This could just be me, but how did this ever qualify for a TEDtalk? It honestly seems as if the interface would be counter-intuitive and make losing things on the desktop much easier.

That said, how much time does anyone spend actually interacting with their desktop? I look at my desktop once every few days (that being when I reboot my computer), and I've never felt like I'm missing anything by not staring at a desktop display.

Now, it's pretty, looks like it'd be fun for a while (I did sign up for the beta)...

AND I fully appreciate trying to come up with really new ways of presenting our programs and documents. BUT... this doesn't seem like it would really be that practical day to day...

As he said in the talk, it's not like we want the mess of life on our desktop. The deal about a real desk is that you clump things together in piles or areas of interest etc. I do exactly the same thing already with a normal desktop, except, because it's grid aligned, it's more accessible.

So, kinda ok for a play, but it won't be replacing our desktops any time soon.

I'm sure I saw this ages ago.

Like spoco, I appreciate people working on new ideas for our every day interfaces. The guy is right that things have not changed much since the early years.

This is a step in the right direction.

It would probably be more effective with a touch sensitive screen then with a mouse.

>> ^Maze:
I'm sure I saw this ages ago.
Like spoco, I appreciate people working on new ideas for our every day interfaces. The guy is right that things have not changed much since the early years.
This is a step in the right direction.


I remember seeing a demo quite some time ago, as well.

There are certain things I believe could be radically improved in computing, but the desktop interface seems to be the one thing that doesn't feel broken (thus the fact that he bemoans so much: it hasn't changed). A layout like this would likely end up being more confusing and/or annoying than anything. What he's demonstrating looks *cool*, but it's something that I would play with for 10 minutes and then turn off so that I could actually get things done. I don't even want to THINK about how frustrating it would be to try to explain/teach the interface to someone who isn't comfortable with computers to begin with.

Who doesn't think that the UI's are trending away from this kind of rich experience? It's great that the icons behave like items on my physical desk (of course, only in a visual sense), but so what? How does that make the experience of interacting with virtual object "better?" Does anyone here think that the next killer Mac computer isn't going to be a laptop-size iPhone? It will be completely stable-state with no buttons or moving parts. It will use the iPhone/Touch interface and will be wildly successful not because you interact with it via touch (tablets do that now) but because their interface is uses touch as a fundamentally different way of navigating through the software. The iPhone does away with scroll bars, a physical keyboard, and profile/landscape buttons. It's isn't revolutionary because the icons on the phone bounce around with floaty physics or can be piled.

this is an old gui that they made when the multi touch displays were coming out.

The reason this qualifies as TEDtalk is not because of what he is actually presenting.. While this design might not work with the majority of the industry's audience, its this sort of thinking that we need to be encouraging as our technology advances. if we dont evolve into the next stages, the industries will eat themselves up. In addition to presenting new practical ideas, the point of TED is furthering the way we think as we come up with new ideas and put them into action. we'll never come up with the next big "Thing" unless we have people like this guy just thinking stuff up and putting their hearts and minds into them.

-V

Here 's a sift of a different presentation of BumbTop 3D by him.

I think its unlikely touch screen will be normal , i think you could likely get a touch pad that's integrated into keyboards but touch on a screen will not become a norm due to comfortable viewing angles and the fact that Manny people use multi screen setups. tuch screen is relay good for small devices ore what i would call compact complete devices like laptops and phones,mp3 players.

so for desktop pcs i think the most likely thing that will happen is that you have a GUI that is very much like GUI,s today but every mouse ore keyboard will have a built in gesture pad that allows you to do i phone esk moments and selections.

as for this software i don't think much "thinking" has relay been put into it
in terms of it as a concept, within its self its really nicely implemented i defiantly think GUi,s should use a selection tool that's not a fixed square maby take from some of the tools in photoshop,

One reason WHY you might only use your desktop every few days is because it does not offer more functionality.

