User Centered

Anyone who's been around this site for awhile (all three of you) knows that I have a long standing series of beefs with Apple on how they handle podcasts on the iPod/iPhone. In summation- Apple initially treated the UI for podcasts very much like that for music/songs and have subsequently updated with a series of patches and band-aids to compensate that slowly increment towards a passable podcast UI.


Apple's new iPhone software includes another one of these fixes that is likely spurned on by the same issues I brought up in my previous post on this topic- the seek and slider functions are terrible ways to get around a podcast track. So, they've provided a very welcome "30 second" rewind function. Also gone are the shuffle and repeat functions, which didn't make a lot of sense for podcasts in my opinion anyway (more music thinking transposed to podcasts)

It's welcome, but I still consider this a patch. We now have three different ways on the same screen to move around the track: Seek, slider, and 30 seconds. More UI equals more decision points and more complication. I suppose it would be passable to do this, but as I pointed out before, the first two are pretty much worthless for long podcasts, the seek function is too clumsy and the slider is impossible to do anything with accuracy. The original iPod click wheel did a decent job of allowing you to move around the track with few problems, I had no issues with that interaction.

I feel like this whole podcast UI needs a "from scratch" redesign- perhaps my next related post will be a mockup of a series of ideas I've had over the years, since Apple seems to only pay enough attention to podcasts to add one small feature with each release that only slightly moves the bar forward.

I thought it would be timely given all this recent talk on smartphones and convergence to reprint this question from my Q&A with Donald Norman:

In your "Ask Don" feature, you ended your thoughts on convergence with:
"Today simplicity, tomorrow convenience. Tomorrow convenience, the next day simplicity." Do you feel there is hope that technology will close this gap? In other words, it would be nice if our cell phone would physically "change" into a MP3 player at our whims, but until reality catches up with Sci-Fi, is there a middle ground that technology can reach that will make make simple and convenient devices? (like a touchscreen interface that offers the tactile feedback of physical buttons)

DN: We are always caught in the bind of wanting our devices to be straightforward and simple, while simultaneously wanting them to do more and more things.

This is not a technological problem.

Technology can help only if it can adopt a simple structure so that controls for different devices are as similar to one another as possible, making the learning much easier. Multiple purpose controls are an abomination. It is possible to have a single device transform itself into independent devices for controlling different tasks. But here the key is to make the switch from the support of individual technologies and individual devices to the support of cohesive, organized activities.

When I watch television, I don't really want to watch TV: I want to watch a movie, or a TV show. Therefore, the "watching a TV show" control should automatically set up the TV, the cable box or DVR, the audio set, and let me control volume and selection of shows -- activities that require numerous separate devices, but should e smoothly controlled by one. Indeed, the "watching a TV show" controller might also control room lights and draperies. That's what happens in my home.

But, that's it. The "watching a TV show" controller should not select music channels, or control the bedroom lights, or the room temperature -- it should be configured for all and only the components that make up the TV viewing experience.

Similar strategies are required for all of our activities. Activity-centered design is the key to simplicity.

My first Harmony experience was not all that great. Mainly because there is no technology that exists yet that will communicate the state of the devices back to the remote. So while the number one praise of the remote (from techies/home theater gurus) is that the significant other/babysitter can just pick it up and press a button- no more explanation is needed, it's easy to find out pretty quickly that that just isn't true.

There needs to be other explanations that end up being little more confusing than before, because they have to do with our (physical) habits. Now the user has to stay within the confines of the state that the remote expects the system to be in. In other words- we still have to be aware of the state of the system, because the system doesn't understand our quirks and habits. For example- when watching a DVD, I configured my remote to turn on the DVD player, switch the TV to video, and the receiver to DVD. Pretty simple, except that most of the time I've already turned the DVD player on to put the movie in. So, I tailor that activity to leave the DVD player alone only to find a case where I'd like it to power on. Of course, you can tweak the remote and control individual components, but when you take yourself out of the one button mindset, it's very noticible and more cumbersome.

The point here is that even if the owner understands what's going and can manage, what happens when the novice (ie, anyone not familiar with my home theater rig) comes along and the owner bills this as "just press the button" and it doesn't work? There's a tremendous amount of distrust in the system from then on. Especially since there's not likely to be a set of "fall back" instructions. More importantly, trading a verbal instructions like "just press this button than this button...." for "DON'T turn the DVD player on before you press anything, the system will take care of that for you..." will probably go against some habit the user already has for "settling down" to watch/listen to something.

Regardless, I bring this up because there is a new model out (the 550) which is around 150 dollars (review,official page). I think I'm going to throw my hat in the ring again with this model. Despite those problem I have, I think the idea is the way to go, and the value of it will far outweigh any negative disparity. The price point is slightly more than the lowest-end model (which is *still* incredibly high)- I figure this is going to replace the aging 600 series. So- a "do-able" price that mixes with a fresh design along with my need for a good universal remote. Conclusion? I'm willing to give Logitech a second chance with my consumer dollars.

