Yes, I know that the foregoing rant falls into the category of "when I was a youngster, we had to walk two miles to school, in three-foot deep snow, and it was uphill both ways, so you young whippersnappers had just better quit complaining about having to ride the bus!" Nevertheless, on order to progress, one must occasionally revisit the past. For example, free-form input and output was a much welcome improvement, but it did not really change the overall user interface paradigm, i.e., inputting boxes of punched cards and retrieving stacks of green and white printouts, and occasionally more boxes of punched cards.

Similarly, combining a touch-screen with a modern GUI is a variation on that paradigm, i.e., it eliminates or minimizes the need to use a mouse or other cursor manipulation device. However, adding touch-screen functionality to a GUI does not create a new interface paradigm. Unfortunately, many users and even some supposed experts often don't clearly distinguish between an added layer of functionality and an entirely new paradigm. This current lack of clarity is quite understandable, because many of these user interface concepts are evolving rapidly, but I believe that the first thing to do is to separate, organize, and classify the different fundamental computer interface paradigms. Then one should consider possible improvements and nuances (in a blue-sky, or non-judgmental way), and finally focus upon those basic user interface paradigms, improvements, add-ons, and nuances most likely to receive wide user acceptance.

To begin with the end in mind, I need to state the obvious: the most successful interface paradigms will be those which are the most user-friendly, at the same time which don't destroy or obfuscate "good old ways" of doing things, and which still allow developers and users room and even encouragement to innovate. In other words, the command line interface, a la DOS, is the Ghost of Christmas Past, MS Windows in the Ghost of Christmas Present, and Nooface is a place where people are experimenting with possible future user interfaces. Can all of these concepts be as wonderfully and completely resolved as was Ebeneezer Scrooge's "Bah! Humbug" disposition? Let us hope so! But, "the most user-friendly", etc., is an ideal, not a practical answer. So, the following few paragraphs outline my ideal (and what I believe is the ultimate) computer user interface, and then there is one more paragraph about how to get there from here.

The user may be sitting or standing, or even reclined, to operate this interface, but most of the time he or she will be sitting comfortably. To activate and deactivate the interface, the user must do something unusual and yet easy to do and preferably quiet. (The method of barking the word "Computer" as used in Star Trek et al. is neither unusual nor quiet.) Because most adults wear a wedding ring of some sort on the third finger of their left hand, I propose that activation begin by rotating the ring a full 360 degrees in one direction followed by tapping it three times in rapid succession with a fingernail or other "hard enough" object. Deactivation is by rotating the ring 360 degrees in the other direction and similarly tapping on it three times. Unmarried people may choose to wear a ring of a different design or on a different finger, or designate and use another unusual mechanism to activate and deactivate the user interface. The user may also wear another sensing ring on his or her right hand and use either or both. Upon activating this operating system, a shirt pocket (or buttonhole) or necklace mounted holographic projector projects a three dimensional but, transparent startup image, i.e., a 3-D GUI in front of the user. This GUI covers the area where today's users typically have their keyboard, mouse, and display screen. So, this is sort of a Virtual Desk, Desktop and Display. If one prefers, the display may originate from a fixed point, i.e., not move when the user moves his or her body. This image contains 3-D icons and also displays words and other names in the user's native language.

To operate the computer soundlessly, the user "grasps" an icon image with either hand and moves it to the relative location of today's Task Bar. Icon image grasping should require that the user touch a sensor ring with his or her thumbnail or other hard enough object to simulate the action of physical grasping. The user may talk to the computer and give it commands and hear responses via a microphone and headphones, etc. as desired, but this is not necessary. However, I recommend that the computer interface be set such that all verbal commands must preceded by double clucking one's tongue in rapid sequence, but one should be able to disable that safety feature. Once the application etc. is placed on the Virtual Task bar, it automatically launches. For example, suppose the application is a word processing program. One may type in text and perform other text manipulations using the Virtual Keyboard or move things with the Virtual Mouse, or simply dictate the text orally and use one's hands to grasp and operate Virtual icons. Also, if the application is a word processing program, it will have its own icons such as an eraser or other editing tools to easily edit one's dictation or virtual typing. Grasping a sensor ring (touching it with one's thumbnail) will connote the same thing as clicking on a mouse, and double clicking will be assigned similar meanings. Icons such as the X and - in the upper right corner will mean the same thing as they do now, but it is ecommended that the thumbnail must touch the sensor ring to operate the icon(s). This is so that merely pointing at an icon does not activate it accidentally. As with today's Task Bars, the user may easily alternate between applications by touching the desired application with a finger while the thumbnail touches the sensor ring. The user may prefer to double-cluck rapidly with his or her tongue (or require double grasping a sensor ring by striking it twice with the thumbnail)and give verbal commands such as "Launch", "Save", "Erase" or "Send" in lieu of pointing, grasping and other hand manipulations on the Virtual Desktop and Display, or Virtual Typing or using the Virtual Mouse. I could give more examples, but I feel that this is enough.

So, how do we get there from here? It's not as hard as it may seem, because this paradigm builds upon and mimics some very popular paradigms. In fact, if one prefers to substitute a physical keyboard or mouse for a virtual one, the basic Virtual Desk, Desktop, and Display paradigm should accommodate those user preferences as mere nuances. The major tasks, besides writing the thousands (millions?) of lines of code to make this operating and control system work, are to develop adequate holographic projectors and sensor devices that can tell where ones fingers are with relationship to the image projected. Early implementations may require that users wear sensors on their fingernails and thumbnails. Many other minor adjustments and compromises must be made, but my ultimate interface paradigm meets my own requirements of building on the past, accelerating the present, and projecting a much better future that honors both its past and present.