Discussion on:

Poll: Which technology will eventually replace the computer mouse?

Despite its remarkable longevity, will the venerable mouse be the preferred method of human-computer interaction for the next century?

Which technology is likely to be its replacement?

Take the poll and let me know what you think:
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/itdojo/?p=1844

Anyone who thinks differently is Steve Jobs.

I was just reading an article fromm cnn about the new technologies that are coming out to replace the keyborad and mouse.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/06/18/natural.user.interface.mouse/index.html?hpt=C2

You said next century, like in 2100?
Well I have been in computers long before the PC ever landed on earth, and it's hard to believe that in 90 more years of evolution, PCs will need a mouse or keyboard. I would expect blue ray for the brain by then. I expect the PC will be implanted in our body somewhere and services by nano-bots. USB will be replaced by UFB (universal finger bus) for up/down loads.
Do you really think technology has peaked to the point that PCs will survive 90 more years in any form resembling what we see today? I don't.

Yeah, that was my first thought. If he'd asked about the next decade, some educated guesses could have been made. But next century? We have about as much idea as Abe Lincoln did that we'd walk on the moon.

I think you're a little extreme in your predictions too. Go back seventy years and you find predictions about humans living in cities on the moon and silly things like that. The flying car was always my favourite prediction.

I think that computers might be fully wearable in ninety years, and the interface may be very good, but it will still be an interface; direct integration to the nervous system is a long way away.

I think that a combination of voice and gesture will be the thing. Voice recognition is "almost there"; my cell phone can do it pretty well now for very simple interfaces and commands.

Gestures are just becoming emerging tech with Microsoft. Give it time. Don't forget that it takes a long time for tech to be commoditized. Although the mouse was invented in the 70s, it took 20 years to make to pretty much everybody's desk. It will be another 20 years before you are using gestures to control your computer at work. There is a lot of processing overhead with computer speech and vision. The desktop hardware needs to get more powerful, but Moore's law is breaking down.

Anyway, lots of factors. Don't get too sciency-fictiony.

With each successive step in the evolution of computing and automation in general, while human resistance in general has been pretty mild so far, I expect we will get to a point where the pushback will get more stiff, and perhaps largely insurmountable. Do you really think people are going to want to be implanting machines in their bodies, and other similar things? I realize attitudes can be shifted, but when it comes to invading the space of the human body, while there will be adventurous pioneers who will try anything, the vast majority of the population, I think, will want to hold on to what makes them human - warts, weakness and all.

I realize that such things have been predicted before concerning things that have become commonplace. However, I really wonder if there is a real threshold awaiting us, somewhere ahead. I don't know exactly where it will be, but my gut tells me we're going to hit it, but not, maybe, in my lifetime (2040 to 2050 I hope).

Who would have ever thought someone would want a pacemaker planted in their chest, but it's been going on for awhile.
I think it's rediculous to try and predict what will be 90 years or more from now. Computer sciense is still in it's infancy in a lot of ways. Study the history up to this point. I started school ofr computers in Jan. 1971, no way you could have convenced any one that year where we would be in 2010.
The Presidents of Digital Equipment Corp. and IBM said no way there will be a compter in every home. Now we carry them around in our pockets.
Let's get back on this in 2099 and see what 2100 looks like at that point.
Yes, thinks are stagnet recently, but the next generation will bring new life.
I remember black and white TV, some people can't believe Arcades were the only place to play video games.
Belive it or not, PONG was a big hit.

Yes, in a hundred years I imagine it'll be much simpler. I imagine they'll just hit hit us when we don't do what we're told.

