Why the status bar has to go

The small black stripe at the top of the smartphone of your choice. Home for various tiny icons. Through subtle changes in them, we can decipher what's going on under the hood.

To better understand the status bar we have today, we must look at the desktop computing environment where the convention came from. The following image illustrates how different common desktop environments have solved the status bar. Top or bottom, (left or right. Always visible by default.

That design somehow felt like the only possible solution that anyone could ever come up with. Whenever someone started to design an operating system, they first drew that familiar bar across one of the display edges. Just like small kids default drawing the sun into one of the top paper corners. Only with the difference that kids move on, discovering other possibilities for sun placement.

Then came the advent of smartphones. Everything we got used to in the desktop environment, had to be crammed down to a smaller screen. So that we wouldn't mistake it as something else than a desktop </sarcasm>. A ceremonial bar was again crafted across the top screen edge, to give permanent residence for status icons. And after repeating that design pattern countless times, we should realize that the advent is now gone. It's no more, and here's some further incentive:

• As a digital medium, software is dynamic in nature. A fixed or static layout is more a design decision, not a requirement. Displays also exist for dynamic content, and suffer from static one. If you haven't yet heard about screen burn-in, well now you have.
• A small bar is a compromise in legibility. To not waste screen space, the bar height is kept tiny. This results in uncomfortably tiny icons. Some have made the bar automatically hide, to not distract user, but have still kept the bar and icons tiny. Sigh.
• Lack of structure and meaning. On a small bar, all icons compete with each other for user attention. Since everything is visible all the time, a subtle change in one icon is easy to miss. All icons appear visually equal in importance, even if they rarely are.
• Technical overhead. This concerns mostly app developers, but they're users as well. No discrimination, please. Better developer experiences are needed as well. Controlling status bar visibility and behavior is yet another thing to be mindful when creating your application. Also the OS owner has to maintain such complexity. Both sides lose.
• Lost screen estate. Even if little, it all adds up. It's not really a full screen if something is reserving a slice of what would otherwise belong to your app. There is a dedicated full-screen mode in Android, further increasing the technical overhead and complexity, for both app developers and system maintainers.
• Information overload and "over-notifying". We're bad at focusing on multiple things at the same time. Status bar at the top is screaming for attention and every time you take a glimpse at it, you need to refocus back to the whatever you did before. It's important information no doubt, but user decides when.

Even if mobile devices are almost identical to desktops as computer systems, smartphones are used in completely different way, than stationary desktops and laptops. Smartphone use is mainly happening in occasional brief bursts, instead of long sessions (desktop). User unlocks the device, goes into an app, locks it again and repeats.

It's important to understand that there's a reason for the user to do that. The device is not the center of your life, and is put aside all the time, just to be pulled out again when required.

And before the user reaches that app (or notification drawer/view), several opportunities present themselves to expose user to the system status without the need to make it persistently shown. Like making it part of the natural flow of things.

That is exactly what Sailfish OS does. It solves the aforementioned problem by showing important system information as part of the home screen content, resulting in:

• Dynamic screen usage, behavior designed for displays
• Superior legibility due to larger icons
• More meaningful icons are emphasized, more layout possibilities
• Less coding leads to faster app development
• Single behavior is simpler to maintain from the OS side
• All apps are full-screen by default
• Less clutter, information is showed on demand

Don't blindly embrace a legacy design as an absolute truth. Make sure you define first what is the problem it solves. Rapid advancements in both software technology and mobile context understanding, can provide you great insight in finding alternatives that didn't exist back then.

And keeping in mind that mobile != desktop will alone carry you a long way. Remember that natural interaction in mobile context needs solutions that desktop didn't have to solve. Use your head.

Thanks for reading and see you in the next post. In the meantime, agree or disagree, debate or shout. Bring it on and spread the word.

Why do people get into fights with computers?

The internet is full of stories about the volatile relationship between people and computers. It's because by nature, both sides are completely foreign to each other, only separated by a thin layer called a user interface. It communicates the state the software is in, and provides methods for the user to control both software and hardware features of the computer.

To put the role and importance of user interface into a perspective, I'll compare it to an intergalactic interpreter. It's job is to prevent miscommunication and when possible, recover from situations caused by it. It works between two species that have nothing in common with each other. A misunderstanding between such parties can escalate quickly and have irreversible consequences. And naturally there are good and bad interfaces when it comes to doing interpreting. The former takes pride in focusing on efficiently getting the message across as authentic as possible, while the latter focuses on performing party tricks.

