Too much design

www.wpsauce.com

A Windows phone design article by Paul Thurrot, summarizing a "ask-me-anything" thread in reddit, reminded me about something that easily goes wrong in design: the design itself becomes more important than the product or medium it's applied to. Meaning, that more work goes into sustaining design as an activity; instead of treating it as an integrated part of making a competitive product.

What kept popping up throughout the article, was the need to differentiate Windows phone from others, through Metro's unique visual and interaction design (mainly focusing on application side though). This resulted in design importance raising out of proportion, disturbing the actual product work (make a great product). The focus was on finding a striking and novel design (too much), instead of making a relevant alternative to iOS and Android.

Alternative can mean being different, but it doesn't have to. A product that's just different for the sake of being different, is bound to have a design overdose. The only way to deliver an industry-breaking products, is by not designing it for the industry (remember what Apple did when it entered the smartphone market). That alone requires you to focus on problems that the industry tries to hide. Too much design will just make things worse.

The mobile industry has a significant ability to resist changes. Look at any usability studies. They all basically state that Android and iOS have reached the pinnacle of touch screen interaction. To put that in some perspective: they say that majority of desktop interaction patterns (the way you use mouse and keyboard to do things) are just as usable on mobile devices, as they were 40 years ago. Nonsense.

Usability studies like that show how amazingly well people adapted to our messy past with computers. Studies can always help to spot problems in both design and implementation, but the they tell nothing about our potential, our hopes, dreams or what we'll do tomorrow.

So, at the end of the day, those studies tell that the industry doesn't want to be broken.

"To go against it (industry) you need to earn it. You need to be far, far better." Being different for the sake of difference, is not enough.

With Metro, Microsoft experienced the hard way what happens when you put in too much design, at the expense of end user value. It failed to be relevant.


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.

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.

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.