iPhoto stores your photos. iTunes stores your music. If you want to include a photo or song within an application, you pick the photo or song in question from a miniature iPhoto or iTunes interface. There is no finder anymore. The finder is disappearing from the workflow. And why not? If programs are written well, why bother with it? The finder should be abstracted away, as is the case on iOS, where you don't have a finder.
Another thing is multitasking, you know, that stuf we like to do, but cant. We can only do one thing at a time. What we do want is fast task switching, not multitasking. Sure, some programs must be running in de background, to continue to operate, such as a chat program, but that is not the point. Most people are just going crazy if you show how multitasking works, with different windows. Again, iOS shows how 'multitasking' should be implemented. It is implemented as fast application switching, allowing these applications to register services that must continue to run, while the application itself freezes when the user switches to another application. People tend to use one application at a time and especially on mobile devices, every single bit of screen real estate counts, so they are always running full screen. This full screen notion will also be incorporated in the next Mac OS X release, Lion. People switch, but do one thing at a time.
Computer nerds tend to feel superior to people who don't have much skill using a computer. This feeling of superiority is totally misplaced. They should be really humble. because up until the advent of iOS, nobody was able to create a human friendly computer interface. It is not the lack of understanding on the side of computer users, it is the lack of understanding on the part of the computer nerds on how normal humans think and act.
Simple, human friendly computer interfaces will liberate humanity from those pesky computer nerds. And that will cause a bit less suffering in the world I hope.
2 reacties:
Hi,
first of all, I want to say that ppss is great!
Regarding the iRevolution, I don't agree with you. I think we are going backwards somehow, we are not teaching to people what a computer really is.
Don't get me wrong, I'm only half nerd (business degree), but when I see all this shiny iCrap I feel bad for the possessor. The problem is that that person will learn to fear the command line and whatever software that does not shine enough.
I think this is really wrong. For how developed an interface can be, it will always be less flexible than a command line. For how shiny your apps can be, they will always be someone's else program, you can't do your own, they don't want you to make your own.
Now, we can argue if normal users need a command line. I don't think that is the point. The point is that people are not being educated on computers. This means they will never get the difference between open source and closed source, between command line and interface. I think this is bad. And maybe nerds feel frustrated because they see people buying crappy software just because it shines, while they could get less shiny but better open software for free.
I think that open source programmers (and open source people) are just frustrated by the fact that people are more attracted by fanciness than real use.
And finally, people are getting really picky, their attitude towards software is becoming more and more: "if I can't get it to work in 2 sec, I won't use it".
Now, all this is not what I'd call a "revolution".
Dear Viandante,
Thanks for your response.
I do understand your objections against GUI-only interfaces. But you are looking at the subject from a point of view that is relevant to us CLI-users, but not for most computer users, Like your parents or other non-tech people.
> people are getting really picky, their attitude towards software is becoming more and more:
> “if I can't get it to work in 2 sec, I won't use it".
People don’t want to tinker with their computer. It should just work. That is the only thing they care about. That my computer just does what I want right now, without having to ‘configure’ anything.
I don’t think the ‘iPeople’ are spoiled. I think they just demand high-quality software. And as of 2010/2011, there are no longer any technological limits that were present in the past that prevents us from creating very easy to use software.
It is the job of the techies to make the computer completely invisible, so that the user can focus on the job at hand. This is essential. This is what computers are for. To enable people to do their stuff. They are not there for tinkering, except for nerds, who like this sort of shit.
I do not want to create a typical nerd discussion on semantics, but the question is: what defines a good application? Some application that requires a learning curve and has no GUI that does the job better than perfect. Or a program that does only 50% of the stuff but is usable for iPeople? To them, the program doing a better job is crap. They are unable to use it. From that perspective, 50% is better than nothing at all.
Since they choose not to know their computer, they pay a high price: they are totally depending on other people. They cannot create their own software if there isn’t any that suits their needs. They depend on techno people. We are independent for our own stuff, but without the business users, there is no job and no market.
We techno nerds focus on the technology. The business people use it to make money and pay for our salaries. This is also true for the end users at home.
I have no problems with this situation.
Een reactie plaatsen