Background/Old News: Harmony (Logitech) remotes are "activity centered" remotes that have the right idea when it comes to using your home theater devices. For those uninitiated, you can press a "watch tv" button and all your devices will switch and adjust themselves appropriately- sparing you the trouble of hitting video twice on one remote, change to channel three, select the "TV" setting on the receiver and so on and so forth. Read Donald Norman on "Activity Centered Design" for more information on the Harmony and this approach.

For those who are tired of waiting for their gadgets to converge into a super device, and just want a phone to make calls with, I present the Vodafone Simply. (Found via Asa Dotzler's blog)

From the website:

Vodafone Simply mobile phones are designed for you if you want:
-An easy-to-use phone only for voice calls and texting.
-To keep in touch easily with your family and friends.
-And uncomplicated phone with built-in helpful tips.

Seems like they have focused on the "phone" related tasks and facilitated the flow. I appreciate focusing the UI on the users instead of simply adding new features to the existing menu structure in the phone's UI. But I think the biggest advancement in mobile phone usability isn't going to come from the phone itself, but from how we use them. I think it's going to come from Donald Norman.

I love his ideas along the lines of "near real time" interaction (a great read), these simple phones would be a perfect place to implement some of his ideas (well, any phone really, but since these are focusing on making life simply, lets start there).

I like the idea of SMS/MMS messaging. I just don't want a keyboard on my phone. I have "spoon thumbs" that don't make it easy to type. But I love the near-real time interaction. I've been making due with SMS/MMS messaging and seriously considering getting a phone with qwerty as my next purchase, but still that doesn't mean I don't think there's a better way.

I also hate voice mail with a passion. I've enabled the "quick prompts" (VM prompts are not so verbose) on my VM box so that alleviates some of the hassle, but still:
1)Dail in
2)You have one new message and two saved messages
3)The following message has not been heard
4)...ugh...

As Donald Norman suggests- I'd like the flexibility of text messaging applied to voice. You don't need to have a keyboard, you don't need to "dail in," you don't need to be present (like the two-way radio cell phones). I pick up my phone, press a button and record a message. Select someone from my phone book and click send. They get a "new voice note from Eddie" message and click play and listen at their convenience. I guess we could start with the interface that most phones have for recording voice notes. But I've always wondered why I have to hold the button down the whole time I'm recording. Makes it a bit more cumbersome and restricted.

Quick, easy, voice messaging. Now THAT would be a killer feature for me.

Add to: | Technorati |  Digg |  del.icio.us |  Yahoo |  BlinkList |  Spurl |  reddit |   Furl |  

This first post is "priming the pump" with a bunch of comments on a bunch of things...

Kitchen sink Posted 31 Aug
Look- what percentage of the time we do spend rinsing dishes off or other activities with our hand in the water versus the amount of time we need boiling molten hot lava-like plastic melting heated water? I say the odds lean towards the former. That’s why I propose a safety catch of some sort to prevent you from getting scalded when doing the dishes but still allowing easy access to super hot water. I imagine something like a manual transmission safety measure preventing you from going into reverse-like turn all the way to hot then lift up and over? Or a button on the hot water knob; something that’s only visible after you’ve adjusted the temp all the way to the hot side.

I’ve seen several faucets advertised that have “heat limits”—but most I’ve seen are set/adjusted when you assemble the faucet.

I also know there are seperate hot water spouts available that already do this- but they are ugly, and often are too low/short to be of use. I also know you can probably adjust the water heater to a cooler setting… but then the scalding parties I have on the weekends would be boring waiting for the water to boil on the stove.

Night light toilet seat Posted 6 Sep
Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a light that was on the bottom of the toilet seat? Maybe it gets a capacitor charge or something from lifting the lid. I suppose it would only have to stay lit for a under a minute and be pretty faint.

update- I stand corrected. Nice job science:
http://www.the-gadgeteer.com/review/lavnav_motion_activated_toilet_night_light_review
Although- this looks suspect. I don’t know that I want to trust an adhesive- but I can’t think of a better idea yet. Also- I’m all for cleaning the toilets on a regular basis- but this changing batteries on my toilet does not seem like what I want to be doing. I’m curious how long they last.

DVD’s Posted 6 Sep
DVD’s are pretty darn sweet. They are small, clear, present a nice quality, I’m sure they’re cheaper to manufacture (or at least evolved to that point) than most mediums. I just don’t get CD’s and DVD’s. Why do we continue to present mediums that are exposed to the environment like that? I wish Sony MD’s would have caught on or something better came about. I’m tired of stopping my DVD’s that I rent to pull it out and clean it because the last guy decided to eat his dinner on the damn thing. Why should I have to clean it in order to use it? Can’t we protect these things somehow?

Windows Start Menu Posted 31 Aug
Possibly the most confusing thing ever. It makes me want to just go back to the command line. In most cases, I know what application I want to use, but I can’t remember the company that made it. I’ve seen in my office on more than one occasion people get frustrated with the start menu and just open explorer->program files->application directory. Why doesn’t the start menu reflect the same thing as the ‘Program Files’ directory?

