Today Apple unveiled the much rumored iTablet called iPad. The abilities of the device (or lack of) have already caused lots of conversation out there. I naturally decided to concentrate just on user interface of the device. So, how does the Apple’s new toy go around the bends? I’ve made a quick analysis via Engadget’s hands-on video, and the pictures I’ve seen since the launch. The pictures in the article are also from that same video.

Now, granted, I do not have an iPhone here and do not possess the greatest of memories, so some of this stuff might have been already on current version of iPhone OS but, nevertheless, I’m addressing the issues still.

The Groundwork

The iPad is running new version of  iPhone OS, version 3.2, so for iPhone owner the basic UI should be rather simplistic experience: few desktops, side by side, full of icons and few “permanent” icons down at the tray. Tap any icon and the application launches, simple as apple pie. Since it has no multitasking, the application handling is also as easy as it gets – There simply is no such thing. You’re either in or out from the application.

The Basics

The basic navigation within applications is simple enough – if you drill down within an application (think of artist -> songs) by tapping the top left corner of the screen, the OS always takes you back one level, to the state where you were earlier. Simple enough. This is the basics of tried and true iPhone OS. However, it’s after this foundation where the things start to get hairier.

read more…

The video itself is quite old, circa 2007 (old in internet time and/or in multi-touch time), but I wanted still to post it since it illustrates nicely the way how at the moment multi-touch seems to be more of an evolutionary hit and miss than actually a step forward. The video in question is quite nice project, from couple of students from India, their aim is to create whole new Operating System based on multi-touch. Now, that’s quite a goal, and all the respect for that, but it seems that in the same time it’s also the downfall of the project. At least when looking it from the perspective of usability .

Head on forward for video and more analysis

read more…

I’ve been throwing this concept back and forth for about 6 months now, thinking if I should just publish it or try to develop it further before publishing. Well, since I don’t have the proper resources nor the time to develop it further at this point, maybe it’s just easier to publish it. So here we go, natural zooming for digital displays:

You know how you look n picture and there is n detail you want to see, like the subjects face? You squint your eyes and maybe look closer to the picture. How about harnessing this natural habit to user interface? And why hasn’t no-one done that yet?

Here is the basic idea in rough scetch:

Read on.

read more…

A while ago I stumbled upon this article (Smashing magazine) about Mac OS X usability highlights, after reading it for a while I couldn’t take it anymore. It was a classic case of cherrypicking things to make A look better than B, and all this in the name of usability, my favourite issue. So, after a month (started the post then moved to another country, started a school etc. and now, finally, finished it), here we go; Debunking Mac OS X usability highs.

One of the problems with the article – alongside others, is that it gives very limited set of examples for given area and via that extremely filtered results makes the assumption that OS X does the whole thing better. Someone would say that the whole list is just cherrypicked to make the OS X look better than it really is. Like claiming that OS X is more intuitive than the rest of the competition because it is apparently easier to install software in it, which even isn’t the case.

Claim no. 1

“1. Consistency
The whole OS and almost every application looks and feels the same, as if a single team developed the whole thing, thanks to Apple HI Guidelines. Official guidelines for user interface design made it possible for users to actually use most Mac-applications in a very same way, creating a seamless and comfortable experience in the end. Users are able to anticipate how system behaves and what to expect from its applications. In fact, consistency dramatically improves learnability and usability of interacting with the system.”

Like the text says, almost every application. Then and there the very point is shot down and morphed to, “OS X is more consistent than Windows because parts of it’s software are consistent“. And still, I’m not convinced it’s more consistent UI than, say Microsoft Vista, as I have seen no evidence of such as i.e. iTunes changes it’s colours etc. Not to mention that every big HMI project/team project has some sort style guide, as it is one of the key parts of UI design, and I have absolutely no doubts that the Windows UI dev team has one.

Not to mention the writer hasn’t even bothered to look if Microsoft has published any comparable guidelines, whatsoever. He just makes assumptions that only Apple could have such things, and proceeds to make his claims. Quick Google and fourth hit revealed this: MSDN: Windows Vista User Experience Guidelines.

He is right on one thing though; consistency improves learnability and usability.

read more…

Now, something completely different: Neovisus gaze user interface

The techique behind this application is simple, and tried-and-true, IR leds meets eyes trick and couples it with rather fawless looking software.

The idea is to shine IR light to persons eyes, catch the reflection with camera without IR filter, and preferably with visible light filter, so that the image processing software is left with two neat blobls to work it’s magic. I’ve seen this same technique used with a TV. which stops the stream it’s playing when you’re not looking at it, sadly I don’t have any video of the application.

In any case, it’s nice to see the huge bounds and leaps user interfaces are getting nowdays.

Check out Martin Tall’s Neovisus Video Demonstration or his gaze interaction blog

read more…

A fellow blogger, called Contentconsumer, has made nifty little usability test with her girlfriend and with latest Ubuntu 8.04 LTS. Test included using disributed software, installing new ones, customizing Ubuntu desktop and such, all in all rather mundane tasks.

When staring down the results one can clearly see the problem, Linux/Ubuntu still has. When arguing of system usability 99 out of 100 would claim that things do not need to be dumbed down, as “Linux users are not Windows users“, or other as creative arguments. Now, test like this clearly shows, even underlines, that for the basic desktop user needs the user interface that is “dumbed down“, the user interface needs to guide the user, not just slap things to hers/his face and just hope for the best.

Windows ain’t the golden system either, I give you that, but at least Vista has less of them everyday usability problems. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love Ubuntu, but desktop ready it ain’t.

Read more at
The Content Consumer – Great Ubuntu-Girlfriend Experiment

I can almost see Apple enthusiasts rallying up with their pitchforks and torches, but let’s just continue bit further into this, before going all witch-hunt on me.

Well, ok. Multi-touch as a concept isn’t completely useless, I give you that. The simple idea of using multiple input points has so much potential but everyone has been just blindly following Jeff Han, whos initial concept was just that, a concept, not a polished product. The idea has depreciated so much that today, even though there are practically no products around, multi-touch is useless, just a buzzword to sell a product and nothing to do with usability. So far, I haven’t seen single useful commercial end user solution. Why has no-one stopped to rethink the whole idea?

read more…