On Dec 14, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Jason Grossman wrote:


On 15/12/2010, at 1:51 AM, Jan-Paul Bultmann wrote:

> The other thing is, maybe we should pick a device and make it the main supported platform for self.
> I was thinking about something like this
> http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/products/touchbook.htm

It might be good to focus on one platform, but I don't think it should be a touchpad. Self would have to change a LOT to be useable without a mouse.

I think the opposite is the case.
You can easily simulate a 3 button mouse with gestures, even if it is as simple as counting the fingers :).
The size constraints as mentioned in the article could be easily solved by some zooming work.

We could then gradualy move the interface to be more touch friendly.

See http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/07/ballmer-and-microsoft-still-doesnt-get-the-ipad.ars for some examples of how an environment has to be designed for touch interaction. This is something Apple's been able to (and had to) put a bazillion person-hours into for the iPad OS.

And c'mon it's obvious why microsoft won't get close to the ipad :D they still do things like this ( http://www.pcmasters.de/fileadmin/news/Microsoft/Microsoft-Windows-Phone-7.jpg )
which designer had the idea of leaving 1/5 of the screen unused so you can display a round button in the top right corner ... that will lead you to a list of everything on the phone that you can't even sort (like on the macbook wheel). :)

So my point is, as long as we don't do dumb shit we will be ok :)

UI2 is already a lot like multitouch interfaces for touch tables just take a look at things like
PyMt http://pymt.eu/
and the demo reels at nuigroup

The only things that are a bit different are the popup style menus in self, but that is nothing that a circular menu couldn't sovle :).


I think the hard thing about this is not the design of the multitoch capable morphs.
It is rather the rework of self's rendering system, that we should do before.

Cheers Jan