WIMP is Dying, Long Live WIMGi

March 4th, 2009

From WIMP to WIMGi

The WIMP (”Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointing-device”) formulation for human–computer interaction design has lasted a long time (it was coined by Merzouga Wilberts in 1980). The phrase has become perceived as pretty much a synonym for “desktop GUI”, but I think it is dying (or at least past it’s prime). I think the death of WIMP will be a result of two things: the spread of touch-gesture oriented handheld devices, and the emergence of practical & relatively inexpensive multi-touch screens (see especially the work of Jeff Han).

So, what is taking the place of WIMP? I think we are entering the Age of WIMGi (rhymes with “whimsy”): Windows, Icons, Menus, Gesture-interface. Why is WIMGi taking hold so strongly, and what is so different about it that we need a new acronym?

New Paradigms Require New Labels

Labels have symbolic power, and a new way of thinking about the “palmtop” and “desktop” environments requires a new label. A pointing device like the “mouse” is radically different than the gestures of the human hand-and-fingers. A mouse has one on-screen representation (the “pointer”), while fingers (plural) may require a different on-screen representation and definitely require different responses (”event handling”) from a computer.

WIMGi is a new paradigm for human computer interaction; it requires new thinking about how people will get work done, and about what operations it is possible for them to command easily. In the “palmtop” environment, WIMGi is perceived by users as “more natural”. In the “big screen” environment, WIMGi seems to require more work getting “used to it”.

Big-Screen Multi-Touch

Many people were amused to note the number of “giant multi-touch video walls” appearing on television during the 2008 Presidential election. I was interested to observe that correspondents had trouble “getting used to using it” (on the physical level), and that producers had trouble figuring out how best to use such displays (on the information-transmission level). So many shows used these devices simply “because they were sexy and new”, that a range of spoofs emerged like one segment in this “Saturday Night Live” program:

Palmtop Device Multitouch

On the other hand, even simple 2-fingered stretch/shrink gestures are “understood” almost immediately by people using “palmtop” devices. I think palmtops, laptops, and architectural-drawing-stand-like surfaces are probably the easiest venue for WIMGi to take hold within, as the scale and the gestures “just seem natural” to users. I think it will take a bit longer for big-screen WIMGi to take hold.

Just as many people had a somewhat steep learning curve when first introduced to computers with pointing devices, I think many people will have a harder time learning to use big-screen WIMGi computers than palmtop WIMGi devices. Who among us has not performed multi-finger gestures on a small scale, like on the palm of your other hand? Multi-finger/multi-hand gestures “writ large” on a wall-sized screen may take longer to learn.

What do you think of all this? Critical thinking, comments, new ideas are what I am after here. And so I repeat:

WIMP is Dying, Long Live WIMGi

“Design for Mobile 2009″ Conference

March 4th, 2009

Presenting There

The Design for Mobile 2009 conference will take place from 20 – 22 April, in Lawrence Kansas, and I have been invited to give a session there. My presentation will be on the W3C “Mobile Web Applications Best Practices” document which we (the Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group (BPWG)) are putting together now.

This should be an interesting conference, with a real focus on design “news you can use”: case studies, best practices, and real-world “lessons learned”. My session will probably be about 25 minutes of talk, and about 25 minutes of discussion.

I hope you can attend, it should be interesting and enjoyable.

Location Tracking Techniques

January 31st, 2009

by Phavanhna Douangboupha

This blog contains information about some of the current practices in location tracking technologies. It mainly discusses the three common methodologies – GPS, Cell Towers, and Wi-Fi positioning service. The blog is a part of the ongoing investigation for the proposed capstone project on Web-based resource tracking during a disaster or crisis situation.

In general, there are four geo-location methods including triangulate, associate, geo term extraction, and data entry or geo-coding. The Global Positioning System (GPS), Cell Towers, and Wi-Fi positioning service (WPS) are the three well known triangulation techniques to identify a mobile device geo-location. GPS and Cell Towers are based on triangulation to identify an object position by using the location of known objects.

