Authentic depth

With iOS7 Apple is stepping up efforts in their design approach  "...way much more than how it looks, it's the whole thing, the way how it works...". One of the key changes compared to the older versions of iOS, is the conceptual layering of various user interface elements. Visually this is achieved with parallax effect, blurred translucency, animations and other effects.

With mobile user interface moving away from rococo -like extravagant decoration to more clean, "almost flat" designs, the animations and transitions of the UI have become more important. Increasingly inspiration is being drawn from the history of movies and animations to give a sense of depth to the interface – that some objects are above and some objects are below. But unlike the decorated, more static screens of the past, the almost flat interfaces behave more realistically, as if they are placed in a real three dimensional system, even if that world has some pancake-like tendencies.

iOS7 is embracing this kind of depth and dimensionality, particularly with translucent white (and black) layers that blur the layers "below" them. However, from realism perspective, there's one gotcha with this approach – in real life only one of the "layers" can be in sharp focus at the same time. There are many places in iOS7 where this "authentic depth" is disregarded, one of the most obvious examples being the "Control Center" layer. When that layer is swept in from the bottom, it does blur the home screen behind it, except for the top part, where the home screen stays sharply in focus, albeit slightly dimmed.

Effects and animations that elicit the impression of depth, but which at the same time lack the authentic experience of dimensionality, can end up in detracting from the whole experience. Effects like blurring and transparency may reduce to being mere decorations, as in the interfaces of the past, rather than "...the way how it works.".

There are ways to design with depth so that it respects the authentic dimensional behavior. The Yahoo Weather app's animation and layering, e.g when content moves upwards, is one good example. For the iOS control center, the UI mockup video shown on the left gives some ideas how to approach the solution.

iPad Mini would be just like using an iPhone

There's been recently lot of rumors about the possibility of "iPad Mini", i.e. an iPad with smaller than 9.7 inch screen that the normal iPad has. Apple has for quite some time resisted the need for different screen sizes on the iPhone – it has stuck with the original 3.5 inch screen, while others have gone wild with larger screens. And to its credit, iPhone is definitely more pocketable than the larger mobiles.

 The 9.7 inch iPad definitely is awesome for the immersive experience it is able to provide with so much screen estate, especially now that it has retina resolution (264dpi, viewed from 40cm distance). However, the e-reader market has been able to make a strong case (at least for some particular uses) for smaller-than-10-inch screens, with sizes closer to pocket book.

But that would require UI redesign?

One of the biggest practical reasons against doing another screen size for iPad is that it could very likely lead to UI redesign, as the physical size of the touch areas would be different. Both for Apple's apps and 3rd parties. However, Apple has been pretty genius with its math around screen sizes and pixels and resolutions. Essentially iPad Mini could use the same pixel size (1024x768) and UI as original iPad and still reduce the screen size to 7.85 inches (163dpi), while still being as easy to use as an original iPhone (also 163dpi).

How is that possible? Well that starts with the Apple Human Interface Guidelines, which state any interactive area must be at least 44px by 44px in size. Additionally, you can sometimes tweak this a bit by providing much wider interactive area, while reducing the height slightly.

 

Every iPhone and iPad follow this same rule (retina displays just double the pixels). So on iPhone the smallest button has physical size of 6.86 millimeters, while on the iPad the smallest button is 8.47 millimeters. As you can see, the iPad buttons are physically significantly bigger. But due to longer viewing distance (40cm versus 28cm on iPhone), they don't appear to be so large as they physically are, when compared to iPhone.

So a smaller iPad Mini (at 163dpi) could use the smallest physical button size of 6.86 millimeters, while still following the Apple HIG, and more importantly, being able to use the iPad UI and apps just as-is.

Ok, so how would that feel like then?

Well, it's pretty hard to get a feel of a new device, without having a real prototype. But you can try looking and trying the full size version of the picture below inside normal iPad. It is scaled to be physically correct size, when viewed on full screen in iPad.

As a comparison, here's the screen of the original iPhone with the same button measurements.

Once you go retina, you won't go back

After putting so much effort in showcasing how amazing the retina displays are, would Apple really launch iPad mini with a non-retina screen? While the R&D is ongoing, it's fine to use prototypes with 163dpi. When it comes to commercial releases, however, Apple is in no big hurry or pressure to et iPad Mini out of the door prematurely. So, maybe when it is possible to do 330dpi retina displays at 7.85 inches, the iPad Mini might become reality. As of March 2012 such displays are not available on the mass market. That kind of 7.85 inch retina display would have the same resolution as iPhone 4S and same amount of pixels as the new iPad, i.e. 2048x1536 at 330dpi.

