4 ms·

The vertical candybar formfactor of smartphones really is just a total nightmare when it comes to usability. Coupled with the fact that touchscreens are a nadir

by kibwen 2y ago

The vertical candybar formfactor of smartphones really is just a total nightmare when it comes to usability. Coupled with the fact that touchscreens are a nadir of effective user input design, it really feels like phones were a regression in every respect except fit-in-your-pocket portability. Here's hoping that whatever eventually disrupts smartphones turns out better.

sanjit 2y ago
As someone who’s lost much ability due to an illness, the touch input, accessibility features and intimacy of my phone have been a lifesaver. Desktop web versus phone/tablet/tocuhscreen? I’d take the innovations and how forward they’ve moved us and society over anything in the past… they’re not just about input but forced new solutions and took us to new places. Can anything be implemented better? Of course, and I agree with you: the next disruption will be better. BUT will also expose more challenges in how we deal with tech, each other, and the planet.
poisonborz 2y ago
Should be awarded with the typical HN comment badge - smartphones effectively replaced PCs for most of the population, but what a regression nevertheless! I think the format is perfect for consumption. That this became so separated from creation is another problem.
- dexwiz 2y ago
  Replaced? I'm pretty sure for the majority of smartphone users, it is their first computer. You have to be above 25 and and live in a developed nation for you to have had a PC before a smartphone.
  - naitgacem 2y ago
    In a developing country here. For people below 25, the majority are only familiar with smartphones. I think this comes down to the versatility of these devices(Camera, media consumption, browsing social media, ... ), and sadly that is most, if not all, of their needs in computers ...
rezonant 2y ago
I'm hoping for the hand terminals from the Expanse: Project images into the space around you.
MrJohz 2y ago
I really disagree with this. Touchscreens are not necessarily the best input device for any one task, but they are the second best input device for pretty much all tasks. They are very versatile - you don't need to define all your inputs up front, instead you can add new controls dynamically as needed (such as a keyboard that only shows up when you're inputting text, and even adapts to the type of text you're working with). When working with a desktop, you have a range of specialist input devices, from mice, keyboards (which themselves are a combination of different input devices for different tasks), drawing pads, trackballs, etc. A touchscreen will never be as good as any of these devices, but it can do the job of all of them, and switch between them as necessary. Obviously there are limits to how useful this versatility is. A touchscreen in a car, for example, can control a lot of different aspects of that car from one place, but it makes finding those controls more complicated. So controls that need to be accessed regularly or quickly still need their own separate physical buttons. It's why volume buttons tend to still be physical on most phones. But you'd equally not want to control your car with a keyboard and a bunch of different shortcuts - understanding the tool that's best for the job is key. And the point here is that the touchscreen is the best tool if you want something versatile. I also think there's a big advantage to the vertical form factor for many applications - just look at how we've settled on a vertical format for almost all reading material. Again, it has its disadvantages as well, but most phones can switch between vertical and horizontal modes as necessary. Vertical screens also tend to have the largest accessible space if used in one hand - look at how far your thumb can move side-to-side vs top-to-bottom when operating a phone in one hand. Smartphones are the form and size that they are because it works well: it is largely accessible, it's convenient, and people find it convenient to use. And it's not like it's just the first thing that we tried that stuck - there are a myriad of failed smartphone concepts that have been tried out but just aren't as convenient. That's not to say that you have to find the smartphone concept convenient yourself, but it's valuable understanding why they work so well for so many people.
- lxgr 2y ago
  On a touchscreen, every use case is equally painful compared to more precise input methods. That's only an advantage if your users spend a significant fraction of time in unexpected input situations. Personally, while I am able to do most everything I do on my computer on my smartphone, I almost never enjoy doing so – one big exception being content consumption. And even then, not being able to quickly make a note or comment on what I'm reading feels constraining. > I also think there's a big advantage to the vertical form factor for many applications - just look at how we've settled on a vertical format for almost all reading material. One seems to be strictly a consequence of the other. > most phones can switch between vertical and horizontal modes as necessary. Horizontal mode is usually horrible, both in terms of being able to hold the phone with one hand, and in terms of UI. On iOS for example, Safari's UI becomes extremely wasteful in horizontal mode. > And it's not like it's just the first thing that we tried that stuck - there are a myriad of failed smartphone concepts that have been tried out but just aren't as convenient. I think it has at least as much to do with industry momentum. Even if I'd personally prefer another form factor, I won't have many apps optimized for it if it's not in line with mainstream phone usage.
wonger_ 2y ago
I agree. With the form factor: you either have reasonably sized content that requires abbreviated design and lots of interaction, or heavily packed content that's hard to see and easy to fat-finger. And regarding touch input: there's no physical feedback. Touchscreens are inferior to buttons you can feel the edges of, or keys you can push and hear as they click. Most of the older people in my life still struggle with touch inputs. Smartphones are so convenient and versatile, though. I can't imagine any kind of device replacing them.
- skydhash 2y ago
  An always-with-you terminal is nice. What we need is not replacing them. It's making them simpler. We're cramming features into these things that doesn't need to be there, and it's a pain to remove them. That's what make them so confusing. What I do when I'm seated in front of a computer is different from what I want to do on the go. That's why I like my single-use devices (like my kitchen timer), because they tend to do that one things well. The iPod classic was great in that regard.

