Cell phone interaction design rant

18 Oct 2004 - 12:37pm
9 years ago
40 replies
1606 reads
Adlin, Tamara
2004

Ok, maybe I'm a luddite. And maybe this has been talked about too much. But my cell phone is driving me completely bonkers and makes me crazy as someone interested in IA.

I transferred my number to ATT. I got a great little phone with a camera (not a total luddite). I did NOT take the time I should have to research the whole "mMode" thing, supposing it was just an optional 'get online with your phone' OPTION. Note the emphasis on OPTION.

Here's my IA-related rant: the 'access mMode' softkey is where the cancel/no button on the same phone (earlier version) was.
There is no way to remove the softkey or change it.
There is no way to avoid accidentally hitting the mMode button, which tosses you unceremoniously into limbo while the phone connects you to the internet (with charges a-go-go). Once there, the value of mMode is dubious at best. I see no value personally, tho that's not my primary argument. My primary argument is that the only way to turn off this incredibly annoying and expensive 'optional' feature is to dive deep into your settings and change an IP address to all zeros. The horror of this is so overwhelming that I can't even go on...

Why send this to the ID list? As a huge reminder to us all: Fight back on the pressure to force a feature onto customers, especially if the feature is expensive, the value is abstract, and the access is unavoidable. If we have to launch it, launch it with super-clear value statements and reasonable options for the users. And make very good friends with the Marketing departments or whoever it is in your own company that thrills on putting cutesy names on features for branding purposes.

ATT and Ericsson have great IA people. I'd bet a zillion this was pressure beyond their control. But man oh man it's making me hate my cell phone.

And yes, I know, the company I work for is not immune at all to this kind of thing either. I suspect no one really is.

--Tamara

tamara adlin . usability specialist . amazon.com . tamara at amazon.com . 206.266.1258

Comments

18 Oct 2004 - 12:47pm
jstanford
2003

As long as we are on the topic of m-mode cell phone rants, I want to know
who was the brilliant IA at Yahoo who designed the Yahoo m-mode yellow
pages. Instead of typing in a city name, you have to select from a list that
displays 10 cities on the screen at a time for a given letter and you have
to go through them in order by scrolling through all 10 and clicking next to
get to the next screen. So, to get to Santa Cruz for example, I had to go
through screen after screen of cities beginning with S (including all the
San prefex cities in California) before I could get to Santa Cruz. The
download time between each screen was 5-10 seconds which made this whole
process painfully slow. Off the top of my head, alternate design ideas
include:
- Letting the user type in a partial or full city name
- Displaying more then 10 cities at a time in a list, you have to scroll
anyway and I would rather spend the time waiting up front then in between
each screen.
- Having more splits in the alphabet then just letters if for some reason
none of the options above work
- Not having this feature altogether because it is too painful

Lots of great designers are working at Yahoo. What's going on?

Julie Stanford

_____________________________________
Julie Stanford
Principal, Sliced Bread Design | www.slicedbreaddesign.com
650-799-7225

18 Oct 2004 - 12:50pm
Todd Warfel
2003

I have a similar problem with my Nokia 6600. Great phone. Huge screen.
But that little "multi-purpose" menu button next to the "c" key, which
activates "t zones" (t-mobile's access the internet) drives me buggy.
It's the "back" button sometimes, the "exit" button others, and once
you get to the top level of menus, it becomes the "put the phone in
hang mode while I try and connect you to the Internet, all the while,
I'm going to ask you first (at least it's polite), but you can't do
anything else in the mean time" button.

It's frustrating to say the least.

On Oct 18, 2004, at 1:37 PM, Adlin, Tamara wrote:

> ATT and Ericsson have great IA people. I'd bet a zillion this was
> pressure beyond their control. But man oh man it's making me hate my
> cell phone.

Cheers!

Todd R. Warfel
Partner, Design and Usability Specialist
MessageFirst | making products easier to use
--------------------------------------
Contact Info
voice: (607) 339-9640
email: twarfel at messagefirst.com
web: www.messagefirst.com
aim: twarfel at mac.com
--------------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

18 Oct 2004 - 2:11pm
Dan Zlotnikov
2004

Cellphones are my one true encouragement and shining beacon on low
days -- I'm convinced that as long as cellphones continue to be
designed the way they are right now, I'll always be able to find
employment in the IxD world.

I can name thousands of bugs and annoyances, from the Samsung SCH-N370
having 500 "quick-dial" slots to the Siemens A56 having the OK and
Cancel buttons right under the equivalent function soft keys, only in
reverse.

For a product that could hardly be more end-user oriented, there seems
to be remarkably little interaction design going on. Though it's
interesting to note that every provider I've looked at had no more
than two phones of the same price range, basically leaving the buyer
with no choice at all. But that was fine, since none of the providers
offered a chance to try an actual working phone before purchasing it.

For all that cellphones frustrate us, how many of us would switch
carriers to get a better phone, if it meant an extra $10 a month?
Usability may be a factor in deciding whether to renew a contract with
a carrier, but I don't think many people would consider it when buying
into a new plan.

Dan

--
WatCHI
http://www.acm.org/chapters/watchi

18 Oct 2004 - 4:31pm
Listera
2004

Dan Zlotnikov:

> For a product that could hardly be more end-user oriented, there seems
> to be remarkably little interaction design going on.

Why is that? I don't mean it facetiously, I never owned a cell phone.

Ziya
Nullius in Verba

18 Oct 2004 - 7:06pm
Clay Newton
2004

> For all that cellphones frustrate us, how many of us would switch
> carriers to get a better phone, if it meant an extra $10 a month?
> Usability may be a factor in deciding whether to renew a contract with
> a carrier, but I don't think many people would consider it when buying
> into a new plan.

The biggest problem I see is that there is no way to know what you are
getting yourself into. I was recently bitten by the mobile feature
creature when I purchased a new LG. I made the assumption that any
cell phone with an "alarm clock" feature would include snooze. I can
vaguely remember being a kid and having an alarm clock without a
snooze button. It may have even had one, but i was too young to ever
need it. Of course, my new phone doesn't have a snooze, so if I want
to stay in bed a few minutes longer, I have to reprogram the alarm!

How would I know how *bad* some of these features are without test
driving the phone exhaustively before I bought it?? Actually, there
would be massive benefit to someone starting an epinions-esque site
which critiqued consumer electronics from a usability perspective. I
would hit it first when researching product.

Does anyone know if the designers of "smartphones" have made any
usability progress?

On a side note, I was very stoked that I broke my clock radio because
I finally had the excuse to buy the Tivoli Model 3. I cannot describe
my giddy excitement as I ripped open the box. That is until I learned
of its fatal flaw: if you wait longer than *90 seconds* (90
seconds!?!) before you hit snooze, the alarm will not go back on! I
guess that is a feature to keep me from waking up???

-Clay

18 Oct 2004 - 9:32pm
Steve Yuroff
2004

On Oct 18, 2004, at 7:06 PM, Clay Newton wrote:

> The biggest problem I see is that there is no way to know what you are
> getting yourself into. I was recently bitten by the mobile feature
>
Yes, yes. I basically like my Motorola V60 quite a bit, with one
omission that frustrates me regularly- when you're in a call, the
display no longer tells you the date and time. Instead, it advertises
that I'm a proud user of Verizon Wireless. When I'm in a call, it's a
common that I need to know what time it is. No, I don't wear a watch,
because my phone tells me the date and time.
Usually. Except for when I need it most.

> How would I know how *bad* some of these features are without test
> driving the phone exhaustively before I bought it?? Actually, there
> would be massive benefit to someone starting an epinions-esque site
> which critiqued consumer electronics from a usability perspective. I
> would hit it first when researching product.

I too have thought about this. When I researched a new dishwasher this
summer, it became clear that about any of them can let you put in dirty
dishes and get clean ones out. I re-read Tog's dishwasher article
(http://www.asktog.com/columns/055Dishwasher.html) and noted that I
might not want a GE, but could never find a resource to find what
product would be most satisfying from a usability standpoint. I ended
up buying a Maytag, which hasn't revealed any major UI disappointments.

Steve.

18 Oct 2004 - 10:50pm
Listera
2004

Clay Newton:

> Of course, my new phone doesn't have a snooze, so if I want
> to stay in bed a few minutes longer, I have to reprogram the alarm!

Among the two things I never understood in life: repeatedly hitting the
already-lit elevator button (I do it myself) and the snooze button (I
don't). Why exactly do we need a snooze button? Is it a "learned" thing?

Ziya
Nullius in Verba

19 Oct 2004 - 12:04am
Clay Newton
2004

> Why exactly do we need a snooze button? Is it a "learned" thing?

It is a "lazy" thing. ;^)

I spent many years hoping up out of bed with the same level of stress
I would have at about 10am. Over time, I realized that if I ease into
the day, listening to jazz, classical or (god forbid) the news, I am
in a much better space by the time I head out the door. And when 10am
rolls around, I am still feeling good.

I was going to write back to you p-mail, but I wonder if this was what
the designers of my phone were thinking when the figured noone needed
a snooze.

Speaking of snooze, I think that the Outlook world has greatly
informed my notion of snooze. I would love it if I could set the
absolute time I needed to awake on my alarm clock, then have my alarm
go off at a certain point prior to that time. I would love to be
able to say "Remind me: 5 minutes before you need to get up." I love
that Outlook meetings feature!

Snooze is soooo much better than sliced bread!

-Clay

19 Oct 2004 - 12:46am
Listera
2004

Clay Newton:

>> Why exactly do we need a snooze button? Is it a "learned" thing?
>
> It is a "lazy" thing. ;^)

So what you are saying (if I may condense it) is that it takes more than one
alarm to get you up.

