Archive for the ‘Editorial’ Category
The longterm goal of the iPad
Apple doesn’t intend to replace the laptop. It’s meant to be a new hybrid computer product that appeals to someone who doesn’t need a traditional operating system, with menus to search through to find commands, just to get done 90% of what we all do with a computer. Windows XP/Vista/7 tablets have all been the computer equivalent of a Gamecube game with Wii waggle tacked on, and not developed for motion controls. Most early Wii games were gimmicky, not fully-realized motion/pointer controlled.
Apple is applying a few new approaches to computing with this to be the first true touchscreen computer.
A specialized operating system for touchscreen interface.
People think of the form of a computer device as the method of functionality: keyboard, screen, abstract pointer device (mouse, touchpad). Think of the iPad as a more universal form of content consumption without those limitations. The form is meant for light use because it’s physically light and convenient, but the interaction is also more efficient for those 90% of tasks. This is how I think the Apple crew sold it to Steve Jobs, who kept sending the concept back to the drawing board, because he wouldn’t sell a smaller, underpowered laptop or something that just surfs the web while you’re on the can.
By scaling up the iPhone operating system to the iPad, Apple is choosing to embrace a new method of how we use and what we can expect from computers based on these new hardware interface capabilities that make the mouse and hardware keyboard unnecessary for primary computer tasks, while maintaining the Bluetooth hardware keyboard sync so it CAN be the thing you write longer emails or Word documents on. They could have taken the Mac’s full OSX system, popped it into a traditional tablet computer and tacked on touch controls to replace mouse functions (like Windows 7 tablets do), but the approach would lack an intention of design, marrying form factor to the system and content delivery, which is Apple’s greatest strength.
File management.
Think of how often you create and manage file folders to organize your digital stuff. Why do we do this? To catalog and make it easier to find later. And yet, we still lose shit in a complex file structure. These days we have a stronger system search (compare Google’s Desktop search results to Windows XP file searching and you’ll see the difference). We have meta tags (descriptions of files beyond the very limiting file name). As we move forward in the digital era, we’ll rely further on computers to be our bookshelf, movie and music collections. Sifting through entire collections is going to be even more complex and overwhelming for casual computer users. File names won’t cut it and casual users hate trying to find shit.
Compare a photo library in file folders you make in Windows to how Apple’s iPhoto works. You open a program you want to use and have a series of thumbnail images of what files that the program can manipulate, regardless of where they are on the computer. They’re organized by events you choose, not folders with limited character names. It makes it less abstract and more intuitive. It also uses meta tags to organize content.
For instance, it pulls digital photos off your camera and groups them into an “Event” based on the camera’s meta data (date/time when photo was taken) with a thumbnail image from the group to represent it (like a photo of me blowing out candles to represent all the photos from my 30th birthday). But if I want to find all the photos of Jaclyn across all events, iPhoto uses software to identify her face in all the files in the system. Try doing that with files named 100_104.jpg from your digital camera in folders strewn through your My Photos folder. Do I take time to name each individual photo with a file name “Jaclyn doing something.jpg” to describe it and find it later? It feels archaic in comparison. Now make the form of that computer just a touchscreen, make it thin, light, and coffee-table presentable. A netbook doesn’t serve that purpose of presentation or organization.
Take this approach to photos and scale it up to the entire system’s file management. Most casual users save every download to the Documents folder or the desktop. How many times have you seen a casual user’s (or even experienced user’s) desktop loaded with files because they don’t want to take the time to archive them into a folder structure. It’s a drag.
iPhone OS hides the file system from the user, which is what polarizes people. Some get it because they can appreciate the simplicity of a front end for efficient, causal use, while others denigrate Apple for dumbing down the computer system and not fully exposing the system to the user (for user tinkering and customization). Most people don’t need that kind of access to their computer because they wouldn’t know what to do with it and have no interest in learning.
Customized touch UI is better than tacking on touch features to an existing one.
Creating an OS for touch interface instead of tacking touch onto an existing OS is the unique aspect of this. Once you’ve used a touch-screen device like iPhone, iPod Touch, Droid or Palm Pre, you see the difference. When you directly interact with digital content with your fingers instead of something else, the UI presents functions at the point of contact with pop-over lists, something the iPad UI is expanding on. It’s a smoother, faster experience.
