12 ms·

Steve Jobs answered this question back in 2007[0] > Now, why do we need a revolutionary user interface. Here’s four smartphones, right? Motorola Q, the BlackBe

by ihuman 8y ago

Steve Jobs answered this question back in 2007[0] > Now, why do we need a revolutionary user interface. Here’s four smartphones, right? Motorola Q, the BlackBerry, Palm Treo, Nokia E62 — the usual suspects. And, what’s wrong with their user interfaces? Well, the problem with them is really sort of in the bottom 40 there. It’s this stuff right there. They all have these keyboards that are there whether or not you need them to be there. And they all have these control buttons that are fixed in plastic and are the same for every application. Well, every application wants a slightly different user interface, a slightly optimized set of buttons, just for it. > And what happens if you think of a great idea six months from now? You can’t run around and add a button to these things. They’re already shipped. So what do you do? It doesn’t work because the buttons and the controls can’t change. They can’t change for each application, and they can’t change down the road if you think of another great idea you want to add to this product. > Well, how do you solve this? Hmm. It turns out, we have solved it. We solved in computers 20 years ago. We solved it with a bit-mapped screen that could display anything we want. Put any user interface up. And a pointing device. We solved it with the mouse. We solved this problem. So how are we going to take this to a mobile device? What we’re going to do is get rid of all these buttons and just make a giant screen. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN4U5FqrOdQ&t=323 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN4U5FqrOdQ&t=323