Now, if it were somehow technologically impossible to have more than one
alarm, what would you do after it went off? Would it be fair to say that
you'd learn to get up with one alarm in a few days? Not UCD, you say? :-)

Ziya
Nullius in Verba

19 Oct 2004 - 7:37am
Dan Zlotnikov
2004

> Snooze is soooo much better than sliced bread!
>
> -Clay

There are (rather expensive) alarms out there that simulate a natural
sunrise, starting the cycle half an hour before your set time, and
reaching the peak (and, in theory, waking you up) at the right time. I
can't find the one I remember (the one that also simulated birdsong at
rising volumes, until you got the impression you were in the middle of
Hitchcock's "The Birds"), but here's an example with just a backup
beeper:

http://www.dreamessentials.com/a_clocks_sunrise.aspx

Dan

--
WatCHI
http://www.acm.org/chapters/watchi

19 Oct 2004 - 9:11am
Steve Yuroff
2004

On Oct 19, 2004, at 7:37 AM, Dan Zlotnikov wrote:

> There are (rather expensive) alarms out there that simulate a natural
> sunrise, starting the cycle half an hour before your set time, and
> reaching the peak (and, in theory, waking you up) at the right time. I
>

I made a system like this from a spare lamp and an X10 starter kit. It
works very well, cost me less than the sunrise lamp, and gave me extra
X10 toys to boot.

Steve.

19 Oct 2004 - 1:17pm
Jonathan Grubb
2004

You all make good points.

All talented interaction designers who think the mobile internet is (mostly)
useless are invited to come help fix it.

Apply at http://tinyurl.com/65n4c

- - - - - - - - - - -
Jonathan Grubb
Interaction Designer
Yahoo! Mobile
- - - - - - - - - - -

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Adlin, Tamara
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 10:37 AM
To: id-discuss
Subject: [ID Discuss] Cell phone interaction design rant

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

Ok, maybe I'm a luddite. And maybe this has been talked about too much. But
my cell phone is driving me completely bonkers and makes me crazy as someone
interested in IA.

I transferred my number to ATT. I got a great little phone with a camera
(not a total luddite). I did NOT take the time I should have to research the
whole "mMode" thing, supposing it was just an optional 'get online with your
phone' OPTION. Note the emphasis on OPTION.

Here's my IA-related rant: the 'access mMode' softkey is where the cancel/no
button on the same phone (earlier version) was.
There is no way to remove the softkey or change it.
There is no way to avoid accidentally hitting the mMode button, which tosses
you unceremoniously into limbo while the phone connects you to the internet
(with charges a-go-go). Once there, the value of mMode is dubious at best. I
see no value personally, tho that's not my primary argument. My primary
argument is that the only way to turn off this incredibly annoying and
expensive 'optional' feature is to dive deep into your settings and change
an IP address to all zeros. The horror of this is so overwhelming that I
can't even go on...

Why send this to the ID list? As a huge reminder to us all: Fight back on
the pressure to force a feature onto customers, especially if the feature is
expensive, the value is abstract, and the access is unavoidable. If we have
to launch it, launch it with super-clear value statements and reasonable
options for the users. And make very good friends with the Marketing
departments or whoever it is in your own company that thrills on putting
cutesy names on features for branding purposes.

ATT and Ericsson have great IA people. I'd bet a zillion this was pressure
beyond their control. But man oh man it's making me hate my cell phone.

And yes, I know, the company I work for is not immune at all to this kind of
thing either. I suspect no one really is.

--Tamara

tamara adlin . usability specialist . amazon.com . tamara at amazon.com .
206.266.1258

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at ixdg.org
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.ixdg.org/
--
Questions: lists at ixdg.org
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
--
http://ixdg.org/

19 Oct 2004 - 2:04pm
cfmdesigns
2004

Listera <listera at rcn.com> writes:

>[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]
>
>Clay Newton:
>
>> Of course, my new phone doesn't have a snooze, so if I want
>> to stay in bed a few minutes longer, I have to reprogram the alarm!
>
>Among the two things I never understood in life: repeatedly hitting the
>already-lit elevator button (I do it myself)

Or the "Push this to activate the walk signal, yeah, like it's going
to change any quicker that way" button. Does anyone not press it at
least twice, just to be sure you pressed it right the first time.

About the elevator buttons, Ellen DeGeneres has a comedy bit about
that on "Taste This"
(<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000002JWY/qid=1098212450/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7637468-4196124?v=glance&s=music>).
Basically, we press the already lit button to convince the elevator
to hurry up!

>and the snooze button (I
>don't). Why exactly do we need a snooze button? Is it a "learned" thing?

Or an unlearned thing: there's a great tendency to fall right back
asleep after turning off the alarm. In college, I learned to put the
alarm clock all the way across the room, forcing me to actually get
up to turn it off.

But seriously, I'm sure there are studies (aren't there always) about
how we wake up, coming out of REM sleep and all that. That extra
nine minutes can make a massive difference in the mental awakeness.
--

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Jim Drew jdrew at adobe.com
Bridge QE (206) 675-7912

19 Oct 2004 - 2:20pm
Mike Beltzner
2004

Listera wrote:
> Among the two things I never understood in life: repeatedly hitting the
> already-lit elevator button (I do it myself) and the snooze button (I
> don't). Why exactly do we need a snooze button? Is it a "learned" thing?

I've actually always wondered why newer elevators weren't designed such
that the buttons are toggles. Non-intuitive for the first time, but I'll
bet you that people who accidentally hit the wrong floor, or embarassed
mothers who watch in horror as their toddler hits all the buttons from 3
through 9, will appreciate a way to indicate that they no longer wish to
stop at that floor.

Of course, due to our society's established behaviour in elevators, it
could lead to comic results when many people get into an elevator and
all hit the same button ... :)

cheers,
mike

19 Oct 2004 - 3:53pm
Cindy Alvarez
2004

>> Why exactly do we need a snooze button? Is it a "learned" thing?
>
> It is a "lazy" thing. ;^)
>
> I spent many years hoping up out of bed with the same level of stress
> I would have at about 10am. Over time, I realized that if I ease into
> the day...

The snooze button is a pretty hacky solution, though.

The problem: being jarred awake from a sound sleep is stressful. Hitting
the snooze allows the user to stay halfway between sleep and wakefulness
for a few minutes, which eases the stress. It also is possible to keep
hitting the snooze over and over (defeating the hard-coded 9 minute limit)
and to seriously annoy others sleeping in the room.

Better solutions: an alarm clock which gradually increases in volume
and/or light so that the user eases out of sleep (these exist, but they're
rare and expensive), or an alarm which can detect when you complete a REM
cycle and thus are most conducive to being awakened (would help people
feel very well-rested, though it wouldn't work for people who need to wake
up at a set time).

Of course, this seems to be a problem which is not sufficiently painful
for most people to invest time and money in a more usable solution. :)

Cindy

http://www.cindyalvarez.com/

19 Oct 2004 - 5:45pm
mojofat
2004

The "mobile internet" is arguably useless (slow http requests, no standards, no common browser/screen to work to across devices and platforms, ugly ass display of wap), but I thought everyone was discussing the hardware and OS part of the equation. I'm not sure I see how Yahoo! Mobile can do anything about that, since it's a set of wap-ish looking services.

Personally, I think the core problem of the current mobile devices is one of input. You have a device whose main input vehicle is a digit pad, whereas the most commonly used input for a data service is an alpha pad. I couldn't agree more that, so far, ALL of the phone manufacturers have a ways to go to making their OS more usable (Blackberry is pretty good, but what an awkward phone!). Until there's a shift in thinking of our cell phones as wirelessly networked data devices and not just "a phone," I think there will continue to be major frustration on the part of all users.

I would like to see a phone come out with two LCD screens when you open it up. The one on top is the typical display and the bottom one is a touch screen that allows me to switch between various forms of input.

---------- Original Message -------------
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Cell phone interaction design rant
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:17:52 -0700
From: "Jonathan Grubb" <jgrubb at yahoo-inc.com>
To: "'id-discuss'" <discuss at interactiondesigners.com>

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

You all make good points.

All talented interaction designers who think the mobile internet is (mostly)
useless are invited to come help fix it.

Apply at http://tinyurl.com/65n4c

- - - - - - - - - - -
Jonathan Grubb
Interaction Designer
Yahoo! Mobile
- - - - - - - - - - -

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Adlin, Tamara
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 10:37 AM
To: id-discuss
Subject: [ID Discuss] Cell phone interaction design rant

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

Ok, maybe I'm a luddite. And maybe this has been talked about too much. But
my cell phone is driving me completely bonkers and makes me crazy as someone
interested in IA.

I transferred my number to ATT. I got a great little phone with a camera
(not a total luddite). I did NOT take the time I should have to research the
whole "mMode" thing, supposing it was just an optional 'get online with your
phone' OPTION. Note the emphasis on OPTION.

Here's my IA-related rant: the 'access mMode' softkey is where the cancel/no
button on the same phone (earlier version) was.
There is no way to remove the softkey or change it.
There is no way to avoid accidentally hitting the mMode button, which tosses
you unceremoniously into limbo while the phone connects you to the internet
(with charges a-go-go). Once there, the value of mMode is dubious at best. I
see no value personally, tho that's not my primary argument. My primary
argument is that the only way to turn off this incredibly annoying and
expensive 'optional' feature is to dive deep into your settings and change
an IP address to all zeros. The horror of this is so overwhelming that I
can't even go on...

Why send this to the ID list? As a huge reminder to us all: Fight back on
the pressure to force a feature onto customers, especially if the feature is
expensive, the value is abstract, and the access is unavoidable. If we have
to launch it, launch it with super-clear value statements and reasonable
options for the users. And make very good friends with the Marketing
departments or whoever it is in your own company that thrills on putting
cutesy names on features for branding purposes.

ATT and Ericsson have great IA people. I'd bet a zillion this was pressure
beyond their control. But man oh man it's making me hate my cell phone.

And yes, I know, the company I work for is not immune at all to this kind of
thing either. I suspect no one really is.

--Tamara

tamara adlin . usability specialist . amazon.com . tamara at amazon.com .
206.266.1258

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at ixdg.org
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.ixdg.org/
--
Questions: lists at ixdg.org
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
--
http://ixdg.org/

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at ixdg.org
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.ixdg.org/
--
Questions: lists at ixdg.org
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
--
http://ixdg.org/

19 Oct 2004 - 6:05pm
Brad Becker
2004

Ironically, the IDEO article in businessweek spoke of the good job they did
on redesigning mMode. Maybe they worked on a different aspect of it...

Brad Becker
Sr. Product Designer
Macromedia, Inc.

