The Demise of the Desktop?
Update: Since I originally wrote this paper in November 2006, Microsoft announced its "Surface," and Apple released the iPhone and announced "stacks" in the soon to be released Mac OS X Version 10.5 Leopard.
Metaphors in Computing
Recognizing, understanding, and remembering are essential parts of intelligence and metaphors may play a significant role is such tasks. In fact, Marx (1994) holds that metaphors have substantial explanatory power when it comes to learning and that “anything new must be learned by metaphorically extending existing knowledge” (p. 379). Leveraging the power of metaphors enables designers of interfaces to provide users with a “head start” as it pertains to learning a new interface (Marx, 1994, p. 379).
In general, two kinds of metaphors exist in user interfaces. These are individual metaphors and systemic/over-arching metaphors. Individual metaphors pertain to specific user interface controls, such as radio buttons. Systemic or over-arching metaphors allow for a thorough understanding of a system, such as that which is understood via the “desktop metaphor” for operating systems such as Windows and the Mac OS. (Marcus, 1998, p. 46).
The Desktop Metaphor
The desktop metaphor is the dominant metaphor used in today’s commercial operating systems. Popularized by Apple and then by Microsoft, it contains references to items in the modern office and building structures. These items and structures include the desktop, files, documents, folders, trash cans, and windows (Marcus, 1994, p. 13). According to Gozzi (2002), the desktop metaphor “asserts that the computer screen is like a real desktop” (p. 425).
It has been argued that the desktop metaphor has successfully allowed novice users to acquaint themselves with the computing environment. Its success can be attributed to the highly familiar concepts of the office and the similarity between the metaphor and the real world. In general, documents look and act like real documents (Madsen, 2000). Johnson et al. (1985) states that the desktop metaphor approach is “intended to facilitate one’s use of the system by making the manipulation of information in the system analogous to the manipulation of physical objects on a desktop” (p. 548). Ravasio et al. would concur. In fact, Ravasio et al. (2004) suggests that with the release of the Xerox Star in 1981, computers were finally understandable to non-expert users.
With its twenty-plus years of existence and its current status, once might argue that the desktop metaphor is the standard for a reason. In general, the desktop metaphor holds up well against Marcus’ criteria for successful metaphors in user interfaces. Marcus (1998) states that a metaphor should use concepts familiar to the user, prepare the user to transfer the content domain model into the user’s mental model, and increase the ease of learning, memorization, and use. Proponents of the desktop metaphor would argue that it does these reasonable well. Even critics of the desktop metaphor, such as Gentner and Nielson, seem to agree.
Shortcomings of the Desktop Metaphor
In The Anti-Mac Interface, Gentner and Nielson (1996) concede that they do not think the Macintosh interface, and to a greater extent, the desktop metaphor, are bad by any means. They do, however, offer many criticisms about the desktop metaphor. As will be seen, they are not alone in their assertions.
Hudson (2000) notes that the desktop metaphor is most often cited as the primary failure of metaphorical design. In Hudson’s opinion, one of its greatest features is also one of its most negative aspects. It is often found to be too restrictive and helpful only to new users (Hudson, 2000). Additionally, he describes some of the more confounding features by stating,
"I think the desktop metaphor on our computer screens has drifted too far from the original office domain. Microsoft Windows, for example, hides the in-tray and out-tray in an e-mail application, variously called Mail, Inbox, Outlook, or Outlook Express depending on the age and configuration of the system. The desktop is confusingly covered by wallpaper, and printing documents by dragging them to a printer does not work reliably. The Macintosh does not fare much better: it has the odd feature of allowing users to drag the floppy disk to the wastebasket (“Trash”) to eject the floppy. From the office domain it’s obvious that the effect of that action (if any) should be the same as discarding a document or folder" (p. 13).
Indeed, he raises some interesting points. Such examples, while seemingly trivial, might confuse the very users for which the system is intended to serve.
