Breaking the application grid

Some time ago, I wrote an article about the role of applications on a smartphone. This time, I want to burrow deeper both into their actual presentation and location, where apps are physically found from.

Meet the app grid (launcher / app drawer). Before gunning everything down, let's find out the problem before fixing it. We should always try to live how we preach, right. My top issues with multiple pages, filled with app icons in an neverending array, are:

• Icon arrangement is the only way to personalize how the grid looks. It might work for some cases, but as it grows longer, it starts to be tedious to find anything from it.
• Related to the above, an even grid does not offer enough cues to find things in it. It's slow to scan through a single row after another.
• Moreover, icon folders/groups alone leave little room for building information hierarchies. Be it an app, contact or a link to a website, attaching them to your launcher makes everything one step closer to a mess you don't want to tread on. This is the point when Android home screens start to sound like a great idea.
• Finally, and partially related, your app usage is traditionally divided between a task switcher (active apps) and a launcher (installed apps). If the app is not present in the task switcher, you have to exit it, and go to the launcher instead. Even worse if you have to hunt through multiple home screens between the two.

While Sailfish OS already solves the last one by combining app drawer and switcher, to form a single location, the grid is still just a huge mass of identically spaced icon rows, with very little visual cues for our eyes to lock on. That's the gray part on the image below (click to enlarge).

The blue half of the image on the other hand, illustrates how user could arrange icons to support their personal use. Don't take it as a suggestion how to arrange anything, as it's just an illustration. Obviously, the problem exists also horizontally arranged pages, but the presented solution is a bit challenging to pull of in that direction.

If you find the idea ugly or messy, it's easy to understand. From a visual point of view, a repeating pattern and a strict order is appealing to look at, even though they harm the long term usability of finding things from it, especially when the amount of icons increase. Don't worry, it's not the first time usability and aesthetics collide.

It's also worth noting, that while most people might not concider the app grid a problem on their Android devices, they still like to pin app icons and other stuff on their home screens. It clearly tells that the grid quickly becomes unwieldly to browse.

Now, I would like to entertain a thought: what if the app grid would've been fixed to support more dynamic layout for people to personalize. As a part of the software, the launcher already exists. Why not make it more customizable, instead of building Home screens on top to hide the issue?

Would Android still have multiple home screens? Nobody knows.

Would it be simpler? Absolutely.

Would it break the Android UX? Nope, just that archaic app grid.

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.

Follow-up: Why the status bar has to go

My earlier post, about calling a persistent status bar a ghost of desktop days, got somewhat mixed reception. I was mainly talking about individual details, and forgot to summarize the big picture.

I'd like to take another swing at the topic from a less technical angle, by asking why do we own smartphones?

Everyone uses them to communicate with people important to them. We use them to consume content through any channels available. We all have slightly different ways we use them. Others take things further, while the rest settle for less. But everyone has one thing in common;  we all do it on the go.

We pay money to carry a piece of technology around all day, to do all these things when we want to. The value comes from the device enabling communication, access to information and entertainment. It exists so that we don't have to be tethered to our grampa's box all the time.

I don't understand why are we required to babysit our devices all day, using that small bar at the top of the screen?

When facing a critical error, all smartphones have that "I just soiled my pants" -look of a small child on their faces. But children are much easier to debug, because all issues are local. With cellular reception woes, the catastrophe can occur in places you don't even know that exists. You're only left with the stink.

We must stop traveling a road, where you have to keep one eye on the status bar and one on the content. We can't live under a constant fear of our devices jumping off a cliff the moment we're not able to see the status bar. It's a UX shot so wide, that you could park Jupiter with its moons between it, and the "smartphone" target you we're aiming at.

Making better products and better software is not easy, and will only happen gradually. Nobody makes software that behaves badly on purpose. It's bad because we, as users, are holding on to certain things extremely tight. We're constantly demanding more features on top of the old ones, without understanding the complexity it invites. Complexity in the software is the same for bugs, what blood in the water is for sharks. An open invitation to ruin your pool party.

That's why rebooting the smartphone value domain is important to see what is really needed.