Quote from
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_20/b3883001_mz001.htm

IDEO's success with the Palm V led AT&T Wireless to call for help on its
mMode consumer wireless platform. The company launched mMode in 2002 to
allow AT&T Wireless mobile-phone customers to access e-mail and instant
messaging, play games, find local restaurants, and connect to sites for
news, stocks, weather, and other information. Techies liked mMode, but
average consumers were not signing up. "We asked [IDEO] to redesign the
interface so someone like my mother who isn't Web savvy can use the phone to
navigate how to get the weather or where to shop," says mMode's Hall.

Too Many Clicks
IDEO's game plan: It immediately sent AT&T Wireless managers on an actual
scavenger hunt in San Francisco to see the world from their customers'
perspective. They were told to find a CD by a certain Latin singer that was
available at only one small music store, find a Walgreen's (WAG ) that sold
its own brand of ibuprofen, and get a Pottery Barn catalog. They discovered
that it was simply too difficult to find these kinds of things with their
mMode service and wound up using the newspaper or the phone directory
instead. IDEO and AT&T Wireless teams also went to AT&T Wireless stores and
videotaped people using mMode. They saw that consumers couldn't find the
sites they wanted. It took too many steps and clicks. "Even teenagers didn't
get it," says Duane Bray, leader of the TEX practice at IDEO.

After dozens of brainstorming sessions and many prototypes, IDEO and AT&T
Wireless came up with a new mMode wireless service platform. The opening
page starts with "My mMode" which is organized like a Web browser's
favorites list and can be managed on a Web site. A consumer can make up an
individualized selection of sites, such as ESPN or Sony Pictures
Entertainment (SNE ), and ring tones. Nothing is more than two clicks away.

An mMode Guide on the page allows people to list five places -- a
restaurant, coffee shop, bank, bar, and retail store -- that GPS location
finders can identify in various cities around the U.S. Another feature
spotlights the five nearest movie theaters that still have seats available
within the next hour. Yet another, My Locker, lets users store a large
number of photos and ring tones with AT&T Wireless. The whole design process
took only 17 weeks. "We are thrilled with the results," says Hall. "We
talked to frog design, Razorfish, and other design firms, and they thought
this was a Web project that needed flashy graphics. IDEO knew it was about
making the cell phone experience better."

19 Oct 2004 - 6:18pm
Brad Becker
2004

For phone based apps, it's too bad you can't use voice more. Not saying that
should be the only input method but imagine a voice-to-google interface
where you speak the search terms (or website name) and then select by
pointing at the resulting link you think is the best fit (I'm using a
Treo600 which affords touch-screen interactions). Once you were on a
website, you could speak the text of any hyperlink and the app would attempt
to match to a hyperlink on the current visible screen, failing that--to the
current page, failing that--interpret it as a page or directory name
relative to the current page URL.

Of course, I think "point and grunt" interaction is the most natural--it's
one of the first that you learn as a child. :) Scott McCloud's book,
Understanding Comics, has an interesting illustration of a young boy
explaining a transformer robot toy for show and tell and he is using a mix
of "show" and "tell" techniques.

Back to work...

Brad Becker
Sr. Product Designer
Macromedia, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Allen Smith
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 3:45 PM
To: jgrubb at yahoo-inc.com; 'id-discuss'
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Cell phone interaction design rant

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

The "mobile internet" is arguably useless (slow http requests, no standards,
no common browser/screen to work to across devices and platforms, ugly ass
display of wap), but I thought everyone was discussing the hardware and OS
part of the equation. I'm not sure I see how Yahoo! Mobile can do
anything about that, since it's a set of wap-ish looking services.

Personally, I think the core problem of the current mobile devices is one of
input. You have a device whose main input vehicle is a digit pad, whereas
the most commonly used input for a data service is an alpha pad. I couldn't
agree more that, so far, ALL of the phone manufacturers have a ways to go to
making their OS more usable (Blackberry is pretty good, but what an awkward
phone!). Until there's a shift in thinking of our cell phones as wirelessly
networked data devices and not just "a phone," I think there will continue
to be major frustration on the part of all users.

I would like to see a phone come out with two LCD screens when you open it
up. The one on top is the typical display and the bottom one is a touch
screen that allows me to switch between various forms of input.

---------- Original Message -------------
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Cell phone interaction design rant
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:17:52 -0700
From: "Jonathan Grubb" <jgrubb at yahoo-inc.com>
To: "'id-discuss'" <discuss at interactiondesigners.com>

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

You all make good points.

All talented interaction designers who think the mobile internet is (mostly)
useless are invited to come help fix it.

Apply at http://tinyurl.com/65n4c

- - - - - - - - - - -
Jonathan Grubb
Interaction Designer
Yahoo! Mobile
- - - - - - - - - - -

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Adlin, Tamara
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 10:37 AM
To: id-discuss
Subject: [ID Discuss] Cell phone interaction design rant

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

Ok, maybe I'm a luddite. And maybe this has been talked about too much. But
my cell phone is driving me completely bonkers and makes me crazy as someone
interested in IA.

I transferred my number to ATT. I got a great little phone with a camera
(not a total luddite). I did NOT take the time I should have to research the
whole "mMode" thing, supposing it was just an optional 'get online with your
phone' OPTION. Note the emphasis on OPTION.

Here's my IA-related rant: the 'access mMode' softkey is where the cancel/no
button on the same phone (earlier version) was.
There is no way to remove the softkey or change it.
There is no way to avoid accidentally hitting the mMode button, which tosses
you unceremoniously into limbo while the phone connects you to the internet
(with charges a-go-go). Once there, the value of mMode is dubious at best. I
see no value personally, tho that's not my primary argument. My primary
argument is that the only way to turn off this incredibly annoying and
expensive 'optional' feature is to dive deep into your settings and change
an IP address to all zeros. The horror of this is so overwhelming that I
can't even go on...

Why send this to the ID list? As a huge reminder to us all: Fight back on
the pressure to force a feature onto customers, especially if the feature is
expensive, the value is abstract, and the access is unavoidable. If we have
to launch it, launch it with super-clear value statements and reasonable
options for the users. And make very good friends with the Marketing
departments or whoever it is in your own company that thrills on putting
cutesy names on features for branding purposes.

ATT and Ericsson have great IA people. I'd bet a zillion this was pressure
beyond their control. But man oh man it's making me hate my cell phone.

And yes, I know, the company I work for is not immune at all to this kind of
thing either. I suspect no one really is.

--Tamara

tamara adlin . usability specialist . amazon.com . tamara at amazon.com .
206.266.1258

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at ixdg.org
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.ixdg.org/
--
Questions: lists at ixdg.org
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
--
http://ixdg.org/

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at ixdg.org
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.ixdg.org/
--
Questions: lists at ixdg.org
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
--
http://ixdg.org/

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at ixdg.org
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.ixdg.org/
--
Questions: lists at ixdg.org
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
--
http://ixdg.org/

19 Oct 2004 - 7:22pm
Jonathan Grubb
2004

Allen Smith wrote:

"The "mobile internet" is arguably useless"

I respectfully disagree. By many estimates the mobile phone is already the
primary internet access point; if it hasn't already surpassed the PC it will
in the next few years. Every month users pay many millions of
dollars/euros/pounds/yen to access the internet on their phones. If it was
useless people wouldn't use it. This doesn't mean the services are *good*,
just that they are useful. I'm sure everyone here can recognize the
difference.

"slow http requests, no standards, no common browser/screen to work to
across devices and platforms, ugly ass display"

...wait, doesn't this describe the entire internet circa 1998?

"everyone was discussing the hardware and OS part of the equation"

Phones are networked devices. To ignore the networked nature of the device
is to throw out the most powerful tool in the design toolbox.

"I'm not sure I see how Yahoo! Mobile can do anything about that, since it's
a set of wap-ish looking services."

A company like yahoo can build mobile services that work in many different
ways: mobile browser, SMS, Java, Brew, phone OS, hardware, etc. For example,
most new phones OS's will include Instant Messaging software from AOL, MSN,
& Yahoo.

"Personally, I think the core problem of the current mobile devices is one
of input."

I agree. I find it hard to enter more than a few words at a time. However,
teenagers in japan, europe, and even the US seem to have no problem with
this. Our generation adapted to the mouse, the previous adapted to the
keyboard, and the next will adapt to the tiny keyboard, voice input, hand
gestures, or whatever ends up working best.

"the most commonly used input for a data service is an alpha pad"

I'd argue that the most common input is pointing and clicking, not typing.
But I totally agree that it isn't digits.

"Until there's a shift in thinking of our cell phones as wirelessly
networked data devices and not just "a phone," I think there will continue
to be major frustration on the part of all users."

This shift is underway. No phone manufacturers are focusing on voice-only
devices, and some are emphasizing data over voice. Think of the Danger
devices, blackberry, AT&T's OGO, etc (full disclosure: I've worked on these
devices). None are perfect, but all are primarily "wirelessly networked data
devices."

--
jonathan grubb

19 Oct 2004 - 9:35pm
Listera
2004

Jonathan Grubb:

> By many estimates the mobile phone is already the primary internet access
> point; if it hasn't already surpassed the PC it will in the next few years.

I just hate to make this analogy, but it's late, the score is 4-0, so I'll
go ahead anyway: if people are frequenting primarily McDonald's they might
think that the joys of eating are limited to fast food as well.

As you say, the Internet was a pretty austere place 10 years ago and in
terms of visual/interactive sophistication we did regress at that point. But
10 years later, we have integrated streaming audio/video, animation and
we're striving for RIAs. For years, the French told us Minitel was useful
(it was) and usable (debatable) and even better than the early Internet. 10
years later, I think, France has the fastest Internet growth rate in western
Europe. In the late 90s, you couldn't read a page of tech or business
oriented pub without going through the litany of stats of phone devices soon
taking over the PC and our lives and the universe.

So it's 2004, and the vast majority of mobile devices out there are god
awful in terms of their user experience. Why is that? How close are we to
getting the Macintosh or even the TiVo of the mobile space?

Ziya
Nullius in Verba

20 Oct 2004 - 1:30am
mojofat
2004

> "A company like yahoo can build mobile services that work in many
> different
> ways: mobile browser, SMS, Java, Brew, phone OS, hardware, etc. For
> example,
> most new phones OS's will include Instant Messaging software from AOL,
> MSN,
> & Yahoo."

