Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChrisMarshallNY | Hacker News Reader

The single biggest common denominator between so many fantasy UIs, is transparent (HUD-style) interfaces. I was just watching the latest episode of The Expanse, last night, and saw them all using these transparent PDA/phones.

Ever try using a transparent UI? It's absolutely maddening.

Looks cool on the screen, but is pretty much unusable IRL.

View on HN

It's in the carousel on that page, but here's an interview with Timothy Peel, who did those for The Expanse and also Mr. Robot. They talk about it a bit:

https://www.pushing-pixels.org/2016/01/21/a-window-into-anot...

I think they'd rather bring you into the world by showing the UI and interactions while also showing the actors. With a opaque device, we know they're using it, but we don't get to see any detail about it. And a camera angle behind the actor that shows the UI can be awkward. So I think it's really just a compromise to be able to show the UIs, interaction, and the actors from the front at the same time.

I wouldn't ever use one for privacy, and I think the only realistic way transparent devices would be useful is if they tint the glass so it's maybe 50% opaque.

The Expanse is also one of the few shows where phones (and tech in general) feels like characters actually use it daily. Cracked screens, casual gestures, they even just throw phones on tables and what not.

I came here to say that too! Exactly what I was thinking while watching The Expanse (which is a great series), and so many other shows that pander to the cliché of pointlessly transparent phones. Goodbye privacy! Why would you ever want your phone display to be harder for YOU to see, and easier for EVERYONE ELSE to see?

It's a cliché not because it's a vision of the future, but because it's a good filmmaking technique that lets the audience easily see what's going on when you have characters interacting with tiny pocket screens. Without transparent screens, you'd need to do something like what the recent Sherlock series did and have giant text bubbles pop up on the screen or something, which would not fit with the aesthetic of a show like The Expanse.

Like how you can just "flick" your screen onto another computer in the same room. Which is a beautiful dream, but...how would that even work?! Everyone just has access to every other device?

Or how you can be in a room full of people, but for some reason the holographic display only works for you. And good thing all you want to do is pan and zoom, because that's about as much expressivity you get. It would be hilarious to have a scene where they struggle to get it to work, a future equivalent of "Can everyone see my screen?"

The late Mark Weiser (head of the Computer Science Lab at Xerox PARC) described and pioneered that dream, which he called Ubiquitous Computing:

Ubiquitous Computing Demonstration using Tabs, Pads and Boards from 1988

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4_CcNLd2iE&ab_channel=Linus...

The Computer for the 21st Century (Scientific American, September 1991)

https://www.ics.uci.edu/~djp3/classes/2012_09_INF241/papers/...

>Specialized elements of hardware and software, connected by wires, radio waves and infrared, will be so ubiquitous that no one will notice their presence.

>The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it.

Tabs, Pads, and Boards

https://norrisnode.com/tabs-pads-and-boards/

>In the post-PC era, we are getting closer to the vision of ubiquitous computing, a termed coined by Mark Weiser in 1988 (a chief scientist at Xerox PARC in the U.S.). Simply put, computing would be on any device, in any location, and in any format.

>We're getting there. During my son's homework this week we created a Word document on an iPad, inserted a photo taken on a Windows phone, saved the doc to the cloud via Dropbox, printed the doc from a laptop over wifi to a printer.

>Weiser helpfully proposed three basic forms for ubiquitous system devices;

>Tabs: wearable centimetre sized devices

>Pads: hand-held decimetre-sized devices

>Boards: metre sized interactive display devices

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Weiser

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquitous_computing

>Ubiquitous computing (or "ubicomp") is a concept in software engineering and computer science where computing is made to appear anytime and everywhere. In contrast to desktop computing, ubiquitous computing can occur using any device, in any location, and in any format. A user interacts with the computer, which can exist in many different forms, including laptop computers, tablets and terminals in everyday objects such as a refrigerator or a pair of glasses. The underlying technologies to support ubiquitous computing include Internet, advanced middleware, operating system, mobile code, sensors, microprocessors, new I/O and user interfaces, computer networks, mobile protocols, location and positioning, and new materials.

>Like how you can just "flick" your screen onto another computer in the same room

Arcan does that but with windows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQlOQDKd5cc

And X11 could so something similar then.

I think it would be rather simple to implement. Device A recognizes gesture to share info. Device A sends a local ping asking if there are other nearby devices that are willing to accept data. Device B is willing to accept data, so it answers with a location. Device A determines Device B is in a location where the user swiped to. Device A asks Device B, will you accept flight plan data? Device B says sure. Device A sends the flight plan data. Device B determines that it is already friends with Device A, so it shows the data, otherwise maybe it would have prompted its user first.

why so critical on such a superficial observation?

>Goodbye privacy

Why would the designers for the show spend anytime about that concept, the state of privacy protection in a future fictitious show is not core to the storyline, ratings, and chance of the show being renewed.

I remember in early(ish) Linux, the terminal programs had a setting to be at least partly transparent, so your desktop background (and other windows? I forget) could show through.

Wound up constraining what desktops you could choose, and how you had to set up your terminal colors. And since I prefer dark text on a light background, it didn't work for me from the beginning.

I imagine those programs still have those settings, but I don't see that behavior in screen-shots of programs any more.

iTerm on Mac still has this option, if you want it. I tried it for about ten minutes and then turned it back off.

This can be a surprisingly useful tool at times - I've definitely used it to advantage when doing creative coding so that the graphic or animation is displayed behind my terminal and I can see and edit the code at the same time as viewing the effect without switching windows.

Of course, a second monitor can do this too and without the downsides, but sometimes you're away from your desk and it's a nice workflow.

Cool! I would not have thought of that!

I do this while programming. Very very low transparency. To see status/output. of windows behind.

Hmm, I guess I don't do this anymore. Since getting giant 4k TV/monitor. So, guess it had use in constrained screen realstate times

Clever, don't think I'd have thought of that.

It still exists but now you can blur the background. I have that with Windows Terminal and WSL and it looks pretty good.

Because the transparency has no function in these cases.

Functional transparency example would be AR. For example navigation or car HUD on computer aided glasses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com