>However, the argument that multitasking on computers is bad because humans can’t multitask is flawed. It uses the word «multitasking» in two different ways, but implies that the two kinds of multitasking are somehow the same thing. They’re not: a task (or an app) on a computer, and a task performed by a human don’t map to each other one-to-one. In fact, a single task performed by a human can easily make use of several applications running concurrently on a computer.
...
The fact that the iPad only lets me see one app at a time often does not help me focus. Instead, it forces me to switch between apps constantly, thus preventing me from focusing on my task. Every time I have to deal with the iPad’s task switching, I’m interrupted.
About time someone with some blog-clout said something like this. Full-screen application switching has a far far greater mental-cost than having two windows open at the same time. And preventing two windows from being open at a time just cripples those who would benefit from it (and enforces application uber-silos).
Full-screen application switching has a far far greater mental-cost than having two windows open at the same time.
As an XMonad user with a 15.4" screen, I disagree. For example, when programming, I find it quite easy/fast to alt+1 to my browser for documentation, and alt+8 to go to my 8th workspace, where I usually have a couple terminals open with vim. Or sometimes I'm switching between those two and Gimp on workspace 6.
This doesn't really require XMonad, just having workspaces and quick shortcuts for moving through them is good enough. Most applications are easier to use when you give them the whole screen (at least smaller screens). But yeah, if you're using some sort of taskbar/dock to switch between applications with your mouse, it's probably easier to just have both open together.
This is true, a very-fast screen switcher mitigates the cost heavily, maybe even negates it entirely. Alt-tab never did it for me, too unpredictable. On OSX, while developing with a single monitor, I pretty often split my things between 4 desktops, and it's great.
On Windows, on the other hand, nothing switches quickly. Ever. And it takes a long time for applications to "wake up" after even short periods of non-use. Nothing but a second monitor has ever saved me.
On the iPad, currently, the situation is far worse than even Windows users suffer through. Double-tap the home button, and click the application (maybe scrolling between), which isn't in a static location. That's a non-screen action, followed by a change in the UI, followed by a touch, followed by a comparatively-slow transition. I liked someone-here's suggestion of gestures solving this, but single-tasking on anything without a separate keyboard is a total efficiency-crap-shoot everywhere, from what I've seen.
The issue that I have with desktop switching on my shiny new MacBook is that OS X switches focus between applications, not windows.
Here I've got vim and Firefox open, with the focus on vim. I switch to another desktop to glance at some documentation (since the Firefox window on the first desktop is for the application I'm developing), switch back and begin typing. But alas! My key strokes are logged to Firefox, because that was the last application I had focused, rather than to the last window I was using on the desktop.
Aside from that, once I added some basic tiling functionality[0], it's not too bad working on it, even for a someone as used to a tiling wm as me.
The examples you mention (e.g. programming, then looking something up in documentation) only require you to switch between apps rarely. In those cases, it makes sense to let each app take up the whole screen. The additional screen space each app gets is worth more to you than the mental cost of having to switch between screens.
In other cases (e.g. writing a cover letter or a job application while looking up information about the company on their website), you constantly refer to two different apps, so it makes sense to allow both to exist on the same screen.
Agreed. I suspect this notion that you incur mental cost from screen-switching comes from those who have not used a tiling window manager. Once you get used to this, a desktop is clumsy/painful to use.
I have the same layout every day: screen 1 is tmux with several xterms, one running vim; screen 2 is the browser; 3 is email; 4 is remote connections; etc.
I constantly toggle alt-1 and alt-2 to jump between vim and the browser and it takes no mental effort. Why not put them side by side? I could, but I prefer full screen.
[Your down-voter could perhaps re-read the guidelines.]
Very interesting that webOS keeps showing up on top -- notifications, multitasking, openness, overall polish and design -- when it has almost zero market share.
Hopefully HP can continue what Palm started and make the very nice a better competitor in other areas where Palm wasn't doing as well: hardware, availability, marketing.
He has a great point about the distinction between user and OS multitasking. But if and until iOS changes, it means that there are more opportunities for developers to addresses those niches.
Not sure how they could pull off a good windowed UI on a tablet sized device. 1024x768 with the requirement of finger friendly tap targets is a big hurdle. I suppose apps could have a compact UI mode of sorts so you could switch between full screen and windowed mode. Something like switching from the iPad version to the iPhone sized version. In that case you could fit 4 apps on the screen at once. I think it's more likely Apple will adopt the OSX Lion Mission Control feature on iOS5. A quick four finger swipe up to activate it with a live preview.
I was forced to use a 1024x768 screen during an internship and it was nearly impossible to put two windows next to each other. I always – always – have two windows next to each other on my 15" 1440 pixel wide screen but I was using all the programs in fullscreen mode on the 1024 pixel wide screen.
That’s the pixels but I think that even more pixels won’t help much. The screen size stays the same on those tablet devices and fingers don’t get any smaller. You might well be able to put a bit more text on the screen but not much else. It’s a challenge.
