One of the fundamental problems is that it breaks our normal mind/body connection. It is virtually impossible to develop any kind of muscle memory using an interface that requires different physical movements for the same act.
Using a application over time, we do learn to work in an unconscious, trance-like state. But it requires a rigid posture to maintain visual connection with the location of the mouse and the state of the interface. This leads quickly to fatigue and potential repetitive strain injury.
I do think the touch interfaces are an improvement in this context (they reconnect mind/body/application). But for something as labor intensive and complex as audio production (or any media production) I don't think they will be usable for sustained work (at least with existing interface metaphors).
I have developed a tool for use with Pro Tools audio software, the Hotkey Matrix. It is a keyboard with pre-configured single key keyboard shortcuts. It has a number of features which are distinct from the many other attempts at control surfaces for audio software, and somewhat against the tenor of the times.
The shortcuts are fixed. We have iterated the specific shortcuts and layout over many years of production use. They are color coded, there are no modes or pages, so the same function is always in the same place and it is easy to target. It basically replaces and adds to the default keyboard shortcuts in Pro Tools. Pro Tools has a nice set of default single key shortcuts, but since it has so many, increasingly elaborate key bindings and two hands are required to use them (some have four modifier keys).
I'm convinced this is a superior interface enhancement on a lot of levels. It brings back some tactile response, and makes both muscle and mental memorization a lot easier. Since production work is extremely repetitive, it saves a thousands of keystrokes.
I think there is a long way to go in improving interfaces for complex media software. The computer brings tremendous benefits and cost savings to audio production, so there is no going back. It is now trivial to build up a virtual studio environment in a laptop that would have literally cost millions of dollars back in the 90s (not to mention insane electric bills). But the awesome thing about old school analog production was that each parameter in a project got its own dedicated knob/button/fader.
I miss those all those knobs/buttons/faders!
I'm also convinced that most software developers who make tools for professionals never use their software as a professional does (they don't have the time). Hence they make design decisions that turn out to be non-optimal over long use. I've used a lot of audio applications, and IMO Pro Tools is the best. My guess is that since they have a large installed base of professionals and some kind of feedback mechanism from the user base, their updates tend in the direction of increased usability (for pro users). Usability for apps that are simple and used infrequently is very different, and it is here that the comments of the OP are most on point.
Anyhow, I've wanting to run this by the HN community to see what people think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTvhwtvw2sI
Between our senses and external reality, there will always be an interface. The beauty of computers is we are much less dependent on the physical properties of actual objects in designing those interfaces. Maybe that's what the author is getting at, but I think they are saying it wrong.
EDIT: it was probably more accurately the late 90s
In industry, UI has consequences. A confusing readout may crash a plane and kill hundreds. A warning that doesn't trigger under expected circumstances can slice a man in two. A button that doesn't require enough force to push can accidentally decapitate. The list goes on. What you get from that side are incredibly usable, incredibly easy to understand, incredibly fault-tolerant interfaces... that are ugly as hell.
Whereas from the mobile/web side we often see pointlessly obtuse, absurdly minimalistic, confusingly designed interfaces that are works of art. We often confuse these with "good interface design" because they are different, new, and beautiful.
I really wish those of us in web/mobile can get off our high horses and learn a bit from un-sexy things like metal presses, diesel locomotives, and airplane cockpits.
I think the author is confused. He isn't talking about interfaces, he's talking about functionality. In his examples of mobile applications, interface is actually everything: the app is a point of overlap between the user's singular need and the tool that provides a targeted solution. (We can argue over the distinction of user interface vs. interface, but I posit the former follows the latter.)
In other words, the mobile app interface is not non-existent, but perfect: a single point of overlap between need and function.
From the article: That’s precisely what a tool is: something which requires very little explanation for how to use it, because it is designed so precisely for its purpose, that how to use it is obvious. If you’re trying to dig a hole with your hands, you don’t need much explanation for how to use a shovel. “This is the handle” is about the extent of it.
That's an example of a perfect interface, not no interface!
Game on an iPhone? Sorry, I'm going to need to stick buttons in the way of your visuals. So, you had a 3.5 inch display area, already small enough, and now you have to stick buttons and joysticks and touch menus on it. If not qwerty, at least throw me two or three buttons. Bah.
Some genres make sense for touch (RTS, Angry Birds), some don't. Accelerometers are flaky.
My point was that I believe phone designers are sacrificing substance for style. The iPhone has space for at least 4 more buttons without a slide-out.
Touch-only phones are a fad. Buttons will be back. Watch.
The beauty of technology is that its software transcends the physical realm. Software does things paper cannot. While specific physical metaphors often apply to software, especially with touch-based interfaces, to avoid taking advantage of the inherent non-physical nature of an application is a terrible mistake at the expense of true usability and functionality.
Oh, that's what a tool is? :)
You wouldn't use Siri on a date, or in public would you? There are just some important issues that are raised by Siri that a lot of people sort of neglect. I don't think voice apps will be successful in a broad, paradigm shifting way. But, they will have their niche and there will be some fundamental princples that are learned.
This isn't a new concept, but with the recent focus on design in startups, I guess it's finally coming to light outside the design community.
Thus -- a connecting thought from communication theory: "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I've written a long one instead." - attributed to Blaise Pascal, Mark Twain.
Good communication is clear and simple: in conveying the message, it connects both the hearts and the brains of the author and the reader. This idea of simplicity isn't unique to hardware design, or software code, or written communication, or math ... but I don't believe that's the key takeaway. The point is that it's so difficult to understand and appreciate how much time and effort it takes, spent by talented and focused people, before the solution becomes simple and clean.
"The New Interface Is There Is No Interface" is an oxymoron.
http://windowsphone.interoperabilitybridges.com/media/42139/...
http://weblogs.asp.net/blogs/bsimser/MetroDesign_thumb_6D6BF...
It seems to be the only UI around that eschews window chrome and faux 3d and focuses on the content.
Why?
