Jony Ive is Not a Graphic Designer(stratechery.com)
stratechery.com
Jony Ive is Not a Graphic Designer
http://stratechery.com/2013/jony-ive-is-not-a-graphic-designer/
90 comments
"When the iPhone came out, nobody used touch devices... especially since most iPhone buyers were buying their first iPhone." Is iPhone already a synonym for smartphone?
only in America... where they forgot Blackberry was already a smartphone that was popular there,
He also disregards that touchscreen smartphones have been around since the 1990's and there were plenty of people outside the US who used such devices. If he mentioned that it could be used with just your finger, accurately, then he maybe right.
He also disregards that touchscreen smartphones have been around since the 1990's and there were plenty of people outside the US who used such devices. If he mentioned that it could be used with just your finger, accurately, then he maybe right.
The only real touch based "smartphone" that was released in the 1990s was IBMs Simon Personal Communicator. You seem to be confusing smartphones with PDAs. Palm released the first PDA/phone hybrid in 2001 and to call it a touch based smartphone is a stretch. Ditto any of the Windows Mobile based devices that were around at the time. All the stylus based devices had interface elements that were based around that. The iPhone changed the game, like it or not. As the author noted, the LG Prada existed, but it was goddamned awful.
All the Symbian UIQ smartphones were touchscreen, as mentioned, outside the US, smartphones were much more common. iPhone changed the game with its UI and because you could use your finger making touch easier. But the biggest factor that changed the game were the concessions AT&T made to Apple.
Like I said, calling those "touch" screen is streaching the definition and as far as I'm aware, none existed pre 2001.
"But the biggest factor that changed the game were the concessions $Launch_carriers made to Apple." O2 made some pretty massive concessions in the UK too. Android came along and screwed that pooch well and truly! Don't get me wrong, there has been a lot of good that has come from Android, but handing the control back to carriers is harming consumers long term. Data limits are criminally low, and the reasoning behind them is based on fallacy.
"But the biggest factor that changed the game were the concessions $Launch_carriers made to Apple." O2 made some pretty massive concessions in the UK too. Android came along and screwed that pooch well and truly! Don't get me wrong, there has been a lot of good that has come from Android, but handing the control back to carriers is harming consumers long term. Data limits are criminally low, and the reasoning behind them is based on fallacy.
In fact, all iPhone buyers were buying their first iPhone, as the first one had just come out.
I don't understand this whole argument, nobody has really outed him as a designer. He's never said that he is either.
He's leading the changes, so he'd put some people to make his vision of iOS etc come true, why would he design the icons himself? Surely he has more important things to do.
He's leading the changes, so he'd put some people to make his vision of iOS etc come true, why would he design the icons himself? Surely he has more important things to do.
He is a UX/Visual designer, of course the design is going to be more than skin deep. Skeumorphism impacts everything about UX. Think about the desktop model, from that we got folders, which had files in them.
Compare that to throwing out the desktop model. Now you have an image gallery, you select an image. You do not dig through folders of images, instead you look by context. Maybe that context is dates, maybe it is locations, or maybe it is whose faces that were auto detected in the images.
Things like auto-tagging location and faces are features that stem largely from the abandonment of skeumorphism, skeumorphism is a metaphor and as with all metaphors it is designed to make thinking about a new concept easier, but at the same time it is also limiting because all metaphors are limiting and imperfect.
Note that I have a very encompassing view of what UX designers do. The lead UX designer I work with oversees everything from physical hardware design to software, and indeed having integration between the two is very important. (Something Samsung could learn, if I had a dollar for every time my phone got put into Mute mode on the way into my pocket the phone would have long since paid for itself!)
Compare that to throwing out the desktop model. Now you have an image gallery, you select an image. You do not dig through folders of images, instead you look by context. Maybe that context is dates, maybe it is locations, or maybe it is whose faces that were auto detected in the images.
Things like auto-tagging location and faces are features that stem largely from the abandonment of skeumorphism, skeumorphism is a metaphor and as with all metaphors it is designed to make thinking about a new concept easier, but at the same time it is also limiting because all metaphors are limiting and imperfect.
