Top Bananas | Category Archives: User Interface

Microsoft HoloLens

Posted on May 11, 2015 by admin Posted in Marketing, Software, User Interface Leave a comment

What it is: The Microsoft HoloLens lets you interact with holographic images seen through the HoloLens.

Microsoft recently revealed an interesting project dubbed the Microsoft HoloLens. To demonstrate its potential features, Microsoft even created a short video that shows how the HoloLens could be used in work and home.

Like many Microsoft projects, the HoloLens is more of a working concept than an actual shipping product, but here’s where the future of the HoloLens can succeed or fail.

This is how the HoloLens can fail. Microsoft can try to cram every possible feature into the HoloLens with no thought or consideration for how those technical specifications might translate into enhancing the user experience. The end result will be a technical marvel with no clear purpose or task to solve. However, it will have a laundry list of technical specifications it can parade in front of others to demonstrate its effectiveness and superiority.

Think of how Microsoft marketed their Kinect motion sensor. After walloping the PlayStation and Nintendo Wii in the game console market with the Kinect, Microsoft offered a software development kit (SDK) to allow Windows developers to tap into a Kinect connected to a Windows PC to create custom applications. Years later, has anyone seen anyone use the Kinect for everyday computing use with a Windows PC?

While hospitals have used the Kinect to allow surgeons to view X-rays and other patient data by swiping in the air with their hands (which keeps their hands germ-free by not touching the surface of anything), there’s been precious little from Microsoft itself that demonstrates the Kinect’s potential businesses uses with a standard Windows PC. For all intents and purposes, the Kinect on Windows seems like a dead project due to Microsoft’s indifference.

That’s how the HoloLens can fail, through Microsoft’s indifference and neglect. Now here’s how the HoloLens can succeed.

If you watch Microsoft’s HoloLens demonstration video, you can see people using the HoloLens to solve problems together such as fixing a plumbing problem or analyzing rocks on a Martian surface. While all this looks cool, the way to make the HoloLens succeed is to find one difficult problem that can’t be solved easily with today’s technology, and make the HoloLens solve that one problem extremely well.

With any new and specialized technology, the goal isn’t to solve everything at once and be superior to all existing products right away. The key is to solve a difficult problem now and solve other problems with future generations.

The original iPhone was more than just a mobile phone but a pocket computer that could access the Internet. You couldn’t even add new apps to the original iPhone, yet the iPhone proved versatile enough to still attract enough interest so Apple could gradually keep improving it.

Despite these problems, the original iPhone was a major leap forward from traditional mobile phones that were limited by physical keyboards. With its virtual keyboard that could adapt to different uses, the iPhone’s touch screen user interface paved the way for the future.

That’s how the Microsoft HoloLens can succeed. Focus on a single problem, do it better than everything else, and then let the product gradually grow to solve other problems as well.

Look at how the Apple Watch is evolving. It’s initial version is limited but you can already see the potential of real-time health monitoring that current technology can’t offer as easily. The big question for the Microsoft HoloLens is to figure out what problem it can solve right now better than existing technology. Then zero in on that problem and worry about improving the HoloLens to match the demonstration video later.

Chances are extremely good the first version of the HoloLens won’t work exactly like the demonstration video, and that’s okay. If Microsoft tries to match their lofty goals, they’ll fail. If Microsoft simply focuses on providing a single solution to a difficult problem today, they’ll eventually succeed.

The question is whether Microsoft is willing to wait and let the HoloLens grow or if they’ll just dump technical features at people and hope for the best. As the past has revealed, hope is rarely a strategic long-term solution to solving anything.

About the Microsoft HoloLens.

It’s Never About Technical Specifications

Posted on May 6, 2015 by admin Posted in Software, User Interface Leave a comment

What it is: Technical specifications tell you the hardware capabilities of a product and from that cryptic list of features, you’re supposed to infer the advantages that those technical specifications offer you.

When people compare a Windows PC to a Macintosh, they often rely on technical specifications to “prove” that the Windows PC is superior because it has a lower price, faster processor, and more RAM. While all those technical specifications may be nice, the real purpose of any laundry list of technical specifications is how those features translate into benefits for the user.

