Voice of the Masses: Does “one interface for everything” make sense?
There’s a lot of talk about “convergence” in operating systems right now. Canonical wants Unity to be the interface you have on your desktop PC, smart TV and phone. Microsoft is trying to make its mobile and desktop operating systems look and work in the same way. Apple is adding elements of iOS to Mac OS X. And the big Linux desktop environments are striving to work better with touch screens.
But does this “one interface to rule them all” approach make any sense? Does anyone really want the same interface on their 4″ phone and their 22″ desktop monitor? Will this help to streamline our workflows, or will the end result be hodge-podge interfaces that don’t truly fit any device? Let us know what you think, and we’ll read out your jottings in our next podcast!
Related Posts
About The Author
Mike Saunders
Mike stores his data by printing out hex dumps and laminating the sheets. He's the author of The Haynes Linux Manual and the creator of MikeOS, an operating system hand-built from assembly language.
If the desktops are identical, no; but that's not what Ubuntu is doing AFAIK withh their Convergence(r)(TM).
If you can have some familiar anchor points between interfaces it should work, but you are inviting a lot of tweaking that would seem alien to a seasoned *nix adm (this app works on phone, not PC. – this other has two interfaces etc.).
Is it a good idea? I prefer less bloat on my systems, but it's too early to say IMO.
Glad you asked!
The notion of "convergence" has been bugging me for a long time now.
I have never met anyone who wants that. (It's a bit like 3D movies. Why
can't I just watch the movie in 2D.)
I'm perfectly ok with my alarm clock being just an alarm clock and not being
able to read my e-mail on the inside of my refrigerator door (or my TV for that
matter).
I think it is pretty obvious what the real intent is: securing market share.
Apple has already succeeded. I remember the conversation with a friend,
who was dissatisfied with her old IPhone but still bought an IPhone again,
because "all her music is on I Tunes and it just works".
Anyone who is advertising for convergence is just trying to accomplish
the same thing: If I have an Ubuntu TV,PC and Phone and they work
together nicely, why would I ever buy something else.
So basically they are trying to "imprison" their existing customers.
The right way to do it would be well defined standards for these kind of things.
So I can have a Linux PC, a Samsung whatever TV and a Jolla phone and still be
able to access my media, files, etc on all them. There are already a couple
standards/protocols like DLNA, Samba, IMAP, etc.
Instead of trying to accomplish the magic convergence, companies should work
on polishing the existing methods and keep the market free.
Some consistency across interfaces is obviously useful for familiarity and can allow actions to become more intuitive over time. However, just because two appliances have a similar chipset and even many OS components, it's somewhat narrow-minded to assume that both devices can (and will) be used in the same way by the same type of user.
The teenage mobile phone user, the office worker and the techie power user all have very different expectations and needs from their respective devices. To assume there can be "one interface to rule them all" shows, at best, a distinct lack of understanding of the user base and, at worst, an arrogant "developer knows best" attitude.
You only have to look at the mass exodus of Ubuntu users onto Mint (unsurprisingly I am one of these myself) to see that a large percentage of the Ubuntu user base were alienated by Canonical's GUI decision. This is not a direction that most users want or need to go in.
No, this has already been answered in the reverse direction: PC -> TV. I think the UI has more to do with input control, "10 foot UI" decisions (e.g. Console or HTPC) are made with the knowledge that the User is far away from the TV (big buttons) and has minimal input buttons for the UI itself (not many objects on-screen). PC UI decisions are made with the knowledge that the User is reasonable close (small buttons) and by-and-large has full 100+ keyboard and up to 3DOF mouse (lots on-screen + hotkeys).
Similarly, Android app development guidelines account for physical interaction (big buttons again resolution speaking) and very limited text input (more likely to have a digit drop-down or calendar widget than text-box entry). People have managed to navigate the new UIs if they upgrade the TV, they coped with navigating on smartphones, so convergence is not needed and would be more confusing if they do not take this into account. Admittedly not everyone is as tech-savvy as we assume, but even washing machine UIs have to be learnt.
