Interaction Homme-Machine Cours 6a : histoire de l’IHM

Année 2017/2018 – Et3 Info - Polytech Paris-Sud Cédric Fleury (cedric.fleury@lri.fr)

Une partie de ce cours est basée sur les transparents de Ignacio Avellino, Anastasia Bezerianos et Michel Beaudouin-Lafon

https://www.lri.fr/~cfleury/teaching/et3-info/IHM-2018/

Les différentes phases historiques de l’IHM

Interfaces GraphiquesPhase 1 (Interface matérielle)

1950s Ingénieurs / programmeurs Interface principale : le hardware Améliorations possibles :

- Un meilleur hardware - Ergonomie du hardware - Découplage des utilisateurs et du hardware

3

Jonathan Grudin. 1990. The computer reaches out: the historical continuity of interface design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing

Systems (CHI '90), Jane Carrasco Chew and John Whiteside (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 261-268. DOI=10.1145/97243.97284 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/97243.97284

CHI 90 Ptmeedim

Figure 1. The five foci of interface development.

THE TRAJECTORY OF INTERFACE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Shifting Focus Of Computer Development Twenty years ago, hardware remained the undisputed monarch of computer development. The major computer companies produced hardware and lived or. died by its success. Simple processing benchmarks were the critical measure of new products. Microcoders were “soft” [ 161.

This changed in the late 1970s and early 1980s with the success of the spreadsheet, word processing, and licensed operating systems. True, this software primarily drove hardware sales, where the profits remained highest -- the major beneficiaries were IBM, Wang, and Digital, whose proprietary hardware was the hardware of choice for key software products in these areas.

Hardware innovation has a considerable future. Many computer companies still compete primarily at the level of hardware, accepting foreign ,compeGtion and declining margins. But many companies that established themselves in the 1980s sell primarily software: Microsoft, Lotus. Ashton-Tate, and others. Debates go on within major companies over the wisdom of relying exclusively on profits from sales of “iron.” For many companies, the business is changing. A manager of hardware engineering at a major computer company conhded, “I wouldn’t say this to my people, but a lot of hardware engineering these days consists of knowing how to use catalogs.” The.spread of workstations and standard platforms will extend the software focus that already exists in the PC world to more powerful machines. Software is moving to center stage.

The last five years have seen the beginning of the next step: a shift of marketplace attention to the user interface. The Macintosh interface produced profits first by driving

the sale of proprietary hardware, but the myriad third-party Macintosh developers have used the interface to drive software sales. Software alone is profitable enough to justify a shift of attention to the user interface as a means of accelerating sales. This process is still at an early stage. The user interface draws more attention in mature software product areas. The appearance of new markets, where unadorned functionality oft.en predominates, will slow the overall shift of focus toward the user interface. But the movement in that direction is inexorable.

The Shifting Focus Of Interface Development Of course, systems have always had user interfaces: how have they evolved, prior to and since attracting attention? Again we find a series of changes in the focus of research and design, influenced by the changing backdrop of computer development. Figure 1 summarizes the shift in the principle focus of interface work. Initially, the user interface was located at the hardware itself -- most users were engineers working directly with the hardware. The focus then moved to the programm:ing task -- higher-level programming languaged and environments progressively freed users from the need to be familiar with the hardware. Next, with the widespread appearance of interactive systems and non-programming “end users,” the user interface shifted to the display and keyboard, with early attention to perceptual and motor issues. Recent years have seen increasing research focus on the users’ “conversational” dialogues with systems and applications, involving deeper cognitive issues underlying the learning and use of systems: the user interface is extending past the eyes and fingers, into the mind. Finally, with the advent of “groupware” and systems to support organizations, we are beginning to see the focus of user ‘interface design extend out into the social and work environment, reaching even further from its origin at the heart of the computer.

262

Phase 2 (Interface logicielle)1960s - 1970s Utilisateurs : programmeurs Cartes perforées, traitement par lot Terme “Interface Graphique” acquiert de l'intérêt Possibles améliorations :

- Amélioration de la programmation

Interfaces GraphiquesPhase 3 (terminal comme interface)

1970s - 1990s Focus : problèmes de perception (lisibilité, vitesse, précision..)