The people that attend TED obviously enjoyed his presentation and idea, so that seems like a good qualifier right there.

Who knows, maybe this will give someone an idea on how to bridge the gap from standard desktops to minority report work areas.

I saw this a few years ago
It's a novel idea - I would love trying to work with this

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

It would be nice to find another interface metaphor besides the desktop. Somewhere else where we spend a lot of time. Maybe a house? So each room could be a different function. Have an entertainment room, a toilet for "cleaning" and waste disposal.

Maybe something like The Sims on steroids. While you are there you inhabit your house. While you are away your Sim performs tasks for you in your house- answers emails, collates news articles, manages your finances, etc.

>> ^dag:
It would be nice to find another interface metaphor besides the desktop. Somewhere else where we spend a lot of time. Maybe a house?

Dag I think you are describing Microsoft Bob

The problem I see with using 3D interfaces is simply that the screen is 2D. I suspect it won't be a totally 3D interface, but an animated interface that uses limited 3D effects to make the connections between objects more obvious.

I've found that when something is "more powerful," ie. what most computer types want, it becomes much more difficult to understand for someone who isn't. Many old-timers still use a command-line interface because in many instances it is faster and more powerful. Maybe the future will come in marrying these things.

I get frustrated using a Mac because it makes doing some things more tedious, but you trade this ease of use. I hate the menu bar that's always on the top of the screen, for instance, but that makes it a lot easier to explain to someone how to do something. I hate the launch-pad because it uses an unnecessarily large amount of screen space, but that too is easier to understand for someone new to computers. Ditto with that flippy album view. (I'm not trying to turn this into a Mac vs. Windows things, just an illustration of their various approaches).

Anyways... I dunno where I'm going with this, but I wonder what things will be like in the future. Soon there aren't going to be a lot of people who have to learn how to use a computer from scratch and to necessarily have easy-to-use but slower interfaces.

Yeah, wow, they've been working on this for years. I for one would really like to have it as my default desktop.

I don't get all the negative sentiment about it because for me, I'd love to sort of group all my related icons together and make stuff I'm currently working on or more important stuff bigger sized icons, etc. I doubt I'd toss stuff into piles and what-not, but lining things up into grids and stacking them above one another, etc. would be great.

I don't know. Maybe it's just me.

Am I the only one who uses keyboard shortcuts in preference to any other interface?

I work away furiously as a developer and systems admin all day and I rarely use the desktop in the way that it was intended.

If I need to launch an app, focus a window or chop some text then it's the keyboard I'm going to use. It's just so efficient.

I'm not suggesting this is for everyone... my boss doesn't get on with his keyboard too well, he much prefers his mouse. But for power users?

Another interface I really like is the Linux shell. Again not for all tasks, but for systems admin type work its super efficient and hugely powerful.

In summary, the desktop's just there to look pretty. That's why we have backgrounds. The real interface has always been the keyboard.

EDIT: Scrap that I've just watched the video for Microsoft Bob and it's the future!

>> ^AeroMechanical:
The problem I see with using 3D interfaces is simply that the screen is 2D.

I disagree. The real limitation is the mouse and keyboard. Something spatially aware like wired gloves on this would be pretty fun.

edit: well the keyboard kicks ass still, but maybe it's just b/c I'm biased towards it ... @andybesy, keyboard ftw!

Meh.

I'm with you Lucky, this would be extremely useful for my working style...but i'm a messy artist.

I dont want this because its a gimmick. Not useful.

>> ^GDGD:
One reason WHY you might only use your desktop every few days is because it does not offer more functionality.

Good point, but the kind of functionality I want is more integrative than segregative, if that makes sense. I don't WANT to have to return to my desktop in order to find or do something. This is why I use things like Ubiquity (Firefox) and Autohotkey. Sure, there are other ways to accomplish what these apps/plugins do, but it is more intuitive and useful to me to have a quick keyboard shortcut than it is to clunk my way through any desktop interface to what I need.

