Ross Scott

Here's the July videochat. This went on longer than I meant for it to. I remember discussing EA, Game box covers, corporations, Trackmania, and more games. Game Dungeon follow-up episode will be next in line! This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »

I tried that one in the store, I liked the shape and how it had a ring finger button, but the thumb buttons are a non-starter for me. I have meaty thumbs and I just can't see myself adjusting to buttons that small, ever. If it had a modular design like the Roccat Nyth, I would probably go for it.

Whoops, oh well.

You bring up a lot of points here. The short version is I both agree and disagree with you. I'm going to focus on some parts I think you may not have thought out as thoroughly, so it might seem like I'm being overly negative, but just assume the stuff I'm NOT bringing up I more or less agree with you: I think we actually both agree that mouse TARGETS are awful. One line I left out of the video is that ideally, if you knew what you were doing, you should be able to navigate a GUI blind. You're claiming this isn't possible on the mouse. Under NORMAL circumstances, you're correct. This is why I was so excited about mouse gestures. You CAN use those blind! I would postulate it's not the mouse itself that's the problem, so much as how we've designed the GUI to use it. If "using the mouse" only meant a series of rapid swipes that you could literally do blindfolded, I think we would have far closer parity to the keyboard. I'm probably not changing your mind, but I wanted to try to plant the seed that the way mouse is used now doesn't have to be the end-all. I think simply as a pure peripheral, it has more potential than you've giving it credit for, even though I'm in agreement most of what we have now is awful. See, that might show the difference in philosophy in our approaches. I think we both recognize there's a problem, but I see changing what the web looks like as a lost cause, I look at that as ceded ground; I'm not going to win that battle. So the best I can do is find the most efficient options to adapt to the world we have before us. That world means that if you're having a mouse, SOME tasks will be faster, even though I'm completely with you that even the ones as that are faster may not be as fast as they theoretically COULD be, however if that ONLY works and theory and can't adapt to the real world, then that's something I write off. Sometime like a random website is something I'll never have control over, so I need to find tools on MY end to interact with it faster. A final point I think you're missing: Even in your perfect world where you had full control over the development software, I think there would STILL be functions that would be faster via a mouse. This comes to visual manipulation in particular. I work a lot with multimedia. Say I need to resize an image, but I don't know exactly what the dimensions should be, I need to see it in front of me to know what's just right. Say I need to scan a video and find the exact point, but I don't know where on the timeline it is, I need to scan until I find the exact point. Sure, with a keyboard, I can press arrow keys one at a time, or skip by 10% or 10 frames, etc, but it's going to be a tedious process and depending on how close I am, I'm probably tapping the keys 20 times or more to get the image or video position JUST right. Unless there's something I haven't though of, the keyboard is ill-suited to these types of tasks regardless of how the software is designed. You said it yourself: the mouse is a continuum. It hits every single point in its path and be can used similarly to an analog device, which a lot of multimedia simply has a need for. So for me personally, because I can never escape this AND we live in a mouse oriented world, going full-keyboard just isn't the answer for maximum efficiency, because my workload is too diverse. If it's a more limited situation like what you were describing, yes, keyboard only + a full redesign could be the fastest option. Anyway, I'll talk about this in the followup video.

I think the constellation style still has smaller targets than would be optimal for maximum efficiency, but the hex-style movements could have potential, especially if the user could scale the size to what they wanted. It certainly seems to have enough going for it to consider it as another option. To answer your question for what I do know about programs I can't recall the name of, it's like this: -Programs I definitely know what they are -Programs I maybe recognize if I see their names -Programs I can't remember what they are This is why my "Core" folder had significance. I wanted to separate as many common workhorse programs from the pack as I could to minimize what I'm sifting through. I remember programs I use frequently for years, I don't necessarily remember one I only need every 6 months or couple years or so. I think you're looking at this in reverse. I want to see what the best looking GUI Linux has in terms of functionality and appearance. That can be shown via screenshots or videos, installing the OS isn't necessary for me to get a sense of that. If I'm not impressed by either, that makes me feel like I'm in no man's land with Linux and isn't going to make me want to switch. Now those are both highly subjective, but if 98% of what I'm being shown is terminals + flat themes, that's not what's going to win me over. This why I was hoping for more variety of looks. If I'm convinced Linux has a great solution, I'll pursue it then worry about the distro then. In other words, I want my goal laid out for me, THEN figure out how to get there. As for gaming, that's a separate animal from the GUI. Go to this thread if you want to talk about that. I plan to look into Linux gaming more thoroughly in the future, specifically for legacy 3D accelerate games looking the best they can (forced AA, etc.).