TL;DR: thoughtful post stops here, ranting starts 🙂
Websites fail this test somewhat. I like bootstrap, but by being mobile-friendly, they tend to display less information on a single PC screen than you used to get historically. I guess this may simply be design-related with lots of white space to prevent a cluttered look, but this mainly applies to header navigation. This page for example (not complaining, it's just style) on a 1280 x 1024 resolution with 4 lines of desktop UI, logo, nav, subs, large header text, leaves only enough room to read the first paragraph. On my S3, only the horizontal nav element is collapsed to a menu button, none vertically – I'm even surprised I can read the first line of content.
Again this isn't directed at you, I only noticed it once I started counting, I guess I must now habitually scroll down whenever I open a new tab before I start reading. I would be hard-pressed to argue that this page has a UI designed *for* desktop reading, otherwise I would expect all of this to be along the side of the page, since reading widths are naturally limited and desktops are predominantly landscape.
So yeah, different input, different UI, may as well rant about UX now too. "User Interface" should be about getting out of the User's way to match the programmed model with their mental model, ideally the User won't even notice it and their actions are undelayed in their results. "User Experience" on the other hand seems to start with the assumption that the User doesn't want to do what the User has decided to do, at the very least it says the User should visually notice an extra level after their action before result e.g. Gnome 3.
Convergence the way Ubuntu and Microsoft are trying to sell it is just cheap marketing.
Simple example, think what would happen if you put a tiny `X’ symbol to dismiss something on a tablet, or the other way, what would happen if you put a lovely sized tappable`Dismiss’ option on a desktop. Big for your fingers or small for a pointing arrow. You can’t have both, decide.
Nevertheless, there are **lots** of things rather well done, actually:
* Natural scrolling (people not using it do not deserve to live)
* `Invisible’ scroll bars.
* No menus.
* No title bars.
BTW Mouse is for pussies. Real men use a terminal.
Or at least, I think so.
Old fashioned mouse and keyboard desktop interfaces are great but I can’t see a very long term future in them. OS X, Chrome OS and Linux Mint fit into this category. Near term they are increasing in popularity. Time will tell if they are still here in 10 years time in the same form as they exist now.
Microsoft tried to create a single touch centred interface across multiple devices in Windows 8. This was unfortunately seen to fail because legacy apps including the most important group of applications on the platform, the Microsoft Office family, were not ready with new interfaces at launch and they still aren’t. This meant the OS kept an old Windows 95 style interface in addition to the Metro interface to general user distain. Time will tell if incremental updates such as Windows 8.1 make the difference in terms of perceptions but legacy apps will always remain the issue for Microsoft.
The other approach to convergence is to create a morphing family of interfaces intended to change when the form factor and input devices change, the interface of the applications morph. This is what Ubuntu is planning. It requires application developers to use the Ubuntu SDK to it’s full. Let’s see if application developers release truly multi-form factor apps over the next year as Ubuntu starts to go mobile in 2014. The decisions made by Canonical do allow room for legacy apps in a slightly more elegant way.
In conclusion if great multiple form factor apps come by 2015 for whatever platform I am certain we will see the way forward from the current interface confusion. The question is though whether the non-convergent type-and-click interfaces will continue to be as popular as they have been in 2013. Interesting times lie ahead.
Convergence solves a problem that does not exist. Most non-technical users use Windows 7 and Android and seem to be doing fine. Even the people at Apple, who love to streamline stuff and try to make everthing as simple as possible, use different interfaces for phones/tablets and computers. Microsoft seems to be failing with their convergence approach.
The screen size is different (4" vs 10" vs 22"), the input device is different (touch screen vs computer and mouse), the device itself is different (ARM processor with limited memory vs big multicore processor, loads of Ram and terabytes of HDD) and the use case is different (getting quick information, browsing and watching Youtube on the sofa vs working plus other things).
