8 ms·

Smartphone design is downright terrible in terms of functionality, they might look nice, but I've had so many phones that were very slippery and didn't offer a

Smartphone design is downright terrible in terms of functionality, they might look nice, but I've had so many phones that were very slippery and didn't offer a firm grip as if the manufacturer says you should buy a case. And Apple is the top offender, think antennagate, headphone jack... That includes software, responsive design was created with the goal of adapting websites to smaller screens, as phones got bigger I don't see many sites utilizing responsive design so that I can still use my phone with one hand. Also, I loved the MagSafe charging port on the MacBook, that is an example of great functionality on design, then Apple throws that out of the window and makes a single port laptop.

agumonkey 9y ago
The design is function of the market. People wanted magic not function so they produced magic looking things (thin, shiny). Now people have grown a bit, they'll ask for other values and the production will realign. Waves and spirals
- duggan 9y ago
  > Waves and spirals Like "swings and roundabouts"? I've never come across this variation.
  - agumonkey 9y ago
    I never saw yours either (is it a common saying ? I'm not a native english speaker anyway, that would explain that).
    - duggan 9y ago
      Common in Britain and Ireland, at least - in context it just seemed like it might be a variation on the same idiom!
      - agumonkey 9y ago
        Mine just come from seeing predator/prey graphs https://duckduckgo.com/?q=predator+prey+graph&t=ffsb&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=predator+prey+graph&t=ffsb&iax=ima... and a really weird feeling that, indeed things do roundabouts, but it's not a perfect back-to-start revolution, the soil was raised but the people on it not so much (but they do feel they progressed). A circle that doesn't close properly is a bit a spiral. </math-envy>
        aptwebapps 9y ago
        I really like your expression, although maybe not everybody would appreciate the distinction.
- raverbashing 9y ago
  Or, put it on a case and have it not break when it falls to the ground
- whathaschanged 9y ago
  And then those people go and throw theor brand new phones right into giant sturdy cases. Maybe it's time to ignore the voices that pretend people want shiny when really that's what the bloggers want to crow about.
  - agumonkey 9y ago
    I don't think it's true. Some manufacturers did produce less thin phones, both for better resistance and longer battery life. Nobody bought them. Maybe you're right and it's the web that influences people into buying these or maybe people just want to buy the latest and "most bestest" (whatever the metric is, nowadays its thin and pixel density ... people are into 4K now, 8K is coming too)
    - JustSomeNobody 9y ago
      > Nobody bought them. Because those phones lacked many other features that people ALSO wanted.
      - agumonkey 9y ago
        Fair point maybe they were cut from other features. I'm only quoting a few thin articles about the massive sales of thin but fragile devices. I'd love to see different proportions and design decisions, I'm sure there are sweet spots
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        Indeed. This was the same fallacy that killed keyboard slider phones. Sure, their sales were poor... but the reason why is because they generally came out 8 months later than the non-keyboard version without improved hardware. So by the time each keyboard phone generation came out, there was already newer hardware with newer features on the market.
    - closeparen 9y ago
      I remember when the Motorola Droid took this strategy... at the time, Android (and in particular Motorola's Android skin) was quite a bit behind iOS UX-wise. Although I guess you could ask why it didn't dominate among Android users.
- adamsea 9y ago
  Yeah, it's not like advertising has any effect on consumer desire. Or, more optimistically, sometimes people dont know that they wanted something until it was given to them.
- gkya 9y ago
  Plato's cave comes to my mind... Also, whomever I talk to, from the most techy to least (and I'm a humanities student so nearly all my usual contacts are non-techies), I hear they want sturdier phones. Most people use protective side products like cases and films, even though the latter reduces the touch sensitivity. About half of the phones I see people use have cracks here and there. The industry thinks that people prefer thinner and cuter over sturdier and functional because most people just try to make the best use of what's available and don't bother providing feedback, public or otherwise; and those who are vocal about these new innovations are the tech-geeks and the like. (edited to add:) The market researchers probably confound the people trying to extract value from what's available on the market with their actual preferences. People can't buy what's not available, so, certainly, if all you see is sales data, you will never know that there's a public that wants a decently sized, sturdy, yet nice looking phone with decent hardware, that does not break when somebody farts close by and runs their favourite apps.
  - loggedinmyphone 9y ago
    > Plato's cave comes to my mind Do you mind elaborating on this? I'm familiar with Plato's cave and I don't see the relevance.
    - tlack 9y ago
      I'm not gkya (the parent poster) but I believe what he means is that the prisoners in the cave only understand reality as presented to them through the shadows. Likewise, we as consumers have only been offered minimalist, breaky phones with modern hardware/software, so we have grown to live inside that awful reality, and not realize the true scope of what is possible/better.
