This is the sort of ‘hidden’ intentional, strategic design detailing which fascinates me. It is obvious, it is quotidian, but it’s also thoughtful.
When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all.
]]> #]]>It seems reasonable to me to expect mainstream computing usage of:
Gaze tracking interfaces are long overdue. We have the technology to do it, but the clumsy apparatus makes it a non-starter for mainstream users. The person who makes it robust enough with commodity components (yup, your MacBook’s built-in iSight) will make a mint.
]]> #]]>Very neat. I started doing something similar for iPhone interface prototyping but got sidetracked (You hadn’t noticed my blogging had dropped off recently? For shame). The thin metal of DC’s stencil looks like a boon.
]]> #]]>In my experience, shoehorning desktop conventions into web applications rarely ends well. I was never able to articulate exactly why, but the uncanny valley theory goes a long way towards explaining it.
Let me articulate. Web apps that try too hard to look like desktop apps fail because similar appearance sets the expectation of similar behavior.
When you use web apps that murder your favorite keyboard shortcuts, run like molasses, don’t remember your preferences, don’t print right, and don’t prompt you to save your work before you close a window, you’re entering RealDoll territory.
]]> #]]>Dozens of Apple patent applications were published today revealing research that Apple had done in 2007 on many topics encompassing future versions of Mac OS X. The most intriguing is a series of patent applications which describe a “Multidimensional” user interface. Apple has essentially been working on true 3D desktop environments.
2.5D on the desktop. Will it change the way you use your computer? Probably not by much. Is it an interesting stepping stone toward ZUI? Maybe.
]]> #]]>Its simplicity can be a double-edged sword… there are many small “convenience features” that are often hidden away. If Apple exposed them in a more obvious way, it’d take away from the elegance of the device. And its elegance is one of its strongest points.
Hidden features are Apple’s blessing and its curse; ever seeking a balance between usability, learnability, and aesthetics. And they’re more prevalent on the iPhone than anywhere else in Apple’s product line.
]]> #]]>Customer: Hi! Listen, I know this is last minute, but do you have any Daddy, Daddy! I love it! left in stock?
Clerk: Sure thing. They’re just right over there beside the Whoa! No way! It’s even better than the one I asked for! which has a few more features than the Daddy, Daddy! I love it!
Customer: Sounds great. I wonder what his reaction will be.
Clerk: I’m sure he’ll love it.
There’s no denying the energy of the ad. It’s a fun ad, but it’s has a subtle flaw: it’s full of shit.
If I want an iPod nano this Christmas, I want an iPod nano. I do not want an iPod Classic, even though it’s “better” in one measurable dimension, and I definitely don’t want an iRiver or a Zune or any number of MP3 players with their long lists of bullshit features. I asked for an iPod nano; “even better” just doesn’t exist to me.
]]> #]]>In the Classic days, if you wanted to use a window that wasn’t frontmost, you could click anywhere on it to bring it to the front. Mac OS X introduced a feature called “click-through” where certain controls, like the “traffic-light” buttons in the window title, would work even for background windows. Applications can also make other controls, or even the entire window, work with click-through.
Click-through on Mac OS X has always been strange and troublesome. In fact, window focus is strange and troublesome in general on Mac OS X. Not as strange and troublesome as Windows XP, but that’s a low bar to set.
]]> #]]>some bored person should write a mail.app plugin implementing the dialog boxes at http://yellow.bikeshed.com/
Replieth me:
OK, so it’s just a mockup. Sue me. A pity the people who most need this feature are the people least likely to install it.
]]> #]]>People complained that the banner page was taking too long to print. I was given the job of toning down the PostScript complexity so that it would print more quickly. People felt like all those scalable fonts must be a bottleneck.
After doing a number of controlled experiments, and whittling down on the pages, it became clear that nothing was making it go faster. Finally I reduced the code to [nothing] and the blank page took just as long to come out of the printer as the “fancy” banner page with all the different font sizes on it.
Perceived speeds versus actual speed. Always a bitch.
(via Gruber)
]]> #]]>