Gentner and Nielson (1996) take a much broader stance, claiming that the interface is stuck in a “WIMP (windows, icons, menus, pointer)” model (p. 70), offering little innovation. Madsen (2000) refers to the desktop metaphor as a “straitjacket” (p. 167), echoing Gentner and Nielson’s (1996) statement that the desktop metaphor only serves to cripple the interface “with irrelevant functions” (p. 72). Furthermore, Gentner and Nielson (1996) state that the desktop metaphor limits the designer’s ability to develop more powerful interfaces.
Gentner and Nielson (1996) acknowledge that the desktop metaphor’s intention is to save time by leveraging a user’s knowledge of the traditional office, much like the assertions of Hudson. They, however, feel that the desktop metaphor may hinder the productivity of the next generation of users who will grow up using computers and may have little knowledge of the office domain (1996). Gentner and Nielson (1996) recommend that new paradigms be developed “based on the structure of computer systems and the tasks users really have to perform” (p. 74).
Johnson et al. (1985) feels that the desktop metaphor “fails to recognize that user dexterity in manipulating simulated objects on a computer screen is not as high as it is in the physical world” (p. 548). In addition, he feels that users are handcuffed by trying to accomplish digital goals using the metaphor of the physical world (Johnson et al., 1985, p. 548). In other words, he feels that the computer’s functionality may be limited by attempting to perform the actions of the physical world due to the imposition of the desktop metaphor (Johnson et al., 1985).
Attempts at Enhancing the Desktop Metaphor
In “Not a Desktop, Not a Metaphor,” Gozzi (2002) suggests that the desktop metaphor is not a metaphor for our desks at all. In addition to pointing out that real desks “lack window close boxes,” he says that his “real desk is much messier” than what can be found on his computer desktop and that “the computer screen has nothing like ‘an intuitive pile of stuff’ on it” (Gozzi, 2002, p. 426). While such a literal comparison may be true today, attempts are being made to enhance the typical desktop metaphor with features such as “piles” and task-based functionality.
Ravasio et al. (2004) points out that researchers such as Malone have been studying the electronic office for many years. Research from the early 1980s suggests that there are two fundamentally different styles of filing. The two styles are that of neatly organized file folders and piles (Ravasio et al., 2004). Mander and Rose included piles in their systems designs in 1993, focusing on the idea of casual desktop organization (Ravasio et al. 2004). Mander et al. discovered that people preferred piles because piles did not require “detailed categorization” and information “could be more easily reordered” than it could be with a “folder and file system” (Mander, 1992, p. 628). In addition, “seemingly disordered piles were often sensible to the person who created them” (Mander, 1992, p. 628).
Agarawala and Balakrishnan (2006) are exploring adding physics simulation to virtual desktops in combination with “piling instead of filing as the fundamental organizational structure” (p. 1283). The goal is to mimic the information, feel, and visual clues provided by the spatial information on a real desktop (i.e. proximity indicates urgency). Their BumpTop prototype “presents users with a 2 _D view onto a planar desktop surface tilted 25 degrees” (Agarawala & Balakrishnan, 2006, p. 1285). Users can pile documents and other items on this surface. While their research is ongoing, it has been discovered that piles do not scale well once they become large (Agarawala & Balakrishnan, 2006).
Other research efforts have focused on task-based enhancements to the desktop metaphor. The “activity theory” has “resulted in task-centered approaches” (Ravasio, 2004. p. 161). The impetus for this approach stems from the assertion that “the desktop metaphor has inadequate support for task switching” (Robertson et al., 2000, p. 495). According to Bomsdorf and Szwillus (1998), “knowing the user’s tasks enables the designer to construct user interfaces reflecting the tasks’ properties” (p. 201). In their “Task Gallery,” Robertson et al. have designed a “window manager that uses interactive 3D graphics to provide direct support for task management and document comparison” (p. 494). In this enhancement to the desktop metaphor, users’ tasks are hung on walls much like an art gallery. Tasks are defined as a “collection of documents and applications organized around a particular user activity” and task management takes into account “creating, locating, and bringing tasks into focus” (p. 494). Their design attempts to use human spatial memory capabilities by relying on the location of tasks on the gallery walls (Robertson et al., 2000).
