Human-Computer Interface Elements in iOS 7

As a follow up to my previous blog about the iOS 7 interface as observed in the beta, I thought I should discuss a couple of specific elements of iOS 7 that break good human-computer interface design.

There are some things to like about iOS 7. Clutter has been greatly reduced, and it appears that information may [?] be more logically arranged and connected. Plus, the under-the-hood improvements in memory and multi-tasking management will improve user experience.

My greatest concern has been the suitability of elements in meeting the needs of most users. Is Apple designing the new interface while chasing new Windows Mobile and Android interfaces? Have Apple designers forgotten the lesson of human-computer design learned over the past 30 years?

I have previously asked if these designs are intended to sell iDevices in the stores, rather than meet the needs of the users. And, I won't delve into the issues of skeuomorphism and the poor definition used by many bloggers; see my previous blog for that discussion.

If the beta designs are used as evidence, it might be concluded these new elements were designed by 20-something, right handed males with 20-20 eyesight.

Good interface design takes into account the differences implied by this statement. For example, researchers have studied the differences between men and women with respect to using computers and performing tasks. They have found men are better at spatial perception, and women are better at language. Some of these ideas have been pointed out on the Brain Games episodes on the National Geographic channel.

A study years ago revealed these differences, although I have never found this study referenced on the Internet. In the study small groups of men and women were given several pages of text to memorize. Although told they would have up to two hours for the memorization efforts, groups were interrupted at significantly shorter periods.

Asked what they could remember about the text, men remembered text passages in relation to visual stimuli, such as a small stain on the page or a bent corner. Women remembered facts based on language and emotional content. "that fact was mentioned in the paragraph that described the conflicts between negotiators."

Of course, not all men and all women have these traits, but these are tendencies. This points out that people are different and react to different types of stimuli.

So, one of the interface problems in the beta iOS 7 is the reduction of buttons, labels and icons to a single type of interface. Graphic only versus text only.

There are icons supported by text labels in iOS 6, but many unsupported icons iOS 7. Icons clearly understood in 6 are too simplified in 7, their meaning is obscured. One version of the share icon is so simple, no one could know the meaning of the graphic. And some icons not simplified, yet changed and now obscure in meaning. This has negative impact on the discoverability and learnability of an interface.

There are now buttons that are just text labels and do not look like buttons. This type of button does not meet the needs of the user as described by Fitt's Law. As discussed by Bruce Tognazinni <http://www.asktog.com>, Fitt's Law described the increased difficulty when trying to hit a small target; the user must slow down to be sure to hit the smaller target, pulling her concentration away from the task at hand. And no, the task at hand is not to manipulate the computer interface, it is to write or create graphics or answer email.

A button comprised of a text label only is a smaller target than the same label surrounded by a nice button graphic. Slower interface, distraction from task, less discoverable, less learnable. Just knowing that the label doesn't have to be precisely targeted does not help. The button graphic makes that target easier to hit, while reinforcing the idea that, yes, this is a button to be pressed; it's not just a label.

Michael Heilemann <http://binarybonsai.com/blog?tag=iOS+7> has discussed this type of button causes confusion for the user. His example is the music player interface in iOS 7. At the bottom are the labels "Repeat Album", "Create" and "Shuffle". Does the label "Repeat Album" indicate the music player is already in repeat mode or must be pressed to repeat? Is it a button, and does it represent state or action? If you look very closely, you can see this label is in bold, apparently indicating it is in this state; even more difficult to discern if you are color blind. Do I have to press this label again to exit this mode or press a different button? The old buttons, especially OS X buttons came in various styles indicating which action is required.

Michael also discusses the new iPhone unlock screen has the label "slide to unlock" with no graphic at all! So, which direction should I slide, and what am I sliding?

Not that all older Apple interfaces are without problem. Mac OS X Mail app has a button in the junk folder that says "Not Junk". Does this indicate the stuff in the folder is not marked as junk, and the button should be pushed; no, it's indicating the stuff in that folder is already tagged as junk, but my mom forgets this from time to time. This is not just a problem for retired people; people are all different and interpret interfaces in a different manner. Some people use glasses, prefer labels and graphics that reinforce each other or are left handed.

