Let's face it: a typical current computer system has a clunky and ineffective interface. There is rarely an instance where the mouse is used in an elegant or productive manner. Screens are busy, and the area of focus is often very small in proportion to the area of the entire screen. We are making very poor use of the real-estate we have. Floating windows lead to counter-productive micromanagement of windows and unnecessary multitasking.

In order to harness the power of the keyboard and increase productivity thus decreasing unnecessary strain on the user, we need to make radical changes to the way we communicate with computers. Let us forget about current GUI implementations common in Windows and Unix and start from scratch. In doing so, we set ourselves free from critical limitations.

I have devised a simple model for communication with computers. It can be summarized by the acronym SIDDI , or Simple Interactive Display for Dynamic Information . Key attributes of this model can be summarized by the following:

• Largely single-tasking oriented, but allows multi-tasking by completely hiding tasks not in use.
• Every available command or option can be fully exploited by the keyboard. Mouse use is possible and just as functional, but highly discouraged. Complete control over the interface is quickly accessible through simple and powerful keystrokes.
• The concept of floating 'windows' is gone. Instead, the display is oriented and positions of objects on the screen are static.
• Very dynamic. The content on the screen typically changes drastically in a matter of seconds with a simple keystroke.
• Oriented around completing a single task at a time. Screen real-estate is precious, and every centimeter of text serves a purpose. There should never be any superficial information unless explicitly requested.
• The style, borders, text, and default colors strongly resemble Star Trek LCARS. SIDDI , however, has one key difference: all information is critical. There is never any extra information or filler, which is noticeable with LCARS
• Every time the display changes, the transition is rendered with using fully accelerated OpenGL graphics and is reminicant of flash. An prime example of this can be found by taking a peek at Subblue's* flash web site. Notice the smooth transition as the borders change position as the screen changes.
• Keyboard input can be optionally complemented (not replaced) by voice communication. Input and output can take advantage of this.
• Completely based on context. SIDDI should make smart decisions on what content should be displayed. There should never be a time when a portion of the screen is unused, but at the same time there should never be any irrelevant information. SIDDI decides what content should be displayed based on the current task, a history of what content the user associates with that task, and can ultimately be overridden by the user. SIDDI smartly decides where each object should be placed on the screen. Positions of objects are static.
• Intuitive and easy to use with minimal abstraction without getting technical.

* Be sure to navigate to portfolio to see what I mean.

Case in point: Your colorful post. I didn't read anything after that line. The colors hurt my eyes.

Perhaps you could benefit from becoming a bit more patient.

So how do you plan on managing dealing with 2 documents at once?

Frankly, I would die without multitasking. I believe multitasking exists soley for the purpose of using both of my monitors. And it is NICE.

Multi-tasking is completly possible. You only need to hit a keystroke to bring it into focus or split the screen.

There just aren't any floating windows; positions are positioned automatically and are static. The user focuses on what the computer should display, not where.

I think youve seen a few too many expisodes of Star Trek.

Wow, it almost sounds like DOS.

Well, I come more from GNU Bash background then a DOS background. DOS has to be the worst CLI I have ever experienced.

Keep in mind that this is not a text-based system for managing your windows; it can be better described as a GUI with insane hotkeys.

I await the day we plug computers into our brains.

What's wrong with floating windows? You know there's such a thing as tabs and maximizing windows, right?

I don't think that that will be practical or even safe for a while... call me old fashoned if you will, but I don't feel particuarly motivated to plug the back of my neck into a machine.

This is a way to clean up the screen and save space and improve productivity. Floating windows are alright, but they don't fit into this model which values efficiency over extraneous control that leads to a clunky interface.

You can do what you're proposing with Windows I think. Take away all the borders and stuff, then use the Alt+Tab command to switch between running applications. I hope that's clear enough to be understood, it's a bit late.

You know what they should really do? Make it easier to have multi-monitor displays. And cheaper too. I mean imagine if everyone had dual monitors.

Good point. The only problem that this model not only involves the managment of the programs, but the programs themselves. Old programs that do not use the new SIDDI model would have to be run in a nested compatability layer.

I'd have no space on my desk.

I'll take space over another monitor anyday. 21 inches at 1280x1024 is enough right now.

I agree with you about screen real estate. Every inch matters. When I want to READ something, the display should looks like a newspaper or a BOOK, not a frickin' GUI with a thousand buttons, scrollbars, margins, and crap like that.

It sounds kinda like hitting the f11 key in your browser. Now that I got what I agree with you about out of the way, I'll talk about what I most disagree with. The discouragement of the mouse. Are you insane? Hardly ANYONE wants to use hotkeys over the mouse. It's just the way it is. No one wants to memorize 50 billion hotkeys to do the job of one click of the mouse. It's almost as if you're throwing the culmination of 50 years of progress on the GUI front out the window. To think that your system is more revolutionary than the modern GUI that took 50 years to evolve is a little arrogant if I do say so myself.

Anyone who knows me can tell you that i think LCARS is one of the sexiest things of all time ever. However i'm not sure how well it would work for personal computing as opposed to very focussed specific workstation tasks on a starship for instance.

Though that doesn't mean i don't greatly enjoy having at least the appearnce of it as say my Enlightenment or Windowblinds or Winamp theme.

However, i also must admit Subblue does an extremely admirable job of demonstrating a dynamic but highly focussed interface.

