I completely agree. The design of a hammer hasn't changed much in centuries because it's already designed well for its purpose. Same thing with sharks, I don't hear biologists say "there hasn't been much innovation in sharks for millions of years."
The framing hammer got heavier with a longer handle, broader face, straighter claw, and waffled face better for gripping nails (also why most loose framing nails have a cross-hatched pattern: so they can mate with the hammer face). From there, materials science really kicked in, and we saw steel-handled models, followed by fiberglass and other composite handles.
The latest developments (that I'm aware of) are products like the Stiletto (http://www.stiletto.com/p-80-ti-bone-iii-hammer-with-milled-...), which leverage materials like titanium to reduce weight while maintaining driving power, and include a replaceable steel face to prolong hammer life and allow using different faces for different applications.
Modern hammers with advanced material properties and functions can cost hundreds of dollars, but deliver much higher efficiency with less fatigue and a longer life. I compare that with the Sears hammer in my grandfather's garage and see a whole new generation of evolution.
There's a great article about hammer history at Fine Homebuilding: https://www.finehomebuilding.com/project-guides/framing/hamm...
edited: Fix link formatting.
I'm happy to see so many different people here in addition to programmers, techies, VC etc.
I work on (mostly non-critical) medical devices and I would like to remind that regulatory is there for a purpose.
If anything the 737 Max fiasco should remind people what can happen when regulatory is considered a cost that need to be cut in a field where there can be some hazards, and where some people in the chain do not have the best interest of the public in mind.
And yes, in the medical industry too, there can be some people who care more about optimizing profits than about patients.
Maybe there are some undue regulatory rules, but hopefully there are not the majority.
In the case of what I work on, regulatory does not prevent us from using state of the art CPUs and GPUs, so yes R&D may need somehow longer cycles from consumer electronics to get a return of investment, but let's be honest it is not too much scandalous to get some features a few years after you get similar things in consumer electronics, especially in cases where there are diminishing returns of improving X or Y.
And yes it is easier to build things when you don't have to care about e.g. ability to disinfect materials, you can cope with more bugs, etc.
UX/UI has the same issues. Everything is a metaphor anyway. You don't get to choose whether your interface is a metaphor, because there is no other option for interfaces. You only get to choose the type of metaphor, and its affordances - from hand-editing binary in a "file" (...which is also a metaphor) to voice recognition.
There are some good points in the article, but they're maybe 10% of the way to a full understanding of this issue. Most of the complaints are about inconsistencies and expert-level operation (written scripting) vs beginner-level operation. But there's also a point about contextual metadata.
Modern operating systems are pretty bad at all of the above, but that's because designing intuitive and powerful interfaces that incorporate expert-level features with some workable built-in intelligence - and preferably some form of composability - is incredibly hard.
It's so hard it's barely been attempted, never mind done successfully. So most operations in userland are explicitly task-oriented. Their settings are customisable, but not the menu of operations on offer.
As a non-expert if you want to rename a folder full of files, you buy a file renamer. You don't try to write a script, because even trivial scripting requires a level of comfort with abstractions that most users simply don't have.
Experts do have that skill level, but they can already use $scripting_lang.
It's possible to imagine an OS that would be more open-ended and wouldn't silo data inside task-oriented applications. But this runs into huge problems with efficient representations and the most appropriate schema for each domain, and just the concept on its own is far outside anything most users would want to deal with.
A lot of the critics of lack of innovation in computer UX design don’t want incremental improvements of the existing building blocks of modern UIs, they want to tear it all down and start from scratch. They want VR interfaces, Jeff Raskins The Humane Environment, Button-less UI, etc. They don't care about better hammers, they want nail screwdrivers or handle-less hammers.
Something that seems to be so simple, and has existed for thousands of years, can still be made better. I'm not a professional carpenter, but I've used a hammer a lot to do things like framing, and can confirm that many of these innovations are meaningful in function, not just form.
If you take a hammer from 1920 and lay it next to the most jazzed up hammer from 2020, they would be recognised as the same tool/having the same general purpose. A carpenter from 1920 wouldn't need to change the way he used a hammer if he picked up the 2020 model, even if the 2020 model might enable new ways of actually using it (or improve old ways of using it).
So while there is evolution and development going on, we're not replacing the hammer metaphor as it were.
The WIMP model has also seen evolution and refinement, but it's still recognisable as the same model. I think the analogy holds.
So, what's the line between inventing and refining?
If the idea behind a hammer is to use the momentum of a relatively large mass to drive a relatively small mass into a material, then the idea of a piece of steel on a handle is just the simplest thing you can manufacture as admittedly a versatile one but not necessarily the best one. If your task as the user is to join two materials together then hammer and nail won’t necessarily even look like hammer and nail (glue, screws). If the goal is to separate material like you might with a chisel, depending on the material you might not be using a manual hammer but something that looks very different, like a saw, a file, a jackhammer, etc.
What the person who mentioned the evolution of framing hammers is pointing out refinement of the hammer as it is. Creating a tool better suited to the user’s task is closer to what TFA is about.
It's not like we're bashing nails with bricks and calling it an MVP replacement to the hammer.
What you described isn't innovation, its iteration.
The point is the essential form and function has remained the same for thousands of years. Knives, forks, spoons etc. are still knives, forks, spoons etc.
Anyway my point is that if you change all hammers in the world overnight (like software does) you better have done a good job of century-testing your changes in all situations. If your reasoning is just “it gets old”, well, this site’s rules do not allow me to express what I think of that.
[1] https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb&q=hammer+nail+magnet&iax=imag...
Which does explain why OSHA says you have to wear safety glasses when nailing.
How "many of these tasks" can they reliably help you do? They screw up even the simplest tasks like setting a timer.
Software does radically different things, things as different as, say, hammering and opening cans. It is difficult for me to believe that the WIMP interface as we know it is actually optimal for all those different software tasks.
I mean, sure, you could probably open a can with a claw hammer, if you used some care, and you might be even able to drive a nail with a can opener.
You wouldn't want to, though.
Note that we still drive cars by using steering wheels and foot pedals. We haven't gone to some "click on the menu item" interface, even though such an interface could easily be written for many modern cars.
Put me in the camp that believes that UIs are stuck in a rut, and need to be fundamentally rethought.
Raskin's humane interface had some interesting ideas, though it does not seem to have caught on.