It may be a technical distinction, but an important one I think: IM
from any of the above three are applications running on top of the OS
layer. It's not actually built into the OS (like the way the phone
book is, or storage for ringtones, etc.); or, perhaps I'm wrong about
that. But that's the way I've seen it thus far.

I'm not going to slice out incomplete sentences from others' posts
circa IRC '95, but the reason I had "mobile internet" in quotes is b/c
it seemed like it was being used synonymously with WAP...which is
useless (let the flames begin!). I did not mean to infer that the
concept of mobile/cellular devices connecting to the internet was
flawed. I actually think it has a bright future, especially when you
have more asynchronously networked applications working for their
users, making their lives easier and perhaps more entertaining.

I believe if you're thinking simply of web surfing, then certainly
pointing and clicking is likely the most common input. If one thinks
of all data services though, then it's likely that the keyboard is the
most common form of input. It's certainly higher bandwidth (e.g., I
couldn't have typed this e-mail by pointing and clicking...I guess I
could, but talk about tedious!).

By the way, I wasn't dissing Yahoo! in anyway in my last message. I
think they're great (spiffy new redesign! I like the reorganization of
the top links! And a new music button...cool!). I was only trying to
say that if one has problems with the physical manipulation of a
handheld device, then no application you load onto it is going to
improve that experience.

ciao,
-al

On Oct 19, 2004, at 5:22 PM, Jonathan Grubb wrote:

> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
> Allen Smith wrote:
>
> "The "mobile internet" is arguably useless"
>
> I respectfully disagree. By many estimates the mobile phone is already
> the
> primary internet access point; if it hasn't already surpassed the PC
> it will
> in the next few years. Every month users pay many millions of
> dollars/euros/pounds/yen to access the internet on their phones. If it
> was
> useless people wouldn't use it. This doesn't mean the services are
> *good*,
> just that they are useful. I'm sure everyone here can recognize the
> difference.
>
>
> "slow http requests, no standards, no common browser/screen to work to
> across devices and platforms, ugly ass display"
>
> ...wait, doesn't this describe the entire internet circa 1998?
>
>
> "everyone was discussing the hardware and OS part of the equation"
>
> Phones are networked devices. To ignore the networked nature of the
> device
> is to throw out the most powerful tool in the design toolbox.
>
>
> "I'm not sure I see how Yahoo! Mobile can do anything about that,
> since it's
> a set of wap-ish looking services."
>
> A company like yahoo can build mobile services that work in many
> different
> ways: mobile browser, SMS, Java, Brew, phone OS, hardware, etc. For
> example,
> most new phones OS's will include Instant Messaging software from AOL,
> MSN,
> & Yahoo.
>
>
> "Personally, I think the core problem of the current mobile devices is
> one
> of input."
>
> I agree. I find it hard to enter more than a few words at a time.
> However,
> teenagers in japan, europe, and even the US seem to have no problem
> with
> this. Our generation adapted to the mouse, the previous adapted to the
> keyboard, and the next will adapt to the tiny keyboard, voice input,
> hand
> gestures, or whatever ends up working best.
>
> "the most commonly used input for a data service is an alpha pad"
>
> I'd argue that the most common input is pointing and clicking, not
> typing.
> But I totally agree that it isn't digits.
>
>
> "Until there's a shift in thinking of our cell phones as wirelessly
> networked data devices and not just "a phone," I think there will
> continue
> to be major frustration on the part of all users."
>
> This shift is underway. No phone manufacturers are focusing on
> voice-only
> devices, and some are emphasizing data over voice. Think of the Danger
> devices, blackberry, AT&T's OGO, etc (full disclosure: I've worked on
> these
> devices). None are perfect, but all are primarily "wirelessly
> networked data
> devices."
>
> --
> jonathan grubb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at ixdg.org
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> http://discuss.ixdg.org/
> --
> Questions: lists at ixdg.org
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> already)
> http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
> --
> http://ixdg.org/
>

20 Oct 2004 - 3:55am
Tom Hume
2004

On 20 Oct 2004, at 01:22, Jonathan Grubb wrote:

> Allen Smith wrote:
> "The "mobile internet" is arguably useless"
> I respectfully disagree. By many estimates the mobile phone is already
> the
> primary internet access point; if it hasn't already surpassed the PC
> it will
> in the next few years. Every month users pay many millions of
> dollars/euros/pounds/yen to access the internet on their phones. If it
> was
> useless people wouldn't use it. This doesn't mean the services are
> *good*,
> just that they are useful. I'm sure everyone here can recognize the
> difference.

+1

Like it or not, this stuff is out there in the mass market. Even the
whipping boy of mobile data services, WAP, gets a hideous amount of
usage - and it's increasing month on month (source: www.text.it)

> "everyone was discussing the hardware and OS part of the equation"
> Phones are networked devices. To ignore the networked nature of the
> device
> is to throw out the most powerful tool in the design toolbox.

Indeed - and to separate out on-device software, on-network software,
and the hardware is also dangerous. Many phone users neither know, nor
care, about the difference. If one of the services on Vodafone Live!
isn't working, users aren't saying to themselves "hmmm that site
returned a server error to my WAP browser", they're wondering why
Vodafone is broken.

--
Future Platforms Ltd
e: Tom.Hume at futureplatforms.com
t: +44 (0) 870 0055924
m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
company: www.futureplatforms.com
personal: tomhume.org

20 Oct 2004 - 1:24pm
Jonathan Grubb
2004

>> "A company like yahoo can build mobile services that work in many
>> different
>> ways: mobile browser, SMS, Java, Brew, phone OS, hardware, etc. For
>> example,
>> most new phones OS's will include Instant Messaging software from AOL,
>> MSN,
>> & Yahoo."

>It may be a technical distinction, but an important one I think: IM
>from any of the above three are applications running on top of the OS
>layer. It's not actually built into the OS (like the way the phone
>book is, or storage for ringtones, etc.); or, perhaps I'm wrong about
>that. But that's the way I've seen it thus far.

Most manufacturers are quickly deploying a downloadable Java/Brew app that
runs on top of the OS, then working on a built-in OS level app. The
development cycle for a download app is 3-6 months, while a handset OS takes
several years.

>It's certainly higher bandwidth (e.g., I
>couldn't have typed this e-mail by pointing and clicking...I guess I
>could, but talk about tedious!).
...
>I was only trying to
>say that if one has problems with the physical manipulation of a
>handheld device, then no application you load onto it is going to
>improve that experience.

Why not write your email on paper with a pen, photograph it, OCR it, and
send it as a standard email? Or photograph a bar code and convert it to a
URL instead of typing in a long address? (See semacode.org)

These applications both improve the experience without changing the
hardware. If we wait for perfect hardware before building good software
we'll wait forever.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jonathan Grubb
Yahoo! Mobile GUI
Office: 408-349-6122
Mobile: 415-722-9449
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

20 Oct 2004 - 2:05pm
Jonathan Grubb
2004

>So it's 2004, and the vast majority of mobile devices out there are god
>awful in terms of their user experience. Why is that? How close are we to
>getting the Macintosh or even the TiVo of the mobile space?

I think the iPod is a good mobile device. Sure, it's not a phone, but the
good folks at apple chose a small feature set, designed it well, and
innovated with each version. (Though I don't know why they moved the buttons
to the top for a while - bad move guys.)

The Sony Ericsson S710a is the best phone I've seen so far.
(http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=602) When closed, it looks and
behaves like a regular digital camera with zoom, flash, 1.3 megapixel
resolution, etc. It swivels open to a clear, simple interface. Favorite
feature: a little key lock switch on the outside, rather than "hold down #
and 1 for 3 second to unlock phone" or some other insanity. POP and IMAP
email are built in. It has a memory stick slot for storage and data
transfer.

For the past 10 years the mobile industry has concentrated on network reach
and voice quality. The result: I rarely have dropped calls, and never have
static (using verizon in the bay area). Remember static? Yuck. Of course
voice calls are far from perfect, but I'd say the quality is now acceptable.
Useful data services are the next logical step.

I'm not sure how to respond to the McDonalds analogy, except to say that
desktop computers are for rich people and mobile phones are for everyone.
Lots of countries can't afford a landline network or power grid; cell towers
are relatively cheap. I'd rather enable billions of people to communicate
with each other than enable my friends in SiliValley to watch streaming
sports clips on their HD TV's. But that's just me.

(Note: This is not to say that streaming video on HDTV isn't cool. It's
super cool, and I want it.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jonathan Grubb
Yahoo! Mobile GUI
Office: 408-349-6122
Mobile: 415-722-9449
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Listera
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 7:35 PM
To: 'id-discuss'
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Cell phone interaction design rant

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

Jonathan Grubb:

> By many estimates the mobile phone is already the primary internet access
> point; if it hasn't already surpassed the PC it will in the next few
years.

I just hate to make this analogy, but it's late, the score is 4-0, so I'll
go ahead anyway: if people are frequenting primarily McDonald's they might
think that the joys of eating are limited to fast food as well.

As you say, the Internet was a pretty austere place 10 years ago and in
terms of visual/interactive sophistication we did regress at that point. But
10 years later, we have integrated streaming audio/video, animation and
we're striving for RIAs. For years, the French told us Minitel was useful
(it was) and usable (debatable) and even better than the early Internet. 10
years later, I think, France has the fastest Internet growth rate in western
Europe. In the late 90s, you couldn't read a page of tech or business
oriented pub without going through the litany of stats of phone devices soon
taking over the PC and our lives and the universe.

So it's 2004, and the vast majority of mobile devices out there are god
awful in terms of their user experience. Why is that? How close are we to
getting the Macintosh or even the TiVo of the mobile space?

Ziya
Nullius in Verba

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at ixdg.org
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.ixdg.org/
--
Questions: lists at ixdg.org
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
--
http://ixdg.org/

20 Oct 2004 - 3:08pm
mojofat
2004

"I'm not sure how to respond to the McDonalds analogy, except to say that
desktop computers are for rich people and mobile phones are for everyone.
Lots of countries can't afford a landline network or power grid; cell
towers
are relatively cheap. I'd rather enable billions of people to communicate
with each other than enable my friends in SiliValley to watch streaming
sports clips on their HD TV's. But that's just me."