Changes to buttons and labels began in OS X some time ago in small ways, leading to increased confusion in the interface. This confusion has come to the fore in iOS 7. Overly simplified interfaces will confuse a significant percentage of any population, and will distract many more from their tasks.

A friend points out that many of these issues are analogous to a car radio. His has a large volume knob (see Fitt's Law). He can adjust the volume with the smallest glance from the corner of his eye, while keeping his eyes on the road. My car radio has a small knob, difficult to get my fingers on, distracting my attention from the road.

In iOS 7, we are seeing changes in graphics for the sake of changes while decreasing the usability of the interface. The signal strength meter on the iPhone changed from five bars to five dots. Why? Apple can do better!

For others' opinions about the iOS 7 interface, you can check out this link: <http://www.quora.com/iOS-7/Is-the-new-Apple-iOS-7-look-an-improvement?srid=Atx&share=1>.

You will have your own opinions of the iOS 7 interface. Don't forget you can send feedback to Apple with an email to feedback@apple.com or by going to <http://www.apple.com/feedback>.

WWDC Evidence of The iOS 7 Interface -- Opinion

This past week, Apple demonstrated new versions of OS X and iOS at WWDC. As a developer, I could download the new versions and try them out, although I admit to being reluctant to try software that is very much beta. I have too much work to do, as it is. So, I rely on the publicly available information to fuel my initial impressions.

I like what I have seen of Mavericks, the new OS X. It doesn't try to get closer to iOS in function, and doesn't add more fad driven options, such as buttons linking directly to Facebook.

It has a number of improvements in the OS and apps such as iBooks, but I tend to focus on improvements under the hood, and Mavericks should make me happy. There are improvements to memory handling and multitasking, making older Macs run quicker. Based on fleeting words at the WWDC keynote, these ideas may have some intelligent software behind them, knowing, for example, when to reduce processing for apps in the background.

I find it interesting that Apple had just one 3rd party company come to the stage during the keynote. Aika is a startup defined as an AI (Artificial Intelligence) company with a simple product to begin, race cars toys controlled by sensors and AI software running on iOS devices.

A simple product with a simple demo that did not highlight any Apple products. So, is Apple actually signaling they are beginning to fold rudimentary AI capabilities into the OSes? Or, am I reading too much into this?

iOS 7 has similar improvements under the hood. I think there are many improvements we will see in iOS 7, including greater consistency across the interface. Lots of good stuff under the hood. I don't expect to see this consistency in full bloom from an early beta, like some bloggers. I am not concerned with the inconsistencies of the icons and controls; this is a beta, and Apple will likely address those concerns before release. I am, however, an engineer, and the danger of being an engineer is seeing the problems, and immediately trying to fix them. If I am not in a position to fix them, I point the problems out.

This early iOS 7 beta has some problems that can be fixed before the release. Maybe Apple doesn't see these ideas as problems, but I think they are. The visible part of iOS has problems that can be divided into aesthetics and mechanics.

The general aesthetics left me feeling a little underwhelmed. It's a simple white interface with minimalist interface elements. It has a new thin font that can be difficult to read with icons that provide little information. It uses weird color schemes to try and provide interest.

Leo Laporte said in a podcast the color palette seems to be inspired by Nicki Minaj's stage wardrobe. Sarah Lane chimed in saying the interface lacks sophistication. I agree with both. The color palette reminds me of a teenager's stripped down, used car painted bright purple.

Don't get me wrong. I am glad the blatant skeuomorphism of earlier versions (stitched leather look) is gone, but I am not one of those who defines skeuomorphism as *anything* that even seems to be taken from the real world. In the article  "A closer look: iOS 7 Control and Notification Centers" by Sanjiv Sathiah if Electronista said the semi-transparent panel of the Control Center is skeuomorphic because it resembles semi-transparent glass. He could not be more wrong; this is not skeuomorphism. Nor is a calendar that looks like a calendar as I pointed out in a previous post. This is mimicry that provides context.

I have read that iOS 7 has greatly improved fontography, and those thin fonts can be adjusted for those with eyesight problems. So, I am relieved about this one interface element, and no longer believe the this font will be a problem.

But, I am bothered by this new design that seems to be more about selling iOS devices in Apple stores than providing people with good usability.