I find it to be truly gorgeous in its emphasis on clean clear presentation, suitable curves, legible text and almost complete implementation of raster images/highlights. I find desktops with extremely busy detailed clashing backgrounds, or themes with big clunky flashy chrone buttons with edgy fonts on them to be pretty irritating not to mention utterly distracting and retroactive.

That's the same basic reason i set up a number of filters in proxomitron to replace virtually all the forum gifs with straightforward non-intrusive courier text labels instead, makes for a much more unified and focussed interface.

Pontification aside, there is a very important distinction to be made when it comes to LCARS sort of interfaces and mice and keyboards and such. Namely that the vast majority of the inputting was done via touch-screen, very very often the keyboard /was/ the screen in effect, thus it wasn't a matter of remembering that alt-gr-q meant fire quantum torpedoes, as to simply hit the region of the screen currently devoted to that function. Sleek elegant and with an extremely strong telos. Mousing becomes effectively irellevant and needless.

sure, its old and dated, but why do oyu think its the worst?

THANK YOU DORMOUSE

Ahem.

Freelancer: I understand what you are saying about the mouse. While the mouse is generally a more intuitive and easier tool, it is almost always slower. One of my major points is that the commands should be avalible via mouse OR keyboard, but the keyboard is *highly* recommended due to sheer speed.

Dormouse: Perhaps the touchscreen thing would be an option in addition to keyboard and voice? (or the mouse... *shudder*) Touchscreens on home computers are somewhat rare, though.

• No tab auto-completion
• Progra~1
• Abort, Retry, Fail
• Spaces in file names
• No virtual terminals? (not sure on this one, I know MS-DOS doesn't have it)
• Did I mention no tab auto-completion?

... But how is that any different than Windows? The mouse is slower than hotkeys.. this is nothing new. Windows has hotkeys which can be bound to any program, batch file, etc..

GUI's would have to be specifically written for this system to take full advantage of the LCARS style interface. The interface could be written as an XML file to be read by the program.

All the onld ugly apps would be nested in a box specifically dedicated for compatibility.

Well, this isn't just a set of hotkeys. It's a whole different outlook on the interaction and apperance of GUIs.

Everything is in fullscreen. You are doing one thing at a time. Text is big, clear, antialiased, and borders are clean and big. The GUI as a whole would be totally different than windows in that it focuses on one or two things at a time, not on everything at once like Windows does.

meh, i like a window-based interface better.


and what is tab auto-completion?

I think you should definately investigate the big difference Dormouse mentioned. If you really want a new way for us to really communicate with computers why not do away with keyboards and mice. If you could get a touch screen system that really worked well then mice would be obsolete. Keyboards could also be replaced with voice.

Before I started typing this, I was slouched back lazily using the mouse wheel to scroll down. Now that I am typing this I have to reach forward a bit with both hands, since the mouse is in front of the keyboard. If I had a touchscreen I'd have to be sitting straight up, reaching forward, making large prodding motions to cover a large square area. No thanks. I prefer exercising by walking and riding, not attempting to use my computer.

I *like* knowing what's happening with my computer. Right now, I can see I have three Opera windows open, and the other two are also at Massassi. I have Explorer open to my mp3s directory, and I'm currently downloading something at circa 30k/sec. How long would it take me to do this if this text box in which I am writing took up the whole screen?

Open up a DOS terminal in XP. Type "cd \Pro" and hit tab. OMFQ WOWZ!!! Linux uses spaces in file names, but just has a better method of handling them.

Oh, and Linux handles unicode properly. I HATE seeing my name butchered (André shows up as AndrÙ when I'm in a DOS terminal) when I run a DOS app in Windows (usually a C++ project).

What about image editting? How are you going to draw pictures without the mouse? Or control FPS games, for that matter.

3d games arn't as elloquant with out a mouse

As do I.


You guys seem to be missing the point; Mystic wants to impliment LCARS. However, we currently lack the technology to do it. LCARS is composed of alot more than the visual interface. The controls are not only touch-sensitive, they respond to voice and motion as well. If you are writing a letter, you dont type it in, you speak it. If you want to turn on the lights, you dont press a button, you say "lights on!". This requires voice dictation algorithms that are much more advanced than those we currently use.
LCARS without the audible component would SUCK.

I already do that, Every single window I open is maximized. at 1600x1200, that's a lot fo available information. I have the taskbar at the bottom of the screen which allows me to quickly switch between open screens, and at the top of the screen is usually a bar which allows fast switching within a program. Most commands are made with hotkeys, except for link-clicking while web browsing. The rest is done using simple keystrokes.

It's not so much a need for a new system, as a need for people to adapt to a new idea.

Except you wouldn't need to be sitting on front of your computer, you could be using a little hand held screen anywhere you want to.

Exactly. Displays could be mounted on the walls around you house as well, and you should be able to walk into a room and say, "Lights 60%, Music Romantic" and BAM, it's done!

The more I think about using touchscreens the more I like it. The only time I've been exposed to a touch screen used on a home computer was at a neighbors house. It didn't line up perfectly, so it does take a bit of work to get going properly.

As far as the mouse is concerned, well, we probably shouldn't eliminate it (at all). Just the use of it is discouraged, unless you are playing a game.

For image editing, why not use a stylus on the touchscreen?

I think it's a great idea!

"There is rarely an instance where the mouse is used in an elegant or productive manner."

translation:

"My PC is not enough like Star Trek"

Well, if the shoe fits..

Although I would like to agree with you and make myself the uber-nerd, I must admit that LCARS was somewhat of an afterthought of SIDDI. LCARS just happens to be a prime example of what I have in mind.

edit grammer