Note that I have a very encompassing view of what UX designers do. The lead UX designer I work with oversees everything from physical hardware design to software, and indeed having integration between the two is very important. (Something Samsung could learn, if I had a dollar for every time my phone got put into Mute mode on the way into my pocket the phone would have long since paid for itself!)
The quote about context is interesting, so he is predicting Ive might read Bret Victor's Magic Ink paper? :)
It is obvious that iOS needs an update. It is really behind the competition both in design and functionality.
Making someone the face of the brand and mentioning him a lot seems to me just some marketing trick.
Making someone the face of the brand and mentioning him a lot seems to me just some marketing trick.
His employer has done absolutely nothing to either make him the face of the brand or mention him a lot, unless you consider a couple of obligatory press releases as being a media blitzkrieg. Your perception comes from people theorizing about the situation a lot on the Internet, which is very different from anybody marketing anything.
Who are you referring to here, Jony Ive? After Tim Cook, Jony Ive has to be the most well known "brand" at Apple, based primarily on the large investment they make on the classic Jony Ive hardware/design descriptions he does for new devices.
I'm curious: in which areas does iOS functionality lag the other competing mobile OS's?
Oh no, now you've done it :) I'm an iOS dev full-time, so this is a favorite topic...
- Multitasking architecture is broken for many use cases. The biggest one is any sort of messaging application - your app doesn't actually execute any code when a notification comes in, so when your user reacts to the notification and launches your app, your app has to go and re-fetch much of the same data that the notification already carried. This comes across to the user as being slow and finicky.
- Basic UI paradigms are behind what the community is pushing. This isn't a lag behind competing OSes, but rather lagging behind itself. Apple used to be the flag-bearer for the state of the art of iOS UX, but the community has largely taken over to both good and bad results. See: pull to refresh, launch screens, side menus, etc. Apple can, and should, reclaim its position as being at the leading edge of its own platform.
- Lack of a proper inter-app communications channel. Intents on Android is very powerful, something like this is totally lacking in iOS.
- Lack of customizability when it comes to core functions. I cannot associate all mailto: links in the browser to GMail for example. I must use Apple's Mail. Ditto for Maps.
There are a bunch of others, but today is a rather busy day :P
- Multitasking architecture is broken for many use cases. The biggest one is any sort of messaging application - your app doesn't actually execute any code when a notification comes in, so when your user reacts to the notification and launches your app, your app has to go and re-fetch much of the same data that the notification already carried. This comes across to the user as being slow and finicky.
- Basic UI paradigms are behind what the community is pushing. This isn't a lag behind competing OSes, but rather lagging behind itself. Apple used to be the flag-bearer for the state of the art of iOS UX, but the community has largely taken over to both good and bad results. See: pull to refresh, launch screens, side menus, etc. Apple can, and should, reclaim its position as being at the leading edge of its own platform.
- Lack of a proper inter-app communications channel. Intents on Android is very powerful, something like this is totally lacking in iOS.
- Lack of customizability when it comes to core functions. I cannot associate all mailto: links in the browser to GMail for example. I must use Apple's Mail. Ditto for Maps.
There are a bunch of others, but today is a rather busy day :P
As a user, I prefer knowing that if an app is in the background, unless it's VOIP or Satnav it's not doing anything. We've seen what happened when apps can do what they want - they will abuse system resources. As a developer, I can appreciate the need for limits on the notification system for the sake of scale.
Oh and and inter-app communications channel you're after is it? http://audiob.us
Oh and and inter-app communications channel you're after is it? http://audiob.us
You're right. There's no way that allowing apps to spawn as many processes as they want, running for as long as they want, is a good idea.
But there is a middle ground. Like already mentioned, if you register for location updates you can do a small amount of processing when your device moves and the OS wakes up a (very small) portion of your app to respond to it. If your app runs for too long here it will simply be killed.
Apple has created a very small number of cases where an app is even allowed to do this, which puts a huge cap on what people can do with it. The IM case is the most egregious: I can get a push notification saying "Bob messaged you: Let's meet up at..."
You tap on the notification, your app opens. It has to load from a cold start. Then it has to go to the server and fetch Bob's message to you, even though your notification obviously already had it. All in all, it's 10-15 seconds before you're actually reading the message, which is unacceptable.
