The Microsoft surface is unlike other touchscreens such as the iPhone in that the camera 'sees' you. It can see where your hand is, the gestures and orientation of your hand etc.
So imagine the MacProTouch can 'see you'. Microsoft research is thinking in this direction:
When you tilt your iPhone, it responds in kind, which is pretty cool for gaming.
Now imagine you don't have to tilt your MacProTouch at all. You simply face it while say standing in front of it, and by moving, you can affect what's on the screen.
Examples of this might be:
Video conferencing. You can freely move around as the camera follows you.
Gaming. A skiing game is a great example of this, by leaning to the left and right of a wall mounted MacProTouch, you can affect how the game is played.
If this was a widescreen entertainment version of the MacProTouch, imagine the experience of skiing down a virtual slope by applying correct pressure on your skis.
Creative/physical therapy: I want to discuss this topic in more detail, but imagine a virtual lump of clay on the MacProTouch screen. As the user gestures, depending on the tool he selects, he can cut, rotate, or mould the clay. It's an entirely new experience for artists, but it also opens up (along with gaming) a world of physical therapy not explored, because the movement is based on your gestures and interactions with the cam.
Iphone's don't leverage the capability and interaction possibilties of a webcam, but current laptops do come with one, so why not take this one step further with the MacProTouch.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
The death of industrial design?
Industrial design (the hardware) could lose out in the battle for the most intuitive interaction design (software). In fact is it possible that in the futures multi-touch interfaces will eliminate the need for interactive design altogether?
The simple answer: no. Because a bad product design can greatly affect the perception of the interaction design.
Here is a good example:
The iPhone (big shock)
The interface obviously creates most of the engagement with the product. BUT, it is the interaction between the physical and virtual that makes this a truly beautiful product to use. The physical press of the home button, is a satisfying action (actually I don't like how the interface behaves here, but i do like the physical design of this button). The mute, volume control and reset button are all slick, fit in nicely within the hardware and maintain a smooth symmetry when the iPhone is looked at from the side/top. You'll notice how the mute button is exactly aligned with the volume control when it is not on mute. This serves too purposes, 1. it shows a level of detail not recognised on a conscious level but appreciated on a subconscious level (it would be jarring if this alignment was off by even a fraction), 2. it visually tells the user at a glance whether this button is on silent or not (the orange dot also helps).
The way the iPhone fits in the the hand makes it comfortable to use, and though the product design is not a design that is in your face (like the nano), its the subtlety and quality of the design that adds to the interaction experience.
A bad example: the HP multi touch PC.
There's a couple of reasons this has bad product design. This is essentially a regular PC with a touchscreen.
Note how the user, demoing the product, has to hold the lid while performing touchscreen maneuvers, so that the lid doesn't push back etc.
So much room is taken up with the keyboard that it takes away from the touchscreen. The product design has become such a hindrance on the interaction design that the experience of the interaction design is lessened in the mind of the consumer.
So with touchscreens, product design is still a vital part of the tactile experience, and a subtle well designed product that works with the interface in a seamless way can make or break the impression made on the user.
The simple answer: no. Because a bad product design can greatly affect the perception of the interaction design.
Here is a good example:
The iPhone (big shock)
The interface obviously creates most of the engagement with the product. BUT, it is the interaction between the physical and virtual that makes this a truly beautiful product to use. The physical press of the home button, is a satisfying action (actually I don't like how the interface behaves here, but i do like the physical design of this button). The mute, volume control and reset button are all slick, fit in nicely within the hardware and maintain a smooth symmetry when the iPhone is looked at from the side/top. You'll notice how the mute button is exactly aligned with the volume control when it is not on mute. This serves too purposes, 1. it shows a level of detail not recognised on a conscious level but appreciated on a subconscious level (it would be jarring if this alignment was off by even a fraction), 2. it visually tells the user at a glance whether this button is on silent or not (the orange dot also helps).
The way the iPhone fits in the the hand makes it comfortable to use, and though the product design is not a design that is in your face (like the nano), its the subtlety and quality of the design that adds to the interaction experience.
A bad example: the HP multi touch PC.
There's a couple of reasons this has bad product design. This is essentially a regular PC with a touchscreen.
Note how the user, demoing the product, has to hold the lid while performing touchscreen maneuvers, so that the lid doesn't push back etc.
So much room is taken up with the keyboard that it takes away from the touchscreen. The product design has become such a hindrance on the interaction design that the experience of the interaction design is lessened in the mind of the consumer.
So with touchscreens, product design is still a vital part of the tactile experience, and a subtle well designed product that works with the interface in a seamless way can make or break the impression made on the user.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)