Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpda!hpdslab!hpdsla!garye
From: garye@hpdsla.HP.COM (Gary Ericson)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: New Input Devices (in lieu of Keyboards)
Message-ID: <400011@hpdsla.HP.COM>
Date: 17 Jan 89 23:03:43 GMT
References: <8901121714.AA26346@multimax.encore.com>
Organization: HP - Pacific Technology Park
Lines: 81

Pardon if this is a little long.  I've been mulling it over for a while now...

> ... there is another question:  how many words (or concepts)
> per minute does your brain form when you think?  If you can write or type
> as fast as you think, then further improvements in input technology wouldn't
> increase your productivity...
> 
> Interface efficiency is not only WPM.  Let's think in terms of TPM (Thoughts
> Per Minute).  And let's try to make it possible to express every idea in
> as few keystrokes as possible, and to be able to figure out what keystrokes
> are needed at no time (aside from relying upon one's memory).
> 
> Omer Zak
> ----------

This articulates something I've been thinking about.  Taking a step back, what
is it we're trying to do by typing on a keyboard?  We're communicating, both
with the computer and with other human beings (sometimes indirectly through
written documents and directly with email, etc.).  We don't have to use a
natural-looking language to talk to the computer (in fact, a lot of what I type
for the computer looks like garbage to me, e.g., awk, yacc, csh, etc. 8^).  We
do have to use something 'human' in talking with others, though, although that
doesn't strictly have to be written language either.

Without a computer, how do I communicate with others?  By talking (English),
writing (English), gesturing (body language), and drawing pictures
(graphics[?]).  I would say that these display an inverse relationship between
precision and speed of information transmission.  That is:

	writing		highest precision	lowest speed
	talking			.		      .
	gesturing		.		      .
	drawing		lowest precision	highest speed

Gesturing might be lower precision than drawing, I'm just guessing.  But I do
think there is one fundamental difference between writing/talking and drawing
(and maybe gesturing), and that is that writing/talking is a serial exercise
while drawing conveys information in a parallel manner.

The fact that drawings convey a lot of information can, I think, be reinforced
by the existence of a number of techniques that have been developed that 
utilize drawing/sketching to help organize and express a person's thinking 
(I'm thinking of techniques that have been designed that allow you to use 
symbols and figures to "brainstorm" ideas, create associations between 
thoughts, do design, etc.).  This makes me think that maybe we're too myopic
with respect to input devices, considering only textual input.  True, most
computer systems today lean heavily on textual communication (even windowing
systems with pull-down menus tend to just allow the user to enter text by
selecting words from a list - it's still text, you just are able to avoid
explicitly typing it), but I think that's just historical, caused by the lack
of alternate input devices resulting from limited technology.  I wonder if
things would change much if DataGloves and other exotic devices were cheap and 
available.

To incorporate drawings into communications, I think the interface would have
to allow you to *fluidly* (is that a word?) move between text and drawings.
My first thought on this has been a pen and tablet (where the screen is the
tablet, none of this indirect stuff) where I can make sketches and hand-write
text (and walk thru menus and execute programs and etc.) without having to
change input devices.  If I wanted to write a large block of text quickly, a
keyboard (or some other text-intensive device) would be available, but I should
be able to go back and edit the text with the pen ("gestural text editing").

This last sentence acknowledges that there are times when I want to enter words
into the computer, and if there are a lot of them, then I want to do that in 
the most efficient manner.  At this point, then, we can discuss keyboards or 
their replacement.  

When you write, you record the individual letters of words, and thus we have 
invented keyboards that let you enter those letters quickly.  But when you 
talk (and when you read, especially if you're a speed-reader), you communicate
whole words/sentences/ideas - you don't spell out each letter (in talking, you
do pronounce most letters, but not all of them, e.g., "silent" letters and 
combinations like 'ch').  That's why talking is typically faster than writing.

Is there any way to come up with a new device that will allow you to input
thoughts at this kind of higher level, rather than letter-by-letter?  My
impression is that shorthand does this as does court reporting.

Gary Ericson - Hewlett-Packard, Workstation Technology Division
               phone: (408)746-5098  mailstop: 101N  email: gary@hpdsla9.hp.com