Easier application switching – lowering the cognitive cost of switching applications (something like the mindless alt-tab that saved me on the 1024 pixel wide screen) – can certainly be a first step in making tablets better. It’s not quite as good as simply moving your eyes to a different part of the screen but it’s certainly possible to at least improve the tedious switching process. I think that gestures are perfect for this.
Check out webOS. The apps there do a good job dynamically resizing themselves. I suspect there's enough space on a tablet for both, say, an email message and a web browser, even at 1024x768 pixels. In fact, there's an iPad web browser that allows you to look at two websites at the same time, although its name escapes me at the moment.
By the way, I'm not suggesting a windowed UI like on a desktop OS. Rather, I'd like to see simple tiling, where two apps each occupy half the screen.
You know, with the new thunderbolt tech, maybe one day we can see the iPad complimented with an Apple display, using it like a drawing tablet or an extra screen as well.
I don't know how practical or good of an idea this is, but if it has any merit I'm sure someone more sober than I can put it eloquently.
I think that in some ways the general trend has been toward you working for your computer instead of your computer working for you. Personally, I get a lot done during the day that I don't even have to think about because I put a little bit of time into setting up some cron scripts a long time ago. I still count that toward things I'm getting done. Without being able to background apps, it's something that's seriously missing from iOS (please correct me if I'm wrong).
A great point in the article, but IMO this is a function of the screen size, not iOS.
The core problem is reducing the pain of switching apps. On a desktop, screen resolution and space allows you to position windows side-by-side or overlapping. On iOS you have to double-tap, and select an app from the bottom dock to switch to. Android has the same problem- you press the home button, and choose an app to switch to. Both forces the user to focus on managing apps, instead of focusing on the desired "task".
Repeating "people can't multitask" as many times as possible doesn't make it true. People can multitask. Some can do it better than others, but everyone can.
People can multitask perfectly fine when the tasks they are doing are automatic (that's why you can usually drive and have a conversation [with a passenger] at the same time without any difficulty). When you're doing multiple things that require cognitive resources, your brain has to share its (surprisingly limited) short-term computational power/memory, resulting in decreased performance.
There aren't many things people do on computers that are automatic (at least not many things I do). But I'm typing this on a computer with three monitors, and I can say objectively that my efficiency is way higher than if I had one small screen with at least two clicks to get to my next app.
However, the argument that multitasking on computers is bad because humans can’t multitask is flawed.
That was right in the article itself.
I believe the author's point is that focus/attention is more important than being able to "multi-task". Refer to Daniel Simons's experiment (the invisible gorilla) on selective attention.
Does anyone else think that the definition of multitasking got corrupted? Perhaps it became influenced by computer multitasking, where two or more things are done in seemingly real time. What I always took multitasking to mean was that over the course of a work day, week, month, a person would have a lot of different responsibilities and would need to switch among them.
Today, I designed an icon, provided customer service, wrote some technical documentation, did a little programming, and a few other disparate tasks. Each of these tasks required a different skill set, and there was a productivity hit every time I needed to get into a new frame of mind and, in some cases, figure out where I left off. So in this context, multitasking was activities done over the course of the day, not simultaneous ones.
Surprised no one has mentioned the Eden UI on Notion Ink's Adam. It allows you to run three apps side-by-side in compact view. Pretty slick, really. See: http://notionink.com
I think the solution to this problem for tablets isn't having multiple apps running in the same screen. It's having multiple screens. Tablets are relatively cheap, what's missing (currently) is transparent communication between them. Once that happens, tablets will actually become more humane than a single huge desktop. Just buy three... :-)
This argument is my biggest issue with chrome os. Im all for the browser as the os, but I can't put two tabs side by side. A really common use case is writing an article where you're referencing other online sources. Really easy with a two screens or a split screen... really hard when you're switching back and forth.
I use SizeUp for moving around my windows. It helps to keep terminals, code, browser and web inspector in their particular positions and if something needs focus I can make it maximized.
I use ratpoison for X11 (http://www.nongnu.org/ratpoison/) (1 Full screen program at a time. CTRL+T, # to switch, CTRL+T, w to get a list of running programs.
>However, the argument that multitasking on computers is bad because humans can’t multitask is flawed. It uses the word «multitasking» in two different ways, but implies that the two kinds of multitasking are somehow the same thing. They’re not: a task (or an app) on a computer, and a task performed by a human don’t map to each other one-to-one. In fact, a single task performed by a human can easily make use of several applications running concurrently on a computer.
...
The fact that the iPad only lets me see one app at a time often does not help me focus. Instead, it forces me to switch between apps constantly, thus preventing me from focusing on my task. Every time I have to deal with the iPad’s task switching, I’m interrupted.
About time someone with some blog-clout said something like this. Full-screen application switching has a far far greater mental-cost than having two windows open at the same time. And preventing two windows from being open at a time just cripples those who would benefit from it (and enforces application uber-silos).