Comparing raw processing power is meaningless because most processors are fast enough for everyday usage. Unless you’re doing computing intensive calculations, the difference between a 2.5GHz processor and a 3.2GHz processor will be meaningless. That’s like asking whether a car engine with eight cylinders is superior to a car engine with four cylinders when driving through rush hour traffic at ten miles per hour.

At a certain point, technical features are more than enough for most people and for those who actually need those technical specifications, they’ll need the best they can afford, which means they’ll have to pay more for the overall price as well. Having superior technical features means nothing if they don’t translate into actual benefits for the user.

Besides processor speeds that have far exceeded the demands of most people, there’s also the question of RAM. Generally more RAM is better, but once again, will 16Gb of RAM give you that much better performance than 8Gb of RAM? For the average person, the answer will be a minimal improvement that probably won’t be noticeable. For people who need to run multiple programs such as virtual operating systems, then you’ll need more RAM than the ordinary person. Yet once again anyone who needs more RAM will have to pay for it, and that means knowing what you need a computer to do.

Casual computer users just need a computer that works regardless of its technical features. Knowing how to decipher the laundry list of technical specifications requires technical knowledge that most people don’t possess.

For those who do understand technical specifications, they need to clarify what those features will do for them. 16Gb of RAM is clearly more than 8Gb of RAM, but what does that mean in terms of performance? You can run more programs with 16Gb of RAM, but can the average person get by with 8Gb of RAM and will 16Gb of RAM offer a noticeable difference?

Technical specifications only mean something if you understand how they translate into visible features for the user. Technology has advanced so far that many technical specifications exceed what the average person needs.

Comparing computers based on technical specifications is like comparing people based on bone density and muscle mass, and concluding that the person with the best bone density and muscle mass is the person you’ll marry. Obviously that makes no sense without taking into consideration how you actually get along with another person, and that’s the same criteria you need to use to consider a computer.

Most computers work roughly the same whether you’re using Linux, Windows, or OS X. The difference isn’t in the features any more but in the user experience. As much as Linux has improved recently from the days when installing it was a major headache in itself, Linux is still best for tech-savvy users unless you simply plan to turn a computer on and use what’s already installed.

Windows is a bit less intimidating than Linux when it comes to ease of use mostly because so many people are already familiar with Windows. That doesn’t make Windows superior to Linux any more than claiming inches and quarters are superior to the metric system just because most Americans aren’t familiar with the metric system. For greater hardware and software support, Windows is superior to Linux regardless of any technical features.

OS X is largely considered easier than Windows while still offering the technical underpinnings of UNIX. For ease of use, OS X is generally considered better, but if you’re already familiar with Windows, then learning anything new will be different and difficult as a result. That’s what makes Windows 8 so puzzling because it takes the familiar Windows name and drastically alters the user interface so Windows 7 users will actually find Linux and OS X more familiar than Windows 8.

The bottom line is that technical specifications only mean something if they translate into actual benefits for you. Forget about whether 16Gb of RAM with a 3.2GHz processor works for an astrophysicist. Focus only on what you need and what works for you. If you have to wade through a laundry list of technical specifications just to understand what a computer offers, chances are good that computer is not for you. You want to make your choice easier and definitive. Trying to decipher technical specifications that you may not fully understand will never give you an easier and definitive answer on what’s best.

Ultimately, technical specifications are a clue but only for those who understand its cryptic messages. For everyone else, technical specifications are simply one more way to confuse you. Instead of considering technical specifications to compare computers, use your emotions to judge a computer first and then use technical specifications second. That way you’ll at least use technical specifications as a secondary way to judge a computer, not as the sole and primary way to do so.

The Myth of Universal Apps

Posted on May 3, 2015 by admin Posted in Programming, Software, User Interface Leave a comment

What it is: Universal Apps is Microsoft’s promise to allow software to run on multiple Windows devices from smartphones and tablets to desktop and laptop PCs.

In the old days, alchemists searched for how to turn lead into gold and an elixir that would let you live forever. Needless to say, their goals may have been admirable, but turning their wild dreams into practical use proved far more difficult.