      - gkya 9y ago
        Thanks, this is half if what I meant; the other half being the inverse: the producers and the marketers have present a very remote, inorganic knowledge of their customers' preferences, only a shadow of their ideas. If they were set free from their echo chambers and cubicles, they'd see that the numbers they based their decisions are not really representative of preferences, but of choices that their clientele had to do.
kuschku 9y ago
> as phones got bigger I don't see many sites utilizing responsive design so that I can still use my phone with one hand. Is 6.5" or 7" a phone such as the Galaxy Note, to be used with one hand? Or is it a Nexus 7, to be used with two hands? If you buy a tablet or phablet — a device larger than 5" — you'll have to expext that you'll have to use it with two hands. You can always buy a smaller device if you prefer to use something else.
- mrisoli 9y ago
  How about phones below 6"? The Nexus 6P or 5X for instance, a common use case I see is people trying to do quick things on their phone with one hand using the thumb for interacting with the screen, which if you have a phone in the 5-6" ballpark it is not easy to reach the top edges. This is where solid design comes into play, Tinder's ease of motion and placement of control buttons makes it easy to use with a single hand which means increased usage, thus creating a habit-forming loop, this is critical to Tinder's success.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    The best software can’t fix broken hardware. Any phone above 4.5, maybe 5" device diagonal (not screen diagonal) is basically unusable single-handed. And this means that on such devices, people interact entirely different with UI. Which results in different UI paradigms. I’d have to either compromise my UI for users of smaller devices, or for users of larger devices. But in either case, users of larger devices will never get a truly awesome UI, as that’s simply not possible. (Either you waste space, or parts of the UI are just not reachable).
    - jtolmar 9y ago
      Making part of the UI display-only is not wasting space. The problem with these phones is the insistence to push UI elements to the corners on touch screens even though original the UX motivation for putting important things in corners was that they're the easiest mouse targets.
Gravityloss 9y ago
It's fashion and about styling, not usage and design. Most schools where you learn design are actually about styling. Since the word has changed meaning, we need a new one. Usability has a different meaning again.
CydeWeys 9y ago
The MagSafe cables, however, were terrible. I've burned through three so far (in almost as many years) from the cable sheathing failing near the connector. Other manufacturers have included strain relief at this critical junction in their cables for decades, but nooooo, that's too good for Apple. So instead I get this form-over-function cable that fails all too quickly and is expensive to replace to boot. I much prefer USB-C, even if only because the cables themselves are better engineered.
- heartbreak 9y ago
  Is the strain relief not good enough, or is it not present? Isn't that strain relief below the MagSafe connector shown here? https://imgur.com/ZCt8R5g https://imgur.com/ZCt8R5g
  - dpark 9y ago
    Of course it’s a strain relief. It really bugs me when people complain about Apple cables not having strain reliefs. They don’t have huge ugly strain reliefs, and maybe that means they aren’t good enough, but they definitely exist.
    - wavefunction 9y ago
      Why even have a strain relief if it's not good enough. And a not good-enough strain relief is no relief at all.
      - dpark 9y ago
        Because this isn’t true. A moderate strain relief is far better than none. The strain reliefs Apple uses work fine for a lot of people. I used to use an MBP with a MagSafe connector and never had any strain relief problems.
- curun1r 9y ago
  I'm really curious what you're doing with your cables. I'm on year 6 with my MBP adapter and that includes a year of traveling through Southeast Asia where I was constantly spooling and unspooling it, not to mention the number of times it got wet. It still works flawlessly. I also had a work MBP adapter for a number of years without any issue despite being spooled and unspooled each morning and evening. Meanwhile, I've tripped over the wire countless times and been saved by the magsafe's ability to automatically disconnect rather than sending my 30-times-the-price laptop flying. It happens so often that USB-C charging is a non-starter for me. I'm buying older, refurb Macs until they realize their error. Short of that, I'm buying a bargain-basement PC that I can replace for under $1k because I know that kind of accident is going to happen eventually.
yellowapple 9y ago
I liked the MagSafe, too, but I like the USB Type-C ports better. Only one cable for a docking station (instead of two), and it (in theory) works for non-Apple docks/chargers (and non-Mac laptops in turn can use Apple docks/chargers). USB 3.1 over a MagSafe-like reversible connector would be ideal.
adamlett 9y ago
Smartphone design is downright terrible in terms of functionality I disagree. It seems obvioous to me that smartphones are optimized for easy insertion into and retrieval from tight front pockets in pants. That’s why they are shaped the way they are. It’s also partly why the headphone jack had to go. Wired headphones are a pain in the ass when you have to route the wires through layers of clothes and into a pocket or a handbag.