Short Answer: No (period)
Long Answer: No (comma) but there are great questions to answer before using a UI in a specific setup: resolution of the display; input devices; usage expectation. And there are new frontiers of intersection (HUD, smartwatches, google glasses, etc) that mess all things a bit.
Testlab: (A couple of tests to highlight some of these aspects)
1. run a windows remote desktop (or other OS) on a 4" phone through RDP
2. Install XBMC on the PC and use it as your default media player to listen to music and watch some youtube videos (through the Video plugin) using only the arrows and enter (like a TV remote).
My conclusion of the Testlab:
1. I couldn't read nothing of whats displayed, had to zoom in and scroll up/down/left/right, yet I was able (after an ENORMOUS effort) to restart the IIS service…
2. I gave up the xbmc shortly after opening the youtube plugin and had to type character by character in the search field…
Well, that's it!
Greetings from an also rainy Portugal these days!
I don't think it's a smart idea to create a combined UI like Microsoft is doing with
Metro. It just takes too many compromises.
Something like Unity makes more sense.
Switching to the matching UI depending on the way the device is currently used.
E.g. when you connect an HDMI cable and a keyboard/mouse it switches into the desktop and without it, it switches back to the mobile interface.
For me multiple devices with multiple interfaces works just fine I along with a multitude of techies am very flexible and the GUI does not really matter. My wife would love to have the same interface everywhere she does not like change and is not a big fan of learning a new GUI on different devices. So a convergence will probably work well when dealing with the majority of the population learn it once and you are done it is the same on all of your devices.
No. I don't think it makes sense. Graham Morrison couldn't have said it better in the editorial for LXF166):
"I accept that tablets and smartphones are being used more for serious work, but the desktop is an 'interface', and until the interfaces that connect the user to the computer are the same, I think it makes little sense to make the 'user interface' similar…"
My gut feeling is that the idea doesn't make sense. But when I think about the controls for my central heating system, I have to reconsider. Programming that appliance is cumbersome to say the least. It might be easier with a touchscreen. Now, if it had one of those, the idea of an easy-to-use standard interface would be appealing. So maybe the idea has some merits after all… and not just in the realm of phone/TV/PC devices.
I am glad my car and my washing machine have different interfaces. We are human and can adapt to what life throws at us (except Windows8).
Cinnamon is full of Winnamon.
Renaissance men use keyboard and mouse in terminal emulators.
This is THE challenge for innovative user interface design.
-Consistency is more powerful than Convergence.
-Usability is greater if you are used to something (Inertia always resists Innovation)
-Consistent API eases application portabilty.
UI designers have always tried to improve the interface we have with machines. The person with the idea that unifies the interfaces of multiple devices has a marketable asset by being able to create a consistent common experience for users. Why is the iPad interface nearly identical to the iPhone interface? As people had become used to iPhone interface, they will adopt a deficient, dearer device which appears familiar to them over other technically superior devices.
Others have pretty much captured the essence of things…a single interface for all devices is a goofy idea. Except, I think we're all assuming it's something like the common interfaces we use now for our gadgetry, namely touching or moving something physically. None of those are "universal" enough to always work because they're forced to work with widely different physical forms.
The one-interface-for-all-devices IS a good idea, but has to be something non-physical. Like the interface in the US TV show "Intelligence" for example, or the interface Ender Wiggin uses to interact with his computer, Jane.
One interface indeed!
Convergence makes sense for vendors, especially unprofitable vendors with resource concerns.
Consumers, though, don't care. And, won't.
It's worth noting that Apple, for all the hype and fretting in some circles, has taken a relatively conservative stance and does not seem poised to jump feet-first into a single
OS for its platforms.
Hell NO! The interface on my Samsung mobile is great for a small screen but not for my laptop or desktop. The work flows on the two groups of equipment are totally different and I wouldn't want them ever to be mixed.
I just wonder how long it will take for the idiots who are pushing these 'unified' desktops to realize few people either want or need them; it is just a waste of good developer resources.
Yes, and I want an Ubuntu Phone!
