Ah, Jakob Nielsen. Anyone who has ever been involved with serious document design or web usability will know his name. If you’ve never heard of him, the best way to describe him would probably be this: he’s the Richard Stallman of usability. He has a set of very clear ideas about user interface and document design, which more often than not get in the way of beauty. He has performed a usability study, with real users, on the iPad.
The actual study is a 93-page long PDF document, and I sure won’t cover every aspect of it. The summary posted on Nielsen’s website highlights the most important findings, and there sure is some interesting stuff in there. In a nutshell, “iPad apps are inconsistent and have low feature discoverability, with frequent user errors due to accidental gestures. An overly strong print metaphor and weird interaction styles cause further usability problems.”
Sadly, since I have no iPad, all I can do is look at my iPhone, which experiences many of the same problems.
For instance, one of the big problems uncovered by the study is that users had troubles with the fact that each application uses its own user interface, leading to lots of unexpected behaviour and undiscovered features. For instance, tapping on an image in any application can lead to any of five behaviours: nothing happens, it links to another page, it flips the image to reveal additional pictures in the same place, or it pops up a set of navigation choices.
The three main problems, according to Nielsen’s study, are low discoverability, low memorability, and accidental activation. “When you combine these three usability problems, the resulting user experience is frequently one of not knowing what happened or how to replicate a certain action to achieve the same result again,” Nielsen concludes, “Worse yet, people don’t know how to revert to the previous state because there’s no consistent undo feature to provide an escape hatch like the Web’s Back button.”
This has bothered me about my iPhone as well. Every applications has its own isolated user interface with its own UI paradigms and behaviour. The end result is that switching between applications can be incredibly jarring, as user interface elements are in a different place for each application – or nowhere at all.
The best example is probably Tweetie. Whereas most applications have a “reload” or “check for new messages” button or whatever somewhere, you reload Tweetie by dragging the message queue down for a short time, which will trigger the reload. I’ve had to point this behaviour out to many of my friends.
The study also contains a few guidelines for UI design on the iPad, and most of those can be applied to regular computers as well.
- Add dimensionality and better define individual interactive areas to increase discoverability through perceived affordances of what users can do where.
- To achieve these interactive benefits, loosen up the etched-glass aesthetic. Going beyond the flatland of iPad’s first-generation apps might create slightly less attractive screens, but designers can retain most of the good looks by making the GUI cues more subtle than the heavy-handed visuals used in the Macintosh-to-Windows-7 progression of GUI styles.
- Abandon the hope of value-add through weirdness. Better to use consistent interaction techniques that empower users to focus on your content instead of wondering how to get it.
- Support standard navigation, including a Back feature, search, clickable headlines, and a homepage for most apps.
Especially the first and the last two points get much applause from me – for everything UI.
The iPad is coming to The Netherlands in July, and I’m really looking forward to finally getting my hands on one and playing with it. The reports on the internet have been quite positive and starry-eyed, approaching the mass hysteria surrounding the Nintendo Wii. I want to know what all the hubbub is about!
Oh, and bring back Platinum!
The iPad is a new device and offers a new way of interacting with it. As such I think there’ll be a lot of experimentation as developers figure out what works and what doesn’t.
I remember on the Amiga many years ago the lack of guidelines lead to a lot of software with weird and wonderful UIs. A lot of this was bad, but there were also gems where the UI was amazingly good. I suspect the same will happen here.
I initially wasn’t interested in getting an iPad (I seen it’s benefit immediately but I also saw that it was not targeted at me). I’ve since thought of an idea for an app (with an interesting UI) so I’ve ordered one.
However it’s only one aspect of the UI I want to make “interesting”, for the rest, guidelines like these are very useful.
The key being “many years ago” – the UI model has been pretty settled for over 20 years now, the basics having not changed much since the early days of Windows and Mac.
And in those days, one of the strengths of the Mac was that Apple provided guidelines to encourage developers to build UI that would be consistent with all the others – those guidelines weren’t always followed, but they were there. That doesn’t seem to be the case with iPhone / iPad apps. You’d think that given the myriad reasons why an app can be rejected from the store, not following the platform’s UI conventions would be one of them…
Thats just silly. Sure, certain conventions have been settled upon on desktops regardless of OS, but that is because nearly all desktop GUIs share the same input device – the mouse. The mouse and how it works is the reason most of these conventions exist – take away the mouse and everything changes.
Multipoint touch interfaces require different approaches to be successful. iPhones/iPads are essentially still in the experimentation stage – there is no “right” way to do UIs for them, people (including Apple) are still trying to nail down what works best. The LAST thing we want at this point is standardizing the UI to the point of discouraging experimentation – its way too early to nail things down that tightly. Its going to take a few more years in my opinion before the UI for these kinds of devices reaches the maturity level required to start thinking we no longer need to explore how best to utilize them.
what happens when you click on an image in safari, vs iphoto, vs photoshop? I think a lot of nielsons criticisms could be applied to any computer platform, include the mac.
