Larger iPhones – making sense of the pixels

By now there's been countless amount of rumors for larger screened iPhones. For example here's what iPhone 6 is supposed to be coming with. Most rumor postings only focus on the physical size of the device, which sure is important, but pay very little attention to the amount of pixels the screen would have.

The reason why the pixels matter is that Apple has been very conscious to avoid fragmentation in a device family, as much as it can be avoided. So when going to high-density "retina" displays, the pixels were scaled exactly 2x on both iPhones and iPads, so that old apps would run as-is without getting screwed by the aspect ratio (stayed the same) or pixel scaling (2x is as nice as it can get).

So when it comes to screen sizes and pixels on those screens, the real question is, how can you make the new "large" screens behave well in the non-retina + retina family?

The answer from the pixel side of things is relatively simple: have a scaling factor that is preferably whole integer (no decimals). Now, considering that iPad Mini (7.8" screen) sets a spiritual upper limit to the screen size, we are talking about screens with physical size of 4-7 inches diagonal. Within that range, doubling the pixels of retina screen (640px width => 1280px width) gets us into extreme dpi range, up to 600+ dpi. Those kinds of screens are fairly pointless to human eye (retina, i.e. ~326dpi is the sweet spot for a phone) – as well as very hard and costly to manufacture. On the other hand, Apple is probably not interested in going below retina resolutions, so 326dpi is the lower limit.

So 2 times the retina pixels is overkill. But there are no other integer-based scaling factors, right? Well, there is one: 1,5 times the retina. Because it is 3x the non-retina screen. The iPhone development environment continues to calculate sizes and positions in the non-retina scale, so introducing a "3x" scale as a sibling to "2x" scale is fairly trivial change. Of course the scaling of the pixels isn't perfect for old apps, but then again, retina (2x) has already very high pixel density, so with a even higher-dpi screen, the blurriness could be fairly small effect.

With 3x scaling, and iPhone 5/5S aspect ratio, we get 960px by 1704px pixels screen. At 326dpi (same as iPhone 5), that would translate to 6,0 inch screen, which could be a bit too large for Apple's tastes.

The iPhone 6 article linked above, speaks about 4,7" and 5,5" screens. Let's look at those sizes then.

The 4,7" would be the highest density display at 420dpi (again, 960px*1704px). While it's a high dpi, it still sounds doable. From user experience point of view, it would be merely 16% physically wider screen than the iPhone 5S, and would feel a lot like iPhone 5S, albeit with much more (non-discernible) pixels under the hood.

The 5,5" would have 355dpi screen, which is not much different dpi from the iPhone 5S. The device would feel much bigger though, nearly 40% physically wider and taller than iPhone 5S.

With the 4,7" and 5,5" phones, the existing apps would run just fine. Thanks to the extreme 420dpi resolution on the 4,7", the blurring from scaling the pixels of the old apps would be barely visible. On the 5,5" screen it would probably have small, but noticeable-if-you-look-for-it, effect.

...

All the discussion above, assumes that Apple is interested in keeping the contents on the screen exactly the same across the devices in the family (i.e. all the iPhones in this case). With larger screens it's of course possible to start re-layouting the content, for example putting more icons to the home screen and so forth.

However, at launch, iPad mini introduced a new physical screen size to the iPad family, and yet Apple kept layout the same as in original iPad. I foresee Apple continuing to use this pattern in iPhone-family too.

iPad Pro

So there's now iPad Air. Apple said it's a product that they have been wanting to do for a long time – a big tablet screen with the power of a laptop and weight + bezel of an iPad Mini. The device is just the screen – more than ever before.

But there's another omen in the name – Will there be an iPad Pro?


Of course, for Apple, the reason the make a significantly larger screen than the 9.7" iPad Air, is definitely not just because we can. A larger screen would not be mobile in the sense the current iPads are. It would be luggable, like the larger 15" and 17" Macbook Pro laptops are. Not convenient, but possible when the nature of work demands it. So definitely more work oriented device for professionals, just like the Macbook Pros are.

Who would use such a device and why? While the PC isn't going away anyway soon, Apple in full steam with Post-PC and any device that helps significantly to accelerate that trend, is an area of interest. Among all the Macbook Pro users, there are lot of creatives and art-oriented people who currently use Wacom pen surfaces, Wacom pens with auxillary screens and other assistive tools for design work and for digital art. When working on desktop, they might use external 24" or even 30" screen. That's a lot of expensive devices that are much less luggable than a large iPad with, maybe, a wirelessly connected pen.

Other potential groups of people are music makers, recording studios, DJs, VJs, planners and architects, movie makers, animation creators, modellers and so on. The available apps and the performance capabilities of the device are the only limiting factors and those are just a matter of time.