All traditional computer programs have menus across the top with the features and functions buried in drop down menus, which aren’t in close proximity to the point of interaction (except the limited functions list presented by a right-button mouse click). We’ve gotten used to that time-wasting learning curve for software, learning what functions are available and finding where they are in menus. Perfect example: When you highlight text on a touchscreen device, immediately a little pop-up appears to tell you what you can do with it. No further interaction is needed from the user to find out what you can do with the selection. Physically stretching a photo with your fingers is better than Menu > Photo > Expand > 30%.
The lacking feature of Flash plug-ins, the peripheral add ones to connect to a camera or SD card, the jokes about the name and other complaints are myopic when you consider the next several years worth of iPad clones that will come along. We still don’t know how reliant this version of iPad is to connect to a desktop PC. Is there wireless sync of Word files from my desktop to my iPad? Do I have to sync via USB cable? Is it strongly tied to a cloud computer system? Can you store files on Apple’s MobileMe server so you always have access to them everywhere instead?
A laptop is a desktop system with a screen attached, and a tablet is a laptop system with a tacked on touchscreen. The interaction is a crunched version of the desktop. This is a true touchscreen computer right off the U.S.S. Enterprise. Did Geordi LaForge ever sift through a file menu with a stylus on his PADD? Did Data have trouble finding the Tachyon Pulse command somewhere in the deflector dish settings? I know that was fiction, but this is a step to actually getting us there. That’s really cool to me because I’m a nerd for this stuff. It should have been what the tech media focused on and not the spec sheets.
Google enters the netbook OS ring
Google announces development for open source Chrome OS for netbooks
That sound you hear is Microsoft and its third party support sweating (even just a little). The dominance of the market share is splintering further. Let’s see: Google is #1 in search, RIM’s Blackberry OS is probably #1 in mobile OS, with iPhone, Google Android and Palm Pre’s WebOS getting good reviews and growing fast, Microsoft IE is the #1 web browser, but continuously losing market share, and Windows is still #1 desktop/laptop OS (this is based on what I’ve read and seen and is not 100% fact, but I’d put money on this being REAL close). I hear more and more positive things about Linux, with netbooks getting more prominent as low-cost portable computer solutions.
Apple notebook sales are growing stronger than other manufacturers’ (in a lousy economy, too) and their marketing forced Microsoft to respond, and do so awkwardly. They’ve had to spend a lot of money to overcome Vista’s faults, such as the annoying security messages, initial driver problems, and most importantly, Microsoft’s business model that allowed third party hardware pre-installed with Vista without the specs to optimally run it. First they had Bill Gates hang out with Jerry Seinfeld to our amusement. Lately they’ve been marketing as the low-cost provider, sending people into a Best Buy with cash for a notebook, but leaving out the hidden extra costs involved, like a need for an annual anti-virus software license, the more expensive Windows 7 upgrade (when compared to the price of Snow Leopard for a Mac buyer/Leopard OSX owner) and the stark difference in brand consumer satisfaction. My earlier blog post was about the weird decision to use gross imagery to market IE8, in a desperate attempt for attention.
Google has the money and brand power to further split the market that Microsoft and Linux are sharing. This next decade will be very different from the 90s. VERY different.
Internet leading our next step in evolution?
You have to love the open-minded, scientific genius. Stephen Hawking things we’re in a new evolutionary step.
The Internet is certainly an enormous leap over print publishing with its speed and participant access to join the cultural collective consciousness, but so far, it’s been a sociological evolution. The speed at which knowledge is shared has evolved beyond even the first incarnation of the Internet. CD-ROM killed the print encyclopedia and Wikipedia replaced Encarta. E-mail was limited to who you directed the knowledge to be shared because you needed their e-mail address, just like you needed a mailing address for print letters. Chat rooms were limited to a specific time and group, not much difference from a conference call. The newer social web, with server-based storage of those interactions, which doesn’t require a specific time-frame (made possible by server storage and some nifty JavaScript work) or specific address (just search for them on Facebook). The more people expect others to be on Facebook, the more people will join. It is far more efficient for a participant’s time, like DVR-ing an on-going, digitally public conversation.
The social web is happening just as the mobile web is transferring from “business class” to “coach”. A brilliant scientist can write from anywhere to potentially everyone. It’s stored somewhere, for all to see, and they can instantly share it with everyone they know, who can then share it with the next group level out, and the knowledge spreads super fast. Unfortunately, the same power is given to an idiot who can’t string a sentence together in the comments section of a website.
