recent posts
tags
archive
-
►
2010
(15)
-
►
January
(6)
- Dutch public transport chip-card system flawed at ...
- eBooks will not replace real books because of usab...
- UPA2010: Usability Professionals' Association annu...
- Show your love for Hartmut Esslinger and not-an-mp...
- USB plugs: why not make them really (a)symmetrical...
- Unusable software slows down Dutch police
-
►
January
(6)
| Wednesday, December 23, 2009 | by: Jasper |
Symbian, Windows Mobile and Android present mobile phone makers with a dilemma: if you make a phone based on one of these third-party operating systems, do you stick to the user interface that is integrated with it or do you put in your own customized UI? By sticking to the third-party UI you can offer people a familiar user interface, that is usually decent enough (but not necessarily more than that) in terms of usability. Even though Windows Mobile (recently rebranded as Windows Phone) can hardly be described as having a thoroughly loyal fan-base, for HTC, a hardware supplier turned mobile phone brand, it was a blessing: HTC knew how to make hardware, but developing a good operating system and user interface can take years. By equipping their products with Windows Mobile they could bypass that hurdle.
However, if you really want to stand out from the crowd and have a user interface that goes beyond decent, into the realm of excellence, you may want to resume control of the UI. That way you can, for example, align the on-screen UI with the design of the physical controls, and solve issues you find suboptimal. However, usually, when companies start tinkering with a third-party UI, you get a mere skin or a different home screen on top of the actual user interface, as for example the panels in SonyEricsson's Xperia, or Touch Flo in HTC's Touch that was described as 'innovative and cool, but also flawed' by CNET.
Wired recently reviewed Samsung's Behold II, which turns out to be a poster boy for how not to customize a third-party UI, in this case the Android operating system.
Instead of sticking with an Android-only user interface, Samsung opted to mix things up with its own "TouchWiz" system. <...> However, Samsung's approach turned the Behold II's navigation into a nightmare. The end result is a disjointed experience, where sometimes you're using Android's menu system, and other times you're using TouchWiz — complete with different looking icons and menu trees.
Additionally, in their quest to build an innovative user interface Samsung's user interface designers seem to have forgotten the adage 'cool is not a good adjective for user interfaces'. Front and center in the Behold II's home screen is a rotatable onscreen cube, the six sides of which give you access to apps like YouTube and the music player.
The crown jewel of this split-personality experience is the multimedia-enhanced widget called the "cube." <...> Not only is the act of rotating the cube strangely challenging, it's mostly pointless. Using the regular menus to launch these tasks is easier, and the ability to store shortcut icons on the home screen negates its necessity. And don't even get us started on the "shake for a random app" feature.
I think that if you choose to base your product on a third party operating system you either completely surrender yourself to the built-in UI, because that provides a coherent, familiar experience, or you thoroughly rework the thing, but that should go (way) beyond letting the graphic and interaction designers to their thing. That it's possible to rework and improve a third-party UI was shown by HTC with the Hero, which was equipped with the Sense UI, a customized version of Android, that Wired called 'attractive, fairly logical and flashy.' Meanwhile, Samsung goes for a third option: it announced it will cease to build phones on the Symbian platform, but will develop its own open OS platform, called Bada. Perhaps they too were disappointed by the Behold II.
[Photo: Wired]
2 reactions:
I am continuously baffled by hardware manufacturers’ consistent inclination to spend money re-inventing software controls that inevitably make the UI worse. I’ve seen it in software accompanying cameras, camcorders, backup hard drives, DVD player/burners, and analog adapters. You’d think they’d say, "We’re hardware, not software experts. Let’s play it safe and stick to the standards," but no. Is it for branding? Maybe for smart phones, but who buys a DVD player because it comes with cool-looking software? Indeed, if potential buyers were to actually study the software, they’d run in the opposite direction.
I think it's important to make a distinction between companies that supply hardware and companies that develop products. I think that the latter group of companies should actually be experts in developing both hard- AND software. Their both part of the product and the software has an incredible impact on the user experience. For DVD players there is no standard, product development companies are faced with the option either to copy the hardware suppliers software (if they use a third-party supplier, that is) or they have to develop their own software and UI. If you're doing the first, it becomes harder distinct yourself from the competition in terms of user experience. If you're doing the latter, I think you need to put some serious effort into that. So I think hardware developers SHOULD develop software, but should do it properly.
Post a Comment