But there is a middle ground. Like already mentioned, if you register for location updates you can do a small amount of processing when your device moves and the OS wakes up a (very small) portion of your app to respond to it. If your app runs for too long here it will simply be killed.
Apple has created a very small number of cases where an app is even allowed to do this, which puts a huge cap on what people can do with it. The IM case is the most egregious: I can get a push notification saying "Bob messaged you: Let's meet up at..."
You tap on the notification, your app opens. It has to load from a cold start. Then it has to go to the server and fetch Bob's message to you, even though your notification obviously already had it. All in all, it's 10-15 seconds before you're actually reading the message, which is unacceptable.
You can put a payload into your push notification (as long as you're not going over 256 bytes). The developer guide says that notifications should not be a way to send data to your app, but what they mean by that is that it should not be the only way that your app gets data. You can use a custom payload to "cheat" with the UI (much like how Apple's blank UI splash screens are meant to make the UI look faster), and present the user with at least some new data while the app loads all of the up-to-date data in the background.
Yup. Freaking google voice does this and it can takes minutes to load the text message if you have poor signal.
Audiobus only works because Apple's multitasking rules specifically allow audio apps to work in the background. It's not limited to just VOIP apps; for example, I use Dropvox all the time to record while my phone is locked. Not saying Audiobus isn't cool, but it's really not even close to equivalent to Android's intent system, and it doesn't solve the same problem.
Make it a notification setting then, you can already decide what type (if any) of notifications may appear on an app-by-app basis. It's just ridiculous that there's a notification of a new message sent to the device and then the message is not immediately available in the app.
Background services work just fine on Android. It's very handy to know that my shared to-do list syncs automatically (thus it's up to date when I actually open the app, even if I don't have signal at the time), or that my photos get synced to Dropbox without me having to open Dropbox.
Apps can register for notifications of significant location changes, and this wakes them up and lets them do some processing in the background. Allowing apps to temporarily wake up upon receiving a notification doesn't seem any worse than that.
Obvious, but frustrates me everyday: inter-app communication. The whole OS feels like some odd riddle where no one is allowed to talk to one another and you still have to get things done.
Things I miss from Android after switching to iOS:
* The keyboard (mainly showing the proper case) * An exposed file system * The ability to set default applications (like default browser)
* The keyboard (mainly showing the proper case) * An exposed file system * The ability to set default applications (like default browser)
Interapplication communication (i.e. intents). JIT-compiled javascript in hosted webviews. Bluetooth communication of many types, NFC of all types. WebGL support. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more, and these may not matter to you, but there is a functionality gap.
Ditto on the above lists. Similar to inter-app communication issue is some way to meaningfully work with documents and data outside of application silos, either to share documents between apps, or to get documents onto and off the device.
This is more of a hardware nit, but the iPhone is very annoying to hold in the hand. I expect Ive to step it up here and do something more like the curved edges of the Nexus 4, or even the less curved but still more comfortable HTC One.
Malware.
I agree on the whole although I don't understand why you call that quote asinine -- it seems to support your message.
Fair. I was more referring to the quote in it's entirety:
“The very fact that we’re talking about who’s going to design the icons, who’s going to design the applications and the operating system is a little bit of a concern. Because that’s not innovative,” she explains. ”What I’m interested in is not so much what they’re going to do about skeuomorphism, and those awful leather book pieces and daily planners, but a couple things that Apple didn’t hit the ground running. Like for today, Wii and Microsoft own gestural.”
“Apple kinda missed television and missed social,” she continues. “I’d be concerned that they’d miss natural user interfaces because they’re busy getting rid of skeuomorphism.”
EDIT: This is the quote from Wired that I called asinine. I don't agree with it. Wired link: http://www.wired.com/design/2013/05/what-jony-ive-needs-to-d...
“The very fact that we’re talking about who’s going to design the icons, who’s going to design the applications and the operating system is a little bit of a concern. Because that’s not innovative,” she explains. ”What I’m interested in is not so much what they’re going to do about skeuomorphism, and those awful leather book pieces and daily planners, but a couple things that Apple didn’t hit the ground running. Like for today, Wii and Microsoft own gestural.”
“Apple kinda missed television and missed social,” she continues. “I’d be concerned that they’d miss natural user interfaces because they’re busy getting rid of skeuomorphism.”