The crazy math

Should Apple ever do iPad Mini with the above measurements, the logical next step would be to do larger iPhone as well, with the iPad size physical screen buttons. This would translate to roughly 4,32 inch screen, but unfortunately the resolution would be "only" around 267dpi, which is below the retina threshold. Additionally, for a phone, the pocket-ability would suffer as well. So no magical solutions there.

Windows Phone 7 thoughts

I have had a change to briefly try out the Windows Phone 7 in real life use (i.e. with personal stuff fully set up in the phone).

The Metro style in Windows Phone 7, especially when coupled with the upcoming user interface of the Windows on desktop, is a pretty sleek package, promising to free normal users from the clutters and overall mess of the user interfaces in the old PC era.

Removing all that cruft of button gradients, background graphics and shadow effects also helps in making the Metro experience fast and responsive. Visual delight is focused on the few transitions and animations, used consistently across the whole platform.

Getting the basics right

On the apps side, there are some things that are really done well, which are particularly good news for people, who getting introduced to the touchscreen phones. Making phone calls, sending messages and calendar all work very nicely. In fact, of the dominant players (like iPhone and Android), I think the Windows Phone tackles the basic use the best, as it focuses on few key tiles as the shortcuts to the basic functionality of a phone. Using the multitude of apps is relegated to the second level.

Beyond the basic functionality, the social integration on the phone is done well, including the automatic merging of contacts for various services like Facebook and Twitter. The Messages app supports sending Facebook instant messages in addition to SMS. Messages to single person gets all merged in just one conversation. Pretty handy and simple.

Nokia's take on Windows Phone 7

The device tested was Nokia's Lumia 800. Perhaps as a parallel to Android skins, many have been expecting for Nokia to create its unique experience on top of Windows Phone 7. Instead of a skin, Nokia has so far focused on providing Nokia-only apps and content to its Lumia devices. Considering how difficult it has been for Android vendors to update their own skins in existing devices to latest Android OS (even a year or more since major OS version launch), I feel Nokia has chosen more agile, complementary and fruitful path to follow.

Nevertheless, there are possibilities to improve the Windows Phone experience with design heritage that Nokia has collected over time, particularly in Nokia N9. The Nokia N9 was the first Nokia phone to truly take advantage of gestures in the core navigation of the device, which was further emphasized in the physical form of the device. The form was eventually inherited by Lumia 800 as well, but not the gestures.

Without breaking the existing user interface, Windows phones could easily introduce gestures as shortcuts, like in N9, to go around the device. This is likely to happen anyway, considering Windows 8 on tablets and desktop already plan to rely heavily on gestures. Why not be able to go back to home screen(s) from an app by swiping down from the top, on a Windows phone? ⁽¹⁾ Additionally, switching between apps by swiping from the side, would be nicely consistent with the upcoming desktop world.

Nokia could also introduce it's own take on the homescreen, while not creating it's own "skin". Of the three home screens, two would be almost the same as currently - the tiles view and the app launcher. The third home screen would be the task switcher view, like N9. Although the 3rd is somewhat optional. If the horizontal edge swipe would allow good access to recently used apps, then separate task switcher view is just unnecessarily duplicating that functionality. However, thanks to metro style, the "thumbnails" of the apps in task switcher view are much more identifiable and attractive than on "full chrome" UIs such as N9.

This home screen approach would allow removing the awkward and disjointed forward/backward arrows from the home views, which also have forced the tiles and the launcher list to be appallingly de-centered. Simple horizontal swipes would allow balanced aesthetics to the most used views of the device, as well as enabling to use the standard status bar across all views of the devices.

N9 Home screens (events, app grid, task switcher)

Windows Phone 7 with N9-like home screens (tiles, app launcher, task switcher)

Young platform

The Windows Phone 7 is a young platform still, it was launched just 1,5 years ago. As is expected, there are things that would benefit from the maturity that comes with age.

While Panorama is a very nice concept as a user interface template, it is currently almost the only choice available to designers. Hence, apps tend to look bit too much alike. Even more than that, panoramas emphasize showing snippets of previews in listings, while making direct access to the full listing of the content (beyond the top 5) a bit of a drill down effort. Some apps unfortunately have not been able to avoid this pitfall, like the MS Marketplace -app and Nokia's App Highlights.

When inside applications, one is often confused with multiple search buttons – one is a hardware key taking to Bing, other is residing on the app toolbar, doing app specific search. Just clean this and use only HW search key to do app specific search, m'kay?

Any app which is primarily a text content oriented app fits pretty nicely in the Metro style – the panoramas, big fonts and all. However, on the visually oriented side, the standard UI elements seem to just scratch the possibilities. Are there any really mind-blowing visual reading apps like Flipboard on iPhone/iPad? Haven't found any. iPhone has a good share of user interface innovation happening, going beyond the standard UI, like the Clear app. Windows Phone apps are currently taking the initial first baby steps.