Look at any, big, companies, that are throwing thousands after thousands of developers and testers at their software products, to keep the quality on an acceptable level. Even they struggle to keep the water safe for swimming. They're not bad at software, but their products are simply unwieldy.

And they're complex because we demand them to be. So make sure you demand only what you really need, because it will affect with who you're sharing your swimming pool?

Is it with people important to you? Or with bunch of f*cking sharks?

The decision is yours.

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 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.

What's wrong with multiple home screens

Quite a bit. Hold on to something.

If thinking critically, what does multiple home screens really add? Aside from multiple screens off course. Is there any explanation for their existence?

I hear this even in my sleep already: "Everyone thinks they're amazing / Everyone is used to them." But, that's just repeating an opinion. It doesn't explain why do people need them?

Another common one is: "Statistics tell us that people like products with multiple home screens in them." With that logic, you can say that statistically people also like seats with feces in them, because they use bathrooms several times a day. Sorry, people would be happier without the poo being involved if it would be possible.

This as well: "We have done extensive consumer studies to prove it's a must feature to have." Sigh. On paper, you can make people like poo just by asking them the right questions.

This comes up every now and then: "It's for everyone to personalize their devices." I'm pretty sure the device is already a personal one, and what user does with it, will make it even more so. Also, there's countless other ways to make the interface a personal one.

But the winner is: "What is this heresy I hear! From the beginning of time as we know it, home screen content has always been arranged in horizontal pages!" From the beginning of 2007. But then why is pretty much every other content browsed in vertical direction? Web pages, content streams, call histories, messages and gallery grids. All vertically arranged.

So really. Why does a smartphone need multiple horizontally arranged home screens? How do they make a smartphone smarter? What is the user need they fulfill?

Anyone?

I think it's actually the other way around. A smartphone would be smarter if it didn't have multiple home screens. The main issue is in the thinking that adding more, automatically equals a better product. And as usual, people are blind to the opposite.

It's a better product, that equals more. Let's try it out.

You give a user seven home screens, instead of five. Did it make a single home screen any better? Is it easier to move or find things between seven home screens? Are seven screens easier to decorate with widgets? Is it easier to find nice widgets that don't look horrible? Is it more personal solution? Did the product become smarter than before? Does it free system resources for actual user tasks?

Nope.

Then try removing all but one home screen. Make that single remaining home screen better. Make it smarter. So that it adapts better to what user is actually doing with the device, removing the need to juggle between multiple home screens. Because everything you did and worked on, is found from the same home screen, everything becomes much faster. You launched a music player, and suddenly the controls are also there. You arrived at work and your email account summary is greeting you on your home screen. Suddenly the behavior feels more helpful and smarter, since you can do more by actually doing less.

Do you spot a pattern? Better, equals more.

There's even the age-old saying about quality trumping quantity. Well, marketing was clearly invented as an counter-argument. Because smart is hard to do. Just adding more is easy. A hammer with three heads instead of a single good one: a great idea everyone can boldly stand behind of. And with a good marketing campaign, nobody notices it's heavy as hell and unbalanced beyond practical. The rendering looks amazing, though.

So compared to doing smart and meaningful things, marketing is dirt cheap. Guess which path big manufacturers favor?

So let's try one more time: Does adding more home screens make a product easier to sell?

Hell yes it does!

If I buy a hammer, I want a better hammer than I had before. One that allows me to work faster, more efficiently and comfortably, not to forget improved safety. I don't want to buy an inferior hammer, just because it's easier to sell to other people; who at the end of the day, would also prefer a better hammer with a single good head, instead of having the option for multiple ones.

That means the product was intentionally made to perform poorly, just to make it sell more. Since the modular-wonder-hammer has the option to add more heads to it, the potential to develop a single good head is lost for the sake of a nonsense feature.

If Sailfish OS would have multiple home screens next to each other, it wouldn't be possible to have cover actions as explained in my previous post. It would mean that the ability for user to interact with tasks would be reduced.

For the sake of having a modular-wonder-hammer, that's heavy as hell and unbalanced beyond practical.

To be honest with all of you. Making a better product is really hard and painful. It's because the industry around you keeps repeating how more equals better. Especially when the rendering looks awesome.

The dumbest thing I've heard.

In the smartphone industry.

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.