EDIT: This is the quote from Wired that I called asinine. I don't agree with it. Wired link: http://www.wired.com/design/2013/05/what-jony-ive-needs-to-d...
I'm not sure how it can be said that Apple has missed gestures, since my iPhone and my Macbook's trackpad are my most-used gesture input devices by a longshot. Every other gesture-based input I can think of that I use is for one-offs. The iPhone and trackpad I use every day.
edit: I will say, I haven't had a chance to read the OP yet so I could be off base here.
edit: I will say, I haven't had a chance to read the OP yet so I could be off base here.
I wouldn't be concerned that they're missing anything with gestural UIs.
I'm still confused, she's saying doing that stuff is not going far enough, isn't that what you're point is?
Isn't further developing the language of touch interfaces part of the same thing as getting rid of skeuomorphism?
I think the quote is saying that Apple's work on developing touch interfaces is potentially hampered by trying to get rid of skeuomorphism, which keeps skeuomorphism on their minds. The company that might really change touch interfaces will be one that isn't even worried about skeuomorphism problems and legacy interfaces.
I'm not saying this is actually true, just how I think the quote is meant to be interpreted.
I'm not saying this is actually true, just how I think the quote is meant to be interpreted.
The most interesting subtext to this entire story to me is that Jony Ive, under Jobs, was a hardware designer.
In Job's biography we see that Ive's "design studio has foam cutting and printing machines, and the windows are tinted." (1) - hardware is what he's done, that's what he's won awards for
His aesthetic is unimpeachable w/hardware IMO, but I am so curious to see how his talents translate to software and usability.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ive
In Job's biography we see that Ive's "design studio has foam cutting and printing machines, and the windows are tinted." (1) - hardware is what he's done, that's what he's won awards for
His aesthetic is unimpeachable w/hardware IMO, but I am so curious to see how his talents translate to software and usability.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ive
He is an industrial designer by training (I read the title and said to myself "of course - he's an industrial designer"). Physical products are what industrial designers generally do. Foam cutting and printing machines are a common tool of the trade.
There are, however, few organizations which strongly value industrial design enough to employ a serious team of them. Young industrial design graduates have a very hard time finding work in the field.
There are, however, few organizations which strongly value industrial design enough to employ a serious team of them. Young industrial design graduates have a very hard time finding work in the field.
> Young industrial design graduates have a very hard time finding work in the field.
RISD Industrial Design graduates often end up in software UI design, actually.
RISD Industrial Design graduates often end up in software UI design, actually.
Yup second this. RISD ID graduates tend to end up in Interface Design just as much (if not more than) Graphic Design majors. The ID curriculum actually does a much better job at introducing the students to a lot of the concepts that UX Designers champion. Industrial Design tends to be much more research driven, so it translates well.
Graphic Design tends to be much more about story-telling, metaphor, visual qualities, etc. — which are all important in Interface Design as well, just different. Joe Gebbia's double-major in ID and GD makes a lot of sense for a startup designer.
(Bias: RISD Graphic Design student.)
Graphic Design tends to be much more about story-telling, metaphor, visual qualities, etc. — which are all important in Interface Design as well, just different. Joe Gebbia's double-major in ID and GD makes a lot of sense for a startup designer.
(Bias: RISD Graphic Design student.)
The real problem is that we're all thrown on the same heap by outsiders and that they tend to underestimate the added value of having a team with these diverse backgrounds.
(Bias: IxD student - in a master programme where everyone has a different bachelor)
(Bias: IxD student - in a master programme where everyone has a different bachelor)
Usability is also a core feature of good hardware design; it's not like it's an alien facet.
In some ways the question becomes how much Jobs he can channel..
What I mean is that he likely (obviously?) has a very good design instincts and aesthetic sense with respect to hardware. But can he lean on and lead a team to something innovative and new when he might not be the hands on designer he's been in the past. I think there's always a question how well "design" translates across various design disciplines.
What I mean is that he likely (obviously?) has a very good design instincts and aesthetic sense with respect to hardware. But can he lean on and lead a team to something innovative and new when he might not be the hands on designer he's been in the past. I think there's always a question how well "design" translates across various design disciplines.
