From: David M. Ensteness (denstene_at_mac.com)
Date: Mon Mar 14 2005 - 12:18:01 PST
I disagree with two things that have been voiced:
1. Convergence is not a hurdle to overcome.
2. People want a swiss-army knife device.
That said, I am not against either. But I am cautious about the two
issues. These two things are highly related. So I am going to explain
my thoughts on the two together.
Convergence is not necessarily bad, but it is a hurdle, making a device
that appropriately deals with tasks formerly assigned to 3-4+ devices
is hard and not always practical.
Silverware is not a horrible example. When it comes to camping you have
several options:
1. Plastic flatware
2. Traditional silverware
3. Multipurpose utensils
The fast majority of people do not choose item number 3 - why?
The reasons others choose between 1 and 2 are pretty straight forward,
do I want something disposable or am I willing to wash it in order to
not throw it away?
Number 3 is a usage issue. Some people like the multipurpose utensil,
the tool that's essentially a pocket knife that folds out into several
silverware like tools. It has a knife, a spoon, a fork, etc ... Maybe
even variations of each for different types of food, a butter knife and
a steak knife, etc ...
Now it sounds cool. No doubt, I only pack the one thing, it fits in my
pocket, etc ... But in real world use ... not as cool. Harder to use,
less practical.
How does this relate to PDAs? I look up a phone number in my PDA and I
hit dial, it makes a phone call for me. AWESOME! I start talking to the
person using my PDA as a phone, I want to write down a note, I write it
on a napkin and after I am off the phone I create a new note on my PDA,
copy what I wrote on the napkin, and link it to that phone call record
... DOH!
How many of us make notes during phone calls or take messages - its not
very uncommon. Is it a deal breaking feature, certainly not, but it is
a compromise and its a great example of the many contradicting features
a developer needs to consider when building devices that address
convergence.
There are variations of item #3 as well. For instance there are the
multipurpose utensils that are basically convenient holders for a small
or fold away set of flatware. This is far more practical than the
pocket knife version of silverware as we often need two tools at once.
A problem with this is quality, they tend to be cheaply made, and this
is true throughout this genre of tool, not just when it comes to
camping stuff. Why? Because to make it practical to manufacture you
have to account for the cost of your specialty tool being greater than
the cost of regular camping silverware.
Now, that quality issue plays into #3 type PDAs as well, but since we
are talking about Apple, and Apple tends to raise the price before
cutting too many corners, we will avoid this debate and discuss how the
"convenient holder" model is bad for the PDA.
It comes down to a simple statement: People do not like things which
they disassemble to use.
No one takes something apart to use it. We put stuff together to use
it, but not the other way around. This means that while a PDAs with a
detachable part for a phone and a "base" that contains most of your PDA
functions is another way to deal with being able to separate functions
based on use, its simply another bad way. People see things you take
apart to use as being cumbersome, confusing, impractical, easy to break
/ lose, etc ... Whether or not these are accurate conclusions matters
little, they are big emotions to overcome with a product. Remember also
that this is an "on the move" tool. Its not a tool box I carry to a
location, open up, spread out, and use. I want to use it while walking,
while standing in line, hopefully not while driving, but you get the
drift. More pieces makes it harder.
Those are strong practical examples of how convergence and the swiss
army knife approach is hard to properly implement appropriately, but
there is another key issue as well.
Product depth is important, simplicity is key.
Product depth is defined as the ability of a product to offer more and
more features as the user becomes more familiar with it. Essentially a
product with depth offers users advanced functionality that grows with
the user. As I use the product over time I discover new features I was
not aware of, this "keeps the product new" and also keeps me from
replacing the product with another model.
However, simplicity is the key to product depth. Products that do not
offer basic, highly focused functionality on the surface will generally
fail in the mass market no matter their depth because first impressions
are very important.
Users who see a swiss army knife may very well be overcome by its
complexity. "It does everything" is a very scary gimmick to a lot of
the public. When we make a list of things a PDA should do, we want them
to all be surface level available functions, i.e. when I walk out of
the store it should do e-mail, it should do music, it should be my
phone. I want to use these functions immediately. That is not product
depth. Product depth not only allows for growth and discovery by the
user, it requires growth and discover by the user.
I am not interested in starting a Mac vs Windows debate but there is a
metaphor to be embraced from comparing the two:
Macintosh has traditionally been thought to do well in "creative
markets." While the accuracy of that statement is neither here nor
there, Windows has dominated the less creative corporate business
arena.
Macintosh has a more open ended user interface, i.e. there is no Start
Here. The user determines the path and method to an end. Windows has an
interface that lends itself highly well to "by rote" use. I do step 1,
then step 2, then step 3.
This has some implications as far as PDAs. The Macintosh interface, and
like it the Newton interface, offer far more possibilities to the user.
The Windows interface offers more direction to the user (direction as
in, go this way, not as in, many directions open to choice). A PDA is a
quick access device. I personally feel that a more open ended, user
input derived interface is the better of the two. However, the problem
with the swiss army knife method of thinking is implementation of very
unlike and often contradictory functionalities at the surface of the
interface.
A PDA is a pen driven device, something like a miniature tablet. A
cellular phone is something more like a collapsible phone handset. A
music player is something I strap to my belt and plug headphones into.
A photo viewer is something I connect to a TV or projector to output
to.
These things are not so much in conflict as access to their
functionalities are in conflict for the attention and focus of the
device. Form factor is an issue, who likes holding a Newton MessagePad
or Palm Pilot to their ear? No one, it makes for an uncomfortable
phone. Who likes writing on a flip phone? No one, its not meant to be
written on. Also, when I turn on the device and look at it, what
functions are clear and available?
E-mail on the Newton is an excellent example, its much like e-mail on
Be OS. It only exists as a function of other things. I do not write
e-mail in my e-mail client, I create a message in practically anything
and e-mailing is an output function. This allows e-mail to be available
very close to the surface of a device that looks like its primary
purpose is note taking. But how to do that for music, video, photos,
phone calls, etc ... this gets much more difficult.
When someone asks what a PDA is and we answer: Its a phone! Its a photo
viewer! Its a music player! Its a note taker! Its wireless e-mail! Its
this! Its that! Its everything!
Well how do I do thisthatoranotherthing? Oh well, you see, tap here,
then here, then here, then here ... Not a necessary outcome but a
typical one to fall into and a very hard one to avoid. If you need an
example open Microsoft Word. Sure enough no word processor does as
much, but it also possible no other piece of such widely used software
has so many unused features - if we could find em, many of us would use
them every day, instead we go to great lengths to work around them,
often not knowing they are available at all. That isn't product depth
either, its feature bloat at worst, and simply tacking on functionality
at best.
A problem evolves in the forms of these questions:
What is it the most? (perception)
Which functionality is or appears compromised? (convergence)
How can each of these functions be clear to the user on the surface?
(simplicity)
What functionality lays underneath for the user to grow into? (depth)
As Always,
David M. Ensteness
-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/ WikiWikiNewt for all kinds of articles: http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 14 2005 - 12:30:01 PST