I personally value getting the message across. For example, we use a smartphone so many times throughout the day, that it's frustrating if an interpreter doesn't understand you, or treats your hand as something it's not. A good interpreter is in tune with you. It knows what you're about to do, understands differences in your tone of voice and body language. A bad one requires constant focus from you, because it doesn't fully understand you or isn't compatible with the way you function. That means neither side can really function efficiently, and mistakes are bound to happen.

And at the end of the day, when machines finally turn against us, I'm confident in pinning the blame for that on the interface between the two. The user didn't understand why the machine wasn't doing anything, and the machine didn't understand why user was anyway doing something. The interpreter was most likely putting on some lipstick when all of that happened, and the resulting nuclear winter allows our kids to make glow-in-the-dark snowmen all year around.

To delay the inevitable, let's focus on both prioritizing and improving the interpreter qualities of user interfaces we build to communicate with machines. These two species so alien to each other absolutely require it. Because with the current rate of technological advancements, the smartphone of tomorrow will be capable of horrors far beyond running a Facebook client.

Thanks for reading and see you in the next post. In the meantime, agree or disagree, debate or shout. Bring it on and spread the word.

What comes after applications

Over the past few years, there's been a lot of discussion over mobile apps: should there be apps or not? Obviously the question itself is an opinion divider. One side has faith in apps, while the opposition doesn't. This piece by Paul Adams from Intercom, was the latest manifestation I enjoyed. A good read for anyone interested about mobile computing.

This phenomenon is a result of people getting tired of eating the same app pill for every issue they have. The five year old marketing punchline "There's an app for that" really explains the dominant mentality. And with enough repetition, it was rooted deep into our minds. The emerged "app evolution" debate is just an indication, that people have finally become aware of the indoctrination. This post is my contribution to the topic.

Naturally, there's a gray area in between both extremes of the debate. To me, an application is just one of many ways to solve a user problem. When smartphones really kicked off the mobile app business, everyone wanted a piece of that pie. As a result, it became difficult to jump out from the app bandwagon. In addition to the "me too" factor, what makes an app so attractive option, is the degrees of freedom it offers to both the user and developer. However, it comes with a price tag.

Mobile operating systems have grown a lot since those days. They offer much wider range of tools to build engaging experiences. The common mistake is to think you need to implement everything yourself. Below, is my rough categorization of different methods a user problem can be solved; and how "less control" can in some cases increase the value compared to "more control". It's a matter of identifying the problem before finding a fitting solution for it.

• A background process takes care of performing the task in behalf of the user. It makes the solution feel like magic because user didn't do anything. As this requires an intimate knowledge of the lower software layers and contextual awareness, it's not really trivial to do. Not to mention being forbidden in many systems.
  
• A notification uses existing mechanisms in an operating system to promote a functionality or a piece of information based on its relevancy. This can result in genius solutions, since the needed functionality can be conveniently offered regardless of the context user is in. Even if there's not much interface work involved, a reliable context engine is hard to get right.
  
• A system integration takes a frequently used functionality and makes it an integral part of the operating system. This makes interacting with such a features much faster compared to an application counterpart. The result is a smarter and more holistic experience. However, this either requires rooting or OS ownership to do, so it's not an option for many.
  
• An application is the last step in the scale. Almost everything is possible here. It's very powerful and can be tailored to fit very specific tasks. Using an application as a solution easily adds more steps to achieving a desired result. Repeating these steps frequently to do something feels dumb. Due to the amount freedom it gives, and the amount of work is needed, the application experience is the most vulnerable to mistakes. Everyone can make an app, and it shows.

At the end of the day, it's about thoughtfully choosing and combining methods available to you. It's the next step in building mobile experiences. All these methods have their places in our daily throughput of tasks. So, even if apps are important, sticking with just them is a sure way to forfeit the experience game. Same goes for denying the application as a viable solution. Having a meaningful combination of variety is the key.

Because people are not binary by nature, so therefore solutions we use to respond to their needs must reflect that. There's no silver bullet, or a size that fits all. Using interaction variety in your user experience will make it more natural and approachable. Transitioning from app-focused model to user-focused model will give a reliable foothold in the market strongly profiled by features, hardware specifications and price competition. Finding other ways to create value is essential to differentiate and stay competitive.

The more you understand the platform you're designing for, the easier it is to deliver more natural and smarter experiences for its users.

Apps alone will definitely not be enough.

Thanks for reading and see you in the next post. In the meantime, agree or disagree, debate or shout. Bring it on and spread the word.