agumonkey 9y ago

The design is function of the market. People wanted magic not function so they produced magic looking things (thin, shiny). Now people have grown a bit, they'll ask for other values and the production will realign. Waves and spirals

duggan 9y ago
> Waves and spirals Like "swings and roundabouts"? I've never come across this variation.
- agumonkey 9y ago
  I never saw yours either (is it a common saying ? I'm not a native english speaker anyway, that would explain that).
  - duggan 9y ago
    Common in Britain and Ireland, at least - in context it just seemed like it might be a variation on the same idiom!
    - agumonkey 9y ago
      Mine just come from seeing predator/prey graphs https://duckduckgo.com/?q=predator+prey+graph&t=ffsb&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=predator+prey+graph&t=ffsb&iax=ima... and a really weird feeling that, indeed things do roundabouts, but it's not a perfect back-to-start revolution, the soil was raised but the people on it not so much (but they do feel they progressed). A circle that doesn't close properly is a bit a spiral. </math-envy>
      - aptwebapps 9y ago
        I really like your expression, although maybe not everybody would appreciate the distinction.
raverbashing 9y ago
Or, put it on a case and have it not break when it falls to the ground
whathaschanged 9y ago
And then those people go and throw theor brand new phones right into giant sturdy cases. Maybe it's time to ignore the voices that pretend people want shiny when really that's what the bloggers want to crow about.
- agumonkey 9y ago
  I don't think it's true. Some manufacturers did produce less thin phones, both for better resistance and longer battery life. Nobody bought them. Maybe you're right and it's the web that influences people into buying these or maybe people just want to buy the latest and "most bestest" (whatever the metric is, nowadays its thin and pixel density ... people are into 4K now, 8K is coming too)
  - JustSomeNobody 9y ago
    > Nobody bought them. Because those phones lacked many other features that people ALSO wanted.
    - agumonkey 9y ago
      Fair point maybe they were cut from other features. I'm only quoting a few thin articles about the massive sales of thin but fragile devices. I'd love to see different proportions and design decisions, I'm sure there are sweet spots
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      Indeed. This was the same fallacy that killed keyboard slider phones. Sure, their sales were poor... but the reason why is because they generally came out 8 months later than the non-keyboard version without improved hardware. So by the time each keyboard phone generation came out, there was already newer hardware with newer features on the market.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    I remember when the Motorola Droid took this strategy... at the time, Android (and in particular Motorola's Android skin) was quite a bit behind iOS UX-wise. Although I guess you could ask why it didn't dominate among Android users.
adamsea 9y ago
Yeah, it's not like advertising has any effect on consumer desire. Or, more optimistically, sometimes people dont know that they wanted something until it was given to them.
gkya 9y ago
Plato's cave comes to my mind... Also, whomever I talk to, from the most techy to least (and I'm a humanities student so nearly all my usual contacts are non-techies), I hear they want sturdier phones. Most people use protective side products like cases and films, even though the latter reduces the touch sensitivity. About half of the phones I see people use have cracks here and there. The industry thinks that people prefer thinner and cuter over sturdier and functional because most people just try to make the best use of what's available and don't bother providing feedback, public or otherwise; and those who are vocal about these new innovations are the tech-geeks and the like. (edited to add:) The market researchers probably confound the people trying to extract value from what's available on the market with their actual preferences. People can't buy what's not available, so, certainly, if all you see is sales data, you will never know that there's a public that wants a decently sized, sturdy, yet nice looking phone with decent hardware, that does not break when somebody farts close by and runs their favourite apps.
- loggedinmyphone 9y ago
  > Plato's cave comes to my mind Do you mind elaborating on this? I'm familiar with Plato's cave and I don't see the relevance.
  - tlack 9y ago
    I'm not gkya (the parent poster) but I believe what he means is that the prisoners in the cave only understand reality as presented to them through the shadows. Likewise, we as consumers have only been offered minimalist, breaky phones with modern hardware/software, so we have grown to live inside that awful reality, and not realize the true scope of what is possible/better.
    - gkya 9y ago
      Thanks, this is half if what I meant; the other half being the inverse: the producers and the marketers have present a very remote, inorganic knowledge of their customers' preferences, only a shadow of their ideas. If they were set free from their echo chambers and cubicles, they'd see that the numbers they based their decisions are not really representative of preferences, but of choices that their clientele had to do.