komali2 8y ago
> Put any user interface up. And a pointing device. We solved it with the mouse. We solved this problem. They solved the problem... by putting "exit, maximize, minimize" buttons at the top-right (or top-left) of every window. By putting "file, view, edit" dropdowns at the top-left of ever application. By putting "back, forward, refresh" at the top of the browser.
- mattnewton 8y ago
  Not every application- I don’t see those buttons when dialing a phone number, or when watching a video or playing a game.
- einr 8y ago
  ...and also by still having a keyboard with a fixed and standardized layout, which Jobs' argumentation conveniently ignores. I'd like to see how much of a success the Macintosh would have been with just a mouse ;)
ellard 8y ago
I think that we've gotten some fantastic UI/UX designs that came from having to work within the limitation of pre-existing controller inputs. You also have the benefit of being able to assume that the user has some level of competency with the controller. Even with Jobs' example, UI/UX on computers generally remains the same within a given ecosystem as changing them forces your users to re-learn things that they already knew how to do. Individual products on that system mostly congregate to using the same patterns too so that they can reap the benefits of users being pre-trained to look for things to perform specific actions.
Skunkleton 8y ago
That's cool, but I think that most people here agree that mice are a pretty terrible method of interfacing with a computer. Every time you use a mouse, you have to re-orient your self to the state of the mouse (its current location and its use within a given application). That is why we spend so much time optimizing applications for use with a fixed controller (a keyboard). A touch screen is a bit better than a mouse for lots of stuff and it preserves the discoverability of a mouse-based UI. Unfortunately it retains the drawbacks of a mouse based ui. Worse is that there is no fixed controller on a smartphone that might allow faster interaction w/ apps. This is where I think we are getting in trouble. In a traditional computer setup, you interact with the mouse when you are learning new software, and eventually transition to using a keyboard more and more. With touch based stuff, it seems like when an app is first released it has a simple, discoverable UI. But over time, as people become comfortable w/ the app, its UI becomes less approachable to suit the needs of more expert users and new users are left behind (snapchat for example). In my opinion a touch screen is fine for consumptive devices where many different UI elements are required and input is light. Creative devices should have a fixed controller like a keyboard, joystick, etc.
- HenryBemis 8y ago
  I remember Wozniak once said that if you wait long enough, what you said will be true. Apparently he said once (a looooooong time ago) that a mouse is a useless device and nobody would need one. So with the use of the touch-screens mouse use will be reduced. I have to say that although my laptop does have a very good touch-screen, I still use my mouse for 80% of the actions. Perhaps when browsing or changing windows (to continue browing) I may be using my fingers. But try to select text and change it to Bold on Word, when on the highest possible screen resolution, and well.. you know what happens. Of course for small portable devices, such as a phone, to write a small note it 'good enough' when using the software keyboard, and the fact that the usual mode on smartphones is 'one-app-at-a-time' displayed on the screen, makes for a simpler UI and UX.
- rasz 8y ago
  Want to play an FPS game against me? you will use any combination of keyboard, joystick, touch screen you prefer.
v_lisivka 8y ago
But even iPhone have fixed hardware buttons. Why they are not replaced by pixels on the screen? Can you cite?
- ihuman 8y ago
  They replaced the home button with a digital indicator. You need a physical power button that'll work with the screen off so you can turn the phone on. Physical volume controls allow you to change the volume in your pocket without looking at your screen, and also allow you to force restart the phone. Not sure why the mute switch is still physical, but I don't mind it being physical (although it does get dirty over time).
  - v_lisivka 8y ago
    So, if we need to do something without looking at the screen, we should keep hardware buttons, right? And if we don't need that, if we are looking at the screen _with_ buttons already, then hardware buttons are redundant.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      Except in the case where the stupid thing freezes and you can't interact with it anymore, then you need a physical button to smother it so you can start it back up again.
Yetanfou 8y ago
The problem of how to use a fixed set of buttons for a variety of purposes was solved much longer ago by the designers of (military) aeronautical instruments: you put them on the edge of the screen which displays labels next to currently active buttons. You designate a few buttons to have fixed functions - that would be the home, back and switch buttons on Android - and leave the rest to be used by the current application.
- scoot 8y ago
  As used by ATMs. Horrible UX in the age of touch screens. Why is this screen not responding to my touch? Oh, buttons... And even then they don't align to the on-screen text.
  - Yetanfou 8y ago
    Nothing keeps you from making those labels touch-sensitive 'in the age of touch screens'. That does mean they need to be bigger than necessary and it has the usual problems associated with touch screens - you need to visually locate the touch zone as there is no true haptic feedback - but it is possible. There is no reason for the screen text not to align to the buttons other than sloppy design.
- frosted-flakes 8y ago
  Like old Nokias. The ones I'm familiar with had two unlabelled buttons at the top of the keypad, with on-screen labels directly above them to signify what they did.
  - Yetanfou 8y ago
    Yes, the system has been used in a limited fashion (two or three buttons on the bottom of the screen) by some manufacturers, Siemens (and their DECT-offspring Gigaset) is another example, as is Philips.
- dithering 8y ago
  If your purpose is to allow the device to be used when it doesn't have your full attention - like a car radio, for example - I don't think that's a good solution. I have a phone with a knurled power button, and a smooth flashlight button next to it. It's a minor example, but dynamically remapping those buttons would destroy a lot of their utility for me.
antisthenes 8y ago
That's great, except it's not even remotely relevant to kitchen appliances. Those have existed for decades with the same functions and each one of them does a particular task very well. Nor do you do anything on those devices that involves reading a lot of text or watching full screen video where buttons (or UI in general) could get in the way - the polar opposite of smartphones.
- ErikVandeWater 8y ago
  But what if you need to tweet using your smartfridge?? But seriously, you are exactly right. There is no need to retrain the user for no benefit.
northwest65 8y ago
He was wrong then, and he's wrong now. We know he is wrong because computers operate fine with 101 key keyboards just like they did 30 years ago. The million of applications produced since haven't required a new button on the keyboard every time. Thankfully some sanity has reigned in car interiors and the manufacturers have realised the benefits to tactile feedback. He might be right when screens can reconfigure themselves with raised sections. Or mind control I guess.
- chumali 8y ago
  It's all well and good saying he was wrong but the principles he outlines have been largely vindicated by the market. Many things worked fine 30 years ago and yet have been immeasurably improved since - it's a tempting argument to not fix that which isn't broken, but ultimately a weak one. Also, there is little point in comparing computers, phones and car interiors. Incorporating physical buttons on phones involves a significant trade-off that is not an issue with computers. Car interiors are a different matter entirely. A more appropriate comparison might be conventional TV remotes vs the Apple TV remote. I've found the latter to be much more user friendly and intuitive.
  - Tyrek 8y ago
    > it's a tempting argument to not fix that which isn't broken, but ultimately a weak one. I'm going to have to call shenanigans on this one. Sure, it's an alright attitude to have towards non-essential parts of your life/consumer experience, but imagine if mission critical stuff (like, flight consoles) changed on a regular basis - that would be completely insane.
    - zapzupnz 8y ago
      Fortunately they don't, and fortunately neither do smartphones. They've been roughly the same for the past 12 years, right around the time people started to actually use them en masse. People are already adept at understanding how to use the on-screen keyboard when it changes, such as when it only requires numerical input, or when filling out an email address it helpfully puts the at symbol on the main screen rather than behind a shortcut, or more recent changes like buttons to suggest filling in a saved password for an app or website. These are barely hardships on the scale of unfamiliar flight controls for experienced pilots.
solatic 8y ago
Steve Jobs was only correct in the context of a media consumption device. Having only physical buttons would prevent apps like YouTube from allowing users to select a timeline position to jump to that position in a video clip, and touchscreens are certainly better hardware for games like Bejewelled. Where he was wrong is that professional use requires muscle memory to build mastery of the tool, and that the flexible nature of touchscreens fundamentally prevent people from developing muscle memory. Professionals derive enormous benefit from fixed-button interfaces that are impediments or limitations for the mass consumer market. (Automobiles are the main exception to this rule, since they require blind usability, but most consumer products don't require blind usability.)
neuralRiot 8y ago
>And what happens if you think of a great idea six months from now? You can’t run around and add a button to these things. No, you create a new product with the new buttons and sell something different to your competitors, now all the phones look the same, on top of that you have only 2 Operating systems to choose, there used to be creativity in the design of devices now they cycle from round edges to square and back.