I got around to looking at this, best I can tell, there's no way to replicate the functionality of the start menu here (in other words a dropdown menu showing all the programs you have installed dynamically). Am I missing something in the options? It looks more like a customizable shortcut launcher. I did see a dropdown menu option, but I couldn't figure how to get it to display the start menu programs. Compound that with the fact that the Start menu is really composed of at least 2 folders. For example, on my computer, the start menu programs are split among the following folders: C:\Users\GIZMONIC\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs So you would need a dropdown folder that could merge the contents of both those. I'm not sure if either of those are possible.

Isaiah: More text hiding so as not to spam the chat: The bottom line, which may explain many of the perceived contradictions I have is that the GUI is not a one-size-fits all situation. An operation that's efficient for one task may be awful for another. Again, it all comes down to time and effort, wanting to minimize both of those across a variety of situations. Also, this is actually helpful for the followup, I can explain the general logic in the followup video which should help clear up confusion for anyone else who thought I wasn't making sense.

Ask questions or topics to discuss here for the next videochat with fans on 5:00pm UTC on July 5th at twitch.tv/rossbroadcast. More Game Dungeon and Freeman's Mind (I think) coming! This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »

Yeah I actually tried a plugin like that in the past and the results were fairly hideous and it still let some white through, but it's been a while since I've used it also. I can see the potential for a dark theme if you really can clamp down on all colors above a certain brightness level, ideally it's something I should have tested out more, but I only had so much time. Thanks, I'll try to add these as an option, maybe mention them in the followup video. For me it's not the radial menu I want exactly so much as rapid access. I've actually used some radial menus in games and applications before that I HATE (they'll track the mouse movement in a non-intuitive way, where you have to move the mouse left or right like a dial and up and down don't behave the way you think they would. I imagine ones designed for the OS are more intuitive though. That's great hearing that it's increased your workflow speed, that's what this is all about! (well, that and things looking nice) Right on, though I doubt it's a replacement for the whole shell, but rather the start menu, although that's something I was having trouble finding a replacement for that which could be launched anywhere, so thanks a bunch!

No, it doesn't exist, it's not even close. So it's always a tradeoff of what do I hate not having the most, which shifts in my brain. As for trackballs, those are a tease, because a lot of trackballs have an EXCELLENT shape to the frame, but I'm complete garbage with trackballs. I would want a mouse in a trackball frame.

Okay, I think I found the problem. I thought I made a post explaining it in detail, but it looks like that never happened, so I understand why you think I'm sounding irrational and irritable on this. Let me spell it out clearly then, I think it will clear up the confusion (I'm hiding the text so it doesn't flood the chat): No, damn it. BY ALL MEANS propose GUI solutions, that was the whole point! I plan to use your keymouse link in the followup video as it is! I didn't know about that! Just maybe be careful before making accusations, that's all. Try to focus more on new ideas / software, that sort of thing. Getting into a giant debate is unlikely to solve much, whereras I think more brainstorming would be way more constructive considering the state of the GUI today. I WANT people proposing more ideas, screenshots, etc.

