All posts tagged as "Devices"

With all the latest announcements for e-readers and book pricing, I’ve been thinking a lot about the nature of reading recently. It seems like each company’s reading experience presumes everybody and every bit of content is the same experience.

Amazon is quite proud of their $9.99 pricing for e-books. They claim that it is cheaper than paper. And it is … for one type of reading. If you read mass market hardbacks or trade paperbacks (the ones that are the same size as the hardbacks) then $9.99 is cheaper than $15.99 or $25.99.

I do that type of reading, but only for professional-related books. These books I might want to learn from, cross-reference, make notes for adoption at the office, and so forth. I will read while traveling, but not relaxing in the tub. I don’t really share these books with my friends, though I share some of the ideas with my colleagues.

In contrast, my personal reading time is spent almost exclusively with cheap paperbacks. They’ve increased in price to $7.99, which I think is too much, but I pay it anyhow. I actively share these with people I live with, and share with friends. These are the books I take into the tub, and are more likely to come to bed with me. I keep them for a long time, but if they get lost on a trip or wet in the tub, it’s okay.

Several of these books currently live on the shelves of the people I lent them to, and while I’d like to have them back it’s completely livable. You can tell which series I really enjoy, because I no longer have the first book in the series. It’s been loaned elsewhere.

Then there are newspapers and magazines. This content is temporary by its nature, and at least for me is more akin to skimming online news and blogs.

These are not the only types of reading out there. One of the key lessons in graduate school was how to read research papers. Reading for learning or book clubs might also look very different. Reading business documents, at least in my product development world, really needs a large screen and a strong social connection. The documents do not live in a vacuum, and their business context must be considered while reviewing the product requirements document. I suspect that legal reading is different again.

Each manufacturer/provider has presumed one type of reading. Kindle is targeting trade paperback/hardback reading, largely for pleasure. The Que is designed for business use. Hearst’s Skiff is targeted more at newspapers. Apple is going after content deals galore, including textbooks and newspapers. None appear to target my pleasure-reading needs.

I’m not really worried about device fragmentation in the e-reader market. We know how to design and develop for that. I’m more worried about the purpose fragmentation. Is one going to win?

Clearly the mobile phone will continue to win here. The Kindle’s ability to continue reading on the phone where you left off on the device is brilliant. But the problems with sharing and moving content to other places still plague them; I only want to purchase material I know to be temporary. This is an industry DRM problem, but Kindle appears to be extra protective. Still a no-go for me.

In the meantime, I’m still reading the occasional book on my phone, and carrying several paperbacks on trips.

For a while there, designers and developers could ignore screen and pixel size, at least for "high end" devices. Let's be honest here, "high end" meant iPhone-like: touch or multi-touch screens, high end Webkit browsers, and 320 x 480 pixels.

That time is now over. To our mind, it really wasn't here in the first place.

Why is the time now over?

1. Android has matured a bit, and manufacturers are putting it on everything. Consider this ARCHOS Internet Tablet (800 x 480 pixels, 4.8 inches), this Vega Picture Frame (1366 x 768 pixels, 15.6 inches), this 7 inch tablet, or the nook's 3.5 inch screen with what looks like a 5:2 aspect ratio
2. Even Palm's WebOS devices will not be consistent, with Pre's pixel dimensions matching the iPhone's, but Pixi's are at 320 x 400 pixels (80 pixels shorter).
3. Normal Android phones, such as the Motorola Droid at 480 x 854 pixels, no longer have a predictable size. Who knows what the next devices screens will be like?
4. The Motorola Droid's pixels, like the ARCHOS pixels, are much smaller than the iPhone's; bitmaps that work well on one may not on the other.

We wrote Photoshop layout is not your friend in March; this new array of high-end devices forces a choice: design for iPhone only, or start designing for multiple screen sizes.

If you're designing Android applications, you have some tools available to you. The Android Developers' Supporting Multiple Screens gives designers and developers a way to deliver the correct layouts and graphics to the correct devices.