So how big would the Pro be then? The most likely thing to happen, is to do the non-retina to retina transition all over again. So double the amount of pixels and the size of the screen, for both iPad Mini and iPad Air. This would result in screen sizes of 15.8" and 19.4" diagonal (4096px by 3072px). These kind of screens would be used more like desktop computers, albeit not on flat table or in fully upright position. It would be placed mostly in landscape orientation in a slight angle – on top of a wedge or tilt stand – the way illustrators and architects work nowadays.

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.

Disrupting the market

So the Nokia N9 got finally launched, nearly 2 years after it's predecessor Nokia N900.

When N900 was show to the world, it demonstrated new ways to do full multitasking, integrated Skype and VOIP experience, a good solution to conversational SMS and instant messaging, online presence, integrated sharing, a very capable web browser... And a Unix terminal program installed by default on device. In a sea of smartphones of various degrees, it showed what a powerful mobile computer could be like. With a primarily landscape-oriented UI.

To this day, N900 is a device that is still referenced in blogs, when people talk about UI innovation, particularly when it comes to offering a full-scale multitasking experience. This is pretty remarkable especially considering that N900 has not received any mainstream-level adoption when it comes to the amount of devices sold. It's more of a "proof of concept" that leading-edge people can have as their own phone.

And now, the N9 takes the multitasking to the heart of the device, designing it so that it almost disappears. Compared to N900, the N9 is much more of a consumer product than any Maemo device before it, but its potential as a high-volume mainstream device is dampened by Elop's current Nokia strategy. But in fact, this means that the heritage of OSSO/Maemo/Meego continues - as a disruptive device to talk about. Again, it may not be the device that everyone owns, but it still will be a device that the blogs will reference to, when they talk about UI innovation. And that has an effect on how the other devices in the market will be designed.

These devices are the key for putting Nokia and "thought leadership" back together.

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.

What Steve Jobs should have said, but didn't

Summarising the good words by others...
(John Gruber, John Syracusa)

On the external antenna design:
"Overall the iPhone 4 performs better than prevous iPhones. Apple is very confident in the chosen design, BUT the design does make an antenna weak spot explicitly visible to the end users."

On the reception issues:
"Vast majority of users do not have reception issues with iPhone 4. The left-handed "death grip" way of holding the phone does cause problems for some, although this is not entirely unique problem to iPhone 4. While the weak spot makes demonstrating the problem trivial, it should not be confused with the experience of actual use of the phone."

"Actually in parallel, a real bug has been identified that probably is causing a part of the problems people attribute to the antenna. Fix for the proximity sensor bug is coming in upcoming software update."

On the free bumber:
"Apple cares about all users. We do think most people will not need a bumber solely because of the antenna design. However, we are willing to give one free to anyone who feels they need a bumber. We will continue to improve the hardware and software in the future products."

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

The Vastu of Web-design

(via slashdot) in the something-completely-different -department, the new trend in India is to have the website analysed by a guru in Vastu (the Indian equivalent of Feng-Shui). Does your website overuse the water element?
The image on the let is an example analysis of Slashdot's "vibes".

Insight from the past

While it's often exciting to wait for new products from Apple and other design companies, it's not actually necessary to just speculate, collect rumours and get insider tips about the products.

Much of the important "big lines" (strategies) and many features of the products can be understood through insight by researching and understanding the moves of the past. One of the sources for this type of insight is RoughlyDrafted.

Note that there is, of course, a price tag on such insight - namely lot's of fluffy text, advertising and many requests from the author to promote the website. so YMMV.

After reading many of the texts, it makes one respect and appreciate Apple (those times that it's been successful) for the hard work of 1) finding a right product for the current time/age, 2) timing the launch of products, 3) iterative design, and 4) taking advantage of the concepting/previous attempts for products.

RD notes:
Apple
Important areas: Office (MS, ignorance of MacWrite) -> Desktop Publishing (Adobe & PS & PDF) -> Digital Media (Quicktime)

Historically Apple dependent on four major application vendors: Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, and Quark (all originally started their graphic apps on Mac)

Past projects:
- Powertalk (no standards, based on AppleTalk) -> similarities to Mac OS X: Bonjour, systemwide Keychain & Addressbook
- QuickDraw GX,
- A/UX -> idea recycled in Mac OS X (UNIX basis, but based on BSD)
- HyperCard -> Human-oriented programming languages: Applescript, Automator
- Copland (another) -> "System 8"
- Pink -> entirely new development platform for the Mac with IBM, code named Pink and Taligent
- Newton
- QuickDraw 3D
- Quicktime Interactive
- Common Point
- OpenDoc
- Dylan - futuristic coding language
- Future Shock

