Home
About
Apple
Career
Experiences
General
Graphics
Hardware
History
Humor
Interface
Networking
OS
Opinion
Politics
Programming
Quotes
Reviews
Security
Software
Sound
Thought
Web
Cheap International
Airfare Online
Wachovia online banking
Get Free Coupons Online
Finding the perfect
discount hot tub
Payday Loans
Stock Trading Online
Stuffed Animals
Smart Investing Online
|
|
Dashboard, Usability and the state of Apple
Missing the big picture!
By: David K. Every
|
Kind:
Created:
Size: |
Article
July 1,2004
14 KB |
|
|
 |
 o understand Apple, let's look at Dashboard as a metaphor for what's right and wrong about the company, its processes and communications.
I didn't go to WWDC this year (unlike about 9 out of the last 12); Apple seems to get reality distortion, marketing and the next demo; but as a developer I want more steak, and lighten up on the sizzle.
The good news is that Apple is showing technologies that are up to a year away. That is a big improvement over the few months lead-time they've been giving people recently. One of Apple's weaknesses is communications, documentation, and helping their developers and enterprises plan ahead. So giving people 6 to 12 months advanced notice is a really important and positive step.
What I'm less happy about is that Apple doesn't fix problems they have, until the "next big thing" or the next major release. Waiting two years for fundamental flaws to get fixed because they want to bundle features (fixes) with the next big OS release is a tad Microsoft, don't you think? Apple does break or change things in dot-releases though; they seem to save money by not wasting it on testing things very well. I've had major problems going between both major and minor OS releases, with things just suddenly breaking or working different. Does anyone know about change management? Documentation is thin, non-extent or wrong (if the technologies even work at all). Often techdocs spend most of their time telling us about how great it would be if it worked, with little explanation as to how; and then forums fill up with people trying to figure it out and failing. Have you tried setting up LDAP or a remote server on OS X? Try to follow half their developer tutorials on setting something up on their website; some even work (most of the one's I've tried had errors or didn't). Why this matters, is because I'm being forced to learn to be very cautious about trusting Apple's releases; and I spend more time and money hacking Apple's stuff than I do hacking Microsoft's. 8 years ago I would have never bet money that I would be praising Microsoft or cursing Apple for support, reliability or documentation.
             
Apple used to be the king of usability engineering; thinking deep about user behaviors, and making things just work right. This means anticipating needs, making things broadly applicable, and thinking ahead enough that things aren't constantly changing version to version, because they work well for most people the first time. That's not the new Apple way; which is quickly slapping marketing features on, that demo well, but aren't highly usable (for many people).
I could rant about the dozens of specific flaws in Apple's lame Dock, 64 bit support that was marketed from day-1 and will be delivered with Tiger, flaws in Expose, Sherlock, Safari, Mail, iTunes, the rest of the System, and so on. But the point is the trends; Apple thinks much smaller now than they did before Steve Jobs and NeXT took over. They don't think of the way users want to work, they don't do studies of how things are being used, they just think small; "wouldn't it be cool if it did X", and then they add it. It is about marketing and the next demo, instead of the user 6 months from now going, "damn, I really love the way this works and saves me time/money". If you work exactly the way the demo does, you love it. If you don't, you're out of luck. That isn't good human interface design, it is the epitome of hacking (an original variant of the term); just bolting on quick fixes and features without thinking of the broader problems or behaviors. It may be good for demos, or selling something, but it gives users buyers remorse or a big let-down; especially compared to the potential it had.
Which brings me to Dashboard.
  
Dashboard is a decent rip-off of Konfabulator with a few improvements; like it uses webkit, has better visuals, and allows you to show and hide. (Konfabulator added a show/opaque function after Apple did, but no hide/go-away). Technically, it is a bit different, in that the renderer is richer (supports HTML+CSS+JS), so it is richer and better in that area. But those are better implementation details; the scope and functionality is very similar.