=> Inclusion de psychologues cognitifs Émergence d’IHM comme domaine La couleur, les graphiques, le son, les écrans se sont répondus

=> Inclusion d’artistes graphiques La recherche se focalise sur l’utilisateur final

4

CHI 90 Ptmeedim

Figure 1. The five foci of interface development.

THE TRAJECTORY OF INTERFACE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Shifting Focus Of Computer Development Twenty years ago, hardware remained the undisputed monarch of computer development. The major computer companies produced hardware and lived or. died by its success. Simple processing benchmarks were the critical measure of new products. Microcoders were “soft” [ 161.

This changed in the late 1970s and early 1980s with the success of the spreadsheet, word processing, and licensed operating systems. True, this software primarily drove hardware sales, where the profits remained highest -- the major beneficiaries were IBM, Wang, and Digital, whose proprietary hardware was the hardware of choice for key software products in these areas.

Hardware innovation has a considerable future. Many computer companies still compete primarily at the level of hardware, accepting foreign ,compeGtion and declining margins. But many companies that established themselves in the 1980s sell primarily software: Microsoft, Lotus. Ashton-Tate, and others. Debates go on within major companies over the wisdom of relying exclusively on profits from sales of “iron.” For many companies, the business is changing. A manager of hardware engineering at a major computer company conhded, “I wouldn’t say this to my people, but a lot of hardware engineering these days consists of knowing how to use catalogs.” The.spread of workstations and standard platforms will extend the software focus that already exists in the PC world to more powerful machines. Software is moving to center stage.

The last five years have seen the beginning of the next step: a shift of marketplace attention to the user interface. The Macintosh interface produced profits first by driving

the sale of proprietary hardware, but the myriad third-party Macintosh developers have used the interface to drive software sales. Software alone is profitable enough to justify a shift of attention to the user interface as a means of accelerating sales. This process is still at an early stage. The user interface draws more attention in mature software product areas. The appearance of new markets, where unadorned functionality oft.en predominates, will slow the overall shift of focus toward the user interface. But the movement in that direction is inexorable.

The Shifting Focus Of Interface Development Of course, systems have always had user interfaces: how have they evolved, prior to and since attracting attention? Again we find a series of changes in the focus of research and design, influenced by the changing backdrop of computer development. Figure 1 summarizes the shift in the principle focus of interface work. Initially, the user interface was located at the hardware itself -- most users were engineers working directly with the hardware. The focus then moved to the programm:ing task -- higher-level programming languaged and environments progressively freed users from the need to be familiar with the hardware. Next, with the widespread appearance of interactive systems and non-programming “end users,” the user interface shifted to the display and keyboard, with early attention to perceptual and motor issues. Recent years have seen increasing research focus on the users’ “conversational” dialogues with systems and applications, involving deeper cognitive issues underlying the learning and use of systems: the user interface is extending past the eyes and fingers, into the mind. Finally, with the advent of “groupware” and systems to support organizations, we are beginning to see the focus of user ‘interface design extend out into the social and work environment, reaching even further from its origin at the heart of the computer.

262

Phase 4 (interface de dialogue) 1980s - …

Modélisation des objectifs des utilisateurs Interfaces qui retiennent actions passées Adaptation de l’interface aux utilisateurs Développement accéléré du hardware ouvre des possibilités

Interfaces GraphiquesPhase 5 (Interface dans le travail)

1990s - … Réseaux - Groupware Software qui incorpore connaissance du contexte de travail Groupes et communautés d’utilisateurs Sociologie, anthropologie, études organisationnelles

5

Phase 6 (?)2000s - … Informatique mobile, utilisateurs mobiles, communautés ad-hoc Informatique omniprésente (Ubicomp) Informatique à la maison Informatique sociale Arts, design, jeux et divertissement

CHI 90 Ptmeedim

Figure 1. The five foci of interface development.