Gentner and Nielson (1996), however, have a distinctly pointed view about these new attempts at revitalizing the desktop metaphor. They feel that interfaces that try to emulate virtual reality in a 2D space introduce “clunky interactions” (p. 72). In addition, they find these interfaces to be “navigationally cumbersome” and “interactionally cumbersome” (p. 72). They suggest developing “new interface paradigms based on the structure of computer systems and the tasks users really have to perform” (p. 74). According to Marcus (2002), analysts such as David Gelerntner, Don Norman, and George Robertson “are calling for the end of the desktop metaphor” (p. 8). In Gozzi’s (2002) words, “the desktop metaphor is apparently on its way out” (p. 427).
Tangible Interfaces
If the desktop metaphor is on its way out, it must be replaced by something else. Marcus (1994) states that future interface designs need to strike a balance between mental models, presentation, interactions, metaphors, and navigation. With Gentner and Nielson recommending new paradigms and computer systems based on tasks and with the observations about spatiality and piles, it seems that tangible user interfaces may be the solution.
Fitzmaurice et al. are credited with distinguishing tangible user interfaces from all others when they coined the term “graspable user interfaces” (Sharlin et al., 2004, p. 338). Ishii and Ullmer are credited with coining the term “tangible user interfaces” and define them as “devices that give physical form to digital information, employing physical artifacts as representations and controls of the computational data” (Sharlin et al., 2004, p. 338). Although in their infancy, these interfaces may be the answer to providing highly functional, intuitive computing environments (Svanaes and Verplank, 2000).
Svanaes and Verplank (2000) feel that it is now time to “go beyond the GUI interface” (p. 121). They define tangible user interfaces as “systems that allow for the user to interact with the computer through physical objects (other than mouse and keyboard)” (p. 121). They provide Durrell Bishop’s Marble Answering Machine as an example, where the manipulation of marbles manipulates phone messages (p. 122).
Ishii and Ullmer’s (1997) research is attempting to make digital information tangible as well. Their designs include interactive surfaces (walls, desktops, ceilings, windows, and doors), coupled bits and atoms, and ambient media. Their goal is to turn “everyday architectural spaces into ‘interfaces’ between people and information” (p. 235). The design calls for “allowing users to ‘grasp and manipulate’ foreground bits by coupling bits with physical objects, and enabling users to be aware of background bits at the periphery using ambient media in an augmented space” (p. 235). As an example, they provide the “Clearboard,” which integrates the ability to draw on a wall with distributed computing. This “active surface” allows a person across distances to interact with another person. Other examples that use this technology include the metaDESK, transBOARD, and ambientROOM, all which seem to have enormous potential.
In “A Taxonomy for and Analysis of Tangible Interfaces,” Fishkin (2004) discusses the role metaphor can play in tangible user interfaces. He states, "We believe that metaphor is particularly appropriate for TUIs, as opposed to other interfaces, due precisely to their physical tangibility. Once parts of an interface are made physically tangible, a whole realm of physically afforded metaphors becomes available. A designer can use the shape, the size, the color, the weight, the smell, and the texture of the object to invoke any number of metaphorical links. Mithen [40] argues that ‘‘the most powerful [metaphors] are those which cross domain boundaries, such as by associating a living entity with something that is inert or an idea with something that is tangible.’’ Tangible interfaces, which can have exactly these properties, therefore, have this potential" (p. 349).
Indeed, it is conceivable that the power of metaphor can extend beyond the desktop interface into the realm of tangible interfaces and affect them in much the same way.
Discussion
One concept seems to permeate the whole of the research is the physical desktop’s influence on our designs. At first, this notion may seem to be a given; an obvious statement. The fact is, however, that our computing designs have largely been influenced by the way we worked prior to the advent of computers. It seems natural to transfer the sum of our experiences in the analog environment to the digital environment via the desktop metaphor. Granted, the desktop metaphor as implemented today may be flawed. Perhaps a little fine-tuning or enhancement is in order. While the actual implementation may change, the idea of the desktop seems to remain an integral part of way we use computers. The research has shown that humans naturally think metaphorically, and we have defined our work structure in such a way.
