The typical graphic user interface of computers has not changed very much since the introduction of the WIMP (Window, Icon, Menu, Pointer) interface. You see it throughout X on Linux, Mac OS *, and on Windows. Since its conception at Xerox in the early 70s it's surprising that the core properties of WIMP have not really changed. Layers have been added (e.g. the task bar) and various facades (we have novelty sized buttons on transparent windows), but the general direction at which the major desktop GUIs have been developing in appears to represent a comical race you would see on a cartoon; when one GUI finds a way to jump ahead (e.g. composition (yet no one has invented rotatable windows!), or sub pixel text) the others think implementing that idea is the only way to catch up to it, only to find that when they add something innovative the other GUIs do the same. The world of desktop GUIs is stuck in a game copying each other rather than branching off into their own direction.
Your typical desktop GUI interface has not really changed. These GUIs represent the program's output as a movable square rectangle called a window. These windows typically (with some exceptions) contain a boarder around them, a titlebar above the window that can be dragged to move the window, minimise/maximise/restore/close buttons on the titlebar, and some windows can be resized by dragging their lower right hand border. These similarities cause virtually every desktop GUI environment (with some exceptions like borderless window managers) to be fundamentally the same.
I have a question that I would like to ask;
Are there any alternatives to WIMP that can still provide the same (or greater) level of flexibility and productivity in a desktop multitasking environment?
Most people would answer no, but I believe we are to use to working in WIMP that it is hard to imagine outside of the box. Programs do not need to have their own visual form of output, and I’ll explain this a little later on with an idea I have.
I have been looking into alternative user interfaces, and there are two fields I see that have potential; modeless environments, and zoomable user interfaces (I have a hunch that something big is in store for ZUIs). Modeless environments, like Archy, are still highly experimental, and it’s a predominantly single-tasking environment. As far as accessibility of information goes I think Archy will be an interesting contender to keep my eye on though I think it will lack in productivity when it comes to proving itself. I haven’t actually seen a ZUI that hasn’t been domain-specific (most commonly a file browser or a mind map) and I wonder what route will be taken (I think it would be cool to zoom into your application’s icon to launch it and zoom out to close) but I still see WIMP living on, just instead you’re zooming in and out of your windows.
I accept the possibility of the answer to my above question to be ‘no’, but a simple no will not provide closure to the question when the alternatives have not been fully investigated. I can see WIMP’s evolution slowly progress with the introduction of the ribbon in Microsoft Office to replace many of the traditional menus. I congratulate the team who came up with the concept, and I can see it’s a path in the right direction, but it’s also interesting to see users’ reaction. At first I, along with a lot of other people I apparently discovered when searching through online forums, found it uncomfortable and had nostalgic memories of the old interface. It’s not until you get use to it that you find it more productive, which brings me to wonder that if a better replacement for WIMP came people would be too nostalgic and comfortable in their old environment to want to swap.
Now back to what I mentioned before, applications don’t have to be “applications” with their own viewport as we think of them today (one exception being full-screen games). Imagine a persistent user interface where applications are merely thought of as extensions to your environment rather than self contained programs.
I think for user interfaces to progress to what I am conceptualizing in my head we must take a data-centric view of the computer and the interface. The core essence of the interface I am seeing allows you to create, view, manipulate, and share data in a persistent interface regardless of the content and type data. You’re data could a word document, an email, a song, or even a web page. Programs are just extensions you load into the environment that enable you to work with a new sort of data (e.g. a spreadsheet program allows you to work with spreadsheets). When I try to visualize it I get the image of a Mathematica-style environment which integrates graphics with graphics inside of a command-line interface. But there is still the obstacle of allowing you to move your data around the screen, which eventually brings us back to a traditional WIMP interface. The only way I see this sort of interface happening is as an alternative shell, rather than the sole interface of a computer.
I think it is unnecessary to limit future GUI designs to the desktop metaphor. With tomorrow’s generation of users growing up with today’s interfaces, I don’t think there is a need to keep interfaces ‘simple’ to sacrifice productivity (without making them overly complex). My mind is debating both sides in my head; to WIMP, or not to WIMP.
Your typical desktop GUI interface has not really changed. These GUIs represent the program's output as a movable square rectangle called a window. These windows typically (with some exceptions) contain a boarder around them, a titlebar above the window that can be dragged to move the window, minimise/maximise/restore/close buttons on the titlebar, and some windows can be resized by dragging their lower right hand border. These similarities cause virtually every desktop GUI environment (with some exceptions like borderless window managers) to be fundamentally the same.
I have a question that I would like to ask;
Are there any alternatives to WIMP that can still provide the same (or greater) level of flexibility and productivity in a desktop multitasking environment?
Most people would answer no, but I believe we are to use to working in WIMP that it is hard to imagine outside of the box. Programs do not need to have their own visual form of output, and I’ll explain this a little later on with an idea I have.
I have been looking into alternative user interfaces, and there are two fields I see that have potential; modeless environments, and zoomable user interfaces (I have a hunch that something big is in store for ZUIs). Modeless environments, like Archy, are still highly experimental, and it’s a predominantly single-tasking environment. As far as accessibility of information goes I think Archy will be an interesting contender to keep my eye on though I think it will lack in productivity when it comes to proving itself. I haven’t actually seen a ZUI that hasn’t been domain-specific (most commonly a file browser or a mind map) and I wonder what route will be taken (I think it would be cool to zoom into your application’s icon to launch it and zoom out to close) but I still see WIMP living on, just instead you’re zooming in and out of your windows.
I accept the possibility of the answer to my above question to be ‘no’, but a simple no will not provide closure to the question when the alternatives have not been fully investigated. I can see WIMP’s evolution slowly progress with the introduction of the ribbon in Microsoft Office to replace many of the traditional menus. I congratulate the team who came up with the concept, and I can see it’s a path in the right direction, but it’s also interesting to see users’ reaction. At first I, along with a lot of other people I apparently discovered when searching through online forums, found it uncomfortable and had nostalgic memories of the old interface. It’s not until you get use to it that you find it more productive, which brings me to wonder that if a better replacement for WIMP came people would be too nostalgic and comfortable in their old environment to want to swap.
Now back to what I mentioned before, applications don’t have to be “applications” with their own viewport as we think of them today (one exception being full-screen games). Imagine a persistent user interface where applications are merely thought of as extensions to your environment rather than self contained programs.
I think for user interfaces to progress to what I am conceptualizing in my head we must take a data-centric view of the computer and the interface. The core essence of the interface I am seeing allows you to create, view, manipulate, and share data in a persistent interface regardless of the content and type data. You’re data could a word document, an email, a song, or even a web page. Programs are just extensions you load into the environment that enable you to work with a new sort of data (e.g. a spreadsheet program allows you to work with spreadsheets). When I try to visualize it I get the image of a Mathematica-style environment which integrates graphics with graphics inside of a command-line interface. But there is still the obstacle of allowing you to move your data around the screen, which eventually brings us back to a traditional WIMP interface. The only way I see this sort of interface happening is as an alternative shell, rather than the sole interface of a computer.
I think it is unnecessary to limit future GUI designs to the desktop metaphor. With tomorrow’s generation of users growing up with today’s interfaces, I don’t think there is a need to keep interfaces ‘simple’ to sacrifice productivity (without making them overly complex). My mind is debating both sides in my head; to WIMP, or not to WIMP.