THE TRAJECTORY OF INTERFACE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Shifting Focus Of Computer Development Twenty years ago, hardware remained the undisputed monarch of computer development. The major computer companies produced hardware and lived or. died by its success. Simple processing benchmarks were the critical measure of new products. Microcoders were “soft” [ 161.

This changed in the late 1970s and early 1980s with the success of the spreadsheet, word processing, and licensed operating systems. True, this software primarily drove hardware sales, where the profits remained highest -- the major beneficiaries were IBM, Wang, and Digital, whose proprietary hardware was the hardware of choice for key software products in these areas.

Hardware innovation has a considerable future. Many computer companies still compete primarily at the level of hardware, accepting foreign ,compeGtion and declining margins. But many companies that established themselves in the 1980s sell primarily software: Microsoft, Lotus. Ashton-Tate, and others. Debates go on within major companies over the wisdom of relying exclusively on profits from sales of “iron.” For many companies, the business is changing. A manager of hardware engineering at a major computer company conhded, “I wouldn’t say this to my people, but a lot of hardware engineering these days consists of knowing how to use catalogs.” The.spread of workstations and standard platforms will extend the software focus that already exists in the PC world to more powerful machines. Software is moving to center stage.

The last five years have seen the beginning of the next step: a shift of marketplace attention to the user interface. The Macintosh interface produced profits first by driving

the sale of proprietary hardware, but the myriad third-party Macintosh developers have used the interface to drive software sales. Software alone is profitable enough to justify a shift of attention to the user interface as a means of accelerating sales. This process is still at an early stage. The user interface draws more attention in mature software product areas. The appearance of new markets, where unadorned functionality oft.en predominates, will slow the overall shift of focus toward the user interface. But the movement in that direction is inexorable.

The Shifting Focus Of Interface Development Of course, systems have always had user interfaces: how have they evolved, prior to and since attracting attention? Again we find a series of changes in the focus of research and design, influenced by the changing backdrop of computer development. Figure 1 summarizes the shift in the principle focus of interface work. Initially, the user interface was located at the hardware itself -- most users were engineers working directly with the hardware. The focus then moved to the programm:ing task -- higher-level programming languaged and environments progressively freed users from the need to be familiar with the hardware. Next, with the widespread appearance of interactive systems and non-programming “end users,” the user interface shifted to the display and keyboard, with early attention to perceptual and motor issues. Recent years have seen increasing research focus on the users’ “conversational” dialogues with systems and applications, involving deeper cognitive issues underlying the learning and use of systems: the user interface is extending past the eyes and fingers, into the mind. Finally, with the advent of “groupware” and systems to support organizations, we are beginning to see the focus of user ‘interface design extend out into the social and work environment, reaching even further from its origin at the heart of the computer.

262

Les éléments historiques marquants

Memex

« As we may think »Dispositif où les gens pourraient comprimer et stocker tous leurs livres, registres, communications, “mécanisé de sorte qu’ils puissent être consultés avec une augmentation de la vitesse et de flexibilité »

Système imaginaire Microfilms Ancêtre d'Hypertext

7

Vannevar Bush, 1945

Sketchpad

Manipulation directe de formes

Satisfaction de contraintes géométriques

8

Cathodic ray monitor (Sutherland, 2003)

Light Pen (Sutherland, 2003)

Ivan Sutherland, 1963

9https://youtu.be/6orsmFndx_oSketchpad, Ivan Sutherland, 1963

Sketchpad

Dessin direct des objets sur l'écran

“Feedback" direct sur les lignes

Application de contraintes (parallèle, angle droit, etc.)