Graphic Designer ≠ Visual Designer
A graphic designer is typically associated with print and advertising (typography, layout). A visual designer is typically associated with apps (icon design, look and feel, design language). Obviously there is a lot of overlap and it's not hard for a graphic designer to get a job as a visual designer (most of the ones I've worked with, and my wife, are trained graphic designers working in visual).
Now how about motion designers (visual specialty)? Or 3D model designers (visual but usually industrial or game designers in this role)? Or interaction designers (UX but not visual related)? Or visual production artists (not really design, but often done by visual designers)? Or visual designers who specialize in pixels vs. visual designers who specialize in vectors?
The field is very diverse.
Now how about motion designers (visual specialty)? Or 3D model designers (visual but usually industrial or game designers in this role)? Or interaction designers (UX but not visual related)? Or visual production artists (not really design, but often done by visual designers)? Or visual designers who specialize in pixels vs. visual designers who specialize in vectors?
The field is very diverse.
Can you explain the difference? There's a lot of sub-specialty naming in the field and very little in the way of standardization. I'd see those as basically interchangeable. I see a pretty big difference in UX vs. GD/VD — Boxes & Arrows vs. gradients and brand elements, but I'd love to how you divide them.
I think that visual designers are more about building design languages; graphic designers are worker bees.
I might be wrong though - I already was once!
That said, I didn't change the article because the distinction is not as well-known, and I liked the headline ;)
I might be wrong though - I already was once!
That said, I didn't change the article because the distinction is not as well-known, and I liked the headline ;)
I understand that view, but I don't think it's commonly understood that way. There are a lot of prestigious "Graphic Design" programs at colleges, but I've not seen many "Visual Design" ones. I do manage a team of 2 UX designers and 2 GD'ers. The UX team makes our apps work well and the GD team gives them their polish, but there is a lot of overlap between the two.
Great article, BTW, very interesting thought experiment.
Great article, BTW, very interesting thought experiment.
The courses are generally called Visual Communication Design and tend to have a wider remit than older GD programs. Most of the stuff up this thread is spot on.
Thanks.
Obviously, I'd prefer they mean the same thing ;)
Obviously, I'd prefer they mean the same thing ;)
Heh - hoisted on my own petard...
Steve Jobs wasn't a graphic designer either, but people still quote him on the skeumorphism of Calendar or Notes app among others.
Biggest misconception about design these days is that design is purely about looks.
"What works good is better than what looks good, because what works good lasts." — Ray Eames
"What works good is better than what looks good, because what works good lasts." — Ray Eames
“Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like. People think it’s this veneer – that the designers are handed this box and told, ‘Make it look good!’ That’s not what we think design is. It’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.” – Steve Jobs,
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/magazine/30IPOD.html?pagew...
"I think it sucks!" said Jobs.
His vehemence made Tim pause. "Why?" he asked, a bit stiffly.
"It just does."
"In what sense?" said Tim, getting his feet back under him. "Give me a clue."
"Its shape is not innovative, it's not elegant, it doesn't feel anthropomorphic," said Jobs, ticking off three of his design mantras.
"You have this incredibly innovative machine but it looks very traditional." The last word delivered like a stab. Doug Field and Scott Waters would have felt the wound; they admired Apple's design sense. Dean's intuition not to bring Doug had been right. "There are design firms out there that could come up with things we've never thought of," Jobs continued, "things that would make you shit in your pants."
-- Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos meet "Ginger" (the Segway)
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/3533.html
His vehemence made Tim pause. "Why?" he asked, a bit stiffly.
"It just does."
"In what sense?" said Tim, getting his feet back under him. "Give me a clue."
"Its shape is not innovative, it's not elegant, it doesn't feel anthropomorphic," said Jobs, ticking off three of his design mantras.
"You have this incredibly innovative machine but it looks very traditional." The last word delivered like a stab. Doug Field and Scott Waters would have felt the wound; they admired Apple's design sense. Dean's intuition not to bring Doug had been right. "There are design firms out there that could come up with things we've never thought of," Jobs continued, "things that would make you shit in your pants."
-- Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos meet "Ginger" (the Segway)
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/3533.html
Visual design is concerned about aesthetics, or at least how visual characteristics influence usability. Interaction design is more concerned about the overall story and workflow of the artifact. These are quite different jobs.