That’s the same problem facing the idea of universal apps. In Microsoft’s latest incarnation, not only do they want developers to be able to write one program that can run equally well on any size Windows device, but they also want to allow Android and iOS developers to port their Java/C++/Objective-C code to run on Windows as well. The dream is to make Windows the most attractive and versatile software platform in the world.

Of course, achieving that dream remains a sticky technical challenge. Assume a developer creates a Windows program specifically for desktop/laptop PCs. With just minor tweaking of the user interface, developers can also get their programs running as smartphone and tablet apps. The idea is that by writing a program once, you can run it on multiple devices running Windows 10.

Now here’s the technical reality. Ignoring the user interfaces differences between desktop programs and smartphone apps, if you create a program designed for desktop/laptop use, you’ll likely put more features in that program than if you originally designed it as a smartphone app. Likewise if you originally create a smartphone app, slapping a desktop/laptop PC user interface on that same program will still leave it with the limited functionality of a smartphone app.

In other words, your program will always be optimized for one type of device (smartphone/tablet or desktop/laptop) and not optimized for other types of devices. That’s just the nature of software.

Porting a mobile app to a desktop will leave it with limited functionality compared to similar programs specifically designed for a desktop/laptop. Porting a desktop program to a mobile device means an overwhelming number of features that make it harder to use than similar smartphone/tablet apps.

While universal apps sounds appealing, it ignores the harsh reality that software works best when optimized for the device that it’s running on. Run a supercomputer program on a smartphone and it will likely prove frustrating despite any user interfaces changes. Likewise, running a smartphone app on a supercomputer will feel weak and limited in comparison to other supercomputer programs. This occurs regardless of how Microsoft solves the technical problems of making software run seamlessly on different devices that have different processors and other hardware differences.

Focusing on the ability to port Android and iOS apps to Windows sounds good in theory, but it also removes any incentive for developers to write native Windows 10 apps for smartphones and tablets. Why bother when you can just write an Android or iOS app, sell it on those respective markets, and then port your code to run on Windows as well? The ability to run Android/iOS code on Windows insures that developers will simply target Android and iOS first and Windows 10 last.

So the idea of universal apps runs into two huge obstacles. One is the problem that software that runs on different devices won’t be optimized for other devices. Two is the problem that developers have no incentive to create native Windows mobile apps when they can just focus on Android and iOS instead.

Universal apps sounds good like searching for the Fountain of Youth or the elixir of immortality. In reality, universal apps needs to overcome both technical obstacles and psychological obstacles that remove the incentive for anyone to develop native Windows mobile apps, not to mention tweaking their programs to run on devices they weren’t designed to run on.

Universal apps is a great idea like peace in the Middle East or the elimination of corruption in world governments. The reality is that universal apps are a dream that can’t help but fall short of its lofty goals. To pin your hopes on the success of universal apps is like pinning your hopes that you’ll suddenly win the lottery jackpot three times in a row. As much as you may want it, it’s not going to happen, and universal apps are no different.

About Windows universal apps.

The Impact of the Apple Watch

Posted on April 25, 2015 by admin Posted in Marketing, User Interface Leave a comment

What it is: The Apple Watch isn’t the first wearable computing device, but it is the first wearable computer from Apple. Unlike other wearable devices, the Apple Watch is designed for both style and technological features unique to its form factor.

If you were around in 2007, you might remember so many critics dismissing the iPhone. At the time, Palm CEO, Ed Colligan, said, “We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.”

Steve Ballmer, then CEO of Microsoft, even outright laughed at the idea of the iPhone. Later the iPhone would go on to make more money than every product at Microsoft combined.

In 2010, critics once again had a field day dismissing the iPad as nothing more than a larger iPod touch. Then the iPad went on to redefine the tablet market.

Now the Apple Watch has arrived and once more, critics can’t see a use for wearable computers. The problem isn’t that wearable computers aren’t useful; it’s that critics can’t expand their imagination beyond the limited boundaries they’ve created for themselves.

Before the iPhone, critics couldn’t figure out why you would want a computer in your pocket. Before the iPad, critics couldn’t figure out why you would want to carry a computer that essentially consisted of a screen. Now with the Apple Watch, critics can’t figure out why they would need a wearable computer.