My mouse is starting to die on me and that made me frustrated trying to find a new one. I ended up making a graphic of a mouse I'm pretty sure no one besides me wants, but some of you might find some individual parts of it appealing. I wasted time making this, but it felt cathartic. This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »

I'm not really looking to get into an argument about this, but you're accusing me of being contradictory, which I don't appreciate unless it's accurate (like what I said on memorization, fair enough). So please, specify with no uncertainty, what did I say regarding targets where I'm being contradictory? I want easy to hit targets with low travel time. Sorry if I wasn't clear here. I'm not seeking to keep my current workflow. I want something BETTER. Moving from 7 to 10 is the catalyst. 10 struck me as shutting down more options, since it's hostile to custom shells, and updates will wreck some 3rd party programs with no consideration for customization. As for being incoherent, I can be guilty on that one. GUIs are very complex, I'm juggling dozens of thoughts on this in my head, so sometimes it doesn't always come out clearly, even though there actually is merit behind the thought. 2 responses to this: 1. Something that has the same functionality as what I have now, but is LESS efficient, I see as a downgrade. The suggestions I saw you mentioning all struck me as accomplishing the same goal, but in ways that take more time. It's more than just whether it can do what I was doing. It's about whether it can do what I need as well or even BETTER than what I had before. If somebody wants a new convertible because their old one has damage, and there is a new convertible available, but it only tops out at 45mph, they're not going to see that as a good answer. 2. As for bragging about having an option a lot earlier, I could have been mixing up my responses to other comments I saw, I forget. Some people have pointed out that me using old software is ludicrous, whereas when I set this up, the options I wanted simply didn't exist by standard means, so I went with what did work, and didn't always keep up with what changed, often because new OS's would wreck options. Part of that is me being behind the curve, but when I see how old software was sometimes ahead in some ways to what's even available NOW, it makes me frustrated with the entire situation. In other words, look at it like this: Old software: -Could do functions A, B, and C New software: -Can do functions, A and B. Does function A even better than the old software, does function B more poorly. Can't even do function C. Listen, you say you're trying to help me, but you're either concern trolling now, or you're unaware of your own bias on this to say something like that. Yes, I'm not an expert, and yes I'm seeking help from others. But insinuating I provided no proof or effort on this topic? Why do think the video was so long? Here's what I did do: -I showed my existing desktop and a few optimizations it had, even though I recognize it's very flawed -I showed time trials how launching frequently used programs was faster in my method than the Windows default -I proposed a pie menu system for rapidly launching software -I recognized the potential of a custom keypad that's ergonomically designed for hotkey deployment -I found research demonstrating that flat themes are objectively slower for users. -I proposed mouse gestures as a way of doing things more rapidly and suggested some fundamentals for coming up with styles -I gave a list of programs that I think are taking us in the right direction for customization as a starting point, suggesting possible implementations -Demonstrated objective advantages for not having a close button in web browsers. -Gave specific changes that should be made to an existing pie menu launcher for maximum efficiency Think what you want, but if you watched my video and then say I'm making the easiest criticism possible and making no effort for trying to advance the GUI, then that's a troll move, whether you mean it that way or not.

My main issue with Rainmeter is that it's all on the bottom z-order wise. So if I have a maximized window, most of those options are gone until I show the desktop again (at least that's my understanding of it). Alternately, if they showed up on top of Windows, I don't know how you would get the GUI elements to hide themselves for full screen applications. I think it will still be good for some things though, but I look at it from the perspective of both how nice it looks and how practical it's going to be for long term usage. It of course depends on the person's preferences however. While that wouldn't work for me personally due to my freakish typing style, this is exactly the kind of outside-the-box thinking I'm trying to encourage. That's awesome as a proof of concept. Some thoughts that come to mind: -While faster, the instantaneous nature of it can be a bit jarring, this could be the sort of situation where extremely fading or morphing might make the transition nicer for the user. That, or removing the wheel background since that throws up a lot of white against the background, whereas just seeing icons pop in and out might be less of a "shock" visually. Alternately, if somebody wanted to go max eye-candy mode, the second layer of icons could start appearing out-of-focus underneath the selection as you got closer to it with the mouse cursor, coming into focus as you fly over the selection (and fading / blurring out the former layer). That would take more work though and I don't even know if it would look better, just a thought I had. -I think the key for something like this would be to have it heavily customizable, with just a suggested template people could modify. People could choose how many selections on the wheel, skin it, have different wheels trigger via different hotkeys or mouse buttons, etc. -For your final destination, I notice if you fly past it, it becomes unselected, I would have it stay selected as long as you're in the corrected direction to allow for maximum sloppiness from the user. -It might be better to just have a button to bring it up, but after you've pressed it, it's no longer needed (or press another button to cancel it) Anyway, don't think I'm trashing it, it's neat seeing it in operation. It looks close, but I couldn't tell from the options if it does quite what I was talking about. Is it possible to trigger the next menu simply by dragging the mouse to it, or does it require you to click on it? That makes a substantial difference speed-wise. I wasn't sure if that's what "Turbo mode" was or not. I can try and test it out when I have more time.