by kibwen 2y ago

sanjit 2y ago

As someone who’s lost much ability due to an illness, the touch input, accessibility features and intimacy of my phone have been a lifesaver. Desktop web versus phone/tablet/tocuhscreen? I’d take the innovations and how forward they’ve moved us and society over anything in the past… they’re not just about input but forced new solutions and took us to new places. Can anything be implemented better? Of course, and I agree with you: the next disruption will be better. BUT will also expose more challenges in how we deal with tech, each other, and the planet.

poisonborz 2y ago

Should be awarded with the typical HN comment badge - smartphones effectively replaced PCs for most of the population, but what a regression nevertheless! I think the format is perfect for consumption. That this became so separated from creation is another problem.

dexwiz 2y ago
Replaced? I'm pretty sure for the majority of smartphone users, it is their first computer. You have to be above 25 and and live in a developed nation for you to have had a PC before a smartphone.
- naitgacem 2y ago
  In a developing country here. For people below 25, the majority are only familiar with smartphones. I think this comes down to the versatility of these devices(Camera, media consumption, browsing social media, ... ), and sadly that is most, if not all, of their needs in computers ...

rezonant 2y ago

I'm hoping for the hand terminals from the Expanse: Project images into the space around you.

MrJohz 2y ago

I really disagree with this. Touchscreens are not necessarily the best input device for any one task, but they are the second best input device for pretty much all tasks. They are very versatile - you don't need to define all your inputs up front, instead you can add new controls dynamically as needed (such as a keyboard that only shows up when you're inputting text, and even adapts to the type of text you're working with). When working with a desktop, you have a range of specialist input devices, from mice, keyboards (which themselves are a combination of different input devices for different tasks), drawing pads, trackballs, etc. A touchscreen will never be as good as any of these devices, but it can do the job of all of them, and switch between them as necessary. Obviously there are limits to how useful this versatility is. A touchscreen in a car, for example, can control a lot of different aspects of that car from one place, but it makes finding those controls more complicated. So controls that need to be accessed regularly or quickly still need their own separate physical buttons. It's why volume buttons tend to still be physical on most phones. But you'd equally not want to control your car with a keyboard and a bunch of different shortcuts - understanding the tool that's best for the job is key. And the point here is that the touchscreen is the best tool if you want something versatile. I also think there's a big advantage to the vertical form factor for many applications - just look at how we've settled on a vertical format for almost all reading material. Again, it has its disadvantages as well, but most phones can switch between vertical and horizontal modes as necessary. Vertical screens also tend to have the largest accessible space if used in one hand - look at how far your thumb can move side-to-side vs top-to-bottom when operating a phone in one hand. Smartphones are the form and size that they are because it works well: it is largely accessible, it's convenient, and people find it convenient to use. And it's not like it's just the first thing that we tried that stuck - there are a myriad of failed smartphone concepts that have been tried out but just aren't as convenient. That's not to say that you have to find the smartphone concept convenient yourself, but it's valuable understanding why they work so well for so many people.

lxgr 2y ago
On a touchscreen, every use case is equally painful compared to more precise input methods. That's only an advantage if your users spend a significant fraction of time in unexpected input situations. Personally, while I am able to do most everything I do on my computer on my smartphone, I almost never enjoy doing so – one big exception being content consumption. And even then, not being able to quickly make a note or comment on what I'm reading feels constraining. > I also think there's a big advantage to the vertical form factor for many applications - just look at how we've settled on a vertical format for almost all reading material. One seems to be strictly a consequence of the other. > most phones can switch between vertical and horizontal modes as necessary. Horizontal mode is usually horrible, both in terms of being able to hold the phone with one hand, and in terms of UI. On iOS for example, Safari's UI becomes extremely wasteful in horizontal mode. > And it's not like it's just the first thing that we tried that stuck - there are a myriad of failed smartphone concepts that have been tried out but just aren't as convenient. I think it has at least as much to do with industry momentum. Even if I'd personally prefer another form factor, I won't have many apps optimized for it if it's not in line with mainstream phone usage.

wonger_ 2y ago

I agree. With the form factor: you either have reasonably sized content that requires abbreviated design and lots of interaction, or heavily packed content that's hard to see and easy to fat-finger. And regarding touch input: there's no physical feedback. Touchscreens are inferior to buttons you can feel the edges of, or keys you can push and hear as they click. Most of the older people in my life still struggle with touch inputs. Smartphones are so convenient and versatile, though. I can't imagine any kind of device replacing them.

skydhash 2y ago
An always-with-you terminal is nice. What we need is not replacing them. It's making them simpler. We're cramming features into these things that doesn't need to be there, and it's a pain to remove them. That's what make them so confusing. What I do when I'm seated in front of a computer is different from what I want to do on the go. That's why I like my single-use devices (like my kitchen timer), because they tend to do that one things well. The iPod classic was great in that regard.