Zoom

Application de fonctionnalités simultanément via des boutons (tourner et déplacer)

Stockage de dessins

Propagations des changements

Dessins répétés

Ajustement magnétique (snapping) curseur-lignes

Suivi de stylet prédictive

10

Ivan Sutherland, 1963

NLS/Augment

L’idée d’augmenter de l'intellect humain (Augment) et d’utiliser un réseau (ONLine System)

Améliorer entrées / sorties Invention de la souris, clavier et systèmes à bases de boutons

Travail collaboratif, visioconférence, partage de documents

11

Douglas Engelbart, 1968

© SRI International

“The father of all demos”

Les premiers ordinateurs personnels

Apple II, 1977 Assemblé, prêt à l'emploi

1298 USD

4K of memoire

Pas de disque dure ou disquette

Basé sur la ligne de commande

12

http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/apple-ii-dos-source-code/

Les premiers ordinateurs personnels

IBM PC, 1981 1565 USD

Dévient un standard industriel

Mémoire 16K

Pas de disque dur ou disquette

Basés sur la ligne de commande

13

http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1981.html

http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc25/pc25_intro.html

Visicalc

Première feuille de calcul

Interactive WYSIWYG Pointage

Re-calcul basé sur desformules

Defilement

Mère de feuilles de calcul ultérieures

14

http://history-computer.com/ModernComputer/Software/Visicalc.html

Dan Bricklin, 1979

Xerox ParcPARC : Palo Alto Research Center créé en 1970

Le parc regroupe des talents divers qui s’intéresse à la photocopie, mais aussi aux systèmes bureautiques

3 chercheurs/ingénieurs ont gagné un prix Turing

Programmation object (Smalltalk)

Ethernet

Ordinateur portable

Imprimante laser

Interface WIMP : Windows, Icons, Menus & Pointers

15

Dynabook

XEROX Star, 1981Première station personnelle de travail

16.500 USD

Interface WIMP

Réseau

Édition de texte des icônes WYSIWYG

Raster et le dessin vectorisé

Workflow

e-mail

16

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taouu/html/ch02s05.html

XEROX Star, 1981

17http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taouu/html/ch02s05.html

XEROX Star, 1981✓ Conception matérielle guidées

les besoins logiciels (analyse de tâches, scénarios, 600-700 heures de vidéo)

✓ Fonctionnant « naturellement » en réseau

✓ Interface graphique basée sur la métaphore de bureau

✓ Utilisation d’icônes et de fenêtres + idée du WYSIWYG

✓ Système centrée sur les documents (l’utilisateur ne connaît pas les application)

18

- Un échec commercial

- Système trop nouveau, trop puissant, trop différent, … et trop cher ! (16.500 USD)

- Cible marketing mal évaluée (ex : pas de tableur)

- Architecture fermée (impossible de développer des applications hors de Xerox)

- Manque de volonté politique pour sortir du marché de la photocopie

=> mais une influence certaine sur les systèmes actuels

Apple Macintosh, 1984

Premier ordinateur personnel WIMP

~2.500 USD

128 KB - 512 KB, 2.500 USD

Bureautique + divertissement

Hardward non extensible

Hardware et software très couplée

19

http://oldcomputers.net/macintosh.html

=> un succès commercial !

Système X Windows, 1984

Issu du projet Athena du MIT : 4000 machines UNIX à connecter Financé par de nombreux sponsors

DEC, IBM, Motorola, etc.

Modèle client/serveur Séparation quoi/comment qui facilite la portabilité Utilisation transparente du réseau qui permet l’affichage déporté

20

Microsoft Windows, 1985

Passage des fenêtres sans recouvrement aux fenêtres avec recouvrement

21

Microsoft Windows 2 (1987)Microsoft Windows 1

Interface de bureauDe 1984 à nos jours :

Plus de puissance graphique et de nouveaux usages (réseau), mais peu de changement du point de vu de l’interaction

WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menu & Pointers)

Cependant, ce n’est pas forcement une mauvaise chose !

22

http://www.scottberkun.com/blog/2010/the-future-of-ui-will-be-boring/

Interfaces multimodales Put that there, 1979

Apple Knowledge Navigator, 1988

23

Wold Wide Web

Proposition de CERN pour une communication plus efficace

WWW connecte du texte et des images à distance

Hyperliens (Hyperlinks)

W3C - 1994

24

Tim Berners-Lee, 1989

Ubiquitous Computing

Xerox PARC « Les technologies les plus profondes sont celles qui disparaissent. Elles se tissent dans le tissu de la vie quotidienne jusqu'à ce qu’elles soient indiscernables de celle-ci. »

Exemples : crayons, moteurs, et les ordinateurs ?

