January 26, 2010 at 00:46Problems of modern design and Apple Tablet
In light of Apple's upcoming event, I want to grumble on modern design amateurs. So I called those whose hobbies are the creation of “concepts” of various devices and putting renderings on the Internet (it’s a hobby, because hardly anyone pays for such work). Design professionals sit in self-flowing offices and produce not renders, but supercars and the thinnest laptops in the world, that is, real goods.
No doubt, the sublimation of their fantasies about the future into a bright, speaking picture is useful in one way or another, because the result is a very clear message to professional industrial designers about the aspirations of the target audience. However, amateurish design too often gives away a kind of fetishism towards form and disregard for the principle, logic of work, usability (by the way, the design of the Chinese near-computer technology always suffers from this - they contain content in a relatively good shape, which only gives the right to state some characteristic on the package , but we don’t have to talk about quality, applicability and reliability; in particular, mobile phones like to take the form of popular Western models, when the functionality of the devices does not even come close to each other).
Today or yesterday on Habré there was a topic about computer concepts, where the authors of the pictures thought about a spectacular render, but not about a real step into the future of interfaces. As an example of the work of real designers on the same topic, I can offer Microsoft Surface - a thing not only thought up and thought out, but also already embodied and available for sale, a thing with a completely different interface and principle.
When persistent rumors spread about the Apple Tablet, many design amateurs began to rivet the concepts of the future device. The browser emphasizes the word “concepts” in the edit field as containing an error, which reflects the idea of this topic in the best possible way. All these pictures contain the same systematic error: the standard desktop MacOS X (sometimes with an on-screen keyboard) is present on the screen as an image. It is this moment that gives the surface thinking of the authors.
Apple Tablet will not have on board the desktop MacOS X and at the same time finger multitouch screen. As I understand it, those who wish to deny that Apple is carefully working on the usability of their products, if possible. There is no doubt, there were also failed decisions, because no one is safe from mistakes, but Jobs's company tried to correct them as far as possible. The idea of keeping a desktop OS at your fingertips is obviously a failure, and Apple is unlikely to do that.
Let's try to figure it out. So, a device with a screen from 7 to 12 inches is supposed to be controlled by fingers, like an iPhone. Please note that from the very beginning on the iPhone, although there was a “mobile version of MacOS”, it never possessed an interface very much like a desktop “sister”. It's not about Apple's whim or marketing interests - a touch-based interface without a stylus entails a couple of serious limitations:
The second point entails a situation comparable to that if the steering column and pedals in the car were interchanged. Everything seems to be there, but either you need to steer your feet, or climb before each turn down, under the dashboard. Apple has already tested all the limitations of the touch-interface on the iPhone and, to put it within the same system of images, made an additional viewing hole in the bottom of the car and made it so that the car only goes while the driver is downstairs, at the helm. For example, pay attention to the on-screen keyboard: when you press a button, it does not show that it has pressed in, but, on the contrary, “crawls out” from under your finger - this allows you to feel more control over where you click. Most other program buttons can easily be pressed with not just one finger, but two or three. Again, so you can always see that you click what you need. Of course, when designing such an interface, not only these points were taken into account, but I hope that I was able to illustrate what they thought about this too.
Now, in the manner of amateur designers, we will stretch the iPhone to the expected size of the “tablet” and put the desktop MacOS X there. We have 2 options:
As you can see, the directly desktop version of MacOS X is not able to provide the user with former comfort in the new conditions. A way out of both situations can be partially recognized as a smooth full-screen zoom, a long time and consistently developed by Apple, and for the iPhone it turned out to be completely salvation in matters of displaying sites. The ability to zoom in MacOS X is, and it fits well with multi-touch. Another thing is that the same zoom gesture can be useful in the applications themselves under the operating system - for example, in cartographic, graphic, all in the same browsers, etc. Make the user remember that with one gesture you need to zoom the system, and with the other the application itself? I doubt that Apple would do that.
It turns out that Apple really has 4 ways:
The topic is intended not so much to guess what Apple has up its sleeve, but to show that a simple reflection reduces the likelihood of a mobile device being released from a desktop OS to extremely small. And consequently, the people who “pleased” us with their renders of the giant iPhone with MacOS X Snow Leopard on board, not only didn’t come up with anything special, but even simply didn’t work their heads enough.
No doubt, the sublimation of their fantasies about the future into a bright, speaking picture is useful in one way or another, because the result is a very clear message to professional industrial designers about the aspirations of the target audience. However, amateurish design too often gives away a kind of fetishism towards form and disregard for the principle, logic of work, usability (by the way, the design of the Chinese near-computer technology always suffers from this - they contain content in a relatively good shape, which only gives the right to state some characteristic on the package , but we don’t have to talk about quality, applicability and reliability; in particular, mobile phones like to take the form of popular Western models, when the functionality of the devices does not even come close to each other).