by ihuman 8y ago

komali2 8y ago

> Put any user interface up. And a pointing device. We solved it with the mouse. We solved this problem. They solved the problem... by putting "exit, maximize, minimize" buttons at the top-right (or top-left) of every window. By putting "file, view, edit" dropdowns at the top-left of ever application. By putting "back, forward, refresh" at the top of the browser.

mattnewton 8y ago
Not every application- I don’t see those buttons when dialing a phone number, or when watching a video or playing a game.
einr 8y ago
...and also by still having a keyboard with a fixed and standardized layout, which Jobs' argumentation conveniently ignores. I'd like to see how much of a success the Macintosh would have been with just a mouse ;)

ellard 8y ago

I think that we've gotten some fantastic UI/UX designs that came from having to work within the limitation of pre-existing controller inputs. You also have the benefit of being able to assume that the user has some level of competency with the controller. Even with Jobs' example, UI/UX on computers generally remains the same within a given ecosystem as changing them forces your users to re-learn things that they already knew how to do. Individual products on that system mostly congregate to using the same patterns too so that they can reap the benefits of users being pre-trained to look for things to perform specific actions.

Skunkleton 8y ago

That's cool, but I think that most people here agree that mice are a pretty terrible method of interfacing with a computer. Every time you use a mouse, you have to re-orient your self to the state of the mouse (its current location and its use within a given application). That is why we spend so much time optimizing applications for use with a fixed controller (a keyboard). A touch screen is a bit better than a mouse for lots of stuff and it preserves the discoverability of a mouse-based UI. Unfortunately it retains the drawbacks of a mouse based ui. Worse is that there is no fixed controller on a smartphone that might allow faster interaction w/ apps. This is where I think we are getting in trouble. In a traditional computer setup, you interact with the mouse when you are learning new software, and eventually transition to using a keyboard more and more. With touch based stuff, it seems like when an app is first released it has a simple, discoverable UI. But over time, as people become comfortable w/ the app, its UI becomes less approachable to suit the needs of more expert users and new users are left behind (snapchat for example). In my opinion a touch screen is fine for consumptive devices where many different UI elements are required and input is light. Creative devices should have a fixed controller like a keyboard, joystick, etc.

HenryBemis 8y ago
I remember Wozniak once said that if you wait long enough, what you said will be true. Apparently he said once (a looooooong time ago) that a mouse is a useless device and nobody would need one. So with the use of the touch-screens mouse use will be reduced. I have to say that although my laptop does have a very good touch-screen, I still use my mouse for 80% of the actions. Perhaps when browsing or changing windows (to continue browing) I may be using my fingers. But try to select text and change it to Bold on Word, when on the highest possible screen resolution, and well.. you know what happens. Of course for small portable devices, such as a phone, to write a small note it 'good enough' when using the software keyboard, and the fact that the usual mode on smartphones is 'one-app-at-a-time' displayed on the screen, makes for a simpler UI and UX.
rasz 8y ago
Want to play an FPS game against me? you will use any combination of keyboard, joystick, touch screen you prefer.

v_lisivka 8y ago

But even iPhone have fixed hardware buttons. Why they are not replaced by pixels on the screen? Can you cite?

ihuman 8y ago
They replaced the home button with a digital indicator. You need a physical power button that'll work with the screen off so you can turn the phone on. Physical volume controls allow you to change the volume in your pocket without looking at your screen, and also allow you to force restart the phone. Not sure why the mute switch is still physical, but I don't mind it being physical (although it does get dirty over time).
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  So, if we need to do something without looking at the screen, we should keep hardware buttons, right? And if we don't need that, if we are looking at the screen _with_ buttons already, then hardware buttons are redundant.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    Except in the case where the stupid thing freezes and you can't interact with it anymore, then you need a physical button to smother it so you can start it back up again.