Movies make it look so easy to have other forms of input (Johnny Mnemonic, Minority Report, etc), but we still seem to be stuck using the same thing we've always used. I for one will be glad for the day when I can carry around an iPod sized device without a device display and integrate a heads up display with my glasses. I/O is still the major obstacle to this. Hopefully someone partners with Vuzix and brings a new leap to technology instead of what was visualized on the orginal Star Trek episodes. Not that I don't like the iPad or the touch screen revolution, but I think we have to go further so that the device is no longer the important thing. When our activity is what is important, and the device is just another device (much like an automobile), then we will have achieved the Next Step. Don't get me wrong that flavors of devices won't still be important... but your online presence and activities should be at the forefront. I like my truck, but if I just got in it and revved up the engine and then went back in the house, it wouldn't be that cool. We are putting so much emphasis on that level of "mobile computing" that it almost makes me laugh. Let's break the barriers to mobile computing and actually go somewhere with it instead of looking for a minor leap forward.

And probably some more.

Mouse is great and yet irreplaceable where high accuracy needed.
Touch is convenient most applications where no precision is required and gesture/voice for public terminals/smart homes/etc.

Neural, being electromagnetic wireless presents certain dangers and will have limited to low-security uses.

All desktop/laptop computers will be a thing of the past. In the near future we all could be with a fully interactive voice command-able robot that follows us around, helping with chores and communicating with our friends or work. The robot will be a phone and computer all in one, so out with the mobiles and computers, we will be just talking to our robots and if we become too tired the robots could carry us home to. Now that is what i would buy if one of these robots comes onto the market.
Just think, no mouse, no computer to plug in and no mobile to buy, just your favorite robot to take out with you when you go out.

Michael Crichton 1984 starring Tom Selleck and Gene Simmons (of KISS).

Nothing that requires a LOT of movement is going to replace simple hand movements of the mouse. Like all body parts - the hand is basically a lazy appendage. Moving a mouse conserves energy. Anything that requires more attention and energy is not going to make it very far. Voice recon? More energy? Waving hands. More energy. The only competition is the touch pad. Retinal scans is a possible replace with a finger tap on the desk as the screen is inside the eye.

When the PC is brain implanted, you'll still need some kind of mouse button in the fingertips, etc, to confirm, because moving the arms will be too laborious, and using the mind to "wish/click" can be subject to horrible error, especially if daydreaming.

An optical sensor with hand-recognition.
Instead of dragging the mouse around, with the problems of surface variations and friction, you just move your hand within the detection field. Different movements give different commands, all adjustable to conform to individual flexibility or lack of same. Like, you could have a five-lever hand, or if you're unable to move f.ex. your pinky independently enough, you can just adjust the settings to cluster the commands differently. Problems like middle finger not moving without moving adjacent fingers can all be taken out in the recognition program.

There's no need for any hardware to touch the hand... it could all conceivably be built into the side of the keyboard/laptop... they should then be double sided, both to provide accessibility for one-handed/left-handed people, and to allow two-handed use for certain apps (games, CAD, etc.)
I think it could potentially edge out the mouse.

moved

When you say brain interface there are a multitude of things that can mean. Alpha wave control has been around for ages. Or maybe you mean something an order of magnitude more sophisticated, detecting actual events.
Or do you mean the full VR with a complete sensorium cybernetic interface surgically implanted into the brain as in Neuromancer? I love the idea of VR cyberwear but doubt we will see it within a hundred years, its a seriously complex technology.

I like to work on sci-fi extrapolations, and have one based on amount of concentrated research needed. It puts an FTL drive (if possible) at 50 to 100 years away, assemblers at 30 to 50 years, and a cybernetically implanted VR interface at 70 to 100 years plus. It also puts Strong AI in at around 10 to 15 years away and a 'robocop' style peripheral NS interface at only about 5 to 10 years. So if you don't mind becoming a robot and have a few billion dollars to spare...

and at the time I voted, that choice was well ahead of touch screens. My preference between the two was based entirely on my dislike of greasy fingerprints on my display.

With that said, I don't see the mouse completely disappearing. I think it will remain the preferred tool for precision applications, even over a potential voice recognition system. Sometimes it's easier to point than to try to describe what you're pointing at, especially for detailed work. Gesture devices are too imprecise. I'm unfamiliar with force feedback tools. Brain interfaces? I ain't jacking into the Matrix, no way, no how.