In case you don’t have an Apple Watch, you can learn its capabilities by reading Apple’s official Apple Watch user guide. When thinking of the Apple Watch, think of interactions that you might need to last mere seconds and those are perfect applications for the Apple Watch.

For example, the Apple Watch can pair up with your iPhone and allow you to remotely take pictures from your iPhone while controlling it with your Apple Watch. Another interesting feature is the ability to display the current time and a timer on the Apple Watch screen at the same time. Now you can time an event and keep your eye on the current time, which is just another minor convenience.

If you have an Apple TV, you can use the Apple Watch to control your TV like a remote control. The real value of the Apple Watch isn’t its own features, but its ability to work with other Apple devices like the iPhone and Apple TV to make those other devices easier to use.

One particular feature of the Apple Watch is its use of the Digital Crown to control the magnification of the screen, and Force Touch that recognizes pressure on the screen. These two unique user interface features make the Apple Watch easier to use. In comparison, rival smartwatches from Samsung or Microsoft rely on a touch screen and essentially duplicate the features of a smartphone in a smartwatch with few unique advantages of its own. Is it any wonder why rival smartwatches didn’t sell that well, despite having a huge head start over the Apple Watch?

The Apple Watch is not only going to help drive acceptance of Apple Pay but also the iPhone and Apple TV as well. Already developers are rushing to create Apple Watch apps while mostly ignoring rival wearable devices like the Microsoft Band or Samsung’s Galaxy Gear smartwatches. Where the developers go, the customers will eventually go, which makes the Apple Watch already more popular than all rival smartwatches combined.

The Apple Watch will define the wearable computer market like the iPad defined the tablet market and the iPhone defined the smartphone market. Other companies have to see what Apple does before they can come out with their own versions. Yet all rivals lack the integration of devices that the Apple Watch promises with smartphones, tablets, computers, and TV sets.

The Apple Watch is just one more way people are going to keep a computer with them at all times. Just as people can’t imagine a day without their cell phone any more, now people will start to wonder how anyone got along without a wearable computer in the future. When that day comes, it will be because the Apple Watch led the way.

About the Apple Watch.

Creating a New User Interface

Posted on April 4, 2015 by admin Posted in User Interface Leave a comment

What it is: Force Touch is Apple’s latest technology that provides physical feedback and detects gestures involving different types of pressure.

In a review of the Macintosh in The San Francisco Examiner (19 February 1984), John Dvorak wrote the following about the Macintosh, it’s graphical user interface, and the mouse used to control it:

“The nature of the personal computer is simply not fully understood by companies like Apple (or anyone else for that matter). Apple makes the arrogant assumption of thinking that it knows what you want and need. It, unfortunately, leaves the “why” out of the equation — as in “why would I want this?” The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a “mouse”. There is no evidence that people want to use these things. I don’t want one of these new fangled devices.”

Obviously most computers now use a pointing device called a mouse or a trackpad. What the Macintosh did with its graphical user interface and mouse was give us a new way to interact with a computer.

In the past, you had to type cryptic commands. Misspell a command or put in a space or comma in the wrong place and your command would fail. Then you would have to retype the whole thing all over again, which was time-consuming, frustrating, and tedious. Yet tech-savvy users cheered this way of interacting with the computer as if it were the only way to use a computer.

Fast forward to today and you can see these same tech-savvy users claiming no one needs new user interfaces. Yet that’s exactly what Apple has introduced with Force Touch, their new technology that can detect different pressures and interpret those as different commands. Apple originally created Force Touch for the tiny screen of the Apple Watch, but that technology has already migrated to the trackpad of MacBook laptops. That means you can expect Force Touch to migrate to all Macintosh computers and iPhone models in the future.

Today’s Magic Trackpad that many people use to control a Macintosh will eventually get Force Touch technology. This year’s iPhone 6S will get Force Touch technology. Force Touch is the new way to interact with computers through physical feedback.

The Macintosh and the mouse gave us visual feedback. Force Touch will give us physical feedback with the Apple Watch being the best example by tapping your wrist when you get an e-mail message or phone call.

Force Touch is going to revolutionize user interfaces as much as the mouse and graphical user interfaces did for personal computers. Watch rivals play catch up to haptic technology that drives Force Touch.