Perhaps those conducting the research are correct. Perhaps it is time to eschew the desktop metaphor. Perhaps it is time for the augmented desktop. At first glance, it seems that a desktop augmented with digital capabilities and computational power would be of great benefit to humanity. Indeed, it has much potential. Research into the desktop metaphor seems to be converging in this direction. Alignment of human skills and computing power appears to be the goal. Tangible interfaces seem to hold the key.
In a tangible computing world, Johnson would have users manipulating data with great dexterity, Gozzi’s physical desktop would actually be a messy computer screen, and piles of digital documents would serve as the normal filing strategy. Perhaps in the future, we’ll look back at the history of the desktop metaphor and reminisce about the progression from physical desks, to computer desktop interfaces, to digital desks. Does the physical desktop hold this much influence over our designs? Perhaps it does.
It seems that after twenty years, the desktop metaphor has aged well. While it may not be perfect for everyone, it has certainly been a functional tool that has served the majority of personal computer users well. Whatever its fate, the desktop metaphor has played an integral role in the advancement, development, and shaping of personal computers and computer users alike. Its influence will continue to pervade our understanding of computers for years to come.
References
Agarawala, Anand & Balakrishnan, Ravin. (2006). Keepin’ It Real: Pushing the Desktop
Metaphor with Physics, Piles and the Pen. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on
Human Factors in computing systems CHI '06, 1283-1292.
Bomsdorf, Birgit & Szwillus, Gerd. (1998). From Task to Dialogue: Task-Based User Interface
Design. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 201.
Fishkin, Kenneth P. (2004). A Taxonomy for and Analysis of Tangible Interfaces. Personal
and Ubiquitous Computing, 8, 5, 347-358.
Gentner, Don & Nielson, Jakob. (1996). The Anti-Mac Interface. Communications of the ACM,
39, 8, 70-82.
Gozzi, Raymond, Jr. (2002). Not a Desktop, Not a Metaphor. ETC: A Review of General
Semantics, 59,4, 425-428.
Hudson, William. (2000). Metaphor: A Double-Edged Sword. Interactions, 7, 3, 11-15.
Ishii, Hiroshi & Ullmer Brygg. (1997). Tangible Bits: Towards Seamless Interfaces Between
People, Bits, and Atoms. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 234-241.
Johnson, Jeff A., Smith, David C., Ludolph, Frank E., Irby, Charles H. (1985). The Desktop
Metaphor as an Approach to User Interface Design. Proceedings of the 1985 ACM
Annual Conference on The Range of Computing, 548-549.
Madsen, Kim H. (2000). Magic By Metaphors. Designing Augmented Reality Environments,
167-169.
Mander, Richard, Salomon, Gitta, Wong, Yin Yin. (1992). A ‘Pile’ Metaphor for Supporting
Casual Organization of Information. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 627-634.
Marcus, Aaron. (1994). Managing Metaphors for Advanced User Interfaces. Proceedings of the
Workshop on Advanced Visual Interfaces, 12-18.
Marcus, Aaron. (2002). Metaphors and User Interfaces in the 21st Century. Interactions, 9, 2, 7-
10.
Marcus, Aaron. (1998). Metaphor Design in User Interfaces. Journal of Computer
Documentation, 22, 2, 43-57.
Marx, Adam N. (1994). Using Metaphor Effectively in User Design. Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, 379-380.
Ravasio, Pamela, Schar, Sissel Guttormsen, Krueger, Helmut. (2004). In Pursuit of Desktop
Evolution: User Problems and Practices with Modern Desktop Systems. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 11, 2, 156-180.
Robertson, George, van Dantzich, Maarten, Robbins, Daniel, Czerwinski, Mary, Hinckley, Ken,
Risden, Kirsten, et al. (2000). The Task Gallery: A 3D Window Manager. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 494- 501.
Sharlin, Ehud, Watson, Benjamin, Kitamura, Yoshifumi, Kishino, Fumio, Itoh, Yuichi. (2004).
On Tangible User Interfaces, Humans, and Spatiality. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8, 5, 338 – 346.
Svanaes, Dag & Verplank, William. (2000). In Search of Metaphors for Tangible User
Interfaces. Designing Augmented Reality Environments, 121-129.