The key being “many years ago” – the UI model has been pretty settled for over 20 years now, the basics having not changed much since the early days of Windows and Mac.
And in those days, one of the strengths of the Mac was that Apple provided guidelines to encourage developers to build UI that would be consistent with all the others – those guidelines weren’t always followed, but they were there. That doesn’t seem to be the case with iPhone / iPad apps. You’d think that given the myriad reasons why an app can be rejected from the store, not following the platform’s UI conventions would be one of them…
^aEUR|except Apple have published Human Interface Guidelines for developing iPhone and iPad apps http://developer.apple.com/iphone/library/documentation/UserExperie… *sigh*
Edited for clairity. The topmost level of quoting is broken.
Edited 2010-05-12 22:55 UTC
Indeed. Add to that a well known reason for rejection (not all of them are random!) is not following the iPad or iPhone HIG.
Tablets have been with us since the ^aEURTM80s.
The iPad is just the first such device to see success because Apple sweated the user-experience details where others were trying to force a mouse-based design to fit.
But yes, there will be an easing out period as developers get to grips with the platform. It isn^aEURTMt easy designing a touch-based interface using a mouse-based development system.
Yet, most of the issues are carried over from iPhone. And iPhone is 3 years old.
PS: The inconsistent back button, is the thing I hate the most about iPhone OS(there is nothing more annoying) and love the consistency that Android phones give there.
PS: The inconsistent back button, is the thing I hate the most about iPhone OS(there is nothing more annoying) and love the consistency that Android phones give there.
Hmm, I used an Android Nexus one and a Backflip and there was nothing consistent about any of the apps. In particular, the photo Gallery app did not have clearly labelled exits (back buttons).
The thing is, it’s really up to the developer to do the right thing. Many iPhone apps *are* consistent in this regards. The UIViewController navigation model even provides a firm foundation for putting breadcrumbs and back buttons into your app easily.
Edited 2010-05-12 22:51 UTC
Now look at the hypocrisy. Not a single standard app in the iPhone OS comes with a close button. You have to press the home button to exit, back buttons are also not everywhere clearly defined as back.
Furthermore, you expect the device to work in the same way as iPhone(I will try to use my telepathy… You own an iPhone. Did I get it right?)
I got my iPod touch 3 weeks before I got my first Android phone(N1), therefore I will claim that I have less predisposition to a certain paradigm(be it iPhone’s or Android’s).
On Android phones, the back button IS the back button. Period. Only games override it(as far as I’ve noticed). On iPhone OS with most apps, you get to wonder how to return or look around to see where did they put that Cancel/Close/Back button.
Edited 2010-05-13 14:26 UTC
No hypocrisy here. We are talking about a back button, but if you want to change the subject^aEUR|You exit all iPhone apps the same way, by hitting the ‘Home’ button. You hit ‘home’ to go to the home screen, get it? It’s simple consistent, recognizable and doesn’t require any special UI or ‘close’ metaphor.
Back to the “back” button (no pun intended). Back buttons on most apps are located in the top left corner of the navigation bar pointing ‘back’ to the previous page you were viewing. They frequently contain the title of the previous page, because hey, that is more informative than just the text ‘back’. Now I am not saying that all apps respect this convention, but it is clearly laid out in the iPhone HIG and CocoaTouch makes is super-easy to implement.
Yes I own an iPhone. Well done with that telepathy thing. I’m sure you’re very proud
I certainly do not expect Android apps to necessarily work the same way, but the conversation is about the presence of a back button, that is what I was addressing. I made no assertion that it should work like an iPhone.
I guess you’re talking about a hardware back button here and that of course is going to vary from handset to handset, but as long as the handset has a hardware button and doesn’t defer to the touchscreen, then it is going to hopefully be consistent. Sure, I’ll give you that.
As I mentioned before, for iPhone the back button is always in the same place for HIG compliant apps and most of the apps I have used have been compliant in this regard.
If there are no posts on a story and you click post comment you are brought to a page that says there are no comments. To post you have to click “post comment” again.
+ 1
And if you try log in when posting a comment, it just keeps going in a loop; you have to use the login in the top right to actually log in.
This has bothered me for quite some time. It’s especially annoying because the site has been “overhauled” many times in the past few years and this one issue is still present.
Furthermore, why are “Read more” and “comments” separate pages? It’s almost as if you’re inviting your users to leave when they’re done reading more, rather than to continue in to the comments.
We’re in the process of a long-planned overhaul that will fix that problem and others. Patience!
On the Mac, I might not like some of the choices, but the apple, File and most other menus and actions are consistent.
It isn’t a matter of experimentation – windows programs should be far better if it was just that. It is still developed for by geeks. It may be written ex-nihilo in Objective-C, but they don’t ACT any better than Android apps. Sometimes worse.
Doing the same gesture should do the same thing.
With the gist of this. For example, in the USA Today app, swiping changed articles when I “expected” it to change pages. And the change was not glaringly obvious. Other areas of the overall page were “swipable” in a non obvious way.
