phonezilla

News came out that Dropbox passed on an Apple acquisition, and naturally discussions came up on the web about iCloud versus Dropbox. These two products do similar things, sure, but from where I sit Dropbox needs to do some serious reinvention.

Consider this. Assuming one has a computer capable of working with both iCloud (or another, yet-to-be-created invisible cloud storage thing) and Dropbox and has never used one before, here are the steps to make a document in Pages sync everywhere.

Dropbox:

1. Create a Dropbox account.
2. Download Dropbox.
3. Install Dropbox.
4. Optional: 2 & 3 as above for each computer or device one wishes to access the document(s) on.
5. Open Pages.
6. Create an awesome document.
7. Save it to the Dropbox folder.

iCloud:

1. Open Pages.
2. Create an awesome document.
3. Save it.

Yeah, the steps are fewer and that’s a big part of it. The other key part? No file nor folder interaction. No file system interaction.

I definitely think Dropbox has a life ahead of it, but in time it’s going to have to be marketed towards people using older technologies. It puts the file system in one’s face, and I’d imagine that most people don’t care about file systems; they just want to access their stuff.

Dropbox could rework their software integration and make it lower-level as iCloud; in fact, I don’t think that’s a bad idea. Then they could even pitch themselves as a platform-agnostic alternative to iCloud.

Something to think about.

The oven in our house was terrible. Awful. So we bought a new one - a Kenmore Dual-Fuel. We love it.

But there’s one thing that still trips me up about the control panel to this very day, 3 years later: setting the timer.

This is the panel just to the right of the LCD. In order to set the timer, here’s what I usually do.

1. Press SET in the Timer area.
2. Enter a time using the hour/minute controls.
3. Press START.

Do you know what happens then? I come back 10 minutes later and find the timer still there, waiting to be started. Here is the correct process:

1. Press SET in the Timer area.
2. Enter a time using the hour/minute controls.
3. Press SET in the Timer area.

SET! Again! There are two very simple reasons why I always turn to START. First, it makes sense to me. I set a timer to indicate the length of time for it; then I start the timer. Second, the START (and STOP/CLEAR) buttons are the only two on the panel with any color. Green. Start. It stands out.

Coincidentally my microwave works this way. Even though there’s just one start button, when one is in timer mode it will in fact start the timer. START and STOP/CLEAR are specifically for the oven and nothing else. This makes sense conceptually of course, and to be fair, they are far from the timer’s buttons.

But at least for me, this could be resolved with a straightforward textual change. Make the SET button the SET/START button. That way, both of the functions are exposed to the user. They’re both still within the timer area, too, so the association becomes clearer.

In the meantime, I’ll continue to occasionally botch this.

My opinion is that UI and UX stories are the wrong vehicles for conveying the activities of user experience folks. Here’s why.

My interpretation of stories is that they should demonstrate value to end users or, as I like to call them, people. They might get divided into segments and different customers but, whatever. UX and UI stories I’ve encountered look something like this:

“Make the wireframe for the pages in the ‘add a new post’ workflow.”

Or, in more strict story fashion,

“As a UX designer, I will create pages for adding a post in the application in order to document the workflow.”

That’s a kind of harsh way of putting it, I’ll admit, and a BA more in tune with story writing could improve this. But that is essentially what a UX story says and, for the end user, it is totally without value nor meaning. Wireframes and sketches and the like are implementation details. They may be important to the team making the software, yes, but the end user does not and should not directly care about wireframes.

There are at least a couple of ways of rethinking this story. One way is to make it a slice of the broader story which actually is valuable.

With the above example, your epic speaks about adding content via the web interface and your stories are where the real deal is shown.

“As a content editor, I’d like to add a new post in order to get it reviewed by a peer or supervisor.”

“As a reviewer, I’d like to add a new post in order to publish it to the public website.”

Stuff like that. Then if sketches or wireframes need to be made, use tasks within the story itself - just like you would with (surprise?) development.

