4 ms·

This is definitely one of the books that has shaped my thinking the most. The book argues very strongly for functional design and design that makes usage obvio

This is definitely one of the books that has shaped my thinking the most. The book argues very strongly for functional design and design that makes usage obvious. “The way you use a thing should be encoded in the way the thing is, not in a manual”. I’ve been told there’s a follow up that concedes some of this and argues for emotional design. Something a long the lines of “this thing doesn’t need this handle, but it makes the thing feel manageable and less intimidating”. My biggest eye opener, though, was the idea of designing for display in the store versus usage at home. An updated example for me is the iPhone. It has premium materials that are assembled with tiny tolerances and has a very nice feel in the hand. But once you’ve been impressed by these in the store and you buy it, you slap on a $5 cover and never enjoy the premium materials and physical design. The reasonable thing would be to have the phone shell-less and with interchangeable covers, like an old Nokia phone, but that is not nice in the show room.

misnome 4y ago
I wonder how much of that is a user vs designer thing. On the few occasions when I wear suits, I’ve actually removed the cover, because it safely glides in and out of the suit pocket like it was almost designed for it.
- roboyoshi 4y ago
  That is an interesting observation that I will look out for too now.. Sometimes you need to adapt a "thing" to you.. and the iphone and it's shell are a very simple example of that.
jrowen 4y ago
Why hasn't Apple ever made a version with a built-in ruggedized case? I hate putting the case on but in practice it's too fragile of a thing for many people's usage patterns. Seems like one of those things, like the flashlight, where they would see how the people are using it and build it in for a more streamlined experience. I don't want to believe the cynical interpretation that they do it to sell more phones/repairs, but I can't think of another reason.
- solarmist 4y ago
  Because Apple cares about form as much as function and will not sacrifice form. It was almost a religious pursuit for Steve Jobs.
  - jrowen 4y ago
    Yes but they know that many people (virtually everybody in my experience) immediately cover and bulk up that beautiful form. It's not really like them to say "well that's their choice to ruin our beautiful work" - it's clearly a very important function. I would think they would take the challenge to make a version that can withstand some abuse and still adhere to their aesthetic standards.
    - solarmist 4y ago
      They sell leather cases which fulfill that purpose for most day to day usage. I use the Apple cases because they don’t bulk up he phone and provide just enough protection.
- capableweb 4y ago
  > Why hasn't Apple ever made a version with a built-in ruggedized case? The evil answer is that doing so would remove an income stream for Apple (repairs). The less evil answer is that not enough people have said they want it, and Apple don't know if people want it or not. Not that that has stopped Apple from doing things before, but who knows, they do seem a bit more conservative today than before.
- naravara 4y ago
  > Why hasn't Apple ever made a version with a built-in ruggedized case? What would be the point? It might make it slightly slimmer, but for the most part I think people like having the choice in cases. iPhones are so ubiquitous that people put a lot of value in being able to personalize or set theirs apart.
dan-robertson 4y ago
I don’t[1] use a cover for my phone and it seems mostly fine. Granted, I probably wouldn’t be super sad if it were to smash and I had to buy a replacement and maybe I’d be more careful if it would be worse for me. I’m also not so concerned about resale value and therefore micro scratches or slightly chipped/deformed corners. Maybe the newer design of iPhone is less rugged than the rounded design mine has. Maybe I’m just good at being careful and not smashing it but I do plenty of other quite careless things. Another thing to consider is that some people own expensive watches that can be many times more expensive than on iPhone. They don’t have covers (can get scratched up; if they have thin plating in a precious metal they can’t take much polishing; can be expensive to repair). I don’t know how bad it would be to smash the face of a watch on eg the corner of a table. Maybe only the crystal would need to be replaced or maybe the hands/dial would be damaged and expensive to repair. Maybe those people just aren’t so afraid to damage/replace their watch but I find that a little hard to believe. [1] ok I did used to have a cover but I dropped my phone onto a tile floor from ~2.5m (using the flashlight to try to change the lightbulb in a windowless room) and damaged the cover so I stopped using and after that I didn’t really miss it. (And I have a headtorch now…)
- gumby 4y ago
  > Maybe those people just aren’t so afraid to damage/replace their watch but I find that a little hard to believe. It’s a Vleben good: it doesn’t simply signify that you have money to throw away, but shows that you have a lifestyle in which your expensive watch won’t get damaged.
  - dan-robertson 4y ago
    But sports watches / ‘dive’ watches seem pretty popular. Maybe the sports involved aren’t so likely to involve damaging the watch somehow.
    - gumby 4y ago
      That's for a lower tier and/or for sending a different message. Someone with a million dollar watch presumably has several for different purposes. I wear the cheapest apple watch and could easily replace it if it breaks, but never has even when the limb bearing it has.
christophilus 4y ago
> you slap on a $5 cover and never enjoy the premium materials and physical design It is ridiculous, I agree. I don’t use a case. I do have a thin screen protector. Anytime I handle anyone else’s phone, I think, “This is so clunky, and would barely fit in my pocket.”
- cj 4y ago
  "No case" worked for me for about 18 months. Now I'm forced to wear a case to keep the broken glass from cutting my fingers when picking up my phone (the back of the phone shattered but the front is perfectly fine with no screen protector). How / why the back of a phone would be made of a material that is essential glass is beyond me.
  - gumby 4y ago
    > How / why the back of a phone would be made of a material that is essential glass is beyond me. For wireless charging. If you pay for the extra warranty and break the glass screen you can replace it for $100. If you break the glass back the repair price is astronomical.
    - solarmist 4y ago
      Yup, but this used to be the opposite. The front used to be the expense glass to replace.
      - gumby 4y ago
        Yes, this seems crazy which is why I mentioned it. Seems unfair that applecare doesn't cover it.
  - wodenokoto 4y ago
    It is for two reasons: - It lets wireless through. - it’s design for the showroom, not at home. A plastic back would be better on most parameters. Lighter, sturdier and better grip. But it lacks _luster_ and doesn’t feel or look premium. The glass back is great for the showroom. Not as great once you get home and start using it.
jkestner 4y ago
> I’ve been told there’s a follow up that concedes some of this and argues for emotional design. Another excellent short book on evoking emotions in design is The Ice Palace That Melted Away, by Bill Stumpf (designer of the Aeron chair). Compares flying in a Boeing to a biplane, and other sensory experiences in design.
naravara 4y ago
> An updated example for me is the iPhone. It has premium materials that are assembled with tiny tolerances and has a very nice feel in the hand. But once you’ve been impressed by these in the store and you buy it, you slap on a $5 cover and never enjoy the premium materials and physical design. A lot of this is really just needless anxiety though. I tended to go caseless until I had kids and they're pretty durable on their own. They will collect scratches and dings but honestly the only times my phone ever falls is when I'm wearing a certain pair of sweatpants with pockets that are too small. YMMV on how well you can hold things naturally.
bombcar 4y ago
Heh one of the most noticeable cases of this is when you buy something and unwrap it and find it covered in obvious "shelf marketing" stickers - your TV doesn't need a giant energy star sticker across the corner (and you have to remove it) nor does it need the specs on a little card attached to the base; but they do want those when it is the demo unit on the shelf, and they know that retail won't bother sticking them on, so they put them on every single product.