Oh I think I'll be able to spend a lot less than that. It'll be tricky predicting my average though, since I bet a lot of them will get 2-3 seconds, but others could be up to a minute. The short ones I think will outnumber the longer ones. No idea if I'll get it done in one sitting though.

Yeah, this is a good point actually, since I was bringing up 2 different aspects of the GUI, design AND looks. Even if things are just as inefficient as regular windows, if it LOOKS the way you want it to, you're simply going to be happier using a computer longer (or I would be if it was a design I liked). It's definitely a form AND function problem, more power to you if you can nail down the "form" part for yourself.

No, I think you're misunderstanding me. Ideally, I want accuracy to barely matter. Take that pie menu I demonstrated. Say I want the upper left, so I flick the mouse that direction. Maybe I flick it 10% of the screen, maybe I flick it 60%. Ideally, it won't matter. It detects I moved it to the upper left, so it draws a new menu where I am (or returns me to the center automatically). In other words, the GUI adapts to my movement and intentions, not the other way around. I don't see what's contradictory about this. When you press most buttons or a D-PAD in a videogame, does it matter EXACTLY how hard you pressed it, or just that you pressed it? It's a similar concept. This is also why I got excited about mouse gestures. It opens up a wide world of possibilities where accuracy isn't important. I think you see what I said as contradictory, because you're looking at this in terms of hitting a target of a certain size across a certain distance. I'm talking about the potential of targets where distance and size are irrelevant. In other words, Fitt's law doesn't even apply for that kind of manipulation. It transcends it! Seeing how that concept isn't even USED in most modern GUIs is why I think it's woefully underdeveloped. I see that as a huge potential breakthrough. I would compare to the early days of FPSs, where keyboard aiming was dominant. The mouse rapidly displaced that because it was SO MUCH BETTER. I see that kind of potential in where we are now with GUI concepts. In my eyes, it's like we never left keyboard aiming, just made lots of refinements. Now for more conventional GUI menus where that's simply not an option, I want what's fastest and feels best. That's where that Fitt's law thing people are talking about come into play. Tiny targets take longer to hit. Targets far away take longer to hit. You want everything semi-big and close-by, which is probably why I thought of that pie menu system. Truth be told, the Fitt's law thing I was never even thinking of consciously (nor aware of when I made the video), it was totally a subconscious understanding on my part. Yes, I think you get it. This video is essentially: "what are the answers?" "What are better ways of doing things than we have now?" "I can imagine MANY different possibilities, but I haven't seen much information on this to know what's best, hopefully someone out there has all kinds of ideas on this, but hasn't had much of an outlet" and I tried to show a FEW efficiency shortcomings as proof that what we have now is indeed, not the penultimate in GUI design. Instead, a bit many comments seemed focused on me not providing solutions. From my perspective, it's a little insane that's on my shoulders to begin with, but I plan to slowly figure out something for myself in the absence of other ideas. I'll detail what I plan to have / what I think could be better in a followup later on, but it's a little disappointing seeing how narrow the range of ideas have been. "Criticizing a brainstorming session" is exactly how some of the commentary comes across, however, I was inflammatory in the video, so I expected a certain amount of that.

I'm a moron for forgetting about that, my bad. Still increases the travel time and involves tiny targets (even smaller than the popup menu I have in Litestep), but you're right, it exists.