The desktop seems to be a bounding point more than anything else, and if I can make my bound happen faster, I'm all for it. Honestly, even though I store a few files here and there on my desktop, I'm much more inclined to use the desktop toolbar from my start menu rather than minimizing everything, finding what I want, and then maximizing everything again (and yes, I'm aware of Windows+D).

Things like AutoHotkey and Ubiquity are the kind of computing innovations that I feel are really useful, because they actually contribute to overall workflow. A desktop redesign just doesn't do much to actually help workflow unless you're the kind of person who really likes launching everything from the desktop, but always forgets where the launcher for a given app actually IS . (and yes, I realize that these people exist, so if this helps them, great...I just don't see BumpTop as a revolution in computing for the average user)

I too saw this a while back. I like that people are exploring new ideas but I personally wouldn't use it. Right now I barely use my desktop. It is just the blank slate that I start with.

What I think I'd like as far as desktop enhancements is something similar to what Google has done with their web browser Chrome. When I launch Chrome, the start page is primarily filled with a 3 by 3 grid of the most commonly visit websites, which is maintained and updated automatically by the browser. This gives me quick, and easy access that covers about 80% of my web surfing habits. For a desktop, this grid could be populated with my most used programs.

I'm not looking for spiffy visual effects or cool ways to organize things on my desktop. I use Windows Explorer for organizing my files. What I'm looking for in desktop enhancements is for the desktop to be smarter about organizing the access points to my most commonly used applications and files without me having to do a bunch of manual work to get the same effect.

I've tried out this interface, and it's absolutely terrible. I totally agree that we need a new method of approaching desktop interactivity to take us beyond the windows/macos era, but even those old standby's are lightyears more intuitive and usable than this gimmicky system.

@Flood:

To some extent, Microsoft already does this in the Start Menu. Granted, that's one step removed from the desktop, but there you go

Very true thain, and I use that feature all the time, as well as the ability to pin programs to the start menu.

All this GUI energy should be diverted to perfecting natural language machines. A computer you could talk to in a natural way is superior to all this "flare".

I'm not a fan of the idea of the spoken word being a primary input device. It doesn't make most tasks any easier.

Now, voice recognition combined with some rudimentary AI (Confabulation Theory type stuff) that allowed the computer to understand context could definitely help augment the experience. But I'm not going to play a computer game or surf the web using that technology. "Scroll down. Scroll down. Click Reply."

BCIs (Brain Computer Interfaces) is where the real research energy needs to be directed.

for those of us who don't just use computers for porn, I would find this very useful for organizing PDFs I need to read and haven't and by group and subject matter.

I hide my desktop icons. I found your desktop can quickly become an unorganized pile of junk. By not having desktop icons turned on, I'm forced to find a place for everything and know everything's place.

For years the only icon I've had on my desktop is the recycle bin.

I've even gotten rid of the recycle bin. When I delete something, I want it gone!

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
for those of us who don't just use computers for porn, I would find this very useful for organizing PDFs I need to read and haven't and by group and subject matter.


This is what I use my "Documents" folder for. All I have to do to track whether or not I've read PDFs or other documents is make a new folder labeled "Read" inside their subfolders and drag items I've already read in there. Works like a charm.

Credit for innovation and coming up with new stuff and trying, but this is 99% gimmick with a few interesting things.

for those of us who don't just use computers for porn...

I've searched the entire internets for these people. Would you believe all 3 of them were offline?

Kind of cool, but I didn't find it all that innovative. I totally agree that it's ridiculous we basically have the same old desktop for 30 years, and it's still shit.

Crumpling up icons and throwing them around with realistic physics... what the hell is that good for? Some decent ideas here, but it's not much of an improvement.

yeah this is a possible step in the right direction, but requires a touchscreen IMHO. With a mouse its step backwards I reckon from a usability POV

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

*length=00:04:39

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 4:39 - length declared by critical_d.