Apples and oranges. I'm not sure how one can even begin to compare a PC connected to the internet to a cell phone, which may or may not have even basic SMS capability. Just b/c there are more people using their cell phone doesn't equate to more people accessing the "Internet" via that same phone. People don't spend all day with their WAP browser open casually surfing around. Cell towers are relatively cheap, but they require power...as do the cell phones when their battery goes dead. I can't even get service when I go surfing in Baja (with a Nextel Mexico phone or a GSM phone with a mexican simm), so it's unlikely that people outside the urban areas are going to have service as well in places like Brazil, Africa, Asia, etc. (and therefore, not really for "everyone" unless everyone just includes people in or near large urban areas who can also afford the phone and service). I guess I don't understand what your point was or has been. Is it that using your phone to surf the web is currently a viable if not better option than the PC because it serves more people or is it something else?

---------- Original Message -------------
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Cell phone interaction design rant
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:05:44 -0700
From: "Jonathan Grubb" <jgrubb at yahoo-inc.com>
To: "'Listera'" <listera at rcn.com>,
"'id-discuss'" <discuss at interactiondesigners.com>

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

>So it's 2004, and the vast majority of mobile devices out there are god
>awful in terms of their user experience. Why is that? How close are we to
>getting the Macintosh or even the TiVo of the mobile space?

I think the iPod is a good mobile device. Sure, it's not a phone, but the
good folks at apple chose a small feature set, designed it well, and
innovated with each version. (Though I don't know why they moved the buttons
to the top for a while - bad move guys.)

The Sony Ericsson S710a is the best phone I've seen so far.
(http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=602) When closed, it looks and
behaves like a regular digital camera with zoom, flash, 1.3 megapixel
resolution, etc. It swivels open to a clear, simple interface. Favorite
feature: a little key lock switch on the outside, rather than "hold down #
and 1 for 3 second to unlock phone" or some other insanity. POP and IMAP
email are built in. It has a memory stick slot for storage and data
transfer.

For the past 10 years the mobile industry has concentrated on network reach
and voice quality. The result: I rarely have dropped calls, and never have
static (using verizon in the bay area). Remember static? Yuck. Of course
voice calls are far from perfect, but I'd say the quality is now acceptable
Useful data services are the next logical step.

I'm not sure how to respond to the McDonalds analogy, except to say that
desktop computers are for rich people and mobile phones are for everyone.
Lots of countries can't afford a landline network or power grid; cell towers
are relatively cheap. I'd rather enable billions of people to communicate
with each other than enable my friends in SiliValley to watch streaming
sports clips on their HD TV's. But that's just me.

(Note: This is not to say that streaming video on HDTV isn't cool. It's
super cool, and I want it.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jonathan Grubb
Yahoo! Mobile GUI
Office: 408-349-6122
Mobile: 415-722-9449
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners
com] On Behalf Of Listera
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 7:35 PM
To: 'id-discuss'
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Cell phone interaction design rant

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

Jonathan Grubb:

> By many estimates the mobile phone is already the primary internet access
> point; if it hasn't already surpassed the PC it will in the next few
years.

I just hate to make this analogy, but it's late, the score is 4-0, so I'll
go ahead anyway: if people are frequenting primarily McDonald's they might
think that the joys of eating are limited to fast food as well.

As you say, the Internet was a pretty austere place 10 years ago and in
terms of visual/interactive sophistication we did regress at that point. But
10 years later, we have integrated streaming audio/video, animation and
we're striving for RIAs. For years, the French told us Minitel was useful
(it was) and usable (debatable) and even better than the early Internet. 10
years later, I think, France has the fastest Internet growth rate in western
Europe. In the late 90s, you couldn't read a page of tech or business
oriented pub without going through the litany of stats of phone devices soon
taking over the PC and our lives and the universe.

So it's 2004, and the vast majority of mobile devices out there are god
awful in terms of their user experience. Why is that? How close are we to
getting the Macintosh or even the TiVo of the mobile space?

Ziya
Nullius in Verba

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at ixdg.org
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.ixdg.org/
--
Questions: lists at ixdg.org
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
--
http://ixdg.org/

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at ixdg.org
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.ixdg.org/
--
Questions: lists at ixdg.org
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
--
http://ixdg.org/

20 Oct 2004 - 4:03pm
Jonathan Grubb
2004

>Apples and oranges. I'm not sure how one can even begin to compare a PC
>connected to the internet to a cell phone, which may or may not have even
>basic SMS capability.

They are both electronic devices connected to a network and used for
communication. How can they not be compared?

>Just b/c there are more people using their cell phone doesn't equate to
>more people accessing the "Internet" via that same phone.

Actually that is what I meant: by many estimates more people access the
internet via mobile phone than via desktop computer.

>People don't spend all day with their WAP browser open casually surfing
>around.

Just because you don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist. Some people
*do* spend all day using a wap browser. But this is beside the point.

>Cell towers are relatively cheap, but they require power...as do the cell
>phones when their battery goes dead.

Building a power grid and phone network to each house is exponentially more
expensive than building a cell network. When batteries go dead people charge
them at a central location, like a store or restaurant.

>it's unlikely that people
>outside the urban areas are going to have service as well in places like
>Brazil, Africa, Asia, etc. (and therefore, not really for "everyone" unless

>everyone just includes people in or near large urban areas who can also
>afford the phone and service).

Coverage isn't universal, but penetration is certainly higher than PCs with
modem or broadband, and the gap will continue to widen. Phones will probably
always be cheaper than connected PC's. But this isn't really my point.

>I guess I don't understand what your point was or has been. Is it that
>using your phone to surf the web is currently a viable if not better option

>than the PC because it serves more people or is it something else?

No. My point is this: the "mobile internet" is not useless. The first
incarnation, WML/SMS, was hard to use but people used it anyway. Usability
is improving rapidly - look at Brew, J2ME MIDP2, xHTML - and now is the time
to make new services.

The "wap is dead" attitude of the early 2000's is simply no longer valid. I
see the numbers every day, and wap is not dead. I wish I could share the
numbers with you all, but I'd probably lose my job. :O

If every interaction designer on this list thinks about how their product
would be improved by mobility, we can make the next generation of mobile
services extremely useful and usable.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jonathan Grubb
Yahoo! Mobile GUI
Office: 408-349-6122
Mobile: 415-722-9449
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Smith [mailto:al at mojofat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 1:08 PM
To: jgrubb at yahoo-inc.com; 'Listera'; 'id-discuss'
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Cell phone interaction design rant

"I'm not sure how to respond to the McDonalds analogy, except to say that

desktop computers are for rich people and mobile phones are for everyone.

Lots of countries can't afford a landline network or power grid; cell

towers

are relatively cheap. I'd rather enable billions of people to communicate

with each other than enable my friends in SiliValley to watch streaming

sports clips on their HD TV's. But that's just me."

Apples and oranges. I'm not sure how one can even begin to compare a PC
connected to the internet to a cell phone, which may or may not have even
basic SMS capability. Just b/c there are more people using their cell phone
doesn't equate to more people accessing the "Internet" via that same phone.
People don't spend all day with their WAP browser open casually surfing
around. Cell towers are relatively cheap, but they require power...as do
the cell phones when their battery goes dead. I can't even get service when
I go surfing in Baja (with a Nextel Mexico phone or a GSM phone with a
mexican simm), so it's unlikely that people outside the urban areas are
going to have service as well in places like Brazil, Africa, Asia, etc. (and
therefore, not really for "everyone" unless everyone just includes people in
or near large urban areas who can also afford the phone and service). I
guess I don't understand what your point was or has been. Is it that using
your phone to surf the web is currently a viable if not better option than
the PC because it serves more people or is it something else?

---------- Original Message -------------

Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Cell phone interaction design rant

Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:05:44 -0700

From: "Jonathan Grubb" <jgrubb at yahoo-inc.com>

To: "'Listera'" <listera at rcn.com>,

"'id-discuss'" <discuss at interactiondesigners.com>

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

>So it's 2004, and the vast majority of mobile devices out there are god

>awful in terms of their user experience. Why is that? How close are we to

>getting the Macintosh or even the TiVo of the mobile space?

I think the iPod is a good mobile device. Sure, it's not a phone, but the

good folks at apple chose a small feature set, designed it well, and

innovated with each version. (Though I don't know why they moved the buttons

to the top for a while - bad move guys.)

The Sony Ericsson S710a is the best phone I've seen so far.

(http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=602) When closed, it looks and

behaves like a regular digital camera with zoom, flash, 1.3 megapixel

resolution, etc. It swivels open to a clear, simple interface. Favorite

feature: a little key lock switch on the outside, rather than "hold down #

and 1 for 3 second to unlock phone" or some other insanity. POP and IMAP

email are built in. It has a memory stick slot for storage and data

transfer.

For the past 10 years the mobile industry has concentrated on network reach

and voice quality. The result: I rarely have dropped calls, and never have

static (using verizon in the bay area). Remember static? Yuck. Of course

voice calls are far from perfect, but I'd say the quality is now acceptable

Useful data services are the next logical step.

I'm not sure how to respond to the McDonalds analogy, except to say that

desktop computers are for rich people and mobile phones are for everyone.

Lots of countries can't afford a landline network or power grid; cell towers

are relatively cheap. I'd rather enable billions of people to communicate

with each other than enable my friends in SiliValley to watch streaming

sports clips on their HD TV's. But that's just me.

(Note: This is not to say that streaming video on HDTV isn't cool. It's

super cool, and I want it.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Jonathan Grubb

Yahoo! Mobile GUI

Office: 408-349-6122

Mobile: 415-722-9449

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

-----Original Message-----

From:

discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com

[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners

com] On Behalf Of Listera

Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 7:35 PM

To: 'id-discuss'

Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Cell phone interaction design rant

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

Jonathan Grubb:

> By many estimates the mobile phone is already the primary internet access

> point; if it hasn't already surpassed the PC it will in the next few

years.

I just hate to make this analogy, but it's late, the score is 4-0, so I'll

go ahead anyway: if people are frequenting primarily McDonald's they might

think that the joys of eating are limited to fast food as well.