Yes, but I think he's saying that they shouldn't be separate. At least not in the sense that someone wires it up and _then_ makes it pretty.
"…prior to Jobs’s return to Apple, design was what happened at the end of the engineering process. Post-Jobs, engineering became a component of the design process. This shift made all the difference in the world." — http://daringfireball.net/2012/02/walter_isaacson_steve_jobs
The daringfireball post is messed up on so many levels. There are actually designers (IxDs) who are solely concerned with artifact function and not aesthetics. Such designers are often former developers (but they could just as well be trained as graphic designers or even architects), and in the worst case design-light organizations, they might just be product managers. Design is something that happens up front and then during the engineering process as new trade offs or realizations arise. Sometimes things get messed up and the dev team is forced to start before the design team (due to resource constraints), and the project just turns out to be very messy then.
When I was working in a big corp design studio, my boss was a former pre-Jobs Apple guy and it didn't sound like things were very different back then either.
Let's root our conversation in reality and not in some hypothetical black and white world.
When I was working in a big corp design studio, my boss was a former pre-Jobs Apple guy and it didn't sound like things were very different back then either.
Let's root our conversation in reality and not in some hypothetical black and white world.
Honestly, does it matter what kind of designer you are as long as you have a good visual aesthetic and understanding of usability and how people will see, interpret, feel, and use your product from end-to-end? Isn't "graphic designer" just a pigeon-hole limiting title that doesn't really mean squat when thinking about product design at a high-level?
Apple, in the past, has gotten things right because they thought about product correctly at every level. I don't see why we should think they will change this habit.
Apple, in the past, has gotten things right because they thought about product correctly at every level. I don't see why we should think they will change this habit.
"understanding of usability and how people will see, interpret, feel, and use your product"
This is the foundation of design (all kinds) and, what I think, the post is about.
This is the foundation of design (all kinds) and, what I think, the post is about.
How much discussion of the iOS design overhaul, based on fourth-hand accounts of what somebody might have seen once as they walked past an office, will we have to endure over the next month? It's driving me nuts. Roughly nobody knows what it's actually going to look like, but everyone seems to think they're still very qualified to comment.
I don't mind the discussion as long as there's some hint of intelligence to it. My problem is that people are so stuck in this "here and now" mentality that they can't think outside of the box even a little bit. Example: the banter about the "flat" UI. Did anyone even consider that a design can not be skeuomorphic and ALSO not be flat? The flat interface is Google's and Microsoft's thing -- why would Apple copy it directly, ESPECIALLY when there are well-documented UX issues with flat interfaces?
The fact that people have already 1) claimed to know exactly the path that Apple is taking and 2) have already made opinions about said path is what is entirely frustrating.
The fact that people have already 1) claimed to know exactly the path that Apple is taking and 2) have already made opinions about said path is what is entirely frustrating.
I agree, a discussion about UI design in general, informed by the current state of iOS and speculations about its future, could be interesting. But instead we get "they're doing this, and it'll suck/rule!" when people don't even know what they're doing!
"... will we have to endure over the next month"
So long as people click on those pages, everyone with even the most minute point will write to their hearts' content. I'm surprised that this page didn't have a million ads on it
So long as people click on those pages, everyone with even the most minute point will write to their hearts' content. I'm surprised that this page didn't have a million ads on it
"When the iPhone came out, nobody used touch devices. The signaling benefits of skeumorphism were very useful, especially since most iPhone buyers were buying their first iPhone."
I would hope so, the iPhone _was_ the first iPhone. It was not the first touch screen device, or the first smart phone.
I would hope so, the iPhone _was_ the first iPhone. It was not the first touch screen device, or the first smart phone.
The point was two-fold: first, existing touch-screen devices had tiny installed bases. He didn't say there were no touch devices, just that (approximately) nobody was using them. Second, people buying iPhones now are often existing iPhone users, and so they are already familiar with the way iOS works. Obviously, that wasn't the case in 2007. Both of these factors contribute to skeumorphism having been useful in the first iPhone and less useful now.