misnome 4y ago

I wonder how much of that is a user vs designer thing. On the few occasions when I wear suits, I’ve actually removed the cover, because it safely glides in and out of the suit pocket like it was almost designed for it.

roboyoshi 4y ago
That is an interesting observation that I will look out for too now.. Sometimes you need to adapt a "thing" to you.. and the iphone and it's shell are a very simple example of that.

jrowen 4y ago

Why hasn't Apple ever made a version with a built-in ruggedized case? I hate putting the case on but in practice it's too fragile of a thing for many people's usage patterns. Seems like one of those things, like the flashlight, where they would see how the people are using it and build it in for a more streamlined experience. I don't want to believe the cynical interpretation that they do it to sell more phones/repairs, but I can't think of another reason.

solarmist 4y ago
Because Apple cares about form as much as function and will not sacrifice form. It was almost a religious pursuit for Steve Jobs.
- jrowen 4y ago
  Yes but they know that many people (virtually everybody in my experience) immediately cover and bulk up that beautiful form. It's not really like them to say "well that's their choice to ruin our beautiful work" - it's clearly a very important function. I would think they would take the challenge to make a version that can withstand some abuse and still adhere to their aesthetic standards.
  - solarmist 4y ago
    They sell leather cases which fulfill that purpose for most day to day usage. I use the Apple cases because they don’t bulk up he phone and provide just enough protection.
capableweb 4y ago
> Why hasn't Apple ever made a version with a built-in ruggedized case? The evil answer is that doing so would remove an income stream for Apple (repairs). The less evil answer is that not enough people have said they want it, and Apple don't know if people want it or not. Not that that has stopped Apple from doing things before, but who knows, they do seem a bit more conservative today than before.
naravara 4y ago
> Why hasn't Apple ever made a version with a built-in ruggedized case? What would be the point? It might make it slightly slimmer, but for the most part I think people like having the choice in cases. iPhones are so ubiquitous that people put a lot of value in being able to personalize or set theirs apart.