As you say, the Internet was a pretty austere place 10 years ago and in

terms of visual/interactive sophistication we did regress at that point. But

10 years later, we have integrated streaming audio/video, animation and

we're striving for RIAs. For years, the French told us Minitel was useful

(it was) and usable (debatable) and even better than the early Internet. 10

years later, I think, France has the fastest Internet growth rate in western

Europe. In the late 90s, you couldn't read a page of tech or business

oriented pub without going through the litany of stats of phone devices soon

taking over the PC and our lives and the universe.

So it's 2004, and the vast majority of mobile devices out there are god

awful in terms of their user experience. Why is that? How close are we to

getting the Macintosh or even the TiVo of the mobile space?

Ziya

Nullius in Verba

_______________________________________________

Interaction Design Discussion List

discuss at ixdg.org

--

to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.ixdg.org/

--

Questions: lists at ixdg.org

--

Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)

http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/

--

http://ixdg.org/

_______________________________________________

Interaction Design Discussion List

discuss at ixdg.org

--

to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.ixdg.org/

--

Questions: lists at ixdg.org

--

Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)

http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/

--

http://ixdg.org/

20 Oct 2004 - 4:16pm
Tom Hume
2004

On 20 Oct 2004, at 22:03, Jonathan Grubb wrote:

> The "wap is dead" attitude of the early 2000's is simply no longer
> valid. I
> see the numbers every day, and wap is not dead. I wish I could share
> the
> numbers with you all, but I'd probably lose my job. :O

http://www.text.it/wap/default.asp?intPageId=665 is a good start

--
Future Platforms Ltd
e: Tom.Hume at futureplatforms.com
t: +44 (0) 870 0055924
m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
company: www.futureplatforms.com
personal: tomhume.org

20 Oct 2004 - 4:33pm
Jonathan Grubb
2004

>I think we will very soon see that the only real difference between the
devices is the capability that the form factor provides. So cost aside

>does the form factor of the cell phone offer the same capabilities as a
laptop or desktop computer? Nope. The limitations of the form will

>always make some applications less capable on each of the devices.

I couldn't agree more. Each form factor provides different advantages: the
PC is big (big keyboard, big screen, etc) while the mobile device is small
(fits in your pocket!). If both are accessing the same data and applications
- music, email, photos, PIM - then you are free to pick the best device for
a certain task at a certain time.

Right now, and for the near future, more people have small devices than big
ones, and we don't have enough people working on small device interaction
design. I want the design community to believe that the mobile internet
offers users the ability to magically carry all their data and services with
them all the time. I don't want the design community to think that the
mobile internet is dead.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Jonathan Grubb

Yahoo! Mobile GUI

Office: 408-349-6122

Mobile: 415-722-9449

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

-----Original Message-----
From: cluxmoore [mailto:cluxmoore at dakasa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 1:39 PM
To: Allen Smith; jgrubb at yahoo-inc.com; 'Listera'; 'id-discuss'
Subject: Re: RE: [ID Discuss] Cell phone interaction design rant

"I'm not sure how to respond to the McDonalds analogy, except to say that

desktop computers are for rich people and mobile phones are for everyone.

Lots of countries can't afford a landline network or power grid; cell

towers

are relatively cheap. I'd rather enable billions of people to communicate

with each other than enable my friends in SiliValley to watch streaming

sports clips on their HD TV's. But that's just me."

The real problem for me with this statement is that it assumes that
computers are always going to be expensive while cell phones will always be
cheaper. It also makes a cultural assumtion that these devices are not a
shared resource and thus lowering the cost.

I think we will very soon see that the only real difference between the
devices is the capability that the form factor provides. So cost aside does
the form factor of the cell phone offer the same capabilities as a laptop or
desktop computer? Nope. The limitations of the form will always make some
applications less capable on each of the devices.

As Allen said Apples and Oranges...

20 Oct 2004 - 4:47pm
jstanford
2003

Hello,

Jonathan writes:
> we can make the
> next generation of mobile services extremely useful and usable.

I think the key point to note about design for mobile phones is the
distinction between usable and useful that Jonathan made several times.

There are lots of things that are very useful to do right now on a mobile
phone, VERY USEFUL in fact, that are currently not very usable but people
use them anyway in grand numbers because they are so useful. I am a case in
point. I really hate the design of mmode right now but I keep using it
because it is so damn useful and has saved me so many times. And, I will
continue banging my head against the wall using it because it is so useful.
I would appreciate if it was more usable and would be able to recommend it
to my friends if it was, but at this point it is my uber-useful frustrating
tool that my mother can't use.

One might observer that for the early to late majority in the classic
adoption curve (although I don't have access to Jonathan's secret numbers),
the usability is a GIANT barrier to entry. However, the usefulness
overwhelms the barrier to entry for many others (i.e. the early
adopters/earlyish majority) is not so great that it overhwhelms the
usefulness. I am sure that we can all come up with many examples of other
products where this has been the case. Off the top of my head, MS DOS comes
to mind.

Now, on the flip side, there are other products that are very usable but
completely useless. In fact, I had the misfortune on working on a UI for a
cell phone for useless functionality that took WAP to the extremes of its
usability. We did lots of user studies, many redesigns, and at the end of
the day although the usability was as good as WAP could be, the client's
basic idea was just plain dumb and useless functionality that no one would
want to have on their mobile phone anyway.

Obviously the sweet spot is useful and usable. But, before folks write off
mobile UIs because they are hard to use, consider the usefulness angle and I
think you'll come up with a different perspective.

Julie

_____________________________________
Julie Stanford
Principal, Sliced Bread Design | www.slicedbreaddesign.com
650-799-7225

20 Oct 2004 - 5:54pm
Listera
2004

Jonathan Grubb:

> For the past 10 years the mobile industry has concentrated on network reach
> and voice quality. The result: I rarely have dropped calls, and never have
> static (using verizon in the bay area).

For New York metropolitan area users that sounds like a sick joke. :-)

> I'm not sure how to respond to the McDonalds analogy, except to say that
> desktop computers are for rich people and mobile phones are for everyone.

I appreciate the sentiment here. However, phones like Sony Ericsson S710a
that you mentioned can actually cost more than a low-end PC. BTW, Microsoft
said today they want PCs to cost $100.

<http://snipurl.com/9xsz>

> Lots of countries can't afford a landline network or power grid; cell towers
> are relatively cheap. I'd rather enable billions of people to communicate
> with each other than enable my friends in SiliValley to watch streaming
> sports clips on their HD TV's.

Well, they pay for the R&D. I'm unwilling to pit PCs against mobile devices;
the question is why mobile devices suck in terms of usability *given* their
form factor?

Ziya
Nullius in Verba

20 Oct 2004 - 6:20pm
Jonathan Grubb
2004

>> I'm not sure how to respond to the McDonalds analogy, except to say that
>> desktop computers are for rich people and mobile phones are for everyone.

>I appreciate the sentiment here. However, phones like Sony Ericsson S710a
>that you mentioned can actually cost more than a low-end PC.

It's expensive because it's new. A mac classic cost more than a small car
when it was released.

>BTW, Microsoft said today they want PCs to cost $100.

Ballmer also says:
"PCs are not selling to the lower end of the population in China and India.
People buying machines there are relatively affluent. So...should the prices
be lower? Not really." (referrring to windows software)

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jonathan Grubb
Yahoo! Mobile GUI
Office: 408-349-6122
Mobile: 415-722-9449
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Listera
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 3:54 PM
To: 'id-discuss'
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Cell phone interaction design rant

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

Jonathan Grubb:

> For the past 10 years the mobile industry has concentrated on network
reach
> and voice quality. The result: I rarely have dropped calls, and never have
> static (using verizon in the bay area).

For New York metropolitan area users that sounds like a sick joke. :-)

> I'm not sure how to respond to the McDonalds analogy, except to say that
> desktop computers are for rich people and mobile phones are for everyone.

I appreciate the sentiment here. However, phones like Sony Ericsson S710a
that you mentioned can actually cost more than a low-end PC. BTW, Microsoft
said today they want PCs to cost $100.

<http://snipurl.com/9xsz>

> Lots of countries can't afford a landline network or power grid; cell
towers
> are relatively cheap. I'd rather enable billions of people to communicate
> with each other than enable my friends in SiliValley to watch streaming
> sports clips on their HD TV's.

Well, they pay for the R&D. I'm unwilling to pit PCs against mobile devices;
the question is why mobile devices suck in terms of usability *given* their
form factor?

Ziya
Nullius in Verba

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at ixdg.org
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.ixdg.org/
--
Questions: lists at ixdg.org
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
--
http://ixdg.org/

20 Oct 2004 - 6:36pm
Listera
2004

Jonathan Grubb:

>> BTW, Microsoft said today they want PCs to cost $100.
>
> Ballmer also says:
> "PCs are not selling to the lower end of the population in China and India.
> People buying machines there are relatively affluent. So...should the prices
> be lower? Not really." (referrring to windows software)

Well, what else did you expect from Ballmer? ;-) Gates predicted that within
the decade the PC hardware would, in fact, be given away free. Let me guess,
MS must be primarily a software company!

Implicit in this, though, there's an interesting business model issue.
Nowadays, a lot of basic stuff on mobiles come bundled. How long is that
going to last? Yes, the number of users is often very large and user
tracking/billing much more controlled, but how do you see the revenue model
evolving? Where does Yahoo currently make money? Will it change? If these
devices come to have a small number of basic app front-ends connected to
various data sources as services, is that a viable revenue option? Are we
going to have many small, dedicated apps or general purpose browsers that
deal with multitude of data sources?

Ziya
Nullius in Verba

20 Oct 2004 - 7:15pm
Listera
2004

Listera:
>> BTW, Microsoft said today they want PCs to cost $100.

I forgot about AMD's efforts here: Their "50x15" goal is to help connect 50%
of the world's population to the Internet by 2015. They are planning ship
within weeks a Kleenex-box size Internet PC for $185 ($249 w/ monitor),
targeting primarily the developing countries.

<http://snipurl.com/9xvd>

Ziya
Nullius in Verba

20 Oct 2004 - 3:39pm
Coryndon Luxmoore
2004

"I'm not sure how to respond to the McDonalds analogy, except to say that

desktop computers are for rich people and mobile phones are for everyone.

Lots of countries can't afford a landline network or power grid; cell

towers

are relatively cheap. I'd rather enable billions of people to communicate

with each other than enable my friends in SiliValley to watch streaming

sports clips on their HD TV's. But that's just me."

