4 ms·

I don't know- the Polar monitor sounds pretty unintuitive to me. It could work well if the non-button actions (such as moving the watch close to the strap) are

I don't know- the Polar monitor sounds pretty unintuitive to me. It could work well if the non-button actions (such as moving the watch close to the strap) are communicated effectively and are implemented perfectly, but if not, I can see a lot of confusion. I think those two things (communication and implementation) are what makes Apple's interfaces great. As an example, the iPhone's touch screen is good enough that it almost always does what you expect- which was huge compared to other touch screens at the time the phone was introduced. I remember trying out an LG touch screen in the store, and it felt like using the iPhone screen through a thin layer of mud. Even if their interface was simple and easy to use, a few misinterpreted presses would exasperate new users. As for communicating features, I think Apple's commercials do a good job of showing how the devices are used. Granted, it's easier to explain interfaces when they are minimal...

whitegloveapps 16y ago
Good question about the Polar monitor's moving-the-watch-to-the-strap action. I find it works about 90% of the time. It gives an audible beep when it senses that motion. Like you said, it's important a device quickly give you feedback whenr an action has been accomplished. Yes, Apple's commercials are quite effective at showing intuitive user experiences. For example, the Mover app where you transfer pictures by flicking them to another iPhone: they only showed the app for a second, but you understood the interface right away. (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/mover-lite/id312165666?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/mover-lite/id312165666?mt=8)
thwarted 16y ago
I don't know- the Polar monitor sounds pretty unintuitive to me. It could work well if the non-button actions (such as moving the watch close to the strap) are communicated effectively and are implemented perfectly, but if not, I can see a lot of confusion. I find one button interfaces that trade buttons for time to be confusing and unintuitive. The only way to operate them is by staring at them until they show the desired action. You can't adjust it without looking at it at all (which may or may not be desired depending on the use case). If you happen to miss the target action, you have to wait until the full cycle goes through again. Sometimes they make it so you have to hold down the button to cycle and then release when you see the thing you want--if you miss it, you can't just release and start over, because releasing is going to select the wrong action. This may not be the definition of unintuitive but it is the definition of annoying and inconvenient. I had a pager back in the 90s that was billed as being easy to use because it only had one button. But it took forever, considering the actual complexity of pagers, to cycle through all the actions--and pagers only have like three actions on them anyway.
- whitegloveapps 16y ago
  I agree that one-button interfaces can be frustrating for the reasons you mention. What makes this one work for me is its anticipation of what you'll want to do next. For example, the sequences are designed so the most likely action comes up first. And there are only a few possible actions, so if you want a less-used one, it's not hard to get to it. For a more complex device like a pager where there are many options you might like to do at any given point in the menu structure, I see how just one button would make the user experience worse.

whitegloveapps 16y ago

Good question about the Polar monitor's moving-the-watch-to-the-strap action. I find it works about 90% of the time. It gives an audible beep when it senses that motion. Like you said, it's important a device quickly give you feedback whenr an action has been accomplished. Yes, Apple's commercials are quite effective at showing intuitive user experiences. For example, the Mover app where you transfer pictures by flicking them to another iPhone: they only showed the app for a second, but you understood the interface right away. (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/mover-lite/id312165666?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/mover-lite/id312165666?mt=8)

thwarted 16y ago

I don't know- the Polar monitor sounds pretty unintuitive to me. It could work well if the non-button actions (such as moving the watch close to the strap) are communicated effectively and are implemented perfectly, but if not, I can see a lot of confusion. I find one button interfaces that trade buttons for time to be confusing and unintuitive. The only way to operate them is by staring at them until they show the desired action. You can't adjust it without looking at it at all (which may or may not be desired depending on the use case). If you happen to miss the target action, you have to wait until the full cycle goes through again. Sometimes they make it so you have to hold down the button to cycle and then release when you see the thing you want--if you miss it, you can't just release and start over, because releasing is going to select the wrong action. This may not be the definition of unintuitive but it is the definition of annoying and inconvenient. I had a pager back in the 90s that was billed as being easy to use because it only had one button. But it took forever, considering the actual complexity of pagers, to cycle through all the actions--and pagers only have like three actions on them anyway.

whitegloveapps 16y ago
I agree that one-button interfaces can be frustrating for the reasons you mention. What makes this one work for me is its anticipation of what you'll want to do next. For example, the sequences are designed so the most likely action comes up first. And there are only a few possible actions, so if you want a less-used one, it's not hard to get to it. For a more complex device like a pager where there are many options you might like to do at any given point in the menu structure, I see how just one button would make the user experience worse.