In the future, look at gesture-based interaction, which Microsoft pioneered through their Kinect device, but which they failed to exploit. Apple bought the company that developed Kinect originally (PrimeSense) so you can expect Apple to introduce gesture-based interfaces soon.

Imagine waving your Apple Watch around in a certain pattern to give it commands. Combining the Apple Watch with Force Touch (haptic feedback), Siri (voice-activated control), and gesture-based movements (based on the Kinect), there’s going to be far more ways to interact with computers than just typing commands or moving a mouse.

The future is clear in this regard, except for people who fail to recognize that present technology will never remain superior for the rest of eternity.

About Force Touch.

The Many Uses of Siri

Posted on March 22, 2015 by admin Posted in User Interface Leave a comment

What it is: Siri is a voice-activated, voice recognition system able to translate spoken words into text and computer commands.

When Apple introduced Siri with the iPhone 4S, the idea of a natural language assistant seemed like science fiction. Although early car navigation systems had offered voice recognition commands, you often had to speak in stilted sentences. Siri lets you speak naturally and still control your phone.

Although critics dismissed Siri as a gimmick, companies like Microsoft and Google quickly introduced their own voice activated assistants. Yet the real genius of voice recognition assistants has multiple benefits.

First, Siri allows hands-free operation. This is especially important for CarPlay, Apple’s in-dash automotive entertainment system. When you’re driving, you can’t be distracted fumbling with buttons or glancing down to look at a touch screen interface. Anything that draws your eyes from the road represents a serious distraction.

Yet with Siri, it’s possible to control CarPlay entirely through voice commands. Now you can drive and play music, answer phone calls, and send e-mail just by talking out loud while keeping your hands on the steering wheel and your eyes on the road.

Siri is also crucial for the Apple Watch as well. With its much smaller screen, the Apple Watch doesn’t have room for people to fumble around a touch screen interface with fingers that practically cover the whole surface of the Apple Watch screen. That’s where Siri comes in again.

One way to interact with the Apple Watch is through voice commands, courtesy of Siri. Instead of looking for an Apple Watch user interface, you can control your Apple Watch through voice commands. While it may look silly to speak out loud to nobody in particular, the Apple Watch becomes more useful through Siri.

Siri on the Macintosh can be useful for people with physical disabilities. Now they can control their Macintosh solely through voice commands. Best of all, Siri is a built-in feature, not an expensive add-on, which means every modern Macintosh can offer voice recognition control.

By itself, Siri is just an interesting project, but when placed on the Macintosh, on mobile devices, and in cars, Siri suddenly becomes a vastly more useful way to interact with different devices.

One especially handy feature of every Apple device is the ability to accept foreign languages. Through software settings alone, both OS X and iOS can switch to another language seamlessly.

Now combine Siri with OS X and iOS, and you have a voice recognition assistant that can understand multiple languages. For people who speak other languages, Siri lets them speak in their native tongue. For people learning another language, Siri gives you a way to practice your pronunciation in a safe environment.

Typically the way most people learn to speak a foreign language is through interaction with others who speak that same language. That means lots of embarrassment trying to say a word but mispronouncing it and getting strange looks from people around you.

With Siri, those days are gone forever. Practice dictation with Siri in a foreign language and see if Siri recognizes what you’re trying to say. If so, then you’re likely pronouncing the words correctly. If not, you get instant feedback from Siri without the embarrassment you might feel talking to another person.

Through Siri and foreign language support built-in to OS X and iOS, you can learn to speak a foreign language using Siri as your pronunciation feedback guide.

With so many different uses for Siri, it’s hard to believe that voice recognition systems have come such a long way in such a short amount of time at a price within the reach of practically everyone. Siri didn’t invent voice recognition, but Siri did help make it popular in our everyday lives.

That alone is innovation enough. Now with a little bit of creativity, you can make Siri even more useful to control your car, your Apple Watch, your Macintosh, your iPhone, and your iPad. Then use Siri to take dictation and help you practice a foreign language. Siri’s uses span a broad range of possibilities, which makes Siri one of the most influential technologies in the computer market.

About Siri.