To put a location on a map, the geo-coding position technology relies on getting a location of an object via a meaningful X, Y coordinate or a latitude and longitude coordinate. In fact any available mapping tool such as Microsoft live search maps, Google maps, and Yahoo maps use the coordinate system to identify a requested location.

GPS relies on satellites that send microwave signals information back to the earth. The information is a navigation message of each satellite’s position and time. An object location is calculated by GPS receivers by the use of triangulation and the signal information provided by at least three satellites in order to determine an object’s location and four satellites for greater accuracy. The use of fourth satellite enhances the accuracy in the order of nanoseconds. GPS receivers compare the time difference between the arrival of satellite signals to tell the position. At least three satellites are needed in the calculation for an accuracy result. The first satellite provides a possible location of an object narrowed down to the surface of a sphere. The position is recorded as a radius equal to range 1. On the same token, satellite number two provides confirmation that the object is located within the first sphere (as located by the first satellite). Satellite number two provides an additional position circle of a radius range 2. The first and second satellite indicate that the object is positioned between the intersection between their two spheres – sphere one and sphere two. Finally, the third satellite shows a third sphere of radius range 3 for the positions. The object position is the intersect location of the three spheres. Finally, the fourth satellite is used to confirm the location and hence provides the time reference.

A GPS-enabled device provides geo-code location accuracy about 1 to 5 meters. Despite the fact that GPS system is widely used with many position tracking systems, it does come with some drawbacks. GPS does not work within indoor environment positioning and it requires costly power-consumption on mobile devices. In addition, not all mobile devices are GPS-enabled.

Another solution for location finding is the Cell Tower technique. Similar to GPS system, it requires at least three different cell towers within range of the device to calculate an object location for a high accuracy result. Otherwise, at least two cell towers are required. Each cell tower ,with a unique cell identifier, returns a positioning data to a requested mobile phone. Each mobile phone constantly pings a signal to nearby cell towers to get the cellular radio signal and hence some mobile phones also require costly power-consumption just like in the GPS  positioning techniuqe. Having data from all the cell towers, an algorithm can be used to calculate a final location of the mobile phone which lies in the middle. The advantage of cell tower triangulation technique is that is available for all mobile phones that have registered service providers . In addition, cell towers can be set up to send signal to mobile devices. Unlike GPS, cell towers will work in both indoor and outdoor environment. The accuracy of a position allocation depends on the density of cell towers in the area.

Wi-Fi Positioning Service (WPS) is the least accurate technique for location finding among the three techniques (GPS, Cell Towers, and WPS). IP address from a mobile device Wi-Fi connection is used to get a guessed location back from a service provider database such as Google map using API. Some of the available and well known mobile device location locator technologies are Google gear (Google map version for a mobile device), iPhone Core Location, and Navizon. Google mobile map and Navizon peer-to-peer wireless positioning tools  make the use of their massive data collection to provide a best guessed location for a device without GPS-enabled and for thoser devices that can not communicate with cell towers.

Google gear uses all three triangulation technologies to get the best accurate result. Google gear is compatible with many mobile devices including Windows Mobile, and Android. On the other hand, Core Location is another tool specifically programmed for iPhone. Apart from Google gear and iPhone Core Location, Navizon is another map locator tool. Navizon is free for a cellular enabled device, with some limitations, using cell ID positioning. However,  it is not free for a Wi-Fi or cellular enable device using cellular and Wi-Fi triangulation. Navizon database collects geo-coding data from registered users or devices with GPS-enabled. These data is collected and used as a virtual GPS. The tool uses the bank of data as a reference positioning point to locate a mobile device geo-location.

Another alternative technology is a tool so called PhoneGap that utilizes web application technology and Objective-C core features available on three mobile devices – iPhone, Android, and Blackberry.