The over-the-air updates do not seem to be able to handle all the updates that come to the device.

The Marketplace app showcases way too many undesirable apps in search results. Particularly the trinket-like apps and x-rated apps are very often appearing in places where they shouldn't. There are some really good and relevant apps in the marketplace, but currently they are somewhat hidden in trash. Also, the typical app price in Marketplace is 2€ or more, whereas same or equivalent app is 0.79€ on iPhone. Unnecessarily pricey, I'd say.

When device is fully set up with personal accounts, the battery life seems to be less than iPhone and N9, lasting just a day when on light usage. A pity considering Windows Phone is kind of supposed to be a simplification, design-wise, from those phones.

---

(1) No, it does not make sense to close or exit an app when swiping down. Device should handle multitasking (& closing of apps) automatically (like iPhone does). Apps should just hide themselves and users should be able to return to the state they were in last time they used the app, via application launcher or task switcher.

What IS iPad?

Remember the original iPhone launch? The outrage that it wasn't possible to create 3rd party apps for it? Why was it such a big deal? Especially considering that Apple just had released their first phone, with some music playing capabilities...

Or did Apple actually release a phone?

When looking at the big picture, I think what Apple did... was a general purpose device, with touchscreen optimized user interface. Yes, it happens to be able to make phone calls, but it can also do many other things.

The reason people carry a mobile phone around, is the ability to be connected to other people and other people being able to connect to you, when needed. Since people are not so comfortable with carrying big bunch of devices (requires more space, weight, ...), they quite often like the fact that they can use the phone also for other purposes than making calls.

Many owners actually use their iPhones for many things that are not about calling or texting, hence the wild popularity and download rates for thousands of apps in the App Store. Personally I'd probably be quite comfortable with an iPod Touch (a non-phone), if it weren't for the fact that internet has to be accessible from everywhere (cellular data), and that it's nice that people are able to connect to me via conventional ways, even if it's not that often.

Since iPod Touch carries the stamp of "iPhone without the phone", are the users of the iPhone and the iPod Touch using their devices for mostly the same purposes (except calling)? Probably not. Games have been hugely popular in App Store, and I'd be willing to bet that pretty many of those games are being played on iPod Touches..., because that's what the "younger kids" are having. It's a secondary device, mostly a portable game console, which they can carry around. No need for expensive phone plans, just keep the cheap phone, with maybe pre-paid contract. As a bonus, in home, school and other networked places, it becomes nice portable web and social device.

It's just a hunch, but women seem very interested in small portable music players to carry around. All those almost jewelry -like iPod Nano's and iPod Shuffles. It's humming along in gym, as well as on the way to work and back. For that, iPod Touch is a bit too big... unless it can provide enough appeal beyond having nice metal mirror on the backside. For some it may have that desirability, but then the lack of ubiquitous connectivity (for all the social apps) points towards an iPhone...

iPod Touches and iPhones are being used in homes, but there they need to compete with full-blown personal computers, as well as with wall mounted big TVs. And there, the small screen, no matter how high the resolution is, starts to lose it's shine. And currently the apps enabling Create and Modify activities are only starting to appear in the App Store.

For casual organizing of life, like noting down upcoming events, making shopping lists, sending reminders to friends... The small, instant-on touchscreen devices still can easily overtake TV or computers. But for big time entertainment, or for "getting things done", it falls a bit short.

...

In some ways, iPad is more of the same. It's still the same idea as iPhone already was, a very general purpose device. So it's not so much of a question what all kinds of things are possible (pretty much anything), but who is using it, in what context.

The only major difference to iPhones and iPod touches is the physical size of the display, which then ends up affecting the size of the device, the weight and consequently the ways to hold it and the portability of it.

Being more luggable and instant-on than a laptop, some internet-oriented road-warriors have found iPad being able to replace, at least partially, the use cases for laptop. It is more relaxed, almost leisurely device to use, compared to a full-blown laptop. And showcasing things to a client, on-the-go, is quite likely more attractive and immersive on a iPad, compared to a laptop screen (just give the iPad to the clients waiting hands). All in all, it will still take quite some time before iPad is a valid competitor to laptop for road-warriors though.

Compared to the iPhones and even iPod Touches, I think the iPad will spend much less time on the move. For an average person, it's probably a "device at home", "device at work" (e.g. medical field), or some other static context like that, with only occasionally taking it along, for example to show latest family photos and -videos to grandparents.

