Bill says:

Since it’ll probably be a LONG time before we ever see this in a Microsoft product, I hope someone implements this in KDE or Gnome.

Jägermeister says:

It’s essentially a visual file system. Not the first one, but still pretty cool.

Aaron Tait says:

Oh please, this has got to be one of the worst ideas for a Desktop UI I have ever seen. Can anyone besides me realize how impractical this is. How are you supposed to tell your documents apart from one another if they are just tiny 128*128 pixel (max, I really doubt they are this size) iconic representations. The only reason we can mange documents on our physical desktops is because we can actually see the crap we are working with! The people that think this is a good idea are probably the same people that think starting a company with no business model and a green gradient logo is just peachy. John, if Leo mentions this you have to shoot it down. Everyone is gonna go ga-ga for something that will never work.

Thomas says:

Perfect example of a design that won’t scale. With a couple of dozen documents, it looks fancy. What about a couple hundred thousand documents? That would make for some big piles. Beyond that huge failing, computers should help us organize, not simply move the disorganization somewhere else.

#4
It would probably be more accurate to say that Windows is *no longer* the ideal metaphor for an OS. Way back in the day, getting people to understand that when they were viewing a document, that it was not the entire thing (and thus the need for a scroll bar) was close to teaching monkeys rocket science.

Tippis says:

…like I said everwhere else this has popped up:

The kind of people who would take the time to learn this kind of control mechanism has already gone on to use a far faster and more efficient method of “desktop manipulation:” keeping your hands on the keyboard and use shortcuts, macros, hotkeys etc. etc.

The kind of people who build up the piles of unsorted documents where this could be useful are, almost by definition, not interested in the technology because they’re not the kind of neat-freaks who would use it. If they were, they would already have a clean desktop and neat categories where everything is stored.

End result: those who could use it won’t, because it’s less efficient than what they already use; those who should use it won’t, because sorting and piling isn’t in their nature.

Childish Personal Attacker says:

#7 is a joke.

Greg Allen says:

>>Good grief. I can’t believe what I’m reading here. The only conclusion I can get from this is that BOB failed because it was ahead of its time. What a sad state of affairs.

I realize that claiming BOB was ahead of its time gives you about as much credibility as claiming that Carter was a great president!

But I’ll say it… BOB was ahead of its time… in concept.

As computers get more an more complicated, I think the user interface has to get simpler and simpler.

Even the metaphor of a house has it limited because so much computer use now is like going out into the world and exploring and interacting.

Although I don’t play them myself, I suspect that the MORPG phenomenon is more like it.

One reason people say Bob failed is because it was too cute — and I’m not talking about cute or like a video game. I’m just saying the computer experience should mirror that real-life experience as much as possible.

So, “My Documents” should be based on a file cabinet rather than just one big place to dump crap (I’m a slob and even I don’t just dump all my documents in a pile.)

Media software is an example where the desktop or windows metaphor fails. Who keeps their CD collection on their desk or in a window?

Media software should be based on your stereo and entertainment system.

The players have done that already — they pretty much run like a CD player.

But music libraries should be organized like you would your real-life CD collection. Next to the music player is your rack of CDs which you flip through based on cover art, organized as you like best – album or artist or order-of-purchase. The best thing about computers is you can switch between various filing systems.

Those of us who lament that loss of the LP album art could get it back many fold because album art could be big again — and even flash animated.

Then, making music mixes would be dropping your music into your player — again simulating the real world.

You get the idea. Almost every computer function could be like this.

BjBlaney says:

#17 suggested makiing computers mirror ‘real-life’ experiences. What is the benefit of computer technology if each user is simply going to use it to recreate their own version of chaos. This seems tantamount to each person becoming their own psychoanalist.

When we buy a computer we expect the most recent, and best, advancements in that technology. Why then do we want to be left to our own primitive work practices when we come to use it? Of course we should be able to use it whatever way we wish (within the law, of course!) everything we purchase comes with some controls in its use.

It seems to me that many comments are failing to recognise the ideas presented are starting points representing current ‘real-life’ predicaments of many users. The goal is to help them move to a more efficient way of working to their benefit. Too many UI’s present environments requiring such a steep learning curve that they are never used to full advantage. Users should not be FORCED to use an interface method but be encouraged by an understanding that the options presented are currently best practices.

I believe the options displayed should:
1) Be agreed industry ‘best practice’ methods for that function
2) Offer the user the ability to choose a preferred ‘best practice’ from the selection on offer
3) Offer the ability to ‘pick-n-mix’ from within the best practices offered. The Help system could be then be called to pro-actively guide (context drive) the users selections towards building their tailored and cohesive ‘best practice’ environment.
4) Allow the user apply their preferences globally as their preferred template. This to apply across the range from adopting a particular feature of a preferred style icon to choice of methods used.

noname says:

This is cool, but; this is where computer science stops being a science, the human interface. Science is supposed to be about, repeatable/reproducible and predictable outcomes based on sound understanding of the underlying principles. The needs of the general public, it seems is anything but repeatable and predictable.

When it comes to the human interface to computers, what sound understanding of underlying principles is involved here? What are the improvement measures, productivity? Is duplicating people’s current method of desktop order on a computer more productive? What about Nintendo Wii system or Virtual reality helmets?

#20 has it right. Computers should not be constrained by tools that came before it, let’s evolve a little. If the only tool you have in your tool box is an hammer then everything begins to look like a nail.

The benefit of one interface design over the other are specific, but more often seems to be more art then science.