Yetanfou 8y ago

The problem of how to use a fixed set of buttons for a variety of purposes was solved much longer ago by the designers of (military) aeronautical instruments: you put them on the edge of the screen which displays labels next to currently active buttons. You designate a few buttons to have fixed functions - that would be the home, back and switch buttons on Android - and leave the rest to be used by the current application.

scoot 8y ago
As used by ATMs. Horrible UX in the age of touch screens. Why is this screen not responding to my touch? Oh, buttons... And even then they don't align to the on-screen text.
- Yetanfou 8y ago
  Nothing keeps you from making those labels touch-sensitive 'in the age of touch screens'. That does mean they need to be bigger than necessary and it has the usual problems associated with touch screens - you need to visually locate the touch zone as there is no true haptic feedback - but it is possible. There is no reason for the screen text not to align to the buttons other than sloppy design.
frosted-flakes 8y ago
Like old Nokias. The ones I'm familiar with had two unlabelled buttons at the top of the keypad, with on-screen labels directly above them to signify what they did.
- Yetanfou 8y ago
  Yes, the system has been used in a limited fashion (two or three buttons on the bottom of the screen) by some manufacturers, Siemens (and their DECT-offspring Gigaset) is another example, as is Philips.
dithering 8y ago
If your purpose is to allow the device to be used when it doesn't have your full attention - like a car radio, for example - I don't think that's a good solution. I have a phone with a knurled power button, and a smooth flashlight button next to it. It's a minor example, but dynamically remapping those buttons would destroy a lot of their utility for me.

antisthenes 8y ago

That's great, except it's not even remotely relevant to kitchen appliances. Those have existed for decades with the same functions and each one of them does a particular task very well. Nor do you do anything on those devices that involves reading a lot of text or watching full screen video where buttons (or UI in general) could get in the way - the polar opposite of smartphones.

ErikVandeWater 8y ago
But what if you need to tweet using your smartfridge?? But seriously, you are exactly right. There is no need to retrain the user for no benefit.

northwest65 8y ago

He was wrong then, and he's wrong now. We know he is wrong because computers operate fine with 101 key keyboards just like they did 30 years ago. The million of applications produced since haven't required a new button on the keyboard every time. Thankfully some sanity has reigned in car interiors and the manufacturers have realised the benefits to tactile feedback. He might be right when screens can reconfigure themselves with raised sections. Or mind control I guess.

chumali 8y ago
It's all well and good saying he was wrong but the principles he outlines have been largely vindicated by the market. Many things worked fine 30 years ago and yet have been immeasurably improved since - it's a tempting argument to not fix that which isn't broken, but ultimately a weak one. Also, there is little point in comparing computers, phones and car interiors. Incorporating physical buttons on phones involves a significant trade-off that is not an issue with computers. Car interiors are a different matter entirely. A more appropriate comparison might be conventional TV remotes vs the Apple TV remote. I've found the latter to be much more user friendly and intuitive.
- Tyrek 8y ago
  > it's a tempting argument to not fix that which isn't broken, but ultimately a weak one. I'm going to have to call shenanigans on this one. Sure, it's an alright attitude to have towards non-essential parts of your life/consumer experience, but imagine if mission critical stuff (like, flight consoles) changed on a regular basis - that would be completely insane.
  - zapzupnz 8y ago
    Fortunately they don't, and fortunately neither do smartphones. They've been roughly the same for the past 12 years, right around the time people started to actually use them en masse. People are already adept at understanding how to use the on-screen keyboard when it changes, such as when it only requires numerical input, or when filling out an email address it helpfully puts the at symbol on the main screen rather than behind a shortcut, or more recent changes like buttons to suggest filling in a saved password for an app or website. These are barely hardships on the scale of unfamiliar flight controls for experienced pilots.

solatic 8y ago

Steve Jobs was only correct in the context of a media consumption device. Having only physical buttons would prevent apps like YouTube from allowing users to select a timeline position to jump to that position in a video clip, and touchscreens are certainly better hardware for games like Bejewelled. Where he was wrong is that professional use requires muscle memory to build mastery of the tool, and that the flexible nature of touchscreens fundamentally prevent people from developing muscle memory. Professionals derive enormous benefit from fixed-button interfaces that are impediments or limitations for the mass consumer market. (Automobiles are the main exception to this rule, since they require blind usability, but most consumer products don't require blind usability.)

neuralRiot 8y ago

>And what happens if you think of a great idea six months from now? You can’t run around and add a button to these things. No, you create a new product with the new buttons and sell something different to your competitors, now all the phones look the same, on top of that you have only 2 Operating systems to choose, there used to be creativity in the design of devices now they cycle from round edges to square and back.