Now for mechanics, which I believe contains problems more important to users. I define mechanics as the actual elements of human-computer interface, and how those elements contribute to or detract from the task being performed by the user.

I have never been in favor of hiding information from the user. I do not like the hidden scroll bars found in either iOS or OS X. The user must take focus away from the task at hand to discover the position of the information shown on the screen in a long document.

A similar problem occurs with these simplified icons. Even after learning the meaning of an icon, the user will still pause on occasion from the task at hand, and think "Does that icon represent what I need to do?" People who defend stripped down interface often say that users are now so much more sophisticated. If this is true, shouldn't they be presented with icons conveying significant information? The same can be said of other interface elements.

Among many comments on iOS 7, Josh Topolsky of the Verge said "again Apple seems to ignore the utility of glanceable information" . Glanceable information is found in interface elements that convey meaning without the user shifting focus away from the task at hand. In a previous blog, I mentioned that icons and controls removed of all detail may cause the user to "pull focus."

One more example of iOS 7 detail I question; many buttons now comprise the label for the button without any graphic depicting a button. Somewhere in the interface you may see the word "Done" or "OK" and when first encountered wonder if it's a button. Yes, this can be learned, but should it be necessary, especially for those who will never be fully comfortable with computer interfaces? And, I wonder if they provide poor targets for touch?

If I interpret Bruce Tognazinni's writing correctly, the elimination of the standard button graphic will slow the user's use of the interface, according to Fitt's Law. .

So, I am seeing a number of things in the new iOS interface design I do not like. I don't think Apple should be chasing Windows mobile or Android designs for sales in their stores. They should be applying solid human interface design principles and *lead* the way to a better touch interface.

Apple Interface Directions -- Flattened Interfaces

Apple announced the World Wide Developers Conference for the week of June 10. New versions of OS X and iOS should be on display at the conference.

Rumors regarding changes to OS X and iOS have begun with this article on the new iOS interface

I am most concerned about rumors of the iOS 7 interface being flattened. This isn't the only question about Apple's direction for interface changes, but it is the subject of these current rumors. In recent months, there have been a number of web pundits calling for the removal of all skeuomorphism from computer interfaces. Should Apple designers follow this advice regarding the iOS interface to the degree Microsoft has for Windows, users may be presented with an interface lacking the detail necessary to make iOS easy to use.

To see how this may be possible, consider the meaning of the term skeuomorphism. Quoting one Wikipedia definition of skeuomorphism "an element of design or structure that serves little or no purpose in the artifact fashioned from the new material but was essential to the object made from the original material." A good example of this is pottery with clay rivets mimicking copper pots.

Unfortunately, a large group of pundits have skewed the meaning of skeuomorphism to anything in a computer interface resembling anything in the real world. The definition of skeuomorphism in Wikipedia was edited just a couple of weeks ago to reflect this bias. But, you would be strained to find well recognized interface experts who will accept this broad definition. In , Clive Thompson seems to believe the formatting of calendar apps similar to printed calendars is a skeuomorph. It is not.

Perhaps this attack on anything that smacks of skeuomorphism comes from users' frustrations with cute interfaces. Some years ago, we entered a period referred by many as Web 2.0. This was a period of creating web sites more like on-line applications. We often got web site interfaces with cute artwork in place of solid interface mechanics. Web sites difficult to use with little substance behind them.

It's understandable many people rebel against these too cute interfaces. On iOS, look at some of Apple's apps, such as Contacts, Calendar and Mail. They have faux leather trim and stitching. This is skeuomorphism. I am reminded of U.S. cars from the 1970s. With faux leather and stitching, they mimic expensive European imports. But, the faux nature of this trim made the car look classless and cheap. People want the European import with understated trim.

People looking to throw out any paradigm extracted from the analog world are going too far. Look at Windows 8 with its tiles for examples of an interface that doesn't work well. Windows and dialog boxes in Windows 8 (and it's tablet counterpart) are very "flat." There are no gradations in color, no shadows, and elements within those windows are minimalistic. A dialog box can be open when the Charms panel pops out from the left side of the screen; it is very difficult for the user to know what task should be performed first, and which window or dialog is which!

Extend this problem to other parts of the interface, and you begin to see the scale of the problem when an interface is too flat. There are many other usability problems as touched on in this article and this .