Here's my problem: I've just bought my first smartphone (a Sony Xperia J) which runs Android, but it started to annoy me on day one. I've resisted mobile technological change for a while now, mainly because phones did not hold much attraction for me. I was happy with a basic mobile phone, and used my Linux-powered netbook when I was on the move, and my desktop/laptop when at home. However, your journalism demonstrated what could be done with a phone, and I thought it would be worth upgrading. The problem (which I'm now getting round to telling) is that my new phone doesn't work like my netbook or PC. The interface is annoying, I can't manage which applications are running (no task manager) and the pre-installed apps seem too focused on social interaction than what I want to use it for, such as emails, have RSS feeds, open/edit documents or import a shared ical calendar from my Ubuntu One cloud. Ideally, Thunderbird and LibreOffice would take care of this, plus a proper file manager.
I might be in a minority, but if my phone really did behave like my PC, I'd be much happier, and a common interface with the same applications across platforms would be fantastic. For the record, I have customised it now with a few Ubuntu Themed apps, a terminal emulator and Firefox, so it's improving. The only thing stopping me from rooting it and "freeing" the phone is that I need my bank's mobile apps to work, especially for my job.
Before getting a uniformed interface how about uniformed and open data exchange (calendar, mails, multimedia content, file access, office documents, etc.).
Even those devices who claim the usage of an open protocols have it very poor or even wrong implemented. Ever tried to stream video between your android device and your smart TV. Albeit both should do well with UPNP and alike, it fails 80% of the time. Ever tried to share calendars between different systems… good luck with that.
Get this fundamental things right first than go back and look how to make things look alike.
I agree with many of the commentators that a single GUI is neither good nor practical. My desktop shouldn’t look like a smart phone.
But one thing that drives this one-size-fits-all approach is economy. And I think that Mark Shuttleworth was quite explicit when he wrote (I can’t remember where), that Ubuntu could stream line its production by focusing on the smart phone GUI. So they moved programmers away from the desktop development and on to the smart phone assembly line. And my guess is that this goes for Microsoft too.
And to be able to sell it, the product has to look pretty. “Pretty is a feature.” But it makes for all sorts of compromises that just doesn’t make a good and functional GUI in any form factor. But now it’s cool and good looking, so people doesn’t complain to much to bother the companies about function.
No. A single UI on devices with hugely different screen sizes and uses is a terrible idea. This is why the idea of convergence a la metro has never appealed to me. However, Canonicals approach looks really promising, and I love the idea of common code that switches UI depending on configuration. So much, in fact, that I have a Nexus 7 on its way to me right now 🙂
Obviously the consensus is "no." The idea of multiple UI's on one operating system does make perfect sense though. When I discovered desktop Linux I tried every desktop environment available and found that I loved KDE. Years later when I showed up late to the netbook party I tried them all over again to find one that fit best in that format, including all the netbook specific distros, only to find that the best (for me) was the KDE Plasma Netbook workspace that was hiding in KDE all along. Loved it. Enabled it on a desktop just to try it in a larger format and hated it. So, regular KDE Plasma on the big screen, Plasma Netbook on the small, and all the same KDE goodness underneath. I don't see why more operating systems don't take this approach.
Unlike anyone at Canonical or Microsnot, I have actually done actual usability testing (yes, you can; yes, it is an exact science, not just opinion). It is blatantly obvious that an interface designed for one screen size or type WILL NOT WORK WELL on any other size or type. Convergence is a non-starter, and only people who have not actually ever done any usability testing could possibly believe that it might work.
It makes about as much sense as insisting that aeroplanes, cars, boats and bikes all have the same control mechanism.
While some overlap – some standardisation of semiotics and widgets and so on – is a good thing, making it easier for people who have used one interface to infer the use of another – is a good thing, thinking that these vastly different devices which, importantly, are put to vastly different uses, should all share a common interface is sheerest design idiocy.
