Absolutely Bruce. There definitely are strengths and weaknesses to both and these are all good points, especially in context to the fact that OS Leopard is not built for direct touch like iPhone's software. It's ALL in how the software is designed. I am saying a laptop with Leopard OS/Windows/etc. probably isn't the right platform for multi-touch.
I guess my next conflict is the inconsistency (i.e. iPhone = direct, MacBook Air = indirect). Some additional comments on direct vs. indirect: > There's been a long-recognized problem with "direct" interfaces when the human > fingers are involved: they cover up what you're working on. Let's define what "working on" means. Certainly, there are very precise tasks that direct manipulation alone isn't great for (such as typing on a soft keyboard). But there are workarounds as you mentioned that are sufficient. There are plenty of other more tasks and activities that don't require precision like a mouse cursor. It's all in how the software is designed. Virtual keyboards are nothing to base the success of direct manipulation on. Don't tie direct manipulation to using a virtual keyboard. I agree with the faults there. What about gestures for scrolling through content, grabbing any two points on a photo to resize, place any two contacts on a map to zoom, scooping many items together with multiple fingers/hands, etc? > ...but, in real life, "typing" is a lot faster if you just take your chances > and correct errors until you get fluid at the task. I would argue that this IS direct manipulation, your user interface IS the physical keyboard. That's valuable. Am I responding to that correctly? > "Indirect" interfaces, such as the trackpad, eliminate this problem > by substituting, on the screen, a small pointer for the giant finger, > so the desired target is not obscured. It eliminates that problem and that problem only. Are there 2 cursors? It makes the mental model more complex due to the size ratio difference between the pad and the screen (more hand-eye coordination to deal with much like Wacom tablets which I've used for years). This is something people can get used to but isn't really adding any value. The value of direct is that you remove the 'mental coordination' for simple tasks. The best metaphor I can come up with is: Direct manipulation on screen is like building a ship with your hands. Indirect manipulation of content through a computer is like building a model ship inside of a bottle. You are controlling other tools to then control your 'materials' or 'content'. Certainly you can learn to do this over time, but not without an exorbitant amount of effort and mental coordination (which leads to stress, discomfort, and overall dissatisfaction when compared to a simpler method). P.S. I have the same issues with "air gesturing" using a projection system. This also is just a novelty to me :) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24564 ________________________________________________________________ *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help ________________________________________________________________ *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