References

  1. Bellavista, P., & Corradi, A. (2007). Mobile Middleware for Location-Dependent Services. In The Handbook of Mobile Middleware. USA: Auerbach Publications
  2. Berka, J. (2008, January 22). PhoneGa tool provides JavaScript access to iPhone features. In PhoneGap tool provides JavaScript access to iPhone features - Ars Technica [Internet Article]. Retrieved January 31, 2009, from
    http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/10/
    PhoneGap-tool-provides-javascript-access-to-iphone-features.
  3. B’Far, R. (2005). Mobile Computing Principles: Designing and Developing Mobile Applications with UML and XML. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Google. (2008). Services – Google Maps API – Google Code. In Google Maps API [Google Maps API Reference]. Retrieved November 9, 2008, from Google Web site: http://code.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/
    services.html#XML_Requests
  5. Google. (2009). Geolocation API. In Geolocation API – Gears API – Google Code [documentation]. Retrieved January 31, 2009, from Google Web site: http://code.google.com/apis/gears/api_geolocation.html#getCurrent
  6. Katsaros, D., Nanopoulos, A., & Manolopoulos (eds), Y. (2005). Location-Based Services. In Wireless Information Highways (section iv – location-based
    services). United States of America: Idea Group Publishing . Retrieved
    November 6, 2008
  7. Mallick, M. (2003). Mobile and Wireless Design Essentials. Indianapolis,
    Indiana, USA: Wiley Publishing. Retrieved November 8, 2008
  8. Mark, D., & LaMarche, J. (2009). Where Am I? Finding Your Way with Core
    Location. In Beginning iPhone Development: Exploring the iPhone SDK (pp. 429-439). USA: Apress
  9. Mexens. (2005-2008). How it works. In Peer-to-peer wireless positionin [product description]. Retrieved January 31, 2009, from http://www.navizon.com
  10. Olla, P. (2008). Global Navigation and Satellite Systems and Services. In
    Commerce in Space: Infrastructures, Technologies, and Applications
    (chapter v). USA: IGI Publishing. Retrieved November 8, 2008
  11. Wu, S.-L., & Tseng, Y.-C. (2007). Wireless Ad Hoc Networking-Personal-Area, Local-Area, and the Sensory-Area Networks (S.-L. Wu & Y.-C. Tseng, Eds.). USA: Auerbach Publications. Retrieved January 30, 2009

Links to other blogs in this project

W3C Mobile Web Applications Best Practices document needs your input

January 28th, 2009

The World Wide Web Consortium (aka W3C) is currently developing a Mobile Web Applications Best Practices document, and we are soliciting input from people who are not a part of the usual W3C conversation about such matters to provide comments and input. The document is primarily directed at creators, maintainers and operators of Web applications aimed at mobile Web users.

Your input would be very valuable, both to the W3C group working on these issues and to the community at large. We are trying to gather input from a wider group than usual, and this post will serve as a central repository for comments from folks who are not a part of the mailing lists or Working Groups at W3C. The Mobile Web Initiative at W3C will produce a much better standards and practices document if you help us out.

Thank you for your help in this effort to solicit input, and please feel free to point others who work in the field to these materials so that they too can comment here.

jeffs

Sahana. User friendly interface

January 26th, 2009

Assylbek Zhumadyrov
Sahana, UI

Audience: the audience of this project is all users of Sahana system from quests and regular users to administrators.
Goals: the main goal of this project is to design the easiest and simplest interface for users of Sahana. Achieving this goal will include two main steps:
1. designing a logical model of the entire Sahana system to make addition of new modules and future growth more proper and logical;
2. designing user friendly interface for all users;
The second point is more important and will be described in details later.

Is it important?
The main idea behind this project is making disaster consequences handling easier and quicker. By designing user friendly interface navigating and action performing will be easier and faster which is vital in case of Sahana system when people’s lives are the price of the reaction time. To do so it is important to have a logical model of the entire system. There are many developers of Sahana all over the world and they have added and keep adding lots of features into that system. As a result we have the system which is full of features but has lack of logic in it.

One very important point and at the same time, the main problem, is to design user friendly interface without rebuilding entire system including database. Designing user friendly interface includes several steps:
1. designing intuitive and comfortable navigation system (menus);
2. designing all menus the way so only the links/sections that are available for that particular type of user would appear on the page (administrator, quest, volunteer etc.);