I think there's an argument to be made for multi-functionality, a phone/tablet which can plug into a TV (as some can now) and receive input from a couple of controllers and act as a lightweight casual gaming console (or a SteamOS streaming client), for example, would be fine.
But no, a convergent UI is a terrible idea and it's sad to see Ubuntu leading that idiotic charge.
Too many " – is a good thing"s.
I think that these companies are assuming that the desktop/large screen are going to die. They won't.
I deal with loads of different interfaces every day and neither have a problem nor expect different devices to have the "same" interface. Moreover, there are plenty of areas where unifying the interface DOES need doing – I have four TVs in the house, some even the same make, yet all have a differnt layout of buttons on the remotes for no particular reason.
As someone said above, the crying need is to unify things like document and media file formats, not to flaff around with what the screen looks like; but perhaps that would not catch the popular headlines or look to Joe Public like a reason to upgrade.
The GUI for large screen PCs was near-optimised by about Windows XP and KDE 3, just as the user interface for cars was near optimised by about 1910 and has not radically changed since, even if the Austin Allegro did try a square steering wheel.
No, but one set of design principles for an interface is the ideal user experience, as long as those principles are good once of course 🙂
Yes but only if it's vi.
Tangential point. I'm fine with the system being the same, even looking the same on the screen as long as it works for the appropriate control (e.g. keyboard + mouse, touchscreen, TV control).
At the moment, it feels like all the OSes are being geared to touchscreen (so Windows 8 and Unity are cumbersome to use with keyboard and mouse, but easy to use with touchscreen). And all of the interfaces suck to use on a TV (i.e. with something like a TV control). I obviously don't want to use a keyboard and trackball just to watch Octonauts on the iPlayer on my telly (and obviously not touchscreen either).
The best "TV interfaces" I've used have been the Wii or the Xbox controls, but neither of these controllers is great (actually, controllers fine, but operating system quite cumbersome). I'm hopeful that Steam OS is going to fix this.
P.S. Yes, Octonauts. Octonauts is awesome, but I'm only allowed to watch it with my son – it feels wrong to watch it on my own.
Convergence is a lie! The right tool for the right job!
1) Wow, this has really excited the masses
2) I have to approach this like an exam question.
What is Convergence?
If we are talking about a simple one size fits all personal computing devices (from smart phone, tablet, tv, PC, server, fridge). I cannot see it working well without oodles of power, and complex interfaces that allows multiple ways to kill the cat.
Convergience usually works well where there are similarities. For an OS (meaning kernel) then yes convergence helps massively, all devices can work to a standard, some systems will perhaps suffer a little, but with sensible modularity it should work.
However, I think interfaces are "horses for courses". If the fridge has the same interface as your smart TV, then in effect we are talking about two smart TVs and not a fridge and smart TV.
Familiarity helps the average user, and this can simply be down to naming and icons, not forcing every device to use the same interface.
Hand waving may be good for TVs, but less useful for the Fridge and the environment is not the same. Similarly, and well known, is that tablets enjoy good touch screen interfaces, where as PCs are PCs because they use the keyboard and mouse which provide a different mode of use.
Perhaps voice interfacing will become predominent/usable. This could commonalise interfaces, but still for busy office environment, a tied keyboard/mouse interface maybe best. Touchscreens have their use, but probably won't replace the current PC UI(KVM) for some time. The keyboard could evolve, to see hand movements, but it effectively is a one to one interface.
Convergence has its place, just not across widely varying ways to interact. What happens with a sound only interface.
I could not agree more with Niklas (post 2)! Sure the idea of a single UI on everything is appealing, much like the idea of a single Linux distro. The main problem though is that it is nothing more than a fantasy. As long as there are more than one vendor there will always be more than one UI solution, if nothing else patents will ensure that. Do we really want one single company with one single offering? Would that truly be the best fit for any circumstance, and would it suit every users taste? The correct way to go is not to pursue "the ultimate UI" mirage, but as Niklas mentioned, to pursue open standards and interoperability on the technical side. Diversity may have its drawbacks, but it also has its merits, enjoy the choice!