As a "home device" it probably is more entertainment oriented, whether it's news, books, web, social or games. It's the device when you want to "quiet down" on your own, to do your own stuff, rather than sit, agree on and watch the same TV programming with rest of the household. So you might sit on a sofa, or lie down on bed while toying with iPad.

Two groups of people who will actively use iPads are kids (especially younger than teens) and the elderly. The extent of it might still surprise some, in a year or two from now, as those groups are not traditionally typical for using the latest tech.

For kids the almost irresistible draw on iPad is it's intuitiveness. Just Google for iPhones and 1-2 year olds and you will get the idea. There are already, and there will be even more iPad apps specifically for kids. Parents have the power to choose what apps get on the device (by buying them) and kids have the freedom to explore the iPad without the need of parent to watch or guide over the shoulder. It's a win-win situation. Plus there's no need for separate game console, or DVD player. Some of the best selling children's books become animated and interactive, becoming even more attractive, and self-learnable.

Maybe un-surprisingly, the elders get attracted to iPad for the same reason the kids are. It's their "first computer" that they can actually use, without being intimidated or having fear of getting lost. There's the trusty, single, big, physical, black "panic button" that always gets you to where you started from.

And this is just the beginning of the journey.

...

Update: Mr. Bray points to tablet's advantage for (physical) shareability. Good point.

Apple iFrame

Everybody and their mother is writing about Apple's panel. I think Gruber's thoughts and his links to other places on the topic are most relevant reading.

While some others are much more populistic and techy-minded, there's one good thought intermixed in the wishful thinking – the screen resolution.

Apple already has existing and in-use own video format called iFrame, which could easily be the name of the device as well...

What's interesting about that format is how neatly it fits in the different Apple screens:
- iPhone 320x480 ("a half" of iFrame, in width), approx 3.5 inches screen, 160 dpi
- iFrame 960x540
- iMac (smaller) 1920x1080 ("twice" iFrame, both in width and height), 21.5-inch screen, 100 dpi

At 10 inch physical screen size, the "native" iFrame would calculate to approx 110 dpi screen with 960x540, which would be much more "widescreen" form than iPhone is.

With iPhone form, the numbers could end up as: 960x640, ending up as approx 115 dpi for a 10 inch screen. Which does feel sensible, unless it's not high-enough-DPI for Apple as a touchscreen.

High-DPI version would be 1920x1080, which would be approx 220dpi for a 10 inch screen. Quite likely enough for Apple, even if Nokia N900 does 265dpi (800x480 at approx 3.5inches) :)

iFrame resolution, or some multiple of that resolution seems like quite likely to end up playing a significant role, in at least one of the dimensions of the Apple panel (...or Apple tablet :).

...

Update: It's 9.7 inches,1024x768 pixels at 132 dpi. Oh well, there goes the iFrame theory out of the window...

...

Update 2: Another view on the 4:3 resolution.

Update 3: Pro 4:3 arguments: It's not super-optimized for video watching, instead it's books, web, iWork. Plus, at 9.7 inches, it's physically much more comfortable to use when the device has 4:3 dimensions (landscape and portrait).

At Barcelona - UX meets Code

Let's see what all we can accomplish here. Blogging with MaStory :)

Maemo 5 GUI Design Template (GUI PSD)

The Maemo 5 documentation now includes also the GUI Design Template, which allows one to create high-fidelity image mockups.

Currently the GUI Design template is available in Photoshop format that has a fairly comprehensive library of assets – all fully editable.

As is usual with these things, this is not something you'd use e.g. for wireframes or as a replacement for pen an paper. This is more useful for situations where pixel perfectness is needed.

Designing UI for Maemo 5 (Maemo Summit 2009)

I had a presentation in Maemo Summit 2009 about Designing UI for Maemo 5. The slides of the presentation are available in slideshare.

Abstract:
How to make the applications work together as an integrated whole?

This talk will discuss the UI Design of the Maemo 5 product as an "application portfolio". Design patterns as well as application specific designs are presented, and the reasoning for the design decisions.

Design of the pre-installed applications in the Maemo 5 product is discussed, highlighting the UI flows, common user experience solutions and power user features. Throughout the application walk-through, the structure and "look and feel" of the applications is categorized, resulting in a conceptual design tool for 3rd party application designers and developers.

Intuitive multipoint touchscreen interaction

One of the Talks in TED Conference (blog) speaks about how enhanced touchscreens could make human interaction with the much more intuitive.

Although the hardware is cool, the real interaction innovation lies in the applications and in the interaction concepts. The Talk does show quite good examples ("lava lamp", 3D earth, maps, atoms/biology).

It would be really interesting to hear how those people that never have used computers, would use the interface differently than computer-literate people.

Watch the TEDTalks: Jeff Han