by Jackob Nielsen
"It looks like a giant iPhone," is the first thing users say when asked to test an iPad. (Their second comment? "Wow, it's heavy.")
This is the opening statement of the article and it is exactly what I thought, too. The first time I held one, I also thought the second comment. I still have yet to find a way for the iPad to fit into my lifestyle.
Overall, I think certain assesments should have been obvious. The primary issue being that the main interface has not been customized to fit the larger screen. Given that the main screen sets the tone for the the other apps, I would have thought this would have been the most important interface to get right. Nielsen says that with the larger screen, the focus is further away from the tabs at the bottom of the screen and more difficult to discern.
He also discusses 'wacky interfaces'. Since there are no standards an no expectations, anything you can show, can become an interface. As a result, there are inconsistent interfaces. The examples he gives are:
In different apps, touching a picture could produce any of the following 5 results:
- Nothing happens
- Enlarging the picture
- Hyperlinking to a more detailed page about that item
- Flipping the image to reveal additional pictures in the same place (metaphorically, these new pictures are "on the back side" of the original picture)
- Popping up a set of navigation choices
Without rules, anything goes which will create confusion from app to app. This amounts to confusion resulting not finding the interface, too many varieties are harder to remember than a standard set and the user can activate an interface unintentionally and create even more confusion ('How do I get out of this?' or 'Where am I?').
I absolutely agree with his summary:
iPad apps are inconsistent and have low feature discoverability, with frequent user errors due to accidental gestures. An overly strong print metaphor and weird interaction styles cause further usability problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment