it was most likely a hybrid snow shoe and ski.
http://altaiskis.com/products/the-hok/
let us know how it works.
I have some experience with the precursors to these skis, and it looks like the design hasn't changed much. The Altai Hoks are based on the Karhu Meta skis and whatever Karhu's precursor to the Meta was. I've had both since 2001.
They are great fun and useful if you are boondocking around in tight bush or forest in soft snow - more maneuverable than a traditional ski, less maneuverable than a snowshoe, better flotation than both. But they have some serious drawbacks that forced me to abandon them for a traditional ski.
First off, the bindings will break. Karhu's first wide ski has a flexible PVC binding that broke without too much use, leaving me stranded. The principle upgrade to the Meta ski was that it used an aluminum binding. These bindings held up better than the PVC ones, but these too eventually broke on me, leaving me stranded. My third attempt at a more sturdy binding was to have NNN backcountry bindings professionally installed on the Meta. These held up best of all, but required use of the boots I show above, but no big deal there. The NNN bindings eventually failed leaving me stranded again. The anchor screws tore out of the ski in this case. This is because the ski is very thin below the foot where the binding attaches, so there's not much thickness of ski to hold the anchor in place. The principle reason for binding failure is that, because the ski is very wide it acts essentially as a wide lever, you can put very large lateral forces on the binding. Moreover, because only the toe of the boot is anchored, the large lateral force is concentrated at the hinge point and is also accompanied by a twisting moment as well. The bindings will fail. By contrast, my conventional backcountry skis with NNN bindings and boots have yet to fail me over the last 7 seasons.
Second, the synthetic mohair on the base can cause big problems. It is grippy, which is great for climbing hills. But, under the wrong conditions, it can really ruin your day. Near the freezing point, wet snow will really stick to this stuff and is a bear to get off. You are done sliding on these things at this point. I got the worst case of heal blisters in my life several years ago trying to limp home on these with a couple of pounds of snow stuck to the base. Another time, I traversed some slush while skiing on a river and it froze to the hair wonderfully (awfully?) - there's so much surface area to grab onto. I had to stop and build a fire so I could melt the ice off, then had to wait for the skis to cool before moving on.
Third, for better or for worse, you don't get much if any glide from these skis. For worse, the wide cross section generates too much friction. For better, they may keep you from breaking your neck when going down steep hills.
Fourth, they offer very little lateral stability on hard or packed snow or ice -
including a trail made from a Snow-Trac track. This is because their width and surface area prevent them from sinking into the snow in these conditions. You spend a lot of effort flailing about trying to keep them under you and pointed straight ahead. Yes, they have a metal edge, but you really need to tilt the ski sideways to use it effectively in hard-snow conditions and these are precisely the type of sideways forces that hasten breaking of the bindings.
I love the concept of these short/wide skis as a hybrid snowshoe/ski. Using them in soft powder will minimize their shortcomings. But given my experience with them, I would never rely on them for self rescue.