> Are screen readers difficult to use? Sure, but no more so than typical desktop environments.
That's a very low bar. Expert computer users like you and me have no problem with a screen that has even thousands of pieces of information on it. We use contextual cues to help us navigate that space, relying on good information design. But most people find current computers overly complicated. I think one of the reasons smartphones have eclipsed PCs is that the 4 inch screen forces you to cut down to a more human scale of choice complexity.
But that's why I am finding myself agreeing with OP that conversational interfaces are the future, for the same reason. They will force us to design down even further, into a one-dimensional UI. Choice, choice, choice, choice, etc.
That UI will be a slight simplification on the current phone UIs, and of course multiple threads can be shown on the screen at once to allow better use of screen real-estate for those who need it. Essentially, you just add lots of these one-dimensional UIs to the screen and multi-task. But the capital-T Truth is that even without a screen reader, using a Desktop computer and indeed vision itself is a largely linear process. Experts get fast at it, but we still must scan about to discover new information and places to interact. I think we will be surprised how much of our computational life actually becomes conversational.
One of the most exciting things to me about conversational interfaces is that writing automation software that uses them is much more trivial than writing automation software for a big complex GUI. And building AIs that live in them is also easier.
In general, I think there is something very important in the space of UI for beginners, mobile users, AIs, and people with disabilities that is happening. A kind of crystalization of intent. I'm only hearing people like OP start to talk about it now, but I actually think this is the next big wave in UI. And I do agree with you that most time spent improving UIs is wasted in exactly the way you describe.
That's fair, but my takeaway from this article was that screen readers were this whole other kind of thing that was so much more difficult to use. I could see that being true for someone who never used computers, or for someone used to using them a certain way and having to transition. And I worry that people will read it and come away with the impression that, since screen readers are hard, accessibility is harder and just isn't something they have time/money/expertise for. In actuality, much of accessibility is just using things as they were intended to be used, and attaching textual labels to visual-only elements. If web developers just used <button/> and <a/> instead of <div/>s for interactive elements, there's 90% of accessibility right there. You may be amazed at how hard of a sell just that much is. If the practice of attaching click/keyboard handlers to a <div/> were to be wiped from the face of the earth today and forever, I'd instantly love the web a lot more. :)
So yes, I generally agree that conversational interfaces are a good direction, and I'd like to incorporate them into the app I'm currently building. I just worry that the tone of this article makes the current state of the art sound terrible, when it's less the state of the art and more the implementation details of that state that makes things difficult.
The reason those details are so rarely done right is that the UI frameworks are designed for 2D and serial navigation is an afterthought.
If you build conversation into the core of your UI framework in an intrinsic way, it means everything written in that framework will be done right. Every 2D interaction has a first class conversational analog because conversation is the base interaction primitive and all of the 2D interactions exist within that space.
That's a very low bar. Expert computer users like you and me have no problem with a screen that has even thousands of pieces of information on it. We use contextual cues to help us navigate that space, relying on good information design. But most people find current computers overly complicated. I think one of the reasons smartphones have eclipsed PCs is that the 4 inch screen forces you to cut down to a more human scale of choice complexity.
But that's why I am finding myself agreeing with OP that conversational interfaces are the future, for the same reason. They will force us to design down even further, into a one-dimensional UI. Choice, choice, choice, choice, etc.
That UI will be a slight simplification on the current phone UIs, and of course multiple threads can be shown on the screen at once to allow better use of screen real-estate for those who need it. Essentially, you just add lots of these one-dimensional UIs to the screen and multi-task. But the capital-T Truth is that even without a screen reader, using a Desktop computer and indeed vision itself is a largely linear process. Experts get fast at it, but we still must scan about to discover new information and places to interact. I think we will be surprised how much of our computational life actually becomes conversational.
One of the most exciting things to me about conversational interfaces is that writing automation software that uses them is much more trivial than writing automation software for a big complex GUI. And building AIs that live in them is also easier.
In general, I think there is something very important in the space of UI for beginners, mobile users, AIs, and people with disabilities that is happening. A kind of crystalization of intent. I'm only hearing people like OP start to talk about it now, but I actually think this is the next big wave in UI. And I do agree with you that most time spent improving UIs is wasted in exactly the way you describe.