Metaphors in Computing
Recognizing, understanding, and remembering are essential parts of intelligence and metaphors may play a significant role is such tasks. In fact, Marx (1994) holds that metaphors have substantial explanatory power when it comes to learning and that “anything new must be learned by metaphorically extending existing knowledge” (p. 379). Leveraging the power of metaphors enables designers of interfaces to provide users with a “head start” as it pertains to learning a new interface (Marx, 1994, p. 379).
In general, two kinds of metaphors exist in user interfaces. These are individual metaphors and systemic/over-arching metaphors. Individual metaphors pertain to specific user interface controls, such as radio buttons. Systemic or over-arching metaphors allow for a thorough understanding of a system, such as that which is understood via the “desktop metaphor” for operating systems such as Windows and the Mac OS. (Marcus, 1998, p. 46).
The Desktop Metaphor
The desktop metaphor is the dominant metaphor used in today’s commercial operating systems. Popularized by Apple and then by Microsoft, it contains references to items in the modern office and building structures. These items and structures include the desktop, files, documents, folders, trash cans, and windows (Marcus, 1994, p. 13). According to Gozzi (2002), the desktop metaphor “asserts that the computer screen is like a real desktop” (p. 425).
It has been argued that the desktop metaphor has successfully allowed novice users to acquaint themselves with the computing environment. Its success can be attributed to the highly familiar concepts of the office and the similarity between the metaphor and the real world. In general, documents look and act like real documents (Madsen, 2000). Johnson et al. (1985) states that the desktop metaphor approach is “intended to facilitate one’s use of the system by making the manipulation of information in the system analogous to the manipulation of physical objects on a desktop” (p. 548). Ravasio et al. would concur. In fact, Ravasio et al. (2004) suggests that with the release of the Xerox Star in 1981, computers were finally understandable to non-expert users.
With its twenty-plus years of existence and its current status, once might argue that the desktop metaphor is the standard for a reason. In general, the desktop metaphor holds up well against Marcus’ criteria for successful metaphors in user interfaces. Marcus (1998) states that a metaphor should use concepts familiar to the user, prepare the user to transfer the content domain model into the user’s mental model, and increase the ease of learning, memorization, and use. Proponents of the desktop metaphor would argue that it does these reasonable well. Even critics of the desktop metaphor, such as Gentner and Nielson, seem to agree.
Shortcomings of the Desktop Metaphor
In The Anti-Mac Interface, Gentner and Nielson (1996) concede that they do not think the Macintosh interface, and to a greater extent, the desktop metaphor, are bad by any means. They do, however, offer many criticisms about the desktop metaphor. As will be seen, they are not alone in their assertions.
Hudson (2000) notes that the desktop metaphor is most often cited as the primary failure of metaphorical design. In Hudson’s opinion, one of its greatest features is also one of its most negative aspects. It is often found to be too restrictive and helpful only to new users (Hudson, 2000). Additionally, he describes some of the more confounding features by stating,
"I think the desktop metaphor on our computer screens has drifted too far from the original office domain. Microsoft Windows, for example, hides the in-tray and out-tray in an e-mail application, variously called Mail, Inbox, Outlook, or Outlook Express depending on the age and configuration of the system. The desktop is confusingly covered by wallpaper, and printing documents by dragging them to a printer does not work reliably. The Macintosh does not fare much better: it has the odd feature of allowing users to drag the floppy disk to the wastebasket (“Trash”) to eject the floppy. From the office domain it’s obvious that the effect of that action (if any) should be the same as discarding a document or folder" (p. 13).
Indeed, he raises some interesting points. Such examples, while seemingly trivial, might confuse the very users for which the system is intended to serve.
Gentner and Nielson (1996) take a much broader stance, claiming that the interface is stuck in a “WIMP (windows, icons, menus, pointer)” model (p. 70), offering little innovation. Madsen (2000) refers to the desktop metaphor as a “straitjacket” (p. 167), echoing Gentner and Nielson’s (1996) statement that the desktop metaphor only serves to cripple the interface “with irrelevant functions” (p. 72). Furthermore, Gentner and Nielson (1996) state that the desktop metaphor limits the designer’s ability to develop more powerful interfaces.
