Smart phone user interface is simpler to that of PC. But it worsens in one aspect of PC user interface.
PC user interface is complex. For example, mouse has right click button which many users (like my wife) don’t care about. keyboard has many function keys which many users don’t care about. PC screen shows many objects in tool-bars/menus which many users don’t know their meanings.
On the other hand, Smart phone (or WEB) offers “see and select” user interface. Users has only to see several objects(icons or texts) and select one of them, and repeat it. Moreover it’s a direct manipulation by finger. This simplicity of user interface, besides mobility, must be the major factor of the boarder adoptions.
By the way, PC user interface heavily relies on hands/fingers to give information to computers, and eyes to get information from computers.
Smart phone has smaller screen. Users must be more focused on the smaller screen. Smart phone is mobile but users must hold it in one hand and operate on it by the other hand. That is, smart phone occupies user’s eyes and both hands more than PC. It worsens PC user interface in a sense.
Voice interaction is going to make eye/hand free, but its use is limited to closed environments.
It industry should offer better user interaction.
While you are driving a car, you do the followings in parallel.
- watch forward of the read, get feedback of your action
- hear outside sounds
- manipulate handle by hand and brake/accelerator bu foot
- talk with passenger seat person
You sight organ, audio organ, and body motor systems are working in parallel, even two parts of body motor systems are working in parallel, and you can achieve your goal to get some place.
How wonderful the power of the human being is!
On the contrarily, current human computer interaction is very limited and naive. It doesn’t take advantage of the human power as above: You give information only by hand, and get information only by sight of 2D, serially. Voice interaction is going to add another channel b/w human and machine, but the channel is isolated from the others.
According to a news about this years’ CES, its major trend is the AI+voice interacting with life backbone systems such as car or home electronic devices. (Now smartphone, mobility, or wearable are already old fashioned vocabularies). How does it, the human machine interaction, look like?
Voice can support texting and discrete commanding. But it can not be suffice for human to interact machines in coming ages.
- Voice has a problem for privacy. Its use is limited in private/closed spaces.
- Voice lacks capability of pointing and analog commanding (as mouse had).
- Voice interaction should be supplemented by some other means for pointing and analog quantity commanding.
- Voice interaction should be taken over someday by some other texting means which support privacy.
IT should innovate further in those interaction areas too.
Fingers move finer than wrists. Wrists move finer than hands. The subtlety of human muscle control is Fingers>Wrists>Hands.
All the human great tools in the history, scissors, chopstickes, pens, etc rely on and take advantages of synthesis of finger/wristshands.
Traditional computer gadget, Mouse, failed to take advantage of human muscle natural powers, because
- Mouse uses wrists/hands for pointing and finger click for commanding but pointing requires more subtlety than commanding.
- Hands for point and finger for commanding are separately used and they are not the synthesis of each powers.
Microsoft Surface dial looks to try taking advantage of finger for pointing too. If it is true, it would be one of great progresses from the mouse.
Blincam is a cool device. There has been a device which uses the blinking as camera control interface, but it may be first to combine it with a wearable device.
Blinking is a good media to command and control devices, because
- It is a voluntary muscle and perhaps fatigue-less as finger.
- People naturally do blinking and it does not require people to learn the operation.
Blincam focuses on a single scenario to capturing a moment – capture what you see. The value proposition is easy to understand. It does not interfere with user sight as traditional camera. This is the same as Google glass.
On the other hand, it is different from Google glass as follows:
- It is attachable to glasses you use already, not a brand new glasses. Adoption bar is lower than Google glass.
- Use of Blinking UI
- It is really hand-free. Google glass used a touch to control the device which is not really hand-free. (People like me thought that Google would combine gaze tracking with its Google glass, but they didn’t…)
- Blinking keeps privacy of its user better than Google glass. Google glass used a touch/speech to control the device which looks strange in social context. Blinking is less noticeable from the others than speech or touch.
But, as you recognize, Blincam does not solve the problem of privacy of the people around the user. I am not sure about real reasons why Google glass failed, but the privacy of the others may be one of key problems. Blincam must solve the problem to get a broad adoption.
Gaze tracking is beyond mouse/taop poiting in two senses.
1. Seeing is followed by muscle motors, i.e., finger pointing operations in the current human computer interaction. Seeing is a direct expression of pointing. Seeing is a far responsive pointer than the current finger based methods.
2. Seeing is 3D. Pointing in the current human computer interaction is mere 2D. Current computer has not evolved into 3D user experiences, it is easy to imagine future human machine/robot interaction is 3D. Imagine an autofocus camera captures what human is seeing in the world.