Why have we come to this? In part, because people don't think things are new unless they change. Change for the sake of change. I have to wonder if we are going in this direction, because the young designers don't know the original lessons of computer interface design learned through the 1980s and early 90s. Perhaps we will be forced to repeat history.

We must have some skeuomorphism as defined in the pundits' broadest sense to increase the usability of the interface. We need some sort of design to tell us which element to focus on. We need buttons with a slight 3D appearance to allow us to discern detail out of the corners of our eyes, so we don't constantly scan the screen over and over to dredge details from an interface lacking details.

A completely flat interface is boring. Microsoft knew this when they backed the uninteresting elements of their interface with pretty pictures in the background. Why not make the interface itself more interesting?

Perhaps most users are now so used to the graphical interface, each has her own desires for the type of interface used. Maybe this is just one more argument for the adaptable interface. I don't want those wishing for dull, classless interfaces to dictate how I must interface with my machine. If you feel the same way, look for the iOS 7 introduction in mid-June. Then, voice your opinion at and/or send an email to feedback@apple.com.

Apple Hardware Rumors

This post was originally published in the March newsletter of the MacinTech Users Group of the south Denver area.


Since I first came out with my 2013 hardware predictions in January, there have been wild rumors of an "iWatch" from Apple. These rumors have exploded after Bruce Tognazzini, one of Apple's early human interface design experts, came out with a blog musing such a device. Tog admitted he was just wondering what Apple would do next, and his ideas were not based on any inside information from Apple. Strangely, similar rumors came out in major newspapers six days later; rumors claimed to be based on Apple insider information. Oh sure.

These rumors have persisted without any reasonable analysis of the possibilities. Current "smart watches" such as the Pebble handle notifications from your smartphone of incoming calls, emails, and social communications such as tweets. Similar smart watches can be paired with exercise equipment, track GPS data, and control music on an iDevice in your pocket.

Tog was predicting an Apple iWatch could have all of these functions, plus track exact altitude using a barometric device (nope!), automatically handle passwords for you, track the location of your iPad or iPhone, make electronic NFC payments at cash registers, show you who is calling, monitor health and fitness conditions, provide weather data, and even tell the time!

Such a device would likely have to be paired with an iPhone or iPad for functionality, and people are hoping this would cost under $100. Well… I have to wonder if it is possible to fit all of this functionality into a watch sized device that doesn't look like a Rubic's Cube strapped to your wrist. Some of the desirable functions would require a fairly capable CPU chip and battery to match, along with a plethora of sensors. Apple is known for sleek designs, and cramming all this in would be difficult. And, cost goes up as miniaturization increases, so I am not looking too soon for an iWatch from Apple.

While I am very cautious about the rumors for an Apple iWatch or an Apple TV set, I am almost certain Apple will come out with a new Mac Pro tower soon. They have already discontinued sales in Europe due to non-environmental friendly materials in the existing model. My hopes are for a more compact machine. I have spoken to many engineers, gamers, programmers, video and graphics creators who want a smaller, lighter machine. As I have often said or written, it's my hope Apple will redesign the new MacPro along these lines.

The old design had lots of room for several expansion slots and large hard drives, more than most the potential MacPro customers want. What is really needed is a small machine with computing power; Xeon processors, a full width bus and lots of RAM. The smaller machine could still have room for one or two expansion slots, and a couple of hard drives. Most people would be satisfied with this *luggable* machine, something engineers could lug into the field, and gamers take to a friend's house. Apple needs to know the built in expansion slot should be capable of handling the biggest, baddest graphics cards found in the peripheral world.

For those needing additional expansion, Apple could make a companion expansion box for additional hard drives, solid state drives and expansion cards. With Thunderbolt available on new Macs, the connection to the expansion box would be easy. The expansion cards would be slowed a little, due to the latency found in the Thunderbolt connection, but the ability to group multiple drives in a single housing would be welcome. The expansion box could not house more CPUs or RAM.

The icing would be the ability of this expansion housing to be an addition to any Mac having a Thunderbolt plug. Imagine plugging your MacBook Pro into this box, when you get home. We can only hope that Apple wouldn't use this box as an excuse to pump up their margins. If Apple satisfies all of these dreams, sales of their top end machine will increase dramatically.