Usability Forum

iPod Shuffle: Simplicity is key. Simple for humans, not manufacturing

By Eddie Lopez. Thursday, 16. April 2009, 15:47:22

design, minmalist, Shuffle, Apple, iPod, simplicity, donald norman

Look. You can't remove the user interface Apple.

Design has certainly trumped usability in the case of new iPod Shuffle. You may make a case that minimalist design is more important than modal controls. You can argue that 90% of the functions listed there are never used ("I just hit play and go!"), but these controls are clearly not "human centered." They are completely modal (dependent on a single, center, button). This may look simple, but only from a minimalist/design/hardware perspective. It's not simple for the user at all to remember the many different contexts and modes for the center button.

From the good Dr. Norman:

Hey, folks, what ever happened to simplicity as a virtue? Of course, one of the most difficult things in design is to make things simple. It requires focus, dedication, and a clear goal. It means eliminating needless features, using dedicated controls rather than multipurpose, modal, complex menu-driven ones, and it requires the development of a clear conceptual model carried throughout all aspects of the design.
(related article here)

The previous generation of shuffle, in my opinion, was much closer to Donald Norman's definition than the current version. There are additional features added (playlist management, voice driven features, etc) and modal/multipurpose controls.

Nothing wrong with being prepared....Legacy LockerInhabitat mixes mental models

Comments

kmaage # 17. April 2009, 09:26

How would you redesign the interface, keeping the limitations of one button interaction? Volume up down is taken care of by their own buttons on the wire.

Here's what I would do:
Forget play/pause-- put sensors or microswitches in the earbuds. Put them both in your ears, begin playing. Take them both out, turn off. Take one earbud out, probably reduce the volume, but keep playing, not sure.

Now, I would make that one button touch sensative, so just holding the device would be interpreted as "hey, I want to do something"

Now, the hard part... Designing a "radio announcer like" interface. It activates when you grab the button (without clicking yet). Your song keeps playing, but the volume goes down a bit and the announcer's voice announces the next song title while a "recognizeable snippet" plays. If you like what he/she suggests, you click to say yes.

If it's not music, but a book or podcast, then the announcer might suggest, "go back a bit?" as the first choice before other options.

The idea here is to completely remove the concept of the user telling the ipod what to play. Its tedious. Besides, interacting with music is primarily a "give me what you've got" type interaction.

What do you think? Possible? Better? Worse?

Eddie_Lopez # 17. April 2009, 13:47

Hard to say- I mean- I love the "bud" clicker on the iPhone, and if you had to ask me, I would probably tell you that I would like to see more being done with it. But then I look at the above and image and, it's really modal and somewhat confusing... just to go back two tracks can require 6 clicks of the center button.

Your ideas are at least based on human interactions- ie, it's the device adapting to human behavoirs, rather than humans adapting to mechanical actions ("how many times do I click to do X?").

I do really like the earbud sensor idea though.

WillYum # 17. April 2009, 15:34

Eh, it's really just a case of Apple capitalizing on their logo and pushing the limits of design. It's not for me, not for the vast majority of people but a definite niche.

Yum

FataL # 26. May 2009, 20:52

Not saiying that there may be also accessibility problem for ~8% of men that cannot distinguish red (orange) from green...
Better to use blue or violet in pair with green LED instead, but green/red LEDs usually cheaper, so unfortunately manufactures usually use those.