The real problem for me with this statement is that it assumes that computers are always going to be expensive while cell phones will always be cheaper. It also makes a cultural assumtion that these devices are not a shared resource and thus lowering the cost.

I think we will very soon see that the only real difference between the devices is the capability that the form factor provides. So cost aside does the form factor of the cell phone offer the same capabilities as a laptop or desktop computer? Nope. The limitations of the form will always make some applications less capable on each of the devices.

As Allen said Apples and Oranges...

-------Original Message-------
> From: Allen Smith <al at mojofat.com>
> Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Cell phone interaction design rant
> Sent: 20 Oct 2004 20:08:23
>
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]
>
> "I'm not sure how to respond to the McDonalds analogy, except to say that
> desktop computers are for rich people and mobile phones are for everyone.
> Lots of countries can't afford a landline network or power grid; cell
> towers
> are relatively cheap. I'd rather enable billions of people to communicate
> with each other than enable my friends in SiliValley to watch streaming
> sports clips on their HD TV's. But that's just me."
>
> Apples and oranges.  I'm not sure how one can even begin to compare a PC connected to the internet to a cell phone, which may or may not have even basic SMS capability.  Just b/c there are more people using their cell phone doesn't equate to more people accessing the "Internet" via that same phone.  People don't spend all day with their WAP browser open casually surfing around.  Cell towers are relatively cheap, but they require power...as do the cell phones when their battery goes dead.  I can't even get service when I go surfing in Baja (with a Nextel Mexico phone or a GSM phone with a mexican simm), so it's unlikely that people outside the urban areas are going to have service as well in places like Brazil, Africa, Asia, etc. (and therefore, not really for "everyone" unless everyone just includes people in or near large urban areas who can also afford the phone and service).  I guess I don't understand what your point was or has been.  Is it that using your phone to
surf the web is currently a viable if not better option than the PC because it serves more people or is it something else?
>
>
> ---------- Original Message -------------
> Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Cell phone interaction design rant
> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:05:44 -0700
> From: "Jonathan Grubb" <jgrubb at yahoo-inc.com>
> To: "'Listera'" <listera at rcn.com>,
> "'id-discuss'" <discuss at interactiondesigners.com>
>
>
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]
>
> >So it's 2004, and the vast majority of mobile devices out there are god
> >awful in terms of their user experience. Why is that?  How close are we to
> >getting the Macintosh or even the TiVo of the mobile space?
>
> I think the iPod is a good mobile device. Sure, it's not a phone, but the
> good folks at apple chose a small feature set, designed it well, and
> innovated with each version. (Though I don't know why they moved the buttons
> to the top for a while - bad move guys.)
>
> The Sony Ericsson S710a is the best phone I've seen so far.
> (http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=602) When closed, it looks and
> behaves like a regular digital camera with zoom, flash, 1.3 megapixel
> resolution, etc. It swivels open to a clear, simple interface. Favorite
> feature: a little key lock switch on the outside, rather than "hold down #
> and 1 for 3 second to unlock phone" or some other insanity. POP and IMAP
> email are built in. It has a memory stick slot for storage and data
> transfer.
>
> For the past 10 years the mobile industry has concentrated on network reach
> and voice quality. The result: I rarely have dropped calls, and never have
> static (using verizon in the bay area). Remember static? Yuck. Of course
> voice calls are far from perfect, but I'd say the quality is now acceptable
> Useful data services are the next logical step.
>
> I'm not sure how to respond to the McDonalds analogy, except to say that
> desktop computers are for rich people and mobile phones are for everyone.
> Lots of countries can't afford a landline network or power grid; cell towers
> are relatively cheap. I'd rather enable billions of people to communicate
> with each other than enable my friends in SiliValley to watch streaming
> sports clips on their HD TV's. But that's just me.
>
> (Note: This is not to say that streaming video on HDTV isn't cool. It's
> super cool, and I want it.)
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Jonathan Grubb
> Yahoo! Mobile GUI
> Office: 408-349-6122
> Mobile: 415-722-9449
> - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> [mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners
> com] On Behalf Of Listera
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 7:35 PM
> To: 'id-discuss'
> Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Cell phone interaction design rant
>
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]
>
> Jonathan Grubb:
>
> > By many estimates the mobile phone is already the primary internet access
> > point; if it hasn't already surpassed the PC it will in the next few
> years.
>
> I just hate to make this analogy, but it's late, the score is 4-0, so I'll
> go ahead anyway: if people are frequenting primarily McDonald's they might
> think that the joys of eating are limited to fast food as well.
>
> As you say, the Internet was a pretty austere place 10 years ago and in
> terms of visual/interactive sophistication we did regress at that point. But
> 10 years later, we have integrated streaming audio/video, animation and
> we're striving for RIAs. For years, the French told us Minitel was useful
> (it was) and usable (debatable) and even better than the early Internet. 10
> years later, I think, France has the fastest Internet growth rate in western
> Europe. In the late 90s, you couldn't read a page of tech or business
> oriented pub without going through the litany of stats of phone devices soon
> taking over the PC and our lives and the universe.
>
> So it's 2004, and the vast majority of mobile devices out there are god
> awful in terms of their user experience. Why is that?  How close are we to
> getting the Macintosh or even the TiVo of the mobile space?
>
> Ziya
> Nullius in Verba
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at ixdg.org
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.ixdg.org/
> --
> Questions: lists at ixdg.org
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
> http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
> --
> http://ixdg.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at ixdg.org
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.ixdg.org/
> --
> Questions: lists at ixdg.org
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
> http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
> --
> http://ixdg.org/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at ixdg.org
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.ixdg.org/
> --
> Questions: lists at ixdg.org
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
> http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
> --
> http://ixdg.org/
-------Original Message-------

20 Oct 2004 - 10:32pm
mtumi
2004

It will last as long as hardware is the essential differentiator.
camera software is no good on a phone without a camera. Once phones
reach a plateau on the hardware side where there is nothing
cost-effective to be added, software will stop being bundled and start
to be the significant market driver in the mobile market. ostensibly
phones have a long way to go on the hardware side (they could be
chasing desktops forever), but given the screen size and expected
functionality (you won't ever expect to be doing maya character
animation on a cellphone), I think it will be soon enough before
software starts figuring as the driving force for (specific) cellphone
adoption. the main barriers at the moment are phone drive space, and
bandwidth to actually download applications. the war for dominant cell
phone os should be starting just about now...

MT

> Implicit in this, though, there's an interesting business model issue.
> Nowadays, a lot of basic stuff on mobiles come bundled. How long is
> that
> going to last? Yes, the number of users is often very large and user
> tracking/billing much more controlled, but how do you see the revenue
> model
> evolving? Where does Yahoo currently make money? Will it change? If
> these
> devices come to have a small number of basic app front-ends connected
> to
> various data sources as services, is that a viable revenue option? Are
> we
> going to have many small, dedicated apps or general purpose browsers
> that
> deal with multitude of data sources?
>
> Ziya
> Nullius in Verba

21 Oct 2004 - 1:59am
mojofat
2004

Actually, I've already seen Maya rendering on a cell phone and I can
tell you that by Q4 2005 you will start seeing PS1 games being ported
to cell phones. That is a fact.

I, personally, do not believe in browsers on phones. I think mobile
data is going to be shaped by dedicated, easy-to-use,
applications...not the swiss army knife approach of a browser. Despite
what some may proclaim, WAP is dying. But I suppose the WAP champions
among us may have a different take on that, although I fail to see why.
It's like thinking LYNX is going to make a grand comeback. =)

If you've ever seen an open socket MIDP 2.0 application that is
updating asynchronously, then I bet you would tend to agree.

On Oct 20, 2004, at 8:32 PM, Michael Tuminello wrote:

> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
> It will last as long as hardware is the essential differentiator.
> camera software is no good on a phone without a camera. Once phones
> reach a plateau on the hardware side where there is nothing
> cost-effective to be added, software will stop being bundled and start
> to be the significant market driver in the mobile market. ostensibly
> phones have a long way to go on the hardware side (they could be
> chasing desktops forever), but given the screen size and expected
> functionality (you won't ever expect to be doing maya character
> animation on a cellphone), I think it will be soon enough before
> software starts figuring as the driving force for (specific) cellphone
> adoption. the main barriers at the moment are phone drive space, and
> bandwidth to actually download applications. the war for dominant
> cell phone os should be starting just about now...
>
> MT
>
>
>> Implicit in this, though, there's an interesting business model issue.
>> Nowadays, a lot of basic stuff on mobiles come bundled. How long is
>> that
>> going to last? Yes, the number of users is often very large and user
>> tracking/billing much more controlled, but how do you see the revenue
>> model
>> evolving? Where does Yahoo currently make money? Will it change? If
>> these
>> devices come to have a small number of basic app front-ends connected
>> to
>> various data sources as services, is that a viable revenue option?
>> Are we
>> going to have many small, dedicated apps or general purpose browsers
>> that
>> deal with multitude of data sources?
>>
>> Ziya
>> Nullius in Verba
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at ixdg.org
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> http://discuss.ixdg.org/
> --
> Questions: lists at ixdg.org
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> already)
> http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
> --
> http://ixdg.org/
>

21 Oct 2004 - 10:32am
Martyn Jones BSc
2004

I can't really see mobile devices closing the gap on desktop PCs in terms of
performance - this assumes that applications for desktop PCs won't become
more demanding (e.g. possibility of 360 degree displays).

As has already been stated - they are two different devices for two
different applications. You wouldn't pick-up a Mondo Treo to replace your
PC - it compliments it. On this note - I'd prefer to see more phone enabled
PDAs and Pocket PC which have some interface elements in common with your
table-top power house - rather than a smartphone that can't integrate.

Re: pricing of s/w on mobile devices - if we lived in an all powerful .NET
world - where you never actually own s/w, but are 'taxed' for your usage -
would the Application Service Provider just check what device the service
was being delivered to and charge accordingly?

Martyn

----------------------
Martyn Jones BSc
Interaction Designer
Kode Digital Ltd.
----------------------

21 Oct 2004 - 11:48am
Jonathan Grubb
2004

>Despite what some may proclaim, WAP is dying. But I suppose the WAP
>champions among us may have a different take on that, although I fail to
>see why.

