Somehow Toshiba came to the conclusions that this is future of home entertainment. Or at least back in 2006 they thought so, because then they presented this helmet offering its user a full 360 degrees view of movies and video games through an integrated 40 centimeter dome-shaped screen. If this is the future of home entertainment I think that in the future we will all have really well-developed neck muscles and no self esteem. The picture is from a 2006 article in the Daily Mail, but it's so outrageous I thought it still deserved some attention.

See also:
> Movie from TV Tokyo showing the helmet (in Japanese)
> Fox News: Virtual-reality helmet gives 360-degree view

An interesting new product proposition from ModuMobile: one tiny basic mobile phone module (pictured above) slides into a multitude of modules (below) that extend its functionality or just change the looks. Like Nokia's Xpress-on covers, but with built-in functionality. For now they're just selling in Israel.

See also:
> Techcrunch: Modu Comes Out Of The Woodwork With A Truly Innovative Mobile Offering



[Lower picture from TechCrunch]

So how is it that Microsoft Windows, with all the effort put into user experience design, does not seem to be able to measure up to Apple computers in terms of usability? There are probably many answers to that question, some of which involve stuff like creating a cult, appealing aesthetics, brand perception and legacy issues.

Owning the eco-system
One very important factor, I think, is summed up in the Mac vs PC commercial breakthrough. Mac and a therapist are trying to convince PC that it's not his fault that he's underperforming. The therapist says: "Unlike Mac, whose operating system and hardware are all made by the same people, your stuff comes from a bunch of different places. [...] Under those circumstances, who could expect everything to work together the way they should?"

This is a very interesting question, as consumer electronics are turning more and more into complex systems. The question is: how do you get all the parts of the system to work together seamlessly? I see two options: monopolize the eco-system or standardize it.

Monopolize the eco-system
If you look at the iPod/iPhone system it goes beyond just the hardware-software alignment that is mentioned in the commercial. Apple creates and/or controls the hardware (iPhone), firmware (iPhone OS), software (apps), connection software (iTunes), content delivery (iTunes Store) and software delivery (App Store). Owning the whole eco-system of a product makes it easier to create usable products as you can coordinate the application of user experience design guidelines, and deal with connectivity and interoperability issues. And though it might be argued that Apple's complete control over the eco-system might result in higher prices than an open market situation, consumers do get a better user experience for that price.

Standardize
Another way to at least get the different components of a system to work together - to ensure interoperability - is to standardize. As an industry you define a common standard. And stick to it. Think of for example USB plugs, Wifi signals, or compact cassettes. If you choose not join the standard, as Philips did with the VIDEO2000 video recording system, you run the risk of isolating your users from the rest of the system. VIDEO2000 users could not rent video tapes because they're medium was not the standard.

However, getting to a standard can be an excruciating process. It can require one system becoming so dominant it is the de facto standard (like CDs), an industry seeing a big advantage to standardization, or simply forcing it by law, as with the European Commission demanding standardization of mobile phone chargers. And even when interoperability standards have been established, some manufacturers may deliberately deviate from it - slightly - so they can claim to adhere to the standard (that's another check-mark on the box), but sales people will still have the argument that it might be better to purchase all equipment from this one manufacturer, because then you'll know for sure it will work.

Interoperability and/or UI consistency
However, standardizing for interoperability is one thing, but what about user interfaces? What if - for example - you want to run a Route66 personal navigation application on a Nokia mobile phone? Whose interface should be dominant? The Route66 interface that is optimized for navigation, and that users of Route66 software are used to, or the Nokia UI, in order not to break within-product UI consistency? I don't think you're going to solve that one through standardization. Monopolization works better. I think we can expect the TomTom iPhone App to adhere to iPhone design guidelines.

So am I in favor of monopolies? No. But I do see some bright sides.

At nearfield.org you'll find a weblog on nearfield communication, run by the 'Touch' research project, which investigates the possibilities for new interaction styles using near field communication (NFC). The project features an inter-disciplinary team involved in social and cultural enquiry, interaction/industrial design, rapid prototyping, software, testing and exhibitions. It is based in the Interaction Design department of the Oslo School of Architecture and Design in Norway. The project ends this year, so it will be interesting to see the end results rolling out.

Philips Research usually does not work on the next big thing in consumer electronics, but on the next-next big thing in consumer electronics. To give you a sense of the timelines we're talking about: back in 1994 they were exploring the possibilities of the networked home in the WWICE project.

Over the past years user-involvement has become more and more important when they develop future product concepts and now Philips Research is opening up: on their SimplicityLabs website you can see, evaluate and contribute to new interaction concepts. The presentation is not extremely engaging, and some of the concepts may make you wonder: will I ever use this? But that's the idea...

Gizmodo provides an extensive overview of the user interfaces of all major digital camera manufacturers such as Canon, Nikon and Samsung.

User interfaces matter in these cameras more than ever because they’re increasingly the major way you drill down to change settings or switch modes—rather than manually cranking a dial, like on a pro DSLR. Some are pretty good (Canon, Samsung) while some are pretty bad (Casio).

[Via Small Surfaces, which sadly fell silent after a streak of excellent posts]

In this presentation at Mix08 on the development of the Microsoft Office 2007 'ribbon' interface, Jensen Harris, design lead for the MS Office User Experience team provides an excellent example of how a UI paradigm can reach a point, where it has to be overhauled completely, because it can no longer sustain the increasing functionality of the product. In the 45 minute presentation he very openly discusses Microsoft's struggle of fitting all (new) features into the existing user interface, leading to 'interesting' UI elements such as hidden menu items, task panes and paperclips.

See also:
> Adaptive path interviews Jensen Harris about the ribbon
> No new features in Office 2007

[Via HBR blogs]

On the occasion of the 30-year anniversary of the Sony Walkman BBC's The Magazine asked 13 year old Scott Campbell to trade his iPod for the original Sony Walkman for a week, which led to a (hilarious) review, including gems like this one:

It took me three days to figure out that there was another side to the tape. That was not the only naive mistake that I made; I mistook the metal/normal switch on the Walkman for a genre-specific equaliser, but later I discovered that it was in fact used to switch between two different types of cassette.

Earlier the simplicity of the first walkman was heralded in an article called Objects of Desire (members only) in Technology Review, which included the following quote:

"It has simplicity of use," says Logan. "You could give it to someone who's never used one before and they can use it. "

And at the time I read that, I totally agreed. Only to be proven wrong by 13-year old Scott. Back then, in the 1980's, you could give the walkman to anyone and they'd know how to use it (also because in comparison to an iPod it has way less features), but today's (younger) users lack some of the required knowledge to interact with it. Once again it turns out that there is no such thing as a usable product. It really depends on who will interact with the product, what knowledge and skills this person has, and in what kind of context the interaction takes place.

[Via Nickbaum]

In addition to Xerox - just push the green button - and Océ, who have been paying attention to the usability of their copiers and advertising that, we can now add Sharp to the 'usable copiers' list. Or at least advertised as usable. In the commercial above, the protagonist asks the following question:

Why does my company have so many different printers and copiers, all different brands, with different controls? Give me one product line with a big colorful LCD screen and common controls. [...]
And I don't wanna use one of those mini-screen keyboards! How about: a built-in keyboard?
Was that too much too ask?