Gentner and Nielson (1996) acknowledge that the desktop metaphor’s intention is to save time by leveraging a user’s knowledge of the traditional office, much like the assertions of Hudson. They, however, feel that the desktop metaphor may hinder the productivity of the next generation of users who will grow up using computers and may have little knowledge of the office domain (1996). Gentner and Nielson (1996) recommend that new paradigms be developed “based on the structure of computer systems and the tasks users really have to perform” (p. 74).
Johnson et al. (1985) feels that the desktop metaphor “fails to recognize that user dexterity in manipulating simulated objects on a computer screen is not as high as it is in the physical world” (p. 548). In addition, he feels that users are handcuffed by trying to accomplish digital goals using the metaphor of the physical world (Johnson et al., 1985, p. 548). In other words, he feels that the computer’s functionality may be limited by attempting to perform the actions of the physical world due to the imposition of the desktop metaphor (Johnson et al., 1985).
Attempts at Enhancing the Desktop Metaphor
In “Not a Desktop, Not a Metaphor,” Gozzi (2002) suggests that the desktop metaphor is not a metaphor for our desks at all. In addition to pointing out that real desks “lack window close boxes,” he says that his “real desk is much messier” than what can be found on his computer desktop and that “the computer screen has nothing like ‘an intuitive pile of stuff’ on it” (Gozzi, 2002, p. 426). While such a literal comparison may be true today, attempts are being made to enhance the typical desktop metaphor with features such as “piles” and task-based functionality.
Ravasio et al. (2004) points out that researchers such as Malone have been studying the electronic office for many years. Research from the early 1980s suggests that there are two fundamentally different styles of filing. The two styles are that of neatly organized file folders and piles (Ravasio et al., 2004). Mander and Rose included piles in their systems designs in 1993, focusing on the idea of casual desktop organization (Ravasio et al. 2004). Mander et al. discovered that people preferred piles because piles did not require “detailed categorization” and information “could be more easily reordered” than it could be with a “folder and file system” (Mander, 1992, p. 628). In addition, “seemingly disordered piles were often sensible to the person who created them” (Mander, 1992, p. 628).
Agarawala and Balakrishnan (2006) are exploring adding physics simulation to virtual desktops in combination with “piling instead of filing as the fundamental organizational structure” (p. 1283). The goal is to mimic the information, feel, and visual clues provided by the spatial information on a real desktop (i.e. proximity indicates urgency). Their BumpTop prototype “presents users with a 2 _D view onto a planar desktop surface tilted 25 degrees” (Agarawala & Balakrishnan, 2006, p. 1285). Users can pile documents and other items on this surface. While their research is ongoing, it has been discovered that piles do not scale well once they become large (Agarawala & Balakrishnan, 2006).
Other research efforts have focused on task-based enhancements to the desktop metaphor. The “activity theory” has “resulted in task-centered approaches” (Ravasio, 2004. p. 161). The impetus for this approach stems from the assertion that “the desktop metaphor has inadequate support for task switching” (Robertson et al., 2000, p. 495). According to Bomsdorf and Szwillus (1998), “knowing the user’s tasks enables the designer to construct user interfaces reflecting the tasks’ properties” (p. 201). In their “Task Gallery,” Robertson et al. have designed a “window manager that uses interactive 3D graphics to provide direct support for task management and document comparison” (p. 494). In this enhancement to the desktop metaphor, users’ tasks are hung on walls much like an art gallery. Tasks are defined as a “collection of documents and applications organized around a particular user activity” and task management takes into account “creating, locating, and bringing tasks into focus” (p. 494). Their design attempts to use human spatial memory capabilities by relying on the location of tasks on the gallery walls (Robertson et al., 2000).