Edited - another problem with touch screens is they're impractical in a desktop situation, where you may be seated out of arms reach of the screen or don't want to hold your arm up all day.

I do not see companies providing desktop computers in the future; everyone will be expected to already have their own personal tablet that connects to the company cloud.

Predictably, as the office becomes increasingly paperless, the desk itself will become a simple table for holding your coffee mug and flower (or other office decor). No more telephone, no more tv/radio, no more calendar, no more file folders, no more paper clips, staplers, highlighters; all of these functions will be handled by the personal tablet with a touch screen that you can point and type on with your fingers, write on with your stylus, or talk to with your voice.

I doubt it will happen where I work, even in 20 years, it probably won't happen (notice I said probably).

I see that happening in the very far future. I just can't imagine it.

Mabye, I lack imagination?

And that's the point at which I started to snicker.

I've been hearing about this legendary 'paperless office' for three decades. I think it was best summed up by the anonymous wit who said we'd see a paperless office about the same time as a paperless bathroom.

Oh, and what's the difference between 'the company cloud' and existing company networks?

They're working hard on isolating properties of the well-established paperless restroom, for the purpose of transfer to office conditions.
So far only transfer of olfactory properties has been succesfully achieved, but that is at least something.

...that "the company cloud" will require more servers than the existing company network, except that we will be able to "virtualize" those servers onto the same number of machines we use now.

At what number of servers does a network become a cloud?

Why virtualized servers? What difference does it make whether they're physical or virtual?

This 'company cloud' sounds like verbal tap dancing to me, but maybe I'm missing your point. We've virtualized 90% of our servers over the last three years without seeing a difference in how our users conduct their operations or how we refer to our network.

I meant to concur that there is no practical difference between what we've traditionally referred to as a private network or a private cloud; and that spending money to get a private "cloud" when you already had a private "network" could likely be achieved through spending money on other expensive buzzwords like "clustering" and "virtualization" to achieve what you functionally had in the first place.

I didn't pay attention to who posted, and thought your response came from victor.gutzler.

Sounds like a pair of good reasons to have a drink. First round is on me, so get the 'top shelf' stuff.

Many moons ago, my dad was the general sales manager for his territory in a large business forms company (Moore Corp)., and his largest account was the systems department of the provincial government. They tried to keep telling him that computers would be the death of paper forms. He just smiled quietly. All of the huge computers were installed (360's 370's)- and paper sales to these people went straight vertical. Never ever could people run out of reasons to print even the tiniest things- just prior to filing them, almost unread, never to see the light of day again.
On the other hand, as far as specialty products went (higher margin) went, I could see him wince with pain at the first sight of cheap color copying. ('Cheap' being a relative term at that time- it was super expensive, but they all knew that technology would eventually overcome that problem.)

I have been converting these neanderthals to paper minimal (these ol farts are too set to go completely paperless). So far I have converted 8 years of old file cabinets to a Raid 5 array using 3 high speed xerox scanners. I also had to make a database to index the darn things but I got 3 pay raises in 6 months. I had to look at their work flow, producers and receivers and make a system that would work. So now instead of filling up a store room full of files from jobs they are scanned and shredded and now we have a whole new office building from the saved space.

Absolutely totally 100% agree with you, Palmetto. Leaning forward while I'm in my comfy chair, having to lean up, and past my coffee cup (or beer, depending...)- not me, not in my lifetime. Way too easy to move my mouse- don't even have to think about it, which I would if some bio-brain device comes along. Think carpal damage can be bad now? Wait'll your shoulder gets wing of a touch scrren at chest height.

I think the mouse is here to stay but there will be other devices added to supplement the user experience. I personal use a trackball and keyboard command but can and have used and supported employees with touchpad, touch screen, stylus, tablet pen, voice recognition and mouse.