A single interface on all devices would be boring. We'd only end up tweaking it for each platform, that's human nature. torwag is spot on, fix the fundamental problems first AND I agree with tonieee, vi on everything and I can do most anything I want.
I like the idea of one ui for all, if not just for the fact I could help my family when they are stuck more easily.
Though what I have on my desktop my not be the most effective means of navigating on my tablet. So with that, would it not be better to work on open standards for UI's to apply to make them more interoperable with each other, therefore I could have unity on a tablet and KDE, gnome etc on my desktop and they would work seamlessly. Or am I going off track and speaking more about services like Google play? though we do have DNLA, maybe worth backing other open services like this?
I am in favor of convergence for developer resources, which should be separating the UI from the rest of the program — that way the right UI can be applied for the right form factor. I am also in favor of convergence of functionality. I don’t want my computer to get stupider, I want my phone or portable device to get smarter. I am okay with a different UI on a mobile device, but I still want as much of a full linux experience as I can get.
Convergence on Ubuntu will be great.
Convergence on Windows was terrible because there are lots of ways of operating the desktop which doesn't make sense with a mouse and you can't use desktop apps on a powerful phone (which you COULD theoretically do if the underlying architecture of all the Windows releases for the different form factors are the same – but Windows won't let you).
So convergence on Ubuntu will fix that. It will change interfaces to be optimized for each form factor but still similar enough so that if you know how to use Ubuntu on the desktop, you will know most of how to use Ubuntu on the phone but it is completely optimized for phone. It will have the same underlying architecture and you will be able to use whatever apps on whatever form factor you want. There will be apps optimized for phone, tablet, desktop, server, cloud and (eventually) TV, but if you need an app that hasn't come out for your form factor yet (like a first-person shooter for tablet) then just use the app designed for the other form factor (Xonotic – although you might want to plug a keyboard and mouse into your tablet to make it playable, Ubuntu would be great for convertables!)
Another great thing with what Ubuntu is doing is that you can plug your phone into Casetop and it becomes a netbook. You can plug your phone into desktop peripherals and it becomes a desktop. With desktop apps and a desktop UI. If they could get Ubuntu to work with Project Ara/Phoneblocks it would be even better. When you want to upgrade your phone/netbook/desktop's processor just take out the processor block and get a faster one. If the SSD breaks, big deal, get a new one. You can use your phone as the brains for everything, and with Project Ara, if it breaks, you just replace the part that broke.
It JUST WORKS. Developers don't have to deal with different platforms and SDKs…they use one. And they will use it to make one app with different interfaces suitable for different devices. Now that's cool, and it's only a year or two away.
I LOVE convergence.
So, one size fits all, does it?
Think again.
This is only true if you're prepared to compromise.
Let's face it …
– Windows 8 is hated. Windows 7 is usable.
– Unity and Gnome 3 have been very badly received. MATE and XFCE are usable.
Isn't this a case of the industry trying to offer 'solutions' (!) for problems (?) that don't exist?
Insane!
No, convergence isn't a good direction for consumers with regards to UI.
In my opinion its a bad pattern more than it is a good one. It seems to be human nature to try to make everything the same rather than embrace diversity. Keeping things simple is good but overuse leads to over-simplification. My PC is not a tablet, a phone, or a watch, and I would prefer to exploit the differences rather than eliminate them.
It doesn't matter whether its how people dress in high school or how they design interfaces. For example, some people want their apps to be "cool and fit in" with the native apps and have that look and feel no matter what it is rather than take ownership. I'm all for copying good ideas, but there is a lot of follow the leader that happens regardless of whether it was even in a good direction or not.
Historically, Pl/1 was intended to be the one programming language that could be used by all to write program solutions to any problem. It failed because future problems cannot be anticipated. Likewise for one desktop to rule all. To satisfy the capabilities and needs of all hardware devices and users, the desktop software would likely be as bloated as was PL/1. The result would be history repeating itself.