A mobile web device is a world-wide communicator. Combined with a social web site, it’s a powerful tool and is not limited to some silly fad for celebrities or for moms to post baby pictures. It’s being used for potential social change. I love that the State Department specifically requested that Twitter delay shutting down for maintenance because it was a great subversive tool to embrace the public outcry in Iran and undermine Ahmadinejad’s re-election. The Internet used as a foreign policy weapon without the bad PR of a loss of American blood and money.
But again, that’s all sociological change. Evolution would require some change to our biological existence.
Will we achieve eugenics altering technology before, after or concurrently with cybernetic enhancements? Either way, Hawking brings up a good point: we’ll have evolved on our own terms. It sounds very cool: less hereditary diseases, on-board knowledge at any second, but it’s also very scary:
Resistance is futile
I need to watch this again.
What happens to our species when we direct our own evolution?
I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
You stay classy, Microsoft
Microsoft is using an ad online featuring a woman projectile vomiting from seeing something in her significant other’s browsing history to market Internet Explorer 8. They’re promoting the new private browsing feature, hosted by TV’s former Superman, Dean Cain. Yep, it’s real. I wish I was kidding: http://mashable.com/2009/07/01/ie-vomiting/
Another example of Microsoft’s horrendously awful marketing lately. Apple uses Justin Long and John Hodgman. Fun and clever. Microsoft uses bullshit laptop buyers in a Best Buy going for cheap instead of quality, and now, projectile vomiting.
Ironically, it’s how I feel when writing CSS bug fixes for IE6.
What will we see from them to market Windows 7? Someone with a stomach virus and diarrhea thanks to a lesser operating system? I can’t wait.
Apple’s blind spot
The Mighty Mouse is just not up to par with the rest of Apple’s hardware design quality. The scroll ball is constantly glitchy, the glossy plastic is not great for precise, non-slip mousing and an old supervisor showed me that Logitech seems to create mice way better. I would love to see this quirky thing replaced before Steve Jobs announces the new iPhone models next week.
Internet Explorer 6 is a jalopy
Internet Explorer 6 is the most widely used browser from a Dark Age of stifled innovation, but as of April 09, 17.52% of surfers are still using it. How far down the Information Superhighway will these users need to be before they brake down and finally enjoy the free upgrade to 2006’s version 7 (or even better, IE8)? Not long, apparently. Microsoft has lost a lot of ground, and the future does not look bright for the browser once brought to you at gunpoint. The browser options are becoming more diverse by the year.
I’ve been asked why I haven’t fixed some issues with my site that come up in IE6. I’ve decided that, while I could (and maybe should), I’d like to encourage an IE6 user who checks out this site to come enjoy the tastiness of tabbed browsing and more web standards compliance. Experience the web applications that will change your future, like Gmail and Mobile Me, with unique features made possible by new browsers.
And that’s where cars differ from web browsers. While some classic cars can still be restored and have an elegant beauty and design, justifying a wave of nostalgia, few look back at old computer technology like 5.25″ and 3.5″ floppy drives, read-only CD-ROMs, and dial-up Internet access and think “Wow, I really want to go back there. It was better.”
Nope, those things are jalopies. Wikipedia states: “When a jalopy gets to a state in which its maintenance becomes too expensive, its owner would be required to make a decision about its fate.” IE6 is a resource-guzzling mess and should be retired as soon as possible. It’s becoming too time-consuming and expensive to justify resources used for hacks and fixes. We designers and developers have a responsibility to encourage its demise. Innovation depends on it. Let’s take the hand of IE6 users and pull them out of the Dark Ages.
Get Firefox, Safari, Opera, or at least Internet Explorer 8.
UPDATE: Probably the best solution on how to deal with IE6 style sheets that I’ve seen. I will adopt this method immediately, although I’ve kind of done that already by informing my clients that the site won’t match pixel-for-pixel in IE6. But I won’t ever leave them hanging on the functionality.
“Just make it look pretty”
I hear this a lot when others describe what designers do, and I think it would be wise for the design community to actively change the perception of the value that we offer. The context of that description makes design a “nice to have” option for businesses to consider, but also presents design as something that’s not critical to the sales, quality, and functionality of their product.
It’s interesting that we have to struggle to justify our existence to many business people who don’t value what we offer, or refute all attempts at the return on investment good designers can deliver. We also justify our existence by insisting that design could and should lead development, or that we’re not simply a brand police that slows down product development.