This isn't the first time Apple stole others ideas; there was Watson/Sherlock, dozens of things in System 7, and so on. But in the past, Apple generally at least talked to the people they were stealing from, and tried to buy or integrate. There were also communicated reasons. Take AppleScript; Apple created AppleEvents and stated all along that they were going to make a scripting solution for it. Someone else (Dave Winer) beat Apple to the punch and released his scripting first. Apple talked with him about buying and licensing, but they couldn't come to an agreement, and Apple did their own thing anyways. Still, you knew it was coming, and Apple didn't deny similarities in products, and they tried to work with their independent software developers; even if there are differences of opinion on how hard.
When people made noise about Watson/Sherlock or Konfabulator, Apple denied any relationship, with Phil Shiller saying that Dashboard was their own creation, and widgets have long been a part of OS X and NeXTSTEP. When Apple (Phil) says that, they look like idiots and bad thieves; anyone that has seen both demos or used Konfabulator gets it. It didn't fly the first few times they've done it, and the more they do it, the more arrogant and less trustworthy they seem. Third party developers have more trust in Microsoft than Apple; and that says a lot!. They never tried to talk to the developer. What's the difference between Microsoft and Apple again? Oh yea, that Microsoft steals less and tries to license more. Who guessed I'd be saying that a few years ago?!?!
I get that lawyers are probably telling them, "don't admit to anything". Lawyers are supposed to do that, protect you legally and protect themselves by giving you the most extremely conservative advice. But there's a limit to how much you should listen to them; sometime you have to do right, in spite of their advice. But enough with the rant about ethics and the lack thereof; let's get to the bigger issues.
I realize Apple's Dashboard code is all theirs (they rewrote everything), and they only ripped off the idea. If they extended or broadened the ideas, they might have an excuse, "we like the concept, but needed the technology to be a little different, so we took the loose idea and extended it". But Apple hasn't done much to extend the ideas; which makes them look like unimaginative crooks, instead of contributing something to the world.
   
If you're smart, when you steal, you don't just rip-off; you think "what problem are users trying to really do, or these other guys trying to solve, and how can I help do it better". That's what human interface engineers do, or good engineers in general do; they stand on the shoulders of giants and extend the value, implementation or human knowledge.
If you're thinking, "that's cool, let's copy it" you're not an engineer, scientist or adding anything of value; you're just a two-bit hack and thief. Doing the same thing with slightly sexier transitions and animation is not a big contribution to anything, other than marketing demos.
What I loved about the old Apple is that they would have looked at the concept broadly, and fixed bigger problems. What frustrates me most about the new Apple is that they don't.
What does Konfabulator do? It allows a simple visual interaction layer, for Desk Accessories and network/internet/web services/functions, that is really easy to program. So it is really a couple things; a new mode or layer for display/feedback of some items, and an easier way to program web Services. We need to look at each aspect, and think bigger, in order to solve these problems with broad appeal.
The first is the Interface Mode. People want the display aspects of a pop-on and removable layer(s), that can put feedback in a transparent way that is sometimes part of the desktop, and sometimes either hidden or completely opaque (it's own layer/mode). So what they want is to have a layer or layers of apps that can be moved in and out. That's the big picture.
Instead of Konfabulators and Dashboards "one layer, always there"; you should make multiple user assignable function keys that bring in our out these layers. Maybe normally translucent, or with a modifier key they come in opaque. I want to be able to assign F8 key to graphics tools, F9 for programming tools, F10 for all my internet status, and so on. I need to be in control, not have Apple decide that one mode is good enough. That's the difference between thinking bigger and empowering me, versus thinking small and making me work how they want me to work.
These layers shouldn't just be in the simplistic but easy to program JavaScript syntax, but it should be an interface mode that works with all types of Apps; you need to be able to dock current Apps and desk accessories, Java Apps, Easy to Program JS (JavaScript) web-service apps like Konfabulator, AppleScript, and Shell Script (with UI) Apps. This broadens the appeal of the whole concept and shows that you get the basics of UI; simple, repeatable and predictable. That's thinking bigger!
