I would think the 3D scanning would get a boost from wide separation cameras instead of the single point camera in the middle. You can see the problem when they look at the 3D scan and how the bottom of the masks is missing some data where the camera couldn't see.
There's sure to be some creative applications for alternative input methods like these, such as Minority Report gestures for data sorting, where they will have some advantages. Some users, like children, will benefit also.
Here's the curmudgeon part: when it comes down to actually outputting something substantial, nothing is going to beat touch typing for a while. Voice is decent for prose, but frustrating for code. Touch/gestures are okay for spreadsheet, but then you get gorilla arms. Plus there's still a cognitive load necessary: instead of remembering a few hundred commands or keystrokes, you'll be remembering a few hundred gestures.
The mat might find some uses but it won't replace most.
Nothing is going to beat touch typing until a generation grows up with something else - kids today are using tablets and phones for years before they're able to get any value from computers.
I agree. The best we can do is to control that they are doing it right, for example, the typing technics are correct. That you can learn, for example, from http://www.typingstudy.com
I don't really see this as a replacement for touch typing. It's telling that there's a keyboard and mouse to the side of the computer during the video.
Instead, I see the sprout as a way to replace more specialized hardware controllers with software. Many applications, such as DJ software and vector graphics software, can benefit from integration with input devices. But this leaves manufacturers with a choice:
1. Force users to buy the controller, with the software (which adds cost, and may dissuade many potential buyers, as well as limit customers to your controller).
2. Use existing input hardware (keyboard/mouse) (which leads to an inferior user experience).
3. Offload this choice onto the user, who can start with the existing input hardware and later switch to the specialized controllers. However, this requires supporting two systems, and sometimes the poor user experience from using the default controllers will prevent potential users from using the software with the specialized controllers.
Sprout sidesteps this problem completely by allowing software definition of controllers. I think the big problem HP will run into is that if other manufacturers don't create similar products, HP will have a difficult time getting software developers to develop for the Sprout because it would lock them into HPs platform.
HP is actually doing some interesting things these days, without a whole lot of fanfare. Sprout is one such thing. Their Stream line of PCs are small, colorful, and apparently pretty decent for the price.
And if they ever get memristors and The Machine released, we could be looking at a pretty fundamental shift in how PCs operate. The question is, will it ever be released, and how much will HP screw it up (remember WebOS?)
I really hope this idea catches on. Removing the hard physical limitations of the keyboard/mouse in favor of something more dynamic has some incredible possibilities.
One minor criticism: is there a reason that the scanning capability is so tightly integrated with the controlling capability? Specifically, since it seems like the input is done through the plate at the bottom, I don't see a reason to have the input device projected: this means that the user can't see the input device when it's shadowed by their hands. I'd rather see a touchscreen there. It might make sense, though, if gestures are intended to occur in the air above the plate rather than by touching it.
On the other hand, the 3d scanning capability, and having it in the same workspace as your input devices, looks really awesome.
10 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 37.4 ms ] threadHere's the curmudgeon part: when it comes down to actually outputting something substantial, nothing is going to beat touch typing for a while. Voice is decent for prose, but frustrating for code. Touch/gestures are okay for spreadsheet, but then you get gorilla arms. Plus there's still a cognitive load necessary: instead of remembering a few hundred commands or keystrokes, you'll be remembering a few hundred gestures.
The mat might find some uses but it won't replace most.
Instead, I see the sprout as a way to replace more specialized hardware controllers with software. Many applications, such as DJ software and vector graphics software, can benefit from integration with input devices. But this leaves manufacturers with a choice:
1. Force users to buy the controller, with the software (which adds cost, and may dissuade many potential buyers, as well as limit customers to your controller). 2. Use existing input hardware (keyboard/mouse) (which leads to an inferior user experience). 3. Offload this choice onto the user, who can start with the existing input hardware and later switch to the specialized controllers. However, this requires supporting two systems, and sometimes the poor user experience from using the default controllers will prevent potential users from using the software with the specialized controllers.
Sprout sidesteps this problem completely by allowing software definition of controllers. I think the big problem HP will run into is that if other manufacturers don't create similar products, HP will have a difficult time getting software developers to develop for the Sprout because it would lock them into HPs platform.
So, over 50% more expensive in the UK.
Why is this? Is the cost of doing business in the UK so much higher? Is the US price before tax, and the UK price inclusive of VAT?
And if they ever get memristors and The Machine released, we could be looking at a pretty fundamental shift in how PCs operate. The question is, will it ever be released, and how much will HP screw it up (remember WebOS?)
On the other hand, the 3d scanning capability, and having it in the same workspace as your input devices, looks really awesome.