When other devices stop functioning, the mouse and the keyboard usually keep on ticking.

I didn't read all the replies so if someone said this already then excuse me. The touch screen would really become very useful when you put the screen actually in the desk surface and you can rest both arms and use both hands on the screens keyboard also. Like the iPhone only bigger and better. And all those fancy stretch and toss and slide options like they use on the big wall screens on the cable news stations now.

That sounds an awfully lot like my school days of leaning over a spiral notebook. It also sounds far less comfortable than sitting upright, especially for several hours a day.

I think its an inherent mistake that we think in terms of 1s and 0s on tech like form factors and input devices. We seem to forget that these are all tools, and we should be striving to use the best tool for the job.

Touch screens, touch pads, trackballs, track nubs, gestures, phantoms, voice recog, brain interfaces, stylus, and the ol' reliable mouse all have intrinsic advantages and disadvantages.

To be honest, the only disadvantages the mouse has is that it's an external component (thus the touch pads and touch screens that make control an all in one component.) and the fact that it is not in the form of a pen or pencil for artists working on a tablet.

I dont think the mouse is going anywhere, it's simple, intuitive, reliable, cheap, and easy to replace. It's not for everything and everyone, but neither is any other item on the list.

Or maybe some kind of sensor that watches your eyes and what you are focusing on.

"Or maybe some kind of sensor that watches your eyes and what you are focusing on."

Blimey, how would you do a double-click with that? Or a select? Or a drag?

I don't think it would work: eyes are evolved as input-only devices. My eyes dart all over the screen as I evaluate what is being shown, and read the words. How would a machine know - just from my eyes - that I want to select some text, rather than just read it.

Yes, I know some severely disabled people use this approach, with blinks for clicks, and so on. But I honestly doubt whether this would be a viable alternative to a hand-operated mouse in able-bodied people. Too slow, too imprecise, too ambiguous. But, of course, a god-send to a disabled person.

A hybrid might work: use the eyes as a POINTER, but keep some finger-operated buttons for the other functions like select, activate, etc.

Brain interface devices are decades away.

Trouble with a brain interface is that about half my users would wind up looking at a blank screen.

I think the touch screen will be the best replacement for the mouse

Ah, the mouse, it may not be the most popular, but for general computer use I believe the mouse is the preferred method. Whether PS/2, laser, wireless; it's seen many forms, it's here to stay, in my opinion.

In the far future though, I believe the brain interface will be the mousetrap.

How many times a tab key saved a fraction of a second over moving a hand to the mouse must add up to many lifetimes of lost productivity.

I strongly believe that most interfaces slow the user down and are not natural.

Touch screens with finger sized buttons at least are intuitive.

All this clicking and dragging icons is cumbersome.

No mental conceptualization thats my dream, think it will happen in my lifetime?

Remember the Nintendo Power Glove?......

I gotta go with voice recognition. The touch screen isn't any better than the mouse or the touch pad. Seems to me that the touch screen is MORE work than using a mouse or touch pad, plus you have all those smudges on your screen. Gesture sensors? Again, more work than a touch pad. Besides, can you imagine Captain Picard waving his hands about to get the ship's computer to do something? Hilarious. Brain interfaces? C'mon, how can a bunch of wires hooked from your head to your computer be any good?

"Computer - select add comment"

100 years from now i think brain interface not medical but by a interface you can wear and take off when you like no ideal how it will work but look how far we come in the last 100 years john barker

This is what I think: The mouse is here to stay. The personal computer will always be around in some form. The big box will evolve into a fully integrated solid state device the size of a credit card; the only problem will be remembering where you put it. A 3D version of the flat panel will be switchable to a high definition holographic interface. Touch pads, gesture sensors, force feedback, brain interface will all have their place, and two way natural speech (HAL 9000) will be standard - but some kind of mouse will always remain the most effective and efficient means of precision interaction.