Gentner and Nielson (1996), however, have a distinctly pointed view about these new attempts at revitalizing the desktop metaphor. They feel that interfaces that try to emulate virtual reality in a 2D space introduce “clunky interactions” (p. 72). In addition, they find these interfaces to be “navigationally cumbersome” and “interactionally cumbersome” (p. 72). They suggest developing “new interface paradigms based on the structure of computer systems and the tasks users really have to perform” (p. 74). According to Marcus (2002), analysts such as David Gelerntner, Don Norman, and George Robertson “are calling for the end of the desktop metaphor” (p. 8). In Gozzi’s (2002) words, “the desktop metaphor is apparently on its way out” (p. 427).
Tangible Interfaces
If the desktop metaphor is on its way out, it must be replaced by something else. Marcus (1994) states that future interface designs need to strike a balance between mental models, presentation, interactions, metaphors, and navigation. With Gentner and Nielson recommending new paradigms and computer systems based on tasks and with the observations about spatiality and piles, it seems that tangible user interfaces may be the solution.
Fitzmaurice et al. are credited with distinguishing tangible user interfaces from all others when they coined the term “graspable user interfaces” (Sharlin et al., 2004, p. 338). Ishii and Ullmer are credited with coining the term “tangible user interfaces” and define them as “devices that give physical form to digital information, employing physical artifacts as representations and controls of the computational data” (Sharlin et al., 2004, p. 338). Although in their infancy, these interfaces may be the answer to providing highly functional, intuitive computing environments (Svanaes and Verplank, 2000).
Svanaes and Verplank (2000) feel that it is now time to “go beyond the GUI interface” (p. 121). They define tangible user interfaces as “systems that allow for the user to interact with the computer through physical objects (other than mouse and keyboard)” (p. 121). They provide Durrell Bishop’s Marble Answering Machine as an example, where the manipulation of marbles manipulates phone messages (p. 122).
Ishii and Ullmer’s (1997) research is attempting to make digital information tangible as well. Their designs include interactive surfaces (walls, desktops, ceilings, windows, and doors), coupled bits and atoms, and ambient media. Their goal is to turn “everyday architectural spaces into ‘interfaces’ between people and information” (p. 235). The design calls for “allowing users to ‘grasp and manipulate’ foreground bits by coupling bits with physical objects, and enabling users to be aware of background bits at the periphery using ambient media in an augmented space” (p. 235). As an example, they provide the “Clearboard,” which integrates the ability to draw on a wall with distributed computing. This “active surface” allows a person across distances to interact with another person. Other examples that use this technology include the metaDESK, transBOARD, and ambientROOM, all which seem to have enormous potential.
In “A Taxonomy for and Analysis of Tangible Interfaces,” Fishkin (2004) discusses the role metaphor can play in tangible user interfaces. He states, "We believe that metaphor is particularly appropriate for TUIs, as opposed to other interfaces, due precisely to their physical tangibility. Once parts of an interface are made physically tangible, a whole realm of physically afforded metaphors becomes available. A designer can use the shape, the size, the color, the weight, the smell, and the texture of the object to invoke any number of metaphorical links. Mithen [40] argues that ‘‘the most powerful [metaphors] are those which cross domain boundaries, such as by associating a living entity with something that is inert or an idea with something that is tangible.’’ Tangible interfaces, which can have exactly these properties, therefore, have this potential" (p. 349).
Indeed, it is conceivable that the power of metaphor can extend beyond the desktop interface into the realm of tangible interfaces and affect them in much the same way.
Discussion
One concept seems to permeate the whole of the research is the physical desktop’s influence on our designs. At first, this notion may seem to be a given; an obvious statement. The fact is, however, that our computing designs have largely been influenced by the way we worked prior to the advent of computers. It seems natural to transfer the sum of our experiences in the analog environment to the digital environment via the desktop metaphor. Granted, the desktop metaphor as implemented today may be flawed. Perhaps a little fine-tuning or enhancement is in order. While the actual implementation may change, the idea of the desktop seems to remain an integral part of way we use computers. The research has shown that humans naturally think metaphorically, and we have defined our work structure in such a way.