Seriously, do you have anything to back up the assertion that wap is dying?

Last year I agreed with you, and I urged my company to focus on downloadable
apps. We got a few in the market, and it became immediately clear to me that
wap is the best technology for the present and near future.

I love brew and J2ME midp2, and I think the experience is far superior to
wap, but there is one enourmous problem: users have to download the app
before they can use the service. The diversity of needs is such that
downloading an app for every single use case is impractical. A better
strategy is to offer downloadable apps for heavy users and browser based
apps for occasional users. In almost every case there will be more
occasional users than heavy users.

I think there is a defensible argument that wap *should* die, but the
argument that wap *is dying* simply ignores the facts.

[of course these are my opinions, not those of my company]
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jonathan Grubb
Yahoo! Mobile GUI
Office: 408-349-6122
Mobile: 415-722-9449
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Allen Smith
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 12:00 AM
To: Michael Tuminello
Cc: 'id-discuss'
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Cell phone interaction design rant

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

Actually, I've already seen Maya rendering on a cell phone and I can
tell you that by Q4 2005 you will start seeing PS1 games being ported
to cell phones. That is a fact.

I, personally, do not believe in browsers on phones. I think mobile
data is going to be shaped by dedicated, easy-to-use,
applications...not the swiss army knife approach of a browser. Despite
what some may proclaim, WAP is dying. But I suppose the WAP champions
among us may have a different take on that, although I fail to see why.
It's like thinking LYNX is going to make a grand comeback. =)

If you've ever seen an open socket MIDP 2.0 application that is
updating asynchronously, then I bet you would tend to agree.

On Oct 20, 2004, at 8:32 PM, Michael Tuminello wrote:

> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
> It will last as long as hardware is the essential differentiator.
> camera software is no good on a phone without a camera. Once phones
> reach a plateau on the hardware side where there is nothing
> cost-effective to be added, software will stop being bundled and start
> to be the significant market driver in the mobile market. ostensibly
> phones have a long way to go on the hardware side (they could be
> chasing desktops forever), but given the screen size and expected
> functionality (you won't ever expect to be doing maya character
> animation on a cellphone), I think it will be soon enough before
> software starts figuring as the driving force for (specific) cellphone
> adoption. the main barriers at the moment are phone drive space, and
> bandwidth to actually download applications. the war for dominant
> cell phone os should be starting just about now...
>
> MT
>
>
>> Implicit in this, though, there's an interesting business model issue.
>> Nowadays, a lot of basic stuff on mobiles come bundled. How long is
>> that
>> going to last? Yes, the number of users is often very large and user
>> tracking/billing much more controlled, but how do you see the revenue
>> model
>> evolving? Where does Yahoo currently make money? Will it change? If
>> these
>> devices come to have a small number of basic app front-ends connected
>> to
>> various data sources as services, is that a viable revenue option?
>> Are we
>> going to have many small, dedicated apps or general purpose browsers
>> that
>> deal with multitude of data sources?
>>
>> Ziya
>> Nullius in Verba
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at ixdg.org
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> http://discuss.ixdg.org/
> --
> Questions: lists at ixdg.org
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> already)
> http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
> --
> http://ixdg.org/
>

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at ixdg.org
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.ixdg.org/
--
Questions: lists at ixdg.org
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
--
http://ixdg.org/

21 Oct 2004 - 12:13pm
lopez_r6 at tsm.es
2004

I think that's is not question of be alive or dead: you can be
sound, seriosly ill, sick, almost dead, cold, fever, terrific, hungry
almost born....

WAP is difficult to use. Certain people find it useful for certain things.
But not for everything. It cannot compete with a computer.
A PDA could for certain things. People don´t understant the menus.
Is very slow. And is very difficult to clasify such amount of information
in such little caracters.

Apart from usability, one of its problems is that people don't
have a ser time to use it. People have got timetables and time
to read newspaper, to watch to TV, to answer calls ...But nobody has in his
agenda a second to look for news at his phone.

Apparently, in Japan people use it a lot (if anybody is interested
I can send data). But there are less computer users in Japan
than in the USA or even Europe.

In Japan, people use WAP (i-mode) a lot to send mails. But
people with computers don´t need that.

------------------------------------------------------------
Rafa López Callejón
Dirección de Comunicación
www.empresa.movistar.com
e mail: lopez_r6 at tsm.es
Tel :+34 680 01 86 79
------------------------------------------------------------

"Jonathan Grubb" <jgrubb at yahoo-inc.com>
(Embedded image moved to file: pic19117.jpg) "'Allen Smith'"
Enviado por: <al at mojofat.com>
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.intera (Embedded image moved to file: pic13134.jpg) 'id-discuss'
ctiondesigners.com <discuss at interactiondesigners.com>
Asunto: RE: [ID Discuss] Cell phone interaction design
rant

21/10/2004 18:48
Por favor, responda a jgrubb

Telefónica Móviles España, S.A.

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

>Despite what some may proclaim, WAP is dying. But I suppose the WAP
>champions among us may have a different take on that, although I fail to
>see why.

Seriously, do you have anything to back up the assertion that wap is dying?

Last year I agreed with you, and I urged my company to focus on
downloadable
apps. We got a few in the market, and it became immediately clear to me
that
wap is the best technology for the present and near future.

I love brew and J2ME midp2, and I think the experience is far superior to
wap, but there is one enourmous problem: users have to download the app
before they can use the service. The diversity of needs is such that
downloading an app for every single use case is impractical. A better
strategy is to offer downloadable apps for heavy users and browser based
apps for occasional users. In almost every case there will be more
occasional users than heavy users.

I think there is a defensible argument that wap *should* die, but the
argument that wap *is dying* simply ignores the facts.

[of course these are my opinions, not those of my company]
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jonathan Grubb
Yahoo! Mobile GUI
Office: 408-349-6122
Mobile: 415-722-9449
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.

com] On Behalf Of Allen Smith
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 12:00 AM
To: Michael Tuminello
Cc: 'id-discuss'
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Cell phone interaction design rant

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

Actually, I've already seen Maya rendering on a cell phone and I can
tell you that by Q4 2005 you will start seeing PS1 games being ported
to cell phones. That is a fact.

I, personally, do not believe in browsers on phones. I think mobile
data is going to be shaped by dedicated, easy-to-use,
applications...not the swiss army knife approach of a browser. Despite
what some may proclaim, WAP is dying. But I suppose the WAP champions
among us may have a different take on that, although I fail to see why.
It's like thinking LYNX is going to make a grand comeback. =)

If you've ever seen an open socket MIDP 2.0 application that is
updating asynchronously, then I bet you would tend to agree.

On Oct 20, 2004, at 8:32 PM, Michael Tuminello wrote:

> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
> It will last as long as hardware is the essential differentiator.
> camera software is no good on a phone without a camera. Once phones
> reach a plateau on the hardware side where there is nothing
> cost-effective to be added, software will stop being bundled and start
> to be the significant market driver in the mobile market. ostensibly
> phones have a long way to go on the hardware side (they could be
> chasing desktops forever), but given the screen size and expected
> functionality (you won't ever expect to be doing maya character
> animation on a cellphone), I think it will be soon enough before
> software starts figuring as the driving force for (specific) cellphone
> adoption. the main barriers at the moment are phone drive space, and
> bandwidth to actually download applications. the war for dominant
> cell phone os should be starting just about now...
>
> MT
>
>
>> Implicit in this, though, there's an interesting business model issue.
>> Nowadays, a lot of basic stuff on mobiles come bundled. How long is
>> that
>> going to last? Yes, the number of users is often very large and user
>> tracking/billing much more controlled, but how do you see the revenue
>> model
>> evolving? Where does Yahoo currently make money? Will it change? If
>> these
>> devices come to have a small number of basic app front-ends connected
>> to
>> various data sources as services, is that a viable revenue option?
>> Are we
>> going to have many small, dedicated apps or general purpose browsers
>> that
>> deal with multitude of data sources?
>>
>> Ziya
>> Nullius in Verba
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at ixdg.org
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> http://discuss.ixdg.org/
> --
> Questions: lists at ixdg.org
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> already)
> http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
> --
> http://ixdg.org/
>

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at ixdg.org
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
http://discuss.ixdg.org/
--
Questions: lists at ixdg.org
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
already)
http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
--
http://ixdg.org/

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at ixdg.org
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
http://discuss.ixdg.org/
--
Questions: lists at ixdg.org
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
already)
http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
--
http://ixdg.org/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pic19117.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 0 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20041021/54c56611/pic19117.jpg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pic13134.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 0 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20041021/54c56611/pic13134.jpg

22 Oct 2004 - 3:51am
Tom Hume
2004

On 21 Oct 2004, at 18:13, lopez_r6 at tsm.es wrote:

> WAP is difficult to use. Certain people find it useful for certain
> things.
> But not for everything. It cannot compete with a computer.
> A PDA could for certain things. People don´t understant the menus.
> Is very slow. And is very difficult to clasify such amount of
> information
> in such little caracters.

I'd completely agree that there are times when a mobile phone won't
provide the appropriate interface. Calling WAP difficult to use sounds
nonsensical to me: some WAP services are usable, some aren't. Whether
it gets used also depends on the value of these services - as SMS has
shown, even a technology which isn't optimal from a usability POV will
get significant usage if it delivers value.

> Apart from usability, one of its problems is that people don't
> have a ser time to use it. People have got timetables and time
> to read newspaper, to watch to TV, to answer calls ...But nobody has
> in his
> agenda a second to look for news at his phone.

There are lots of spare moments when you have your phone with you. Most
of the mobile gaming industry is predicated on this.

> Apparently, in Japan people use it a lot (if anybody is interested
> I can send data). But there are less computer users in Japan
> than in the USA or even Europe.
> In Japan, people use WAP (i-mode) a lot to send mails. But
> people with computers don´t need that.

...except when they're away from their computers.

Tom
(who finds the phone/PDA/computer distinction increasingly arbitrary
and meaningless)

--
Future Platforms Ltd
e: Tom.Hume at futureplatforms.com
t: +44 (0) 870 0055924
m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
company: www.futureplatforms.com
personal: tomhume.org

Syndicate content Get the feed