For now, however, Android doesn't really support the full array of screens upon which Android is found. Here is what the document's Range of Screens Supported section says about device support:

The Droid is there, as a high-density, normal screen. The iPhone (were it an Android) and early Android phones are medium-density normal screens. The ARCHOS is a medium-density large screen. The nook and the Vega are ... not in the table at all.

Android's support of screen issues is incomplete, but many steps better than previous cross-device platforms like browsers and Java ME. Despite this, many developers have simply ignored the possibility of different screen types. My favorite example is the Fuzzy Clock widget, which is supposed to take up 25% of the screen with a single line of text. Apparently they used a single-sized bitmap font because on the Droid, the "glanceable" clock has the equivalent of about 8 point font. Not at all readable.

And frankly, I don't expect Apple to keep to the current screen dimensions. I don't have any inside information, but they will make a smaller screen or a bigger screen, or a higher-density screen, or probably all three. So even those of you focusing just on the iPhone may want to look at your process in the next few months.

The hardest type of applications to design for multiple screen types are games, as many create mazes, game boards, and levels for a specific aspect ratio. If your application uses scrolling or other pagination techniques, however, you can probably design it to comfortably manage a wide variety of screen sizes. (But all bets are off for supporting the Nook's screen, which will really want to scroll laterally, not vertically). How? Go read the resources linked above in this article. Or hire us.

My father is a geek like me, though has been budget-conscious for my whole life. A few months ago, he started asking me a wide variety of questions of different types of devices he could use to fill his various needs, including bicycling and genealogical research in an area with highly spotty coverage. Numerous email exchanges later, we both decided on getting a Motorola Droid. He sent over this commentary on how it works for bicycling, partially to help another person in his device decision. I find the analysis fascinating. I hope you do, too.

I’ve experimented with using the various GPS Receiver functions of my new Motorola Droid toy. In short the Droid functions about as well as my Garmin eTrex in determining location but the Droid has limited navigation functionality when it is outside 3G coverage. Additionally the battery drain rate is high.

It appears that the Droid uses GPS satellites to determine its location for navigation type functions although it uses cell tower and WiFi data in conjunction with some apps.

Satellite acquisition and initial location determination

When I first turn on my Garmin it takes a couple of minutes to acquire satellites and calculate the current location. The unit “knows” where it was when it was turned off and has a catalog of satellites that it should see but it takes time to acquire those satellites and gather enough information to calculate location.

At home when I turn on Google Maps on the Droid it first shows a location based on cell tower data (I’m away from any known WiFi hotspots). It then quickly (less than 30 sec) zeros in on my house location. The impression is that the Maps App is much quicker in getting to the initial location than the eTrex. Ed. note: This is most likely due to the cell tower assistance.

I turned on the satellite view mode on Google Maps which shows aerial photography of my area. The blue dot showing my calculated location indicated that I was in the guest/sewing room rather than at my computer in the living room.

Tracking a bicycle ride

One of the apps tracks your movements. I assume that this uses GPS data and is not dependent on being connected to the network. I used this on a short ride that I believe includes areas that are out of coverage. I had the Droid in a handlebar bag and the Garmin mounted on the handlebar. On a 20 mile ride both units calculated the same moving time, distance and differed slightly on the altitude and total climb calculations.

I put the calculated tracks into Google Earth so that I could compare them side by side. Both tracks had errors. When compared to the rectified aerial photo I was all over the road and off the road for much of my ride. The Garmin seems to do a little better but that might be because it is set in a mode to attempt to follow the road. The errors were worse when I was in the trees. During one part of the ride the Droid seemed to have a consistent bias to the north of the road.

If I really cared about the accuracy I’d do some more tests with the Garmin set to ignore map information.

Navigating

I turned the navigation mode on for a 70 mile car trip home yesterday. The trip included a significant amount of time out of 3G coverage. I didn’t observe the navigation continuously but checked a couple of times when we were out of coverage. The screen was white, showed no map data, and showed that the app was doing a rerouting.

So as I expected you can only navigate when you are in range of the towers.

When it is navigating the default is to have the screen backlight on continuously. The Droid actually feels warm after awhile.