Today or yesterday on Habré there was a topic about computer concepts, where the authors of the pictures thought about a spectacular render, but not about a real step into the future of interfaces. As an example of the work of real designers on the same topic, I can offer Microsoft Surface - a thing not only thought up and thought out, but also already embodied and available for sale, a thing with a completely different interface and principle.
When persistent rumors spread about the Apple Tablet, many design amateurs began to rivet the concepts of the future device. The browser emphasizes the word “concepts” in the edit field as containing an error, which reflects the idea of this topic in the best possible way. All these pictures contain the same systematic error: the standard desktop MacOS X (sometimes with an on-screen keyboard) is present on the screen as an image. It is this moment that gives the surface thinking of the authors.
Apple Tablet will not have on board the desktop MacOS X and at the same time finger multitouch screen. As I understand it, those who wish to deny that Apple is carefully working on the usability of their products, if possible. There is no doubt, there were also failed decisions, because no one is safe from mistakes, but Jobs's company tried to correct them as far as possible. The idea of keeping a desktop OS at your fingertips is obviously a failure, and Apple is unlikely to do that.
Let's try to figure it out. So, a device with a screen from 7 to 12 inches is supposed to be controlled by fingers, like an iPhone. Please note that from the very beginning on the iPhone, although there was a “mobile version of MacOS”, it never possessed an interface very much like a desktop “sister”. It's not about Apple's whim or marketing interests - a touch-based interface without a stylus entails a couple of serious limitations:
- The finger is larger than the stylus and points to a spot, not a point
- Working with our fingers, we ourselves block the interface.
The second point entails a situation comparable to that if the steering column and pedals in the car were interchanged. Everything seems to be there, but either you need to steer your feet, or climb before each turn down, under the dashboard. Apple has already tested all the limitations of the touch-interface on the iPhone and, to put it within the same system of images, made an additional viewing hole in the bottom of the car and made it so that the car only goes while the driver is downstairs, at the helm. For example, pay attention to the on-screen keyboard: when you press a button, it does not show that it has pressed in, but, on the contrary, “crawls out” from under your finger - this allows you to feel more control over where you click. Most other program buttons can easily be pressed with not just one finger, but two or three. Again, so you can always see that you click what you need. Of course, when designing such an interface, not only these points were taken into account, but I hope that I was able to illustrate what they thought about this too.
Now, in the manner of amateur designers, we will stretch the iPhone to the expected size of the “tablet” and put the desktop MacOS X there. We have 2 options:
- High resolution screen. Immediately there is a problem of compatibility of desktop applications with the first limitation of the fingertouch interface - a big spot under the finger. Most clicked items will not be available.
- The screen is "average", with a resolution of about megapixels. But then some (if not many) desktop programs that rely on the usual high-resolution screen for Macs will not fit into the "average" one. Sites will also have some problems, and their designers will experience a cognitive dissonance and a break in the template - the most modern and beautiful “axis” in screen resolution will be at the level of the beginning of the century.
As you can see, the directly desktop version of MacOS X is not able to provide the user with former comfort in the new conditions. A way out of both situations can be partially recognized as a smooth full-screen zoom, a long time and consistently developed by Apple, and for the iPhone it turned out to be completely salvation in matters of displaying sites. The ability to zoom in MacOS X is, and it fits well with multi-touch. Another thing is that the same zoom gesture can be useful in the applications themselves under the operating system - for example, in cartographic, graphic, all in the same browsers, etc. Make the user remember that with one gesture you need to zoom the system, and with the other the application itself? I doubt that Apple would do that.
It turns out that Apple really has 4 ways:
- Take a chance and try a desktop OS with some tweaks, screen zoom and extensive limitations on the applicability of the device. This is a failure (especially in light of the recently released Microsoft + HP “tablet,” a failure in itself).
- Put on the tablet the next version of the iPhone OS (one of the most likely options). The platform is run-in, and the ecosystem of programs is quite extensive. With this option, multitasking can be provided, for example, by the fact that one application will not cover the entire screen, but only part of it, so that the rest of the space can be used to launch other applications.
- Release an OS and a device with new input principles (do not forget that Apple has mastered voice input well and is experimenting with voice interfaces) and a conditional touchscreen, which does not have the main burden of entering information. My personal assumption: a multi-touch on the back of the device will be added to the voice input, which will become something like a large Magic Mouse or touchpad. Do not forget that input devices that read the impulses of the central nervous system (brain) of the user have already been developed and are being sold, that interfaces based on machine vision are being developed. One of the most winning moves for Apple is to break into a new era of human-computer communication by releasing a device that does not particularly rely on outdated input methods.
- Do not do tablet. (It is unlikely that for the sake of a simple update Makov would not have trumpeted the whole Internet like this - this could turn out to be the biggest disappointment of the audience).
The topic is intended not so much to guess what Apple has up its sleeve, but to show that a simple reflection reduces the likelihood of a mobile device being released from a desktop OS to extremely small. And consequently, the people who “pleased” us with their renders of the giant iPhone with MacOS X Snow Leopard on board, not only didn’t come up with anything special, but even simply didn’t work their heads enough.