skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Sketchpad : A Man-Machine Graphical Communication System
by Ivan Sutherland
Summary
This paper is about Sutherland's graphical interaction system, it should be noted that the paper was published in 1963. The paper opens with a great quote "Heretofore, most interaction between man and computers has been slowed down by the need to reduce all communications to written statements that can be typed; in the past, we have been writing letters to rather than conferring with computers." The paper opens with an example of drawing a hexagon shape: the drawing is accomplished with a light pen and a variety of buttons and knobs. The light pen is used to draw the line, by way of rubber bad, and the other inputs are used to constrain the drawing. Throughout the paper Sutherland makes many references that are similar to object oriented programming concepts (such as "instance" and inheritance). He also notes that not only is the drawing stored, but information about its creation (constraints is stored). Changing the basic shape, if instances of that shape have been used ripples through the document. The paper notes four broad areas in which such a system is useful: storing and updating drawings, gaining scientific or engineering understanding of operations that can be described graphically, topological input for circuit simulators and highly repetitive drawings. The paper describes the ring structure, light pen and display technology that was used in the system. Also discussed is the abstraction, the recursive merging and deleting. Of note is the discussion of how constraints can be put onto already created drawings. The paper lists patterns, linkages, dimensional lines, bridges, artistic drawings and electrical circuit diagrams as domain examples.
Discussion
Sutherland, could for see the issue I would have when he put the sentence, "It is only worthwhile to make drawings on the computer if you can get something more out of the drawing than just a drawing" into the conclusion. This is one of those papers that I always get a weird feeling about. Sure, 1963, and it was an incredible break through. He did amazing things. My concern is that for one reason or another these ideas did not catch on. This wasn't some nameless researcher, Sutherland is widely respected. He was at MIT, he had funding. It is because the possible uses are limited? Have we become so use to keyboard/mouse interaction that what was once considered a more natural input technique (pen) is no longer natural?
Citation
Sutherland, I. E. 1964. Sketch pad a man-machine graphical communication system. In Proceedings of the SHARE Design Automation Workshop DAC '64. ACM Press, New York, NY, 6.329-6.346. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/800265.810742
5 comments:
I totally agree about only using interface mechanisms or digital technology in general where something significant is gained that is measurable superior to the analog alternatives. It is notable that Sutherland's work drops off in this area and that perhaps a pattern develops with the Newtons floundering?
It is unnerving that this research did not catch on for decades, but you have to remember that the mouse was invented right around the same time. The reason the mouse won over the pen is most likely due to cost, as well as the fact that Sutherland's Sketchpad could easily have been designed to work with a mouse. Also, like people mentioned in class his paper wasn't really sketch recognition but it did open up the possibility that people could interact with computers using a pen.
Another reason the mouse may have won out is the amount of training required to use Sutherland's version of the pen. When I think of using a pen, I don't envision having to hit the correct button/switch/dial to get it to do what I want. In the case of Sutherland, the issue isn't between a pen and a mouse, but between a mouse and a pen that you use like a mouse.
To add on the comments about mouse/pen...
I don't think the issue is learning the mouse versus using the natural pen. It's using the mouse versus learning what 500 different buttons, knobs, dials, and switches do on this gigantic analog interface. It doesn't surprise me that Sutherland's device never caught on, given the complexity of the beast. But, in his defense, it was 1963.
That was why it didn't catch on in 1963 (economics, difficulty, the idea of a personal computer wasn't even in the consciousness). My point is that pen input is here today. It is decent, but we are putting pen input on top of interfaces that were designed to be interacted with by mouse and keyboard. People can input text with a keyboard faster than a mouse. Some of that is learned memory, but we must also address the possibility that this input means could be a more "comfortable" way. I pose this question, what type of user interface and application make the most sense to use a pen input for as opposed to other input types.
Sutherland's idea was visionary, but user friendly it wasn't. That is why the implementation didn't catch on, I get that. My position is that the idea didn't catch on. To improve his input mechanism was low hanging fruit (Hey Suth, why don't we use fewer buttons?) and no one picked it for twenty years.
Post a Comment