The other part of Konfabulator; the simple programming tool for web-services is nice; but not only for just the Dashboard layer. I should be able to make these web-service Apps that work in all modes; the normal application mode, the desktop/background mode, the menu-item mode, and the dock-item feedback/interface modes. Again, think bigger. Why limit web services to just one mode that is isolated from everything else? What Apple has done is ripped off a feature, almost exactly how someone else did it, without making it nearly as useful as they could have.
I write a lot of "tools" in shell, php or AppleScript. I want to be able to put those things in the Dashboard layer in ANY language I write. At best, with Dashboard, I'm going to get to write new interfaces to what I've done, if I want them to behave like Dashboard apps. More likely, I'd have to rewrite the same thing all over again or it won't work. So Apple's lack of architecting is artificially limiting code to individual interface modes. I have one clock that is a menu thingy, another version that is a dock thingy, I have another that is a dashboard thingy, and I have another that is an Application. Four separate apps to write, manage and maintain? That makes no sense; there should be up to four modes for every app; all or many in one; not four apps to do one thing (in different places)!
As a user, there's no current way to move between the interface modes; which is just annoying. Wouldn't it be cool to just be able to drag an app or status tool into either the menubar, the dock, the desktop (an app window), or onto a special layer that is Konfabulator/Dashboard (and could be shown/hidden separately as a mode)? The differences in display are often nominal. (Menubar and dock are status menus, application and dashboard are just display windows; one just supports transparency). Stop thinking narrow!
Imagine having translucent tabs, and can be pulled out like translucent blinds with my status/desk accessories over by background, or hidden? That would offer some visual indicator of how to operate, instead of just being a magic key only? The tab could have the function key listed on it, and you could drag objects onto it to add them. That's thinking bigger or more general.
  
The problem is that Apple isn't thinking like good human interface engineers or good engineers. They didn't think about how to broaden the solution, or all the ways people might want to use aspects of what they were doing. Instead they were thinking like second rate UNIX hacks and marketing wonks that are just slapping stolen features in as fast as they can for the next demo. Without any underlying design, and no thought to general appeal or usability other than sex appeal and sell-ability.
Some will criticize what I'm saying; "you're not happy with what Apple's giving you, and are asking for something else/some other App or solution". But that's exactly my point. I want something to be broadly useful and flexible for me, and the way I work, along with others. Something I can explain and show once, and is usable in many ways that Apple hasn't even thought of. Instead of having to teach people where to do to download Docklets, Applications, Menu-things, and soon Dashboard-things and explain the differences; I want to say, "here's how you get one thing, and move it to where it is most useful to you". I want to be able to manage and decide on my own screen real-estate usage, instead of Apple deciding for me.
Some will say I should have hope, and that Apple can't do it all in the first version; which is true. But if the other features are examples; there's no motivation to fix the problems in what they have. And none of that changes that you can think bigger from the beginning, and invite outside input and broaden your scope; or just hack in narrow little rip-offs of what others have done.
Don't get me wrong; I'll use dashboard even in its very narrow functionality, as it exists. It is certainly better than nothing. But the tragic waste of potential is what makes the difference between a sexy marketing feature, and a really valuable competitive advantage. So Apple has added lots of features that are cool to a few people, in very limited ways, if you happen to use it exactly as Apple wants. They market well, demo well and sell well. But each is also a huge missed opportunity to really make a difference in the world, and making something that not only people will buy, but many will love using!
NOTE: In the name of disclosure, I have a couple thousand shares of Apple's stock, have a few Macs, and have been in the Mac industry since it was called Lisa; all bias should be in favor of Apple and giving them the benefit of the doubt. I used to run an advocacy site that did that, and mentioned all the things I liked about the company and it's products, while still trying to be objective and fair to the shortcoming. But being objective and fair now, means that I can no longer be the advocate I once was, even if I still prefer the new compromises over the competitions. Why? Because they're just doing the exact same thing I dislike the competition for, only slightly better looking. I don't want Apple to be Microsoft with style, I preferred when they were Microsoft with a brain (towards human interface engineering) and were making me more productive, instead of making me adapt to their narrow thinking. I'm hoping they relearn how to think bigger.
 Format for Printing  Mail
|
|
|
|
