“The design dilemma these sites are facing is that their is simply too much content. Instead of trying to narrow down what content needs to be shown on the homepage, they try to find ways to ensure that all content is shown on the homepage. [...] The only reason I scan a news page is because I have a hard time keeping my eyes focused on one spot. [...] The trick is to not allow your readers to scan the page, but to force their eyes to go into a state of perpetual motion until their finger saves them and clicks on a link. Brilliant.”

“Last night, I was browsing through story after story on the interwebs that hoped to help people decide on a tablet purchase by comparing the Xoom specifications with the iPad. From multitasking to chip speed to RAM, analysists attempted to find consumers the best possible value for the money.

And they completely missed the point.

When it comes to tablets, it’s not about the specs. It’s about user experience. It’s about the way we use the device and how the device fits itself to the way we want to use it.”

Andy explains:

“But you kind of have to hold the iPad 2 to really get the redesign. It’s thinner by a third, plus its edges taper to a thin line of metal. It’s almost inconceivable that this thing you’re holding is a multicore tablet computer. The Xoom tablet is trim, light, and very pretty … but when you place it next to the iPad 2, it looks as though it was designed and built by angry Soviet prison labor instead of by Motorola.”

And who wants to surf the web, watch a movie, or try to be productive on something designed by Soviet prison labor? It’s suppose to be a joy to use, not a chore. Right?

Specs are a nice place to start when it comes to comparing one tablet to the next, but if you never go beyond the quantitive specs, you’ll never understand the qualitative aspects. And I’d argue that the qualitative aspects are far more important.

But “focus” is the willful rejection of this theory. By saying no to alternatives you increase risk disproportionally to the reward. If you have the means to maintain a portfolio it certainly seems imprudent not to do so.

So why would someone want to focus?

The answer is that too much diversification is dangerous. It’s dilutive to everything the company uses to create value: its resources, its processes and its priorities. It dulls the mind and tarnishes the brand.

The desktop metaphor is on the way out.

Sure you still have files, and may sort things into folders. But this is becoming a per-app thing, not an operating system wide thing. If you look at all of their major apps: iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie … they all use files, but you never see them. This is all the more clear to me with the focus on full-screen applications. There is no longer the ability to drag something from another app (say the desktop) into an application.

The Launchpad and Apple Mac App Store further this. Applications simply exist now, and there is no need to ferry them into being with physical CD’s, installers, uninstallers, and the like. Today there is an Application folder where you keep most of your apps. Tomorrow, they will all exist in the folder-less entity, the Launchpad.

So then, what is the “desktop” good for, if you don’t use it to install apps, and files are stored within the applications themselves?

As for the Mission Control feature, all I can say is that it looks like a bridge technology. It isn’t the destination, but it will help us get there. It’s far to dependent on gestures, which didn’t demo terribly well in the keynote presentation. People understand (some) 2-finger swipes. 3 or 4 is too over the top. Sorta like keyboard shortcuts. Good for power users, and that’s about it.

The future is Touch.

Between the design of the new full-screen apps, the Launchpad, and focus on switching between applications in Mission Control, what I’m noticing is an entire lack of on-screen controls that wouldn’t work well with a touch interface. That is to say, Apple is not taking advantage of the high precision and capability of a mouse and cursor.

Apple has mentioned multiple times that you can’t slap a touch screen onto a laptop and call it a day. And in the sense that your arm would get tired, I’d say they are right on the money. But when they say the future of laptops and desktops is to be used with a disconnected Magic Trackpad of some kind … that’s a whole lot of misdirection.

Apple has to have something they are working on that will let you touch the screen of a desktop or laptop in an ergonomic sort of way. What it is, and how it works is anyone’s guess. But it won’t be your traditional laptop form, desktop form, or even tablet form. It will be something new, something unexpected, and I can’t wait to see it.

“In Word 2008, you have at least three different ways of viewing the same information (the style[s] of the current selection), i.e. a palette, a toolbar control, and a dialog box, and none of them is able to provide any useful information. In addition, each of them provides a difference piece of false information!”

Lots of screen shots. Good write up. Check it out.

Building a product or a feature that works is only half the problem, and probably a lot less of the problem at that. How do people find get it? How do they learn how to use it? When do they use it? How do they fix it if it breaks? How do they pay for it? What happens if they don’t use it?

Do they even *like* using it?

“Design global navigation last.  Before designing global navigation, design screens with only local navigation–how people do the work of that screen.  Then, as parts of the system are ready to release, create an application map that shows hub and spoke relationships, selection screens, modal screens and links and build just enough global navigation for the current feature set.”

I like the idea. Seems like it would generate more a more natural organization in the tool instead of a lot of artificial constructs used to categorize and sort the functionality ahead of time.

“If I let users steer product decisions, the result would be a massive codebase producing a bloated, cluttered product full of features that hardly anyone used at the expense of everyday usability and polish on the features that matter. Like Microsoft Word. Or Firefox.

By listening too much to outside suggestions, I’d destroy the very reason why I’m receiving them.”

“I think of functional spec as one of the worst inflictions that has ever happened to the software development world. I think functional specs are a relic of a time when building features was a very, very hard and long process and you had to do all of this upfront planning because once you wrote anything in software, it was pretty much impossible to change it. I don’t think that functional specs is a technique that’s any longer relevant.”

‘There is no path to peace. Peace is the path.’ ~ Mahatma Gandhi, “Non-Violence in Peace and War”

Simplicity, many people think,
is an end in itself
But they’re getting it backwards
Simplicity is the path, the means
It’s not a far off destination,
somewhere in the future
It’s right here, right now
It’s taking things one at a time
It’s asking simple questions
It’s taking simple actions
It’s doing it slowly
It’s considering and being conscious,
with everything

When you find yourself becoming overwhelmed
on the path to simplicity
Taking a complicated, frenzied path
to get there
Stop, consider, and choose
the simpler path
And take it slowly
And easily
And lovely

[via mnmlist]

“There’s a common attribute that makes for good designers, good engineers, good employees, and good companies. For a long time, I couldn’t figure out what it was. Was it practice? Was it skill? Was it innate ability? Turns out, it’s none of those. It’s taste.“

“[Ira Glass] points out how that gap between ability and taste drives creative people to achieve great things.”

[via Dustin's post on a AA.com UX designer]

“Let’s stop talking about building products. Let’s start talking about creating great experiences.”

Instead of making great software by tweaking one more screen or adding one more feature, let’s step back and take a look at the whole. Understanding what the user experiences, and making that great, is key. Thanks for the reminder Ed, this is one more bit in my drive for contextual design!

“Good ideas turn into good designs fairly quickly. If you catch yourself fiddling too much with colors, borders and treatments to bring a design together, chances are the problem lies somewhere deeper.”

“There is nothing more dreadful than imagination without taste.”

I couldn’t agree more, and as far as it goes, think that good taste and thoughtful design trump features, marketing, and just about everything else.

[via Tim Elliott]

“That the iPhone — or specifically its software touchscreen keyboard — does not appeal to everyone is not a problem. Nothing appeals to everyone. Even if you try to make something that appeals to everyone by adding every single clamored-for feature, you wind up with something like Windows that does not appeal to people with a taste for the elegant and refined.”

Well said.

“Some problems cannot be solved,
because stake-holders cannot agree on the definition.”

It’s a quick read, and worth taking the time.

“Research proves attractive things work better. How we think cannot be separated from how we feel. The next time a boss, client, or co-worker scoffs at the notion that beauty is an important aspect of interface design, point their peepers here.”