25

Marc Weiser, 1991

L’ordinateur va évoluer pour être omniprésent Exemples : XEROX Tab, Pads, Boards

http://www.billbuxton.com/augmented1.gifhttp://1.bp.blogspot.com/ http://1.bp.blogspot.com/

EvolutionL’IHM ne suit pas la loi de Moore

26

EvolutionQuoi que…

Murs d’images WILD et WILDER (LRI, Université Paris-Sud)

27

http://digiscope.fr/

EvolutionLoi de Moore

Capacité humaine vs capacité des ordinateurs

28

Computer capabilities

Saul Greenberg

IHM et recherche

La plupart des innovations sont nées dans des laboratoires de recherches (académiques ou industriels)

Mais cela prend du temps !

29

The Long Nose

Les idées ont besoin de raffinement avant qu’elles ne deviennent omniprésents

Exemple : la souris 1965: année de construction

1968: copié (National Research Council of Canada)

1973: Alto

1981: XEROX Star

1984: Macintosh

1995: Windows 95 => devient omniprésent pour le grand publique

30UX LONDON 2012, Bill Buxton

Bill Buxton

Sutherland, I (2003), Sketchpad: A Man-Machine Graphical Communication System (PDF), preface by Alan Blackwell and Kerry Roddenphone, University of Cambridge, ISSN 1476-2986, Technical Report No. 574, UCAM-CL-TR-574 http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-574.pdf Sutherland, I. (1964), Sketch pad a man-machine graphical communication system. In Proceedings of the SHARE design automation workshop (DAC '64). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 6.329-6.346. DOI=10.1145/800265.810742 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/800265.810742 D. Engelbart. (1988). The augmented knowledge workshop. In A history of personal workstations, Adele Goldberg (Ed.). ACM, New York, NY, USA 185-248. DOI=10.1145/61975.66918 http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/61975.66918 Alan C. Kay, (1972). A Personal Computer for Children of All Ages. In Proceedings of the ACM annual conference - Volume 1 (ACM '72), Vol. 1. ACM, New York, NY, USA, , pages. DOI=10.1145/800193.1971922 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/800193.1971922 Johnson, J. et al (1989) “The Xerox "Star": A Retrospective” document externe au site, IEEE Computer, September 1989. Reprinted in Buxton, W. et al , Human Computer Interaction: Toward the Year 2000, Morgan Kaufman. Williams, G., "The Lisa Computer System." Byte Magazine, 1983. 8(2): pp. 33-50. http://blog.modernmechanix.com/the-lisa-computer-system-apple-designs-a-new-kind-of-machine/ Berners-Lee, T. et al (1994) “The World Wide Web,” Communications of the ACM, 37(8):76-82, August 1994. M. Weiser, (2002) The computer for the 21st Century. IEEE Pervasive Computing 1, 1 (January 2002), 19-25. DOI=10.1109/MPRV.2002.993141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2002.993141 Nielsen, J. (1993). Is usability engineering really worth it? IEEE Software 10, 6 (November) 90-92. Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. The atlantic monthly, 176(1), 101-108. Richard A. Bolt, (1980).“Put-that-there”: Voice and gesture at the graphics interface. In Proceedings of the 7th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques (SIGGRAPH '80). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 262-270. DOI=10.1145/800250.807503 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/800250.807503 Scully, J., & Byrne, J. (1987). Odyssey. http://history-computer.com/ModernComputer/Personal/Dynabook.html http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/apple-ii-dos-source-code/ http://www.bricklin.com/visicalc.htm http://toastytech.com/guis/alto.html https://interstices.info/jcms/c_23015/40-ans-dinteraction-homme-machine-points-de-repere-et-perspectives http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taouu/html/ch02s05.html http://oldcomputers.net/macintosh.html http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/punchcard/transform/ http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/teletype.html

31