I constantly bumble with my iPhone also. I tend to conflate the “home” button on the phone with “back”, and I’m constantly exiting the iPod app instead of going back a screen.
Mind, they’re not UI nightmares, but they can be a struggle as everybody applies the same gestures in different ways. Plus, there’s no way to “discover” a gesture save by trying it. No indication whether a gesture is possible or not.
Not unreasonable on the iPhone, with limited space.
But each app is a new “toy” to play with to figure out how it works, and as “neat” and “fun” as it is right now, it still has its frustrations.
The guideline is only a guideline. That doesn’t prevent from developers to map different actions to one gesture in different applications. It is because each application has different goal.
If Apple prevent developers by guideline, it could hurt creativity quite seriously in certain situations I suppose. And if Apple has prevented, then you and/or others would criticise Apple for that. So for your clicking picture example, I cannot see any problems.
I know there should be certain standards, but it should be limited to few types of applications only IMHO.
That the iPad is new, it breaks rules, developers are desperate for business, Apple is pushing users to think differently. Hmmmmmmm, and I’m supposed to read the 96 page report?
Apple provided a UI guideline in the beginning for the Mac because most prospective developers had never even seen a GUI before.
The situation is different here with the iPhone and iPad – all prospective developers have seen touchscreen phones before, I’d be willing to bet. They’ve at least seen GUIs.
And they provide a HIG for iPhone and iPad as well, and will reject apps that don’t following them (if the reviewer is having a bad day at least)
… beside the “featurism” aspect seems to be dominating.
But I think, spending a few month on developing a concise HIG (human interface guideline)is worth the effort in long term. Yes, the HIG has to be concise. Simply because, if it is not, no developer reads it.
A word on “featurism”. I myself am a man. To be more precise, deep in me lurks a little child, that likes to play. So far, “features” are good to attract short term. But what I really need is “functionality” not “features”, so in long term a lack of “functionality” is annoying.
Just my few cents,
pica
PS Hell, we life in a short term world
Developers love documentation when it answers hard questions like “What’s most appropriate?”
No. Please no. Never, ever, that classic Mac horror again ^^’
With its…
-> GUI lockups
-> Overloaded bar at the bottom (I just hid it as soon as I saw it).
-> Network configuration (sufficiently said)
-> Countless crashes
-> Foghorn sound on startup (actually, it got worse with time. Until ~2005, you could make it shut up by muting sound before turning the computer off)
-> Inconsistent app behavior
-> File management with improper icon alignment, making windows becoming huge unless you move all of the icons manually
-> Strange way of maximizing app windows, and desktop-cluttering way of minimizing them
-> Very poor task switching experience when using big windows
Used it for some years. Even with Windows 95’s obfuscating IRQ and DMA settings (that OS literally burnt my soundcard eventually), I never experienced so much pain using a computer.
Edited 2010-05-12 15:20 UTC
None of the things you listed was part of Platinum. Platinum was the UI “theme” of Mac OS 8+ that was originally also part of Mac OS X Server/Rhapsody.
Well, sorry then ^^ It’s just that seeing this screenshot brought back some bad memories…
Yeah, I would have loved that to be the GUI theme because right now the current operating system looks like a frankenGUI; half aqua, half graphite, half industrial, half candy coated girly colours. It seems to have an identity crisis as so far as it can’t work out what it actually wants to be. Whilst Windows has moved forward in as so far as the various components of Windows harmonising the GUI, on Mac OS X things have either stayed the same or gotten worse.
Just a quick question. Since iPad is just a new TabletPC similar to concepts which have been around for 5-10 years or so. Beyond that it obviously lacks a lot of UI consistency. I think it’d be interesting to see this TabletPC (iPad) vs other tabletPCs from say 5-6 years ago up ’til today.
I’m fairly certain that even 5 years ago there were quite a lot more usable tablets than this one, even with flash on top.
Personally, I think the Tweetie pull-down to refresh feature is one of the best UI enhancements they did over Apple. Simple and genius, and clears up the UI for other things.
I don’t want to flame here but… I guess I can’t always have what I want…
I really don’t understand; Is the website of Jacob Nielson considered to be a usability pinnacle? I think it to be very chaotic; it took me ages to find what the site was about, can’t find anything and those clashing colours give my (literally) a headache.
Wikipedia, now there is a usable website. w3c should make in compulsory to use wikipedia’s css
Edited 2010-05-12 22:54 UTC
and what?
I can’t use Motif spec anymore?
Hey everyone! The writer gets comments for saying something bad about Apple!
zOMG everyone help his rating by giving a crap and nibbling at his Windows devoted balls!
The 2-D paradigms from the ’80’s comparisons aren’t entirely valid here.
It’s a pincher’s world – deep, sequential views are available, but don’t make up much of the discussion, except for where expected results fail to appear.
Cover flow, pinching, accelerometer – all define the iPlatform, but factor into navigation little, if at all, and I think it’s a shame.