MS Middle Click Posted 29 Aug
Why does it suck so much? It is pretty much useless when the slightest movement sends your document racing to the beginning or end. I’m sure you can configure it somewhere, but I’m not about to traipse through MS menu options to find it

Attachments on the intranet Posted 13 Sep
Every company that I’ve worked in has a mail storage limit and share drives for users to work off of. If there was more thought put into this with sending attachments, the world would be a better place.

It should be easier to create a shortcut to the file and tell the recipients where the file is located (for those few who actually care about the path on the share drive of where the file is). I know you can drag a shortcut to the file into email, but that’s often met with problems such as the users saving a shortcut to local disk and then having to open the file instead of just opening the file directly from the email.

Outlook Attachment options seem too complicated. Regular attachment is the “same ‘ol” process. Shared attachment seems like what I’m talking about- but where do I want to create a “document workspace” at? What happens after the meeting when I don’t really care about this file anymore. I don’t want to “become the adminstrator of the document workspace” nor do I know what “sharepoint URL” I want to store this at. I just want to email the slides out but not send 5MB to every single person in my organization. I’m just trying to be a good citizen, but this is too much for a simple email.

I think the mail client should be smart enough to simply mail a link to the (read only) file on the share drive (formated like a hyperlink instead of the often broken/confusing share drive path that doesn’t work-but still have the network path easy to see/find). If the email address is not on exchange- the actual file should be sent instead since it is likely that the recipients will not be able to access the share drives (network guys can figure out the best way to handle that).

Something like this (but the share path would not be the link- the word ‘presentation’ would be the link)

Here’s my presentation powerpoint slides for today’s 2:00 meeting
(located: \\someshare\presentation\project_status.ppt)
-Your boss


Outlook Calendar and Mail- tighter integration Posted 13 Sep
Highlight a date in an email: “bob- let’s meet at 200 today to discuss the changes.” and be able to add an appointment to the calendar from that. Nobody sends appointments for things like that, and when someone who is not an exchange users sends you an email- you still might want to add it to the calendar. The appointment creation already takes a broad range of input values for dates/times- why can’t we tightly integrate that into email?

UltraMon Posted (Dual monitor software) 13 Sep
UltraMon software for controlling my dual monitor displays has a “smart taskbar” that allows showing the window taskbar across both monitors.

These are two different options, but they look like the same thing. The second menu doesn’t make it clear that it will be part of the right click popup from the task bar.

“Click all menu items you want to use.” Considering I’m in a “menu” at the time this option is presented to me and it’s in the “customization” tab, I assumed this is how I enable/disable the smart taskbar. In fact, I still don’t think “click all menu items you want to use” is clear at all. How do I know that relates to right clicking on the system tray icon? How about: “Select which options are immediately available on right-clicking the icon in the system tray” -wordsmithed down (or up) to a reasonable level of clarity.

Attachment: smart_taskbar2.JPG
Attachment: smart_taskbar1.JPG
sorry- images coming soon.

slashdot posting on "Print Preview" Posted 13 Sep
From Anonymouse Coward regarding print preview:

“I still can’t print the exact same Word file on two different printers and get the same pagination.”

That’s because Microsoft doesn’t have WYSIWYG, and it looks like they either don’t understand what it is, or they’re not even trying to develop it. The best Microsoft has produced so far is WYGIWYS (What You Get Is What You’ll See). First you have to tell their software what printer you have. Now that they know that, they can determine what it will look like when printed (on that particular printer only!) and know what to show you on screen. Switch printers and they change the on-screen look to match. They have it exactly backwards.

Some of you Microsoft apologists will disagree with the above, but you can easily verify this. Try to do a print preview in Word before you set up a printer on the machine. It won’t let you! Why? Because they need to know the hardware to know what the hardcopy will look like. True WYSIWYG is device independent, i.e. they print it to match the on-screen look not the other way around as Microsoft does.

Why is this important? Amongst many other reasons, we need to know when we email someone a document that it will print out on the other guy’s printer (most probably a different model than ours) exactly as it was meant to. Anything less is pathetic at this point.

AC

Alarm Clock- Hunt for the best Posted 15 Sep
Here’s my requirements- I can’t find a good way to find one that meets them.

Battery backup
Date-time- I should be able to set my alarm to go off on Mon-Friday and not on weekends
Speed setting forwards and backwards
Snooze button should not be anywhere near the button to turn off for the day.
AM/PM should be written- not a dot for one or the other
No delicate switches to operate- you know, the switch that has four of five clicks it can fall into that are all so close together that the text describing it needs a line leading from the word to where the switch is supposed to be set. These are a pain to use and are never set right. Often you get blaring music as you move the switch across the range waking up your Sig. other.

I actually have a good clock that meets most of this requirements. I will look up the model number and post here soon. Contact me if you are interested.

update: I’m not the only one:
http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/16968
http://changelog.complete.org/node/205