inputs/outputs

After much speculation and hopefulness about a cell phone from Google, the company came out and announced that they’re not announcing a cell phone just yet. And really, what were you expecting?

The iPhone wasn’t a shock. Apple is the business of satisfying wants, not needs. Their computers can’t do anything that a PC of the same cost couldn’t handle, and many specialized applications only run on a PC. You need a PC to do things, but you want a Mac so that you can enjoy doing it. Apple also defined the standards for an MP3 playing device, and recently created a phone that no one truly needs, but everybody wants.

Google, on the other hand, satisfies the needs before the wants. Before Gmail, there was no efficient and simple web-based email service that also allowed for 3rd party clients through POP or IMAP. Or a calendar system that wasn’t bulky and difficult to use/collaborate with. Before Writely (Google Docs), we had to send email attachments back and forth to edit files. These are things we needed, and the aesthetics were inherent in the functionality of these innovations.

Google didn’t announce a Gphone - they announced a platform for developers to write applications on.  An open application that any phonemaker could use.  Granted, this approach has been tried before by Linux/Open-source fanatics, but this time it has a better chance of sticking due to Google’s initiative and brand recognition.  This, in combination with the iPhone, is really good news for the wireless market.

The iPhone has set a new standard for phones, and already brands like Nokia have tried to imitate the features of the iPhone.  The iPhone’s biggest weakness is its proprietary nature (only AT&T, app development is limited).  For a cell phone brand wanting to compete with the iPhone, a good strategy might be to design something similar to the iPhone (multi-touch, full featured browser), but instead of spending a lot of money on app development, let the users make the applications, and use the open Google platform.

Google has prove itself worthy of making great user interfaces.  Why not leave that to them since most cell phone makers have proven that they can’t make a good UI?  Cell phone makers can start focusing on the hardware to make sure people get what they want, and the needs are left to Google.

They could’ve easily released a Gphone, but instead, they created a piece to a puzzle and figured out where to place it.

Gadget makers used to have one goal with the devices they produced.  A cell phone made calls, a PDA helped you organize, a Discman played discs.

The current trend is to create devices that do it all, but specialize in a certain area at the same time.  For instance, the Blackberry is a PDA that also makes calls/takes photos, a cellphone makes calls but will also act as a clock/watch.  The iPod is an MP3 device but it will play your movies and you can also do some gaming.  These devices do well at their main function, but tend to skimp over the other stuff.  Cell phones make calls but suffer from a poor interface.  iPods play MP3s but I’ve never seen anyone use them to play games.  Instead of focusing on adding a bunch of pointless accessories, why not make hidden features?

High end watches can be sold for an absurd amount of money.  The watch performs one function, and so the rest of what it “does” is up to the owner.  The connection to the brand, the prestige, the story that the consumer tells themself, etc.  These are the hidden features.

Hidden features aren’t spelled out in the manual.  Not every user is affected by them.  The iPhone has a bunch of hidden features, all the way from the way it looks sitting on your hip, to the way it makes you feel like a futuristic businessman when you’re touching icons and watching the cool animations.  The rush you get from pushing the accelerator on a BMW, that’s a hidden feature.

For devices that do one thing really well, and do a mediocre job on the other stuff, hidden features might be a good thing to look into.

A lot of manuals are completely useless. Here are a few pitfalls:

1. the manual is a scrapbook of interesting stick figures and parts that must have been left out from your package
2. the manual is actually 5 or 6 manuals that all contain different information and distinguishing them isn’t possible at a quick glance
3. the manual contains completely useless information about the product
4. the most common: shoved into a drawer for “later” use
5. a combo of two or more of the above

I’ve explained before that I am everybody’s favorite technology guy when it comes to my friends and family. My dad had asked me for help with setting up his car to receive the bluetooth signal from his Razr. We sat there for a while, flipping through the manual, trying to find any shred of evidence about the bluetooth settings. We tried almost every menu in the car’s interface. We found buttons that would search for bluetooth devices, but none that would actually find the devices, or try to pair them at least.

I finally asked if there were extra manuals included with the car, and my dad pulled out a stack of them, one of them displaying a picture of a London phone booth. The instructions in the pamphlet led us through the process perfectly.

So I started thinking. Is it more important to have a solid UI or a helpful manual? Should we not hold it against the UI if we have to peek inside the manual? I came to a conclusion.

It’s not up to the designer to decide whether or not the UI is any good. The UI should have been at least somewhat easy to use and in the event that it hadn’t been, the purpose of the additional pamphlet should have been crystal clear. For instance, “Bluetooth Set Up” should have been written on the cover in very large letters instead of the very ambiguous phone booth photo ( a photo which could imply many different things). Easy as that. BMW still could have maintained a sense of style if they wanted to use a stock photo of a phone booth, as long as the purpose of the document was easy to identify.

Food for thought: the iPhone has been praised for its stellar UI, but its manual is the first hit when you google the word “manual.”