You probably wouldn’t have a story about a database. Stories I’ve seen tend to transcend the technology, so why do we make UX + UI ones at all?

If your website has “default footer text” in the footer, that says to me that you don’t take everything seriously.

If your website has your hours and directions in Flash, that says to me that you aren’t interested in ensuring your information is visible to all devices.

If your website is sloppy or unorganized, that says to me that your site is a secondary or tertiary thought and didn’t get your full attention.

If your website leans on clip art, that says to me that you chose not to spend money or time on photography.

If your website has typos, that says to me that content isn’t important to you.

This isn’t 1995. The web isn’t new, commercially, anymore. Your digital presence is a reflection of your business, your brand, and you. If you don’t care about it, you won’t get my business.

You have probably seen this floating about the web.

That’s been featured in a lovely piece from Microsoft’s Steven Sinofsky, writing about some major design decisions around the new Explorer in Windows 8. It’s the new ribbon in Explorer’s default window view.

There’s a lot of good stuff in Sinofsky’s article. I truly appreciate and geek out a bit over the stats he starts with. Notably, the new ribbon includes the top 10 commands Explorer users use, which covers 81% of their use cases. Pretty nice accomplishment.

While it’s easy to look at this ribbon and make a judgment on it - MG Siegler does a bang-up job of it at TechCrunch - this is a static image and doesn’t account for actually using the thing. After all, it takes care of most of what people use Explorer for. From a pure usability perspective that’s good.

Who’s it for?

My biggest concern about this overhaul other than the questionable visual design is the statement from Sinofsky that the ribbon is not for power users. That’s stunning to me, particularly if I consider the visuals first and foremost. It seems to be overwhelming: commands, sometimes with buttons and groups and labels, and sometimes icons.

For power users, Sinofsky notes that Explorer can shrink the ribbon into - ready? - an old-school toolbar with tabs. They call it a minimized ribbon, but that’s semantics. Look at it. In this case, the File/Home/Share/View tabs look like menu items. Those are not menus!

Maybe the potential confusion over menu items v. tabs and toolbar icons v. ribbon icons relegates this to power user mode; ie, some people can deal with this inconsistency. In any event I’m curious about the usability of the power user mode versus everyone-else mode - toolbar versus ribbon. I guess Microsoft is too, since they’re including both in the product.

This dual interface approach appears to be an integral part of the Windows 8 strategy. 

Repositioning Explorer and Metro

Consider this. If one positions Explorer solely for power users then this giant ribbon of commands makes a lot more sense. Unfortunately, this isn’t the reality; at the outset of his article, Sinofsky calls Explorer “the most widely used desktop tool… in Windows.” People interact with files. People interact with interfaces which mimic Explorer to a degree, like the Control Panel. File management is a very-well established metaphor in desktop computing, but the web and mobile devices have forced changes.

Let’s zoom out a bit, and we’ll see the same toolbar v. ribbon opposition happening at a much riskier layer: the UI. As Siegler argues, Microsoft is hedging its bets with the Windows 8 UI by combining both the attractive Metro and the legacy Windows interface into one product. If not executed well, it could lead to some questionable and jarring interfaces. Like, say, a Metro Start Menu with a legacy taskbar.

You Gotta Keep ‘Em Separated

Let’s cut to the chase: the legacy Windows interface, including Explorer 8, is something which needs to be fully separated from the Metro interface. As soon as a user needs to jump into legacy Windows after working with brightly-colored, typographically-smart information panels - a very different metaphor - it’s all over. It’s akin to jumping down to the DOS prompt.

Users should be able to remain fully in Metro and never see a legacy Windows window. Think about the power of that: a new experience, shaped entirely by the new direction.

In order to make it into the future, Metro’s interactions need to be radically different than legacy Windows. Otherwise it’s just a skin, and skins usually don’t account for the way people interact with their computers and devices.