Perhaps those conducting the research are correct. Perhaps it is time to eschew the desktop metaphor. Perhaps it is time for the augmented desktop. At first glance, it seems that a desktop augmented with digital capabilities and computational power would be of great benefit to humanity. Indeed, it has much potential. Research into the desktop metaphor seems to be converging in this direction. Alignment of human skills and computing power appears to be the goal. Tangible interfaces seem to hold the key.
In a tangible computing world, Johnson would have users manipulating data with great dexterity, Gozzi’s physical desktop would actually be a messy computer screen, and piles of digital documents would serve as the normal filing strategy. Perhaps in the future, we’ll look back at the history of the desktop metaphor and reminisce about the progression from physical desks, to computer desktop interfaces, to digital desks. Does the physical desktop hold this much influence over our designs? Perhaps it does.
It seems that after twenty years, the desktop metaphor has aged well. While it may not be perfect for everyone, it has certainly been a functional tool that has served the majority of personal computer users well. Whatever its fate, the desktop metaphor has played an integral role in the advancement, development, and shaping of personal computers and computer users alike. Its influence will continue to pervade our understanding of computers for years to come.
References
Agarawala, Anand & Balakrishnan, Ravin. (2006). Keepin’ It Real: Pushing the Desktop
Metaphor with Physics, Piles and the Pen. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on
Human Factors in computing systems CHI '06, 1283-1292.
Bomsdorf, Birgit & Szwillus, Gerd. (1998). From Task to Dialogue: Task-Based User Interface
Design. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 201.
Fishkin, Kenneth P. (2004). A Taxonomy for and Analysis of Tangible Interfaces. Personal
and Ubiquitous Computing, 8, 5, 347-358.
Gentner, Don & Nielson, Jakob. (1996). The Anti-Mac Interface. Communications of the ACM,
39, 8, 70-82.
Gozzi, Raymond, Jr. (2002). Not a Desktop, Not a Metaphor. ETC: A Review of General
Semantics, 59,4, 425-428.
Hudson, William. (2000). Metaphor: A Double-Edged Sword. Interactions, 7, 3, 11-15.
Ishii, Hiroshi & Ullmer Brygg. (1997). Tangible Bits: Towards Seamless Interfaces Between
People, Bits, and Atoms. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 234-241.
Johnson, Jeff A., Smith, David C., Ludolph, Frank E., Irby, Charles H. (1985). The Desktop
Metaphor as an Approach to User Interface Design. Proceedings of the 1985 ACM
Annual Conference on The Range of Computing, 548-549.
Madsen, Kim H. (2000). Magic By Metaphors. Designing Augmented Reality Environments,
167-169.
Mander, Richard, Salomon, Gitta, Wong, Yin Yin. (1992). A ‘Pile’ Metaphor for Supporting
Casual Organization of Information. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 627-634.
Marcus, Aaron. (1994). Managing Metaphors for Advanced User Interfaces. Proceedings of the
Workshop on Advanced Visual Interfaces, 12-18.
Marcus, Aaron. (2002). Metaphors and User Interfaces in the 21st Century. Interactions, 9, 2, 7-
10.
Marcus, Aaron. (1998). Metaphor Design in User Interfaces. Journal of Computer
Documentation, 22, 2, 43-57.
Marx, Adam N. (1994). Using Metaphor Effectively in User Design. Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, 379-380.
Ravasio, Pamela, Schar, Sissel Guttormsen, Krueger, Helmut. (2004). In Pursuit of Desktop
Evolution: User Problems and Practices with Modern Desktop Systems. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 11, 2, 156-180.
Robertson, George, van Dantzich, Maarten, Robbins, Daniel, Czerwinski, Mary, Hinckley, Ken,
Risden, Kirsten, et al. (2000). The Task Gallery: A 3D Window Manager. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 494- 501.
Sharlin, Ehud, Watson, Benjamin, Kitamura, Yoshifumi, Kishino, Fumio, Itoh, Yuichi. (2004).
On Tangible User Interfaces, Humans, and Spatiality. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8, 5, 338 – 346.
Svanaes, Dag & Verplank, William. (2000). In Search of Metaphors for Tangible User
Interfaces. Designing Augmented Reality Environments, 121-129.
Labels: Academic Papers, Technology
posted by The Voice at 10:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home