Uhh… "one interface for everything"…. isn't that Command Line Interface … ? :p
You're a genius! (I really mean it)
As long as the appropriate devices do their respective jobs, interface design is just a branding exercise with the intent to tie the consumer into a particular brand. How many of you are happy with an Android phone and Ubuntu on your desktop. There's no need to have everything Android or everything Ubuntu as long as they all play nicely together and the tools that need to be cross device still work with the same backend server (eg email needs to be accessible on phone and PC). The day we select just one interface for all devices is the day we get tied in to that brand and start to lose freedom.
Turn off your Game Console, Computer, ebook reader, Radio, Phone, Microwave @Save Power.
Save The Planet!
Dont waste your time & money on consumer products.
I dislike touch screens
Two words – HELL NO!
Just like to point out that YOUR FINGER IS NOT A PRECISION POINTING DEVICE!
NOT looking forward to navigating web sites dumbed down for smartphone ease of use – think 5x the 'finger strokes' – arrgghhh
@Mike re HELL NO. Your finger is more precise for gestures than a mouse…for real precision you need a stylus. Try doing a signature with your mouse….mouse pointers achieve precision through visual feedback. An eyes-closed finger drawing will always be more acurate than an eyes-closed mouse drawing.
It strikes me "convergence" is more of a marketing thing than anything. By "converged" vendors really mean "buy everything from us". It's what I call "The Tolkien Effect":
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
…except in this case the "Ring" is an interface or tablet or phone 😉
I couldn't agree more with Tobi who said above:
"Even the people at Apple, who love to streamline stuff and try to make everything as simple as possible, use different interfaces for phones/tablets and computers. Microsoft seems to be failing with their convergence approach."
It seems like Gnome3 and Ubuntu-Unity developers (and Microsoft) do not notice that Apple did not replace the Mac OS X operating system with the interface used on their iPhones and iPads and iPods. Apple has too many Mac users who are media developers (graphic artists, musicians, movie makers, makers of 3D models, etc.) whose 'workflow' would suffer major disruption by an iPhone-like interface. I do not think those users would like to be restricted to one application window on the screen at a time. And, like someone pointed out above, I doubt that many of them would like to trade their pointer-device (mouse, pen, stylus, whatever) for a greasy finger-tip.
And Microsoft: Does anyone think that the Metro interface (with its clunky, vari-sized, monochrome icons) is nicer that an Apple Mac/iPhone/iPad interface — with its nicely crafted icons??? But, more important than appearance:
Does anyone think that Gnome3 should be imitating Microsoft and simplifying the interface so much that there is nothing on the desktop to indicate where anything is?
I think I know who Nigel Small was talking about when he said above:
"The teenage mobile phone user, the office worker and the techie power user all have very different expectations and needs from their respective devices. To assume there can be 'one interface to rule them all' shows, at best, a distinct lack of understanding of the user base and, at worst, an arrogant 'developer knows best' attitude."
Multiple choice question:
The terms 'one interface to rule them all' and 'developer knows best' refer to
a) Gnome 3 and its developers
b) Ubuntu-Unity and its lead (Mark Shuttleworth)
c) Microsoft 95 to 3.1 to ME to 7 to XP to Vista to 8 to 8.1
d) all of the above
Answer: d
I'm all for the concept of interface convergence. Call me crazy, but although a PC, a TV, and a mobile device all have different visual ranges and input methods, I see parallels between all of these interfaces. It's quite similar to the concept of accessibility: I want an interface to work well enough even if the user doesn't have, say, a mouse; or if the input device is only a remote control.
I like XBMC as an example. I use the media center on my PCs, my tablet, and my HDTV-connected OUYA. Granted, I can't do things like type documents or read my email on the TV, but I know better than to try. On the other hand, XBMC can't handle anything I want to do on my computer beside gaming and media playing, but that's where a good desktop environment like GNOME comes in. And if GNOME can soon be comfortably controlled by touch or remote control as well, then so much the better for my other devices.