The Risk

By combining the two interfaces, Microsoft is trying to have it both ways: “Here is our way forward, but we’re not throwing anything out! In fact, we’re still developing the old stuff.” Should Metro fail, Microsoft can continue evolving the legacy Windows interface. But if Metro succeeds, Microsoft can continue to slowly deprecate the old interface. Unfortunately it needs to be slow because of the bazillions of apps which are designed for that old interface. Stuff that’s out of their control, stuff that still expects IE5 to be around, stuff that looks like Windows 95.

So from a strategic perspective, it isn’t inherently bad. It seems to mitigate the risk of having long-time Windows users drop off or rush to another platform/device because of it. It’s a conservative way to introduce change.

But the risk to the user experience is significant: with this dual interface world, Microsoft is nearly flaunting the concept of inconsistency as a feature.

Something Jakob Nielsen suggested two years ago is starting to roll out: password masking is slowly starting to go away. Lands’ End, which gave their checkout process a stunning overhaul, is one example.

This has been a feature in OS X for a while; the wi-fi login prompt has a show/hide checkbox:

Until more people are comfortable with unmasked passwords, this is a nice way to handle the problem: offer an explicit show/hide toggle. Once users get past the initial surprise of having their password in plain sight, I believe they’ll see its advantages.

method has already been lauded for their innovative laundry detergent bottle design. It uses a pump, unique to this market, which dramatically cuts down on the mess.

I was nearing the end of a bottle a week or so ago as I noticed the pump wasn’t doing much anymore. I had another bottle on hand but held the bottle upside-down to see that there was a fair amount of detergent left. Impressively, method thought of that too:

Not only is the pump tube angled gently to help get every last drop, but it’s also brightly-colored so it stands out against the translucent white plastic of the bottle! 

A brilliant little design touch that addresses a common problem. Great!

My son loves the iPad. He’s able to work just fine with kids’ apps and books, and it’s really amazing for me to think that my 18-month-old is using way more advanced technology than I did even 2 years ago.

That said, the kid is into buttons right now. He could press a button all day. And the iPad has one button on its front, of course. And of course, Jackson will press this button as much as he wants… which takes him out of his app to the home screen. Not good.

For a while I’ve wondered if iOS can and should incorporate a button lock feature for just this use. (It could also be useful for kiosk-like apps.) The natural dilemma arising from that is, of course, “How does one get back to the home screen?”

Then I recalled that iOS 5 is set to introduce a four-finger pinch to return to the home screen. Boom.

This plus a setting in the Restrictions section of General Settings would do the trick. And I, along with many parents, would breathe a sigh of relief.

It’s safe to say that user experience, as a practice, is currently exploding. I’ve been amazed at the demand and it’s been absolutely encouraging for my colleagues who are looking to do great work. Here are a few notes on why I suspect this is happening now, and a bit about a big skill UXers will need to help.

Why now? Was there any one thing that clicked and pointed the way towards user-focused software? I’m not sure. I don’t think so. But there are two big factors which I think have had a very significant impact.

Apple

No matter what you think of them, Apple is absolutely on fire, selling every single iOS device they can make - and Mac sales have jumped nicely as well. Apple is known for being a company which invests heavily in industrial, aesthetic, and functional design. Other companies see this success, the buckets of money they’re printing every quarter, and say, “I want a piece of that action!” As well they should!

That’s not to say that design is Apple’s sole reason for success, but it’s arguably the most visible. (I can’t even imagine the infrastructure necessary to design and execute something like the Mac App Store to send petabytes of data on the wire. Or how they engineer curved glass so well. I mean, it boggles the mind.)

Constraints are falling away

Phones are powerful computers. Tablets exist now. E-readers are real. We’re collectively seeing new markets and new gadgets pop up on a very rapid basis.