dan-robertson 4y ago

I don’t[1] use a cover for my phone and it seems mostly fine. Granted, I probably wouldn’t be super sad if it were to smash and I had to buy a replacement and maybe I’d be more careful if it would be worse for me. I’m also not so concerned about resale value and therefore micro scratches or slightly chipped/deformed corners. Maybe the newer design of iPhone is less rugged than the rounded design mine has. Maybe I’m just good at being careful and not smashing it but I do plenty of other quite careless things. Another thing to consider is that some people own expensive watches that can be many times more expensive than on iPhone. They don’t have covers (can get scratched up; if they have thin plating in a precious metal they can’t take much polishing; can be expensive to repair). I don’t know how bad it would be to smash the face of a watch on eg the corner of a table. Maybe only the crystal would need to be replaced or maybe the hands/dial would be damaged and expensive to repair. Maybe those people just aren’t so afraid to damage/replace their watch but I find that a little hard to believe. [1] ok I did used to have a cover but I dropped my phone onto a tile floor from ~2.5m (using the flashlight to try to change the lightbulb in a windowless room) and damaged the cover so I stopped using and after that I didn’t really miss it. (And I have a headtorch now…)

gumby 4y ago
> Maybe those people just aren’t so afraid to damage/replace their watch but I find that a little hard to believe. It’s a Vleben good: it doesn’t simply signify that you have money to throw away, but shows that you have a lifestyle in which your expensive watch won’t get damaged.
- dan-robertson 4y ago
  But sports watches / ‘dive’ watches seem pretty popular. Maybe the sports involved aren’t so likely to involve damaging the watch somehow.
  - gumby 4y ago
    That's for a lower tier and/or for sending a different message. Someone with a million dollar watch presumably has several for different purposes. I wear the cheapest apple watch and could easily replace it if it breaks, but never has even when the limb bearing it has.

christophilus 4y ago

> you slap on a $5 cover and never enjoy the premium materials and physical design It is ridiculous, I agree. I don’t use a case. I do have a thin screen protector. Anytime I handle anyone else’s phone, I think, “This is so clunky, and would barely fit in my pocket.”

cj 4y ago
"No case" worked for me for about 18 months. Now I'm forced to wear a case to keep the broken glass from cutting my fingers when picking up my phone (the back of the phone shattered but the front is perfectly fine with no screen protector). How / why the back of a phone would be made of a material that is essential glass is beyond me.
- gumby 4y ago
  > How / why the back of a phone would be made of a material that is essential glass is beyond me. For wireless charging. If you pay for the extra warranty and break the glass screen you can replace it for $100. If you break the glass back the repair price is astronomical.
  - solarmist 4y ago
    Yup, but this used to be the opposite. The front used to be the expense glass to replace.
    - gumby 4y ago
      Yes, this seems crazy which is why I mentioned it. Seems unfair that applecare doesn't cover it.
- wodenokoto 4y ago
  It is for two reasons: - It lets wireless through. - it’s design for the showroom, not at home. A plastic back would be better on most parameters. Lighter, sturdier and better grip. But it lacks _luster_ and doesn’t feel or look premium. The glass back is great for the showroom. Not as great once you get home and start using it.

jkestner 4y ago

> I’ve been told there’s a follow up that concedes some of this and argues for emotional design. Another excellent short book on evoking emotions in design is The Ice Palace That Melted Away, by Bill Stumpf (designer of the Aeron chair). Compares flying in a Boeing to a biplane, and other sensory experiences in design.

naravara 4y ago

> An updated example for me is the iPhone. It has premium materials that are assembled with tiny tolerances and has a very nice feel in the hand. But once you’ve been impressed by these in the store and you buy it, you slap on a $5 cover and never enjoy the premium materials and physical design. A lot of this is really just needless anxiety though. I tended to go caseless until I had kids and they're pretty durable on their own. They will collect scratches and dings but honestly the only times my phone ever falls is when I'm wearing a certain pair of sweatpants with pockets that are too small. YMMV on how well you can hold things naturally.

bombcar 4y ago

Heh one of the most noticeable cases of this is when you buy something and unwrap it and find it covered in obvious "shelf marketing" stickers - your TV doesn't need a giant energy star sticker across the corner (and you have to remove it) nor does it need the specs on a little card attached to the base; but they do want those when it is the demo unit on the shelf, and they know that retail won't bother sticking them on, so they put them on every single product.