Computing in the Year 2000 -- No Keyboard!?
by John C. Dvorak
I was amused a few months back when the microcomputer trade weekly, InfoWorld, ran an article called Computing in the Year 2000. The editors had a bunch of pundits make their predictions. Kudos to Infoworld for avoiding the usual yearly round up of predictions about next year. This trick requires people go out on some kind of limb. The yearly predictions usually have people predicting a continuation of the past year "only more!"
Well, at least that's what I thought until I read the predictions. They're just as lame as those boring yearly predictions.
Let's quickly summarize the predictions made in the InfoWorld article. Isaac "Mr. Ubiquitous" Asimov predicted picture television-conference-telephones, a yawner of a prediction. Nicholas Negroponte, MIT Media Lab director, predicted cuff link sized computers. Wayne Ratliff, dBASEII inventor, predicted computerized houses that tell you the roof is leaking. Bob Metcalfe, ethernet inventor, doesn't have a prediction. Jean-Louis Gassee, Apple Corp., predicted smaller computers that you can write on with a pen. Peter Bishop, University of Houston futurist, predicted that in the year 2000 we won't call computing "computing." Bob Frankston, co-inventor of VisiCalc, predicted a wrist watch computer. Dan Bricklin, co-inventor of VisiCalc, predicted picture phones with large screens. This goes on and on with the same dopey predictions based on current technologies that all these guys have seen in the lab.
When the editors pressed for more information we discovered that the pundits were pretty dull. The most popular prediction was that things will be pretty much the same as they are today. How bold! In addition we can expect to see notebook computers. Hey boys! We already have them. Then all of a sudden everyone seemed to jump on a bandwagon: voice recognition. Combine that with the scratch pad input cited by Gassee and the keyboard, of all things, was dead.
I shook my head and later that day ran into a fellow who also insisted that the keyboard was dead. "There will be pads you can write on with a pen, and voice recognition," he said. I wondered if he read the InfoWorld piece. "The keyboard is a silly and temporary invention. Part of the old typewriter technology. Not necessary in the future."
This notion is a classic example of a lack of understanding of the keyboard and it's evolution. The fact is, that while scratch pad input devices and voice recognition are sexy as technologies, they are impractical and even stupid as replacements to the keyboard. The scratch pad is particularly dumb, since few people can scribble words as fast as they can type them. Worse, handwriting uses only one set of muscles and is very fatiguing. Personally my hand gets sore and my arm gets tired if I write many words by hand. I can type all day. So why would we want to go back to handwriting. AND, if you haven't noticed, penmanship as an interest has faded to nil. Nobody can write legibly. Nobody cares to. The collective unconscious of the society knows that the keyboard IS the future, not the past. When someone suggests otherwise, laugh at them.
Voice recognition is another interesting but impractical technology. Speaking requires brain functions somewhat different than those required to compose words and type them. Professional writers who dictate their stories tell me that it takes years to develop the technique. It's not as easy as typing. The spoken word and the written word differ substantially in both composition and presentation. But it is possible to make the connection in the brain to dictate as well as one writes, I'm told, with practice. So what's the real problem with voice input? Try this for an answer: it's dumb.
I use one of those little pocket microcassette recorders to take notes. You always get weird stares and people make comments about it when I use the thing. I have to use it surreptitiously. Now imagine some geek talking into a computer. First of all there is no privacy in an office and few people want to be overheard talking a memo into a computer while someone lurks in the background listening. Imagine an office full of people yakking into their machines. Sounds hellish. And imagine sitting next to some jerk on an airplane who insists on voice entry as he sits there. "Go to cell four. Addition. Move cell A1 to cell C65. Never mind. Erase. End. Quit. Yes. Word Perfect. Get document, ALMEMO. Goto comment. Comment, "Introduction." Delete. Insert "Background." Add space. Move down. More. More. There. Over. Over. Stop."
I'd be choking the guy about then. Let's face it, the above jabbering is the way it would be -- impractical, idiotic. Furthermore, there are no obvious productivity increases from either scratch pad input or voice input technologies. None I can see. So what motive will force their implementation? There is none. But, of course, all this talk about voice recognition sounds good at a cocktail party or in a magazine predictions article. I was amused by the InfoWorld piece since nobody even hinted at the growing importance of neural networks or the incredible popularity of the FAX and how it fits into the future scene. What about email? Or networks? No comments were made about digital cameras, the Library of Congress on a CD-ROM pack or anything else that is possible or that is even interesting. Instead we get this notion that the keyboard is dead and that picture phones will be hot.
Well, I'd like to see how many of these people will be putting their money where their prediction is. I assume a few will invest in this nonsense. After all, there has to be some way of redistributing the wealth.
So now you may ask, what's my prediction for the year 2000? I predict that in the year 2000 we will continue to have predictions. And they'll continue to be useless.
---end