One of my favorite things about devices like the Kindle, iPad and (hopefully someday?) Android tablets is that they throw away the baggage associated with the PC for the past 30-odd years. No file system, no blue screen of death, no discs, no turbo button, and so forth. People-focused, not technology-focused.

This is exciting because it’s becoming clearer that these shackles were sitting on the brakes while the right foot was pressing down the accelerator. Take them away, and you just go. And sure enough, we are going.

Risky moves? Yeah, but they’re paying off. We all win with simplification, and the potential to make technology even more straightforward is tantalizing.

Where UX fits in

User experience experts are definitely in an enviable position right now, but it’s vital for us to jump in intelligently.

The dilemma here is that some companies might think they can simply drop in one UX person and boom, their problems are solved. That’s really rare. In reality, they’ll be embracing a new and exciting set of problems centered around design as a whole.

Here’s what I’ve seen happen. One UX person joins a company and needs to not only do her work and do it well, but defend her work constantly - and, more importantly, educate people about her work. She has to do the research but also needs to talk about it; why she did it, what the business value is, and the like. Ultimately she needs to be an excellent salesperson for her own skills.

But if she’s good at it? Like, really good? Then she’s put herself in a great spot. She’s doing great work, making others aware of it, and just cranking. That’s a very good thing and can lead to bigger change - change which can support design-led activities, for example. Or even just hiring another person and starting to build out a practice.

The missing piece

So what I’m really getting at is: yes, it’s an exciting time to be in UX. Very much so! But it’s becoming quite important to know your skills and limitations, sure.

Moreso it’s essential to be able to tell your story. Your passion. Your experience. Your drive. Your love for what you do. Without it, you’re just filling a seat. Don’t be that person.

A short while back on Twitter, I stated my desire to see a wireframing tool from Panic. You know Panic, the people up in Portland who write amazing Mac software, right? Coda, arguably the best HTML editor on the Mac?

I thought I’d explain my tweet a bit. Here’s the deal. I use OmniGraffle nearly exclusively, and think Keynote is a reasonable alternative. Axure is a nice tool, but the UI is an uncomfortable hybrid of OS X conventions and Windows conventions and I’m hoping I’m not the only person working in UX who is sensitive to this.

It comes back to the tasks that I need to do when prototyping and wireframing, and unfortunately not any one tool excels at all of them.

• For raw wireframes, OmniGraffle is very good but it occasionally feels like I’m just using a souped-up PDF editor. Keynote and Axure have way better placement tools, in my experience.
• To annotate wireframes, OmniGraffle is a huge pain in the ass. There are some scripts and tools on the web to assist, but it’s not an automatic thing. It needs to be. Axure has the spirit of this down pat.
• For interactions, OmniGraffle is super basic: one can show/hide layers and switch canvases, or run AppleScripts, but that’s it. It’s not sufficient for clickable prototypes. Axure wins big here.
• If you (unfortunately) need to produce giant spec documents, OmniGraffle offers nothing. Axure can do this and do it relatively painlessly - that’s a huge bonus.

While UX isn’t a new discipline, we’re woefully behind in tools. Now, everyone figures out their own workflows and what’s best for them. What I’m saying is that my workflow - the user experience of creating a user experience - is not optimal.

Why did I call out Panic? As mentioned at the outset, they make beautiful software. The UIs are Mac through-and-through, and there’s obvious love and care put into their stuff. Sometimes it’s a subtle animation, sometimes it’s copy, but it always adds up to a great experience. And that’s what I want. I want my experience to be streamlined, simple, and straightforward so I can focus even better on my work.

When dragging multiple messages, Outlook for Mac shows 3 little envelopes even if you have just 2 items selected. 3 is not 2. (Note that the line here is not a part of the dragging icon.)

Update: In fairness, Mail.app does this too - but it’s less conspicuous. The fact that the background 2 envelopes are faded indicates that this could be a really big stack, or a really small one. Contrast that with Outlook above, which has three solid-looking envelopes.