His first complaint was that users often didn't know where to "click," that although the iPad's flat etched-screen aesthetic was "beautiful," it sometimes didn't do such a good job of differentiating content from commands:
The iPad etched-screen aesthetic does look good. No visual distractions or nerdy buttons. The penalty for this beauty is the re-emergence of a usability problem we haven't seen since the mid-1990s: Users don't know where they can click.
Nielsen's next complained of inconsistency between applications:
...once they do figure out how something works, users can't transfer their skills from one app to the next. Each application has a completely different UI for similar features.
Nielsen said that the lack of differentiation between content and commands as well as inconsistency between applications made it difficult for users to discover how to use the applications, hard to remember how to use an application once learned, and easy to accidentally activate features by mistake.
Lastly, Nielsen complained of the "crushing print metaphor" of many content applications. Instead of links that take you to content in a hypertext style, may applications attempted to mimic a more linear print style:
In electronic media, the linear concept of "next article" makes little sense. People would rather choose for themselves where to go, selecting from a menu of related offerings.
A strategic issue for iPad user experience design is whether to emphasize user empowerment or author authority. Early designs err on the side of being too restrictive. Using the Web has given people an appreciation for freedom and control, and they're unlikely to happily revert to a linear experience.
Publishers hope that users will perceive content as more valuable if each publication is a stand-alone environment. Similarly, they hope for higher value-add if users spend more time with fewer publications rather than flit among a huge range of sites like they do on the Web.
What do you think of Nielsen's comments on iPad usability?
Ugh. Don't get me started. I don't know how Apple still has a reputation for being usable. Sure, their Macintosh was a whole lot more usable than all other computer systems back in the 80's, but that was a long time ago. Compared with other products in the consumer electronics market, though, they sure are sexy, but far from "usable".
For example, I bought an iPod based on rave reviews from various people whom I used to trust. Considering that I mostly listen to audio while driving a car, I was shocked at how in-accessible it was. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessibility) I have to twirl my finger atop a barely-tactile disk in order to change volume? Seriously?
Since the original IBM terminal (commonly, the 3270, which is later), applications implemented a table-of-contents/menu interface. GUI's just did the same, but with pixels and a pointer. Nothing changed, from a semantic point of view. The Tab key got replaced by the mouse, but workday users adopted HotKey navigation; such HotKey navigation was standard practice with VT-100/database/*nix applications from the mid-1980's onward. For well thought out applications, users found the menu trees optimal. For such applications, GUI provided no value add. Still don't.
iStuff change that, by removing both the keyboard and pointer. The problem is, designers and coders haven't figured out that this means something. That something is that users no longer *create* input, but only *choose* it. This has a profound effect not only on the UI, but also on the datastore. The winners will be those who understand and find a new meme for UI. Call me if you want the answer.
Regarding mainframe/mini terminals, you are quite right. I guess I was being myopic when I wrote "all other computer systems". I was thinking in my head of Apple II, PC, Commodore, etc. where all you got at startup was a
> Ugh. Don't get me started. I don't know how Apple still > has a reputation for being usable.
over the years i have come to the conclusion that, generally speaking, people do not know what good usability is. they don't know bad usability either. i mean, just looking over people's shoulders at their desktop setups, and watching them fumble with their own bloody personally setup set up drives home the point to me that people don't get it.
which means they are somewhat immune to it.
i think it is that a significant part of a given person's feeling about usability is subjective, influenced by how much the thing they are looking at turns them on. design in and of itself in the sexy-cool sense can be enough to bring people in and make them feel good and that washes over any rational perspective they might have once had. similarly marketing, group-think, etc.
it drives me pretty mad at times, mostly because i feel more immune to that siren call than most people, and so i quickly see and painfully endure the crap that is hoisted on us everywhere everywhen as far as ui is concerned.
Previous Topic