We need to articulate our value beyond the impression that design is just a new coat of paint on a perfectly fine working car. Our work should help prevent users from closing the browser in frustration, from closing the tab before clicking “Checkout”, or the potential demo not leading to a buy in. If comparison is done on a nicely designed interface to one that “technically works” but lacks desinger input, the designed one will sell more. Isn’t that worth the cost of design? You’ve wasted hours making a functional application or product that few people want to use, or worse, don’t want to buy. Congratulations, you’re limiting sales potential.
Realtors call it curb appeal and in the newly competitive real estate market with more buyers than sellers, you better make an effort on the quality of your home interior and exterior if you expect to get the price you’re asking for.
It’s why iPod and iPhone users generally have such a good impression of Apple as a brand. The device design invites people to pick it up and use it, with a minimal interface that has less buttons exterior buttons. It’s seemingly simple, but incredibly versatile. I can get more done faster with my iPhone than my old Blackberry, and the experience of buying new content, watching a show or listening to music on my phone is far better for a $200 device, and it’s the design that impresses as much as anything. Now, AT&T just needs to do a better job of getting their system to match Apple’s quality.
It’s time we realized that we don’t simply make things pretty, we add quality.
Google changed their favicon again
A favicon is a small logo that appears in your browser’s address bar or tab, and the bookmarks/favorites drop-down menu.
Here’s this year’s new multi-color version:
Google blogged about how they came to the new favicon here:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/googles-new-favicon.html
Here’s the original (still seen in the Firefox toolbar search box):
The first change was last year’s little ‘g’:
I still think last year’s change was a nice idea. The font has a fun feel to it, but they didn’t match it with the same blue that’s found in the Google logo, for some reason.
The funny thing is, when you turn the new favicon 90 degrees, the background colors match up in the same sequence as the Windows logo colors.
I’m surprised no one at Google noticed this, if they did, they didn’t care.
It’s odd to me that they solicited users for ideas on what Google branding should be. Even though a favicon isn’t a large branding effort, it is for a company so associated with the web. I did find myself doing a double take when I noticed it yesterday, wondering if I was at the right site. That 3-5 second hesitation that I felt was all you need to know about how important brand identity is. Usually companies change brand identity because they want to capture new attention or need a fresh look for a new age. You can’t be too careful about alerting users to new iconography, though, especially when security alerts can be displayed in the same area of a browser (like Firefox 3 does).
Even something as small as a 16-pixel image can give the user a small concern, and no company wants that to happen.
Update: Looks like the blog Brand New picked up the story. Another blog also mentions similarities with AVG’s favicon.
Pandora and other Internet Radio could be forced to close their virtual doors
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2008/08/music_biz_still_trying_to_kill.html
It’s brain-dead what the music industry is doing to itself. They’ve already lost touch with the modern world so much that they’ve marginalized their product to the point where people find no value in owning a copy of it. Making the discovery of, and purchase of, new music less-easy is an ingenious way to flush new-found money down the toilet.
The Internet Radio Equality Act needs to be put in place. Terrestrial radio gets their content for free (thanks to the corporate-owned lobbying they have) for the same content Internet radio and satellite have to pay for.
Watch as illegal avenues of music acquisition become more popular again when outlets like Pandora fall. And those illegal outlets don’t have links to iTunes and Amazon for legal purchasing, nor do they intuitively introduce me to new content I would like. I don’t endorse stealing music as an alternative, but when the system’s as broken and tainted with lobbying corporate interests at heart, and not the artists’, consumers will just turn to whatever’s easiest, regardless or any moral dilemma the recording industry attempts to enlighten them with (which also is a waste of money). Wasn’t this clear years ago, when we saw the Superbowl commercial Pepsi put together to promote their iTunes give-away to the tune of Green Day’s cover of “I Fought the Law, and the Law Won”?
I think if this continues, the musicians are the ones who will suffer most from these actions. They’ll be forced to continue to actually do even more live performances to earn that “Performance Royalty” fee they get every time their music is played because the number of outlets for these “performances” will diminish to the point where they’ll have AM/FM only again, and the only way people will pay to hear music (and the only way performers will get paid) is some Clear Channel or Live Nation event house. Or you’ll see a band 10 years old (or less, at the rate of how quickly musicians become “Yesterday’s News”), playing at your local bar for far less than they ever thought, desperate for the same buck that could have been made if Pandora were still around…
