Having an Input

by Mike Bromwich, Technical Director, PDMS

The usefulness of any computer system is largely dependent on the effectiveness of its ‘user interface’ – the means by which you operate the system, glean information from it, and work out whether your actions have had the desired effect. Of all the aspects of the design of a system, the extent to which the interface is responsive, intuitive, consistent and ergonomic dictates not only how efficiently we can work with the system, but also whether the work gets done at all before anything is bashed, stamped-on or thrown out of the nearest window. ‘Getting on’ with a user interface is a prerequisite to a long-term, happy relationship with the system.

When we first come to use a new system, we rely on our experience of other systems – and so consistency is key. For example, once we know how to move up and down through a document using a scroll bar, we can apply this technique when using any new system which adopts the same set of standards.

Unfortunately, it appears that vendors often change familiar aspects of a user interface for no good reason when they release a new version of a system. A few months ago, I started using the latest incarnation of Microsoft’s desktop suite - Office 2007. The user interface has been so heavily redesigned that I continue to waste considerable time clicking around like a novice trying to find features which I have been happily using for years. I suspect, in fact, that a genuinely new user would get-to-grips with the package more quickly than me – since they would have no preconceptions on how the system should work.

If manufacturers of other types of products took a similar approach we would be in real trouble. If Toyota decided that the clutch-brake-accelerator setup needed sprucing-up, or Motorola decided that the layout of the number keys on their phones were old hat, then we would be in trouble – so why do software vendors seem intent on providing us with a challenge when all we’re really after is a tool?

I suppose that we need to accept incremental change in the interests of long-term technical progress. I also accept that as we get older, our ability to quickly grasp new concepts and paradigms reduces – at least in my case. The development of user interfaces has been through a number of distinct phases – and I am sure there are more to come.

In the early, Neolithic days of computers, processing was carried out in batch. Users prepared their instructions on cards or tape using a mechanical punching device – these were submitted for processing, and only in a day-or-so you received news of what the computer had made of your efforts. Although cumbersome, this method provided a reasonable incentive for accuracy. Luckily, online access quickly followed.

Early online access to computers was via a keyboard and a printer. The most common layout for the keyboard is QWERTY, taken from an 1874 patent by Christopher. Earlier keyboards used keys arranged alphabetically – but the QWERTY design was adopted to avoid the bars of letters frequently used together from becoming tangled.

Screens as we know them today arrived shortly thereafter, although early examples were vector-based rather than pixel-based. In other words, the contents of the display was made up of lines and curves rather than the screen being scanned. The keyboard remained the main input device – but the trackball (which works like an up-turned mouse) was adopted in some military applications.

In the seventies, computers made it into the home in the form of video games which were connected to a television set. The earliest machines used ‘paddles’- each of which had a single knob which when rotated, allows the player to control the game. Shortly thereafter, the joystick was adopted – which allows two-dimensional control.

Early personal computers typically used a standard QWERTY keyboard and a CRT-based monitor, either in-built or as a separate unit. This was adequate for text-based systems, but with the advent of the graphical user interface in the early eighties, a better pointing-device was required. The first personal computer to be supplied with a mouse was launched by Xerox in 1981 – and it remains the most common pointing device in use today.

The advent of portable computers has introduced some alternatives to having to carry around a mouse. IBM developed the TrackPoint – essentially a tiny joystick which is small enough to be located in the middle of the keyboard. The touchpad, an overlooked development from the eighties, has had a renaissance, and is the preferred device of many.

Mobile devices such as PDAs and mobile phones bring their own challenges. Early Blackberry devices used a thumb-operated wheel – with similarities to the paddle used in early video games. Newer models use a miniature trackball. Touch-screens are also a popular option – used either with a stylus or a finger.

Gesture-based interfaces have started to make an appearance in mainstream consumer products. The iPhone allows the user to make gestures using fingers to navigate the interface and work with the features provided, (although some commonly-used finger-based gestures are not yet recognized). The iPhone also uses a simple accelerometer to detect which way the unit is being held so the contents of the screen can be rotated to suit.

The Nintendo Wii makes even more ambitious use of an accelerometer, in that it allows the user to interact with virtual environments with uncanny realism. Whether playing golf, playing tennis or boxing the Wii remote detects the movement of the players hand and translates it to control the on-screen action. The remote can vibrate to provide added realism – also known as haptic feedback.

Together with more sophisticated immersive display technology, these gesture-based interfaces are set to revolutionize the task of interacting with computers. If techniques such as those pioneered by Nintendo make it to the office environment, then word processing may at last become entertaining. Roll-on Office 2010!