I think a limited amount of skeumorphism is still useful and quite valid, I think however giving everything a texture to match what it would be, or the tape deck motif of the podcast tool is less useful, in fact, I think its distracting, maybe even for new (read non-technical) users. Everyone knows what the play, pause, stop, fast forward and reverse signs look like, are the spinning reels needed?
It raises another question, when does chrome become just a distraction, rather than easing the user into using the product?
It raises another question, when does chrome become just a distraction, rather than easing the user into using the product?
The problem with the podcasts app wasn't the reel to reel nonsense; it was that the damn thing didn't work. Ditching the skeuomorphism happened in the same release as serious upgrades to a working functionality.
Nobody reads footnotes...
The Footnotes..
1. Yes, I know about the LG Prada That’s why I said “nobody used” as opposed to “none existed”
2. And the end of skeumorphism does not mean flat design; things like gradients and shadows have their place
I did read the footnotes, that doesnt mean the statement was invalid, so there author is treating iPhone as a synonym for smart phone, or there was somehow another iPhone before the first iPhone.
I did read the footnotes, that doesnt mean the statement was invalid, so there author is treating iPhone as a synonym for smart phone, or there was somehow another iPhone before the first iPhone.
I get what the author is trying to say but this post is all over the place. The conclusion does not have much to do with the ideas presented.
I agree, it's shallow to think that under Ive all we'll see is a reskin. A visual update along the lines of OSX's evolving window styles might be part of it, and perhaps the first step, but I would guess that by iOS8 we'll see big new ideas that make the OS even more intuitive.
iOS has developed a lot of cruft as new features and preferences were grafted onto the original release. Settings are a hierarchical mess and many of the default apps have inconsistent mental models that need to be reevaluated.
By advancing the touch-based UI, iOS brought a more analog (or hardware-like) type of interaction to software. I don't think that fact has been explored deeply enough, and I expect Jony Ive will bring those insights to the revamp.
Although iOS also has advances to make in inter-app communication and other areas, I expect Ive to be particularly interested in challenging the high-level HCI problems that are appearing as mobile OSs become more complex. He'll be a force for the much needed intuitiveness that has been eroded from iOS.
I agree, it's shallow to think that under Ive all we'll see is a reskin. A visual update along the lines of OSX's evolving window styles might be part of it, and perhaps the first step, but I would guess that by iOS8 we'll see big new ideas that make the OS even more intuitive.
iOS has developed a lot of cruft as new features and preferences were grafted onto the original release. Settings are a hierarchical mess and many of the default apps have inconsistent mental models that need to be reevaluated.
By advancing the touch-based UI, iOS brought a more analog (or hardware-like) type of interaction to software. I don't think that fact has been explored deeply enough, and I expect Jony Ive will bring those insights to the revamp.
Although iOS also has advances to make in inter-app communication and other areas, I expect Ive to be particularly interested in challenging the high-level HCI problems that are appearing as mobile OSs become more complex. He'll be a force for the much needed intuitiveness that has been eroded from iOS.
You know what, this article makes more sense on What Ive is doing at Apple than any other I've read. That's why Apple is unique in the industry, because while the other guys are thinking - skeumorphic or flat - Ive is dealing with Human Experience of device/system. Everything else than that is a fad, and they come and go so fast, whereas we still have our senses and bodies unchanged.
> When the iPhone came out, nobody used touch devices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_DS_sales
By the time the iPhone was released in 2007, more than 40 million DS units had been sold worldwide.
I think it was last year the iPhone managed to beat the DS for total combined sales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_DS_sales
By the time the iPhone was released in 2007, more than 40 million DS units had been sold worldwide.
I think it was last year the iPhone managed to beat the DS for total combined sales.
"Touch" screens with styluses have been available since the 90's if you will, but they were a completely different beast than the first iPhone, and what we have today.
Yeah, and Windows Mobile devices with touch screens had been around for quite a while before the iPhone came out...
Ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Wizard
Before that, there was the Newton, Palm, and various clones. And for thousands of years prior, the abacus had a touch interface.
Capacitive v resistive...
DS had a stylus for a reason.
DS had a stylus for a reason.
I call those ‘poke’ devices, not ‘touch’ devices. On resistive displays, you really need to press hard for the device to register your action. That gets tiring, so people would use a stylus to poke at it instead. Anoher reason for the stylus was that the interfaces often weren’t made with fingers in mind, so the targets were way too small.