kuschku 9y ago

> as phones got bigger I don't see many sites utilizing responsive design so that I can still use my phone with one hand. Is 6.5" or 7" a phone such as the Galaxy Note, to be used with one hand? Or is it a Nexus 7, to be used with two hands? If you buy a tablet or phablet — a device larger than 5" — you'll have to expext that you'll have to use it with two hands. You can always buy a smaller device if you prefer to use something else.

mrisoli 9y ago
How about phones below 6"? The Nexus 6P or 5X for instance, a common use case I see is people trying to do quick things on their phone with one hand using the thumb for interacting with the screen, which if you have a phone in the 5-6" ballpark it is not easy to reach the top edges. This is where solid design comes into play, Tinder's ease of motion and placement of control buttons makes it easy to use with a single hand which means increased usage, thus creating a habit-forming loop, this is critical to Tinder's success.
- kuschku 9y ago
  The best software can’t fix broken hardware. Any phone above 4.5, maybe 5" device diagonal (not screen diagonal) is basically unusable single-handed. And this means that on such devices, people interact entirely different with UI. Which results in different UI paradigms. I’d have to either compromise my UI for users of smaller devices, or for users of larger devices. But in either case, users of larger devices will never get a truly awesome UI, as that’s simply not possible. (Either you waste space, or parts of the UI are just not reachable).
  - jtolmar 9y ago
    Making part of the UI display-only is not wasting space. The problem with these phones is the insistence to push UI elements to the corners on touch screens even though original the UX motivation for putting important things in corners was that they're the easiest mouse targets.

Gravityloss 9y ago

It's fashion and about styling, not usage and design. Most schools where you learn design are actually about styling. Since the word has changed meaning, we need a new one. Usability has a different meaning again.

CydeWeys 9y ago

The MagSafe cables, however, were terrible. I've burned through three so far (in almost as many years) from the cable sheathing failing near the connector. Other manufacturers have included strain relief at this critical junction in their cables for decades, but nooooo, that's too good for Apple. So instead I get this form-over-function cable that fails all too quickly and is expensive to replace to boot. I much prefer USB-C, even if only because the cables themselves are better engineered.

heartbreak 9y ago
Is the strain relief not good enough, or is it not present? Isn't that strain relief below the MagSafe connector shown here? https://imgur.com/ZCt8R5g https://imgur.com/ZCt8R5g
- dpark 9y ago
  Of course it’s a strain relief. It really bugs me when people complain about Apple cables not having strain reliefs. They don’t have huge ugly strain reliefs, and maybe that means they aren’t good enough, but they definitely exist.
  - wavefunction 9y ago
    Why even have a strain relief if it's not good enough. And a not good-enough strain relief is no relief at all.
    - dpark 9y ago
      Because this isn’t true. A moderate strain relief is far better than none. The strain reliefs Apple uses work fine for a lot of people. I used to use an MBP with a MagSafe connector and never had any strain relief problems.
curun1r 9y ago
I'm really curious what you're doing with your cables. I'm on year 6 with my MBP adapter and that includes a year of traveling through Southeast Asia where I was constantly spooling and unspooling it, not to mention the number of times it got wet. It still works flawlessly. I also had a work MBP adapter for a number of years without any issue despite being spooled and unspooled each morning and evening. Meanwhile, I've tripped over the wire countless times and been saved by the magsafe's ability to automatically disconnect rather than sending my 30-times-the-price laptop flying. It happens so often that USB-C charging is a non-starter for me. I'm buying older, refurb Macs until they realize their error. Short of that, I'm buying a bargain-basement PC that I can replace for under $1k because I know that kind of accident is going to happen eventually.

yellowapple 9y ago

I liked the MagSafe, too, but I like the USB Type-C ports better. Only one cable for a docking station (instead of two), and it (in theory) works for non-Apple docks/chargers (and non-Mac laptops in turn can use Apple docks/chargers). USB 3.1 over a MagSafe-like reversible connector would be ideal.

adamlett 9y ago

Smartphone design is downright terrible in terms of functionality I disagree. It seems obvioous to me that smartphones are optimized for easy insertion into and retrieval from tight front pockets in pants. That’s why they are shaped the way they are. It’s also partly why the headphone jack had to go. Wired headphones are a pain in the ass when you have to route the wires through layers of clothes and into a pocket or a handbag.