...
The new surge of Apple-made software:
- Macromedia KeyGrip -> Apple Final Cut
- Astarte's DVD technology -> Apple DVD Studio Pro
- Nothing Real's high end video compositing -> Apple Shake
- Emagic's professional level music studio tools -> Apple Logic Pro
- Apple Aperture
- & bundled non-pro versions of the apps: iLife (iMovie, iTunes, iDVD, iPhoto, Garageband, iWeb), iWork (Pages, Keynote)
- & non-bundled "pre-pro" (prosumer) versions: Final Cut Express, Logic Express

Mac OS X
- pre-emptive, multitasking (UNIX foundations), shell + UNIX toolchain
- object oriented programming: Cocoa (from NEXTStep)
- Bonjour
- systemwide Keychain & systemwide Address Book,
- iWork (key areas: Office + Desktop Publishing)
- iLife + pro apps -- taking advatage of quicktime (Key area: Digital Media (Content creation))
- Applescript (& Automator)
- Quartz 2D: entirely new drawing system: based on the open PDF model, with a standard implementation of the OpenGL specification. Replaced the archaic and proprietary QuickDraw and QuickDraw 3D.

iTV
- On Demand Commercial Content
- Personal Content
- Alternative Content
- Interactive Content (dynamic, not static media) -- The iPod way: Games, Widgets, Notes (+ VNC)
- Original Content (Apple as a Label and a Studio, Original Content for TV - not for Movies)

Apple's way up
- Good integration of software, hardware and services (holistic design)
- High quality software/hardware (distinctive, not bulk)
- Concentration on specific markets/key areas (office work, desktop publishing, digital media/creatives)
- Apple-created key applications
- Three levels of products, with high reuse in code: non-pro (consumer), pre-pro (prosumer), and professional
- Packaging the right mixture, pricing it right
- Better visibility - Marketing (e.g. I am a PC, I am a Mac -ads) and Retail stores (+ digital store)

On Research

The academic world has again entered into my field of vision. Interesting.

After having taken a slight pause with that world, I think I need to make-up my mind on what it is (in high level) that I will be doing there. And I'm not speaking about the content. Yet.

I got inspired by a relatively recent article, boldly called "The Future of Human-Computer Interaction" (2006) by John Canny of UC Berkeley. Despite its grandious name, it's quite sane article, with refreshingly good historical review of where HCI comes from and why things are the way they are now. That part could be also called "The story of WIMP" (Windows, Icons, Mouse, Pointing).

For future, Canny puts forward two areas of UI development: Context-Awareness and Perceptual Interfaces. Now, these are not new ideas. But what Canny wants to happen with those areas, will not happen overnight. More like in 5-10 years, or even later.

Parallel to the UI development, Canny also touches the topic of roles in a development/research project. Nowadays HCI can be seen as being involved in all the stages of (iterative) (product) development process. As Canny points out, this doesn't mean that HCI people are the (only) ones that can do the development process, but, rather, that the understanding of the HCI needs to be involved/integrated in all the phases.

Ok, so if I were in a Company, this would all be pretty clear by now. No matter what phase of the process, there is work for a user-centred person, at least as a teacher/consultant, if not as active participant.

What about Reseach? It cannot be primarily about creating unique product ideas, because a researcher cannot truly be a concept designer; He lacks the resources of a company (peers, design/implementation team, ability to make real-life products). This approach is still used through joint projects between (several) research organisations and companies. However, with the NDAs, patents and closed development often looming in the horizon, this is not the ideal way of discovering and disseminating science to all of the world.

What a researcher is good at, is sensing/finding out what is happening around the world. And also (especially in user-centred research), interacting with people via research methods such as interviewing, workshops and just getting involved in what users do. Through these activities, it is natural that ideas emerge (rather than researcher just inventing ideas out of the blue). But what to do with the ideas?

The radical (product) ideas can of course take the route of product development in a company, as I described earlier. However, in researchers role, I am more interested in the evolving ideas, because, as Canny says, humans evolve actually very slowly and there's no point in reinventing the UI paradigm every year (in contrast to new mobile phone products every quartal of the year). Moreover, there is awfully lot of technology and tools already available, it is more about discovering how to use/combine existing stuff than actually needing to create totally new and different stuff (e.g. products).

If one is aiming for discovering how to use existing stuff by sensing the world and interacting with people, it is pretty straightforward to engage with communities of people. The community specifies the nature of activities that are carried out and the goal for the activity. Also, communities often have a natural tendency to want to improve themselves, so experimentation is a welcome behaviour. Both the creation of ideas and validation become easier, because they have a clear context: The community itself can also come up with ideas and it either adopts the new ways of activities or it prefers the existing ones.