You should actually try the device in question.
No pressure needed, and fingers do the job nicely, but much less precisely. The UI on the DS is designed around fingers or stylus, and most games stick to that convention(plenty of exceptions, of course).
No pressure needed, and fingers do the job nicely, but much less precisely. The UI on the DS is designed around fingers or stylus, and most games stick to that convention(plenty of exceptions, of course).
I have to admit I’ve never used a Nintendo DS. I was referring to an entire class of devices of that time that had resistive touchscreens. Before the iPhone, I used all kinds of smartphones and PDAs. In my experience, they all had crummy resistive screens. I’m surprised to learn that the quality of the DS screen was that much better than far more expensive devices like the SonyEricsson P910[1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P910
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P910
The DS relies on button input, with occasional touchscreen input as a supplement. It's not even remotely the same class of device.
The proof is in the pudding. Until we actually see something, the whole "what if" game is just sort of silly (although, I agree, a lot of fun).
It will be interesting to see how Ive resolves the tension of a 21st-century digital device and its 20th-century analog interaction cues. Remember how the iPhone was the first device to have a black background in its launcher? And how when turned off it looked like a black slab? Nothing else looked like that before it came out. But then the faux leather and textures ... ugh. A reverse example would be the brushed aluminum of iTunes being used in the cartoony Windows interface.
Touch is very laggy on iPads. It's still eminently usable, and there's nothing better, so no one complains. But to an interaction expert like Ive, it must be really horrible - it certainly seems so to me.
In contrast, mouse-pointer movements are perceptually instant, and have been for many years.
Removing skeumorphism (and its heavy graphics) would help with this, as would the faster graphics, cpus and memory bandwidth in later iOS devices (there's surely a contribution to lag from the touch screen itself, but I don't know what it is).
So I hope this is what he's working towards. If it is, it will be something that everyone will love, without knowing beforehand that they needed it.
In contrast, mouse-pointer movements are perceptually instant, and have been for many years.
Removing skeumorphism (and its heavy graphics) would help with this, as would the faster graphics, cpus and memory bandwidth in later iOS devices (there's surely a contribution to lag from the touch screen itself, but I don't know what it is).
So I hope this is what he's working towards. If it is, it will be something that everyone will love, without knowing beforehand that they needed it.
Touch on current devices is laggy because of inherent touch screen hardware restrictions. It has nothing to do with how much the CPU and GPU are utilized by the OS.
There's some research done on reducing the latency. For example Microsoft's work: http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/default.aspx?id=160...
There's some research done on reducing the latency. For example Microsoft's work: http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/default.aspx?id=160...
Thanks! I didn't realize so much latency came from the device itself, but it's good to see confirming evidence that decreasing it would tremendously improve the experience.
That's worthwhile research to measure how much improvement makes a difference (i.e. until it becomes imperceptible), but unfortunately I get the impression they are only measuring it, not solving it. I gather their test setup is faked, just to enable measurement, because of the careful way he expresses it (I expect it doesn't actually use touch). I hate to reference a youtube comment for support, but the top one says it's IR + projector http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOvQCPLkPt4 And other links to that "Applied Sciences" Group don't mention any on-going research on it (or even the guy in the video)... http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/groups/asc/default.aspx Searching ms research didn't up any other mention of the two researchers involved (Albert Ng and Paul Dietz) - Albert's now at Stanford, and Paul seems to have many projects.
100ms to 1ms is a long way...
That's worthwhile research to measure how much improvement makes a difference (i.e. until it becomes imperceptible), but unfortunately I get the impression they are only measuring it, not solving it. I gather their test setup is faked, just to enable measurement, because of the careful way he expresses it (I expect it doesn't actually use touch). I hate to reference a youtube comment for support, but the top one says it's IR + projector http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOvQCPLkPt4 And other links to that "Applied Sciences" Group don't mention any on-going research on it (or even the guy in the video)... http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/groups/asc/default.aspx Searching ms research didn't up any other mention of the two researchers involved (Albert Ng and Paul Dietz) - Albert's now at Stanford, and Paul seems to have many projects.
100ms to 1ms is a long way...