Also yesterday I unplugged the Droid around 6:30 AM. We did a round trip through low and no signal areas, I made a couple of phone calls, I also connected to a WiFi network and viewed various web sites, for about 2 1/2 hours I had the navigation mode in use. The GPS and WiFi receivers were on for the whole day. When I got home around 6:30 PM the phone was begging for a recharge.

Conclusion

No surprises. With the current apps the Droid will not replace my stand-alone GPSR. If they offer a capability to store map data and calculate routes on the device then maybe it could replace it. Since my intended uses include camping based bicycling trips I have recharging issues that would limit how I would use the Droid. For a trip that doesn’t include back country and has regular access to a USB power source it would probably be OK.

I am going to explore various off the grid recharging options such as solar cells and a new generator that runs off of body motion.

If you haven’t, go check out part 1 of this series, in which I argue about the increasing role of feature phones in mobile web, and possibly apps.

I think a major shift in how we pay for mobile data is coming, within a year or two. And content companies need to figure out how to conserve bits. They aren’t free.

The role of data plans

Let’s take a look at unlimited data plans for a moment. Unlimited data plans are great! They provide enormous freedom! No worrying about how much data you use! Terrific!

And it is terrific. It’s great for people who can afford to spend $70 per month for each phone in their family. That’s not terrific for everybody. And it leaves people like my father, who want smart phones and that freedom but aren’t planning on watching video or tethering, paying for heavy users.

Variable pricing is inevitable

Unlimited data plans not only reduce access to a larger number of people, they also cause congestion problems. There is no cost to using the network, and there is cost to not using the network. It’s annoying on many devices to switch to wi-fi; it’s inconvenient to change your email or web habits.

As the operators increase available bandwidth, demands will go up. Video streaming, data cards, and tethering become more popular. People enter the world of mobile data from no experience to 3G cards, possibly with the intent to replace their home connection.

As the experience degrades (think AT&T access in places like New York and San Francisco), the operators’ brands take a major hit. Vehicle traffic planners have known this for years: roads fill to capacity. The existence of the larger roads change drivers’ behavior, even to purchasing houses further from town.

Some sort of change in pricing model is inevitable. Mark Lowenstein over at FierceWireless provides a few options. You can read a deeper discussion on the problem, and the solution, over at Slate.com.

And yes, Verizon already has a tiered data plan.

Global concern

I’ve just set out the argument for why the U.S. will not have universal unlimited data. That was the tough part of the argument; the economics for unlimited data are better here than in many places. In much of the world, pre-paid plans with pay-per-kilobyte are the norm. And this includes hundreds of millions of users (over 300 million in India alone) who do not have computer access to the Internet.

Increasing role of smart phones

As we discussed last time, feature phones are becoming more capable. Further, they have cheaper data connections than do smart phones, because on average they are used less. (There’s that tiered pricing again).

On top of this, smart phones are being pushed deeper and deeper into the feature phone market. Nokia has done this for years, and customers do not even realize they own a smart phone. Blackberries and Windows Mobile devices are being used as feature phones. Android phones “for the masses” are being deployed.

As smart phones get pushed deeper into the market, they will be selected by prepaid users more and more. Many of these users will still be paying per kilobyte.

Design implications

Right now, the bulk of the mobile web industry is moving to rich web interactions. But at what cost?

In a world of pay-per-kilobyte, is that 12kb JQTouch framework worth it? Sometimes, yes. But frequently, no.

In August 2009, the Admob Metrics report for the U.S. Admob ad impressions showed a little feature phone moving to third place after months at fourth place. Yes yes, the iPhone and iPod Touch are numbers 1 and 2. But that's not important here.

The Samsung R450. To be more precise, the Samsung SCH-R450 for Metro PCS. Not an Android device, not a Pre, not a Blackberry. A messaging-focused feature phone with a poor camera, released in 2008. And not AT&T, not Sprint, not Verizon. Instead, Metro PCS, who says "everything we do is unlimited." Smartphone users are getting unlimited voice, text, and data for $50/month. Feature phone users max out at $45. With no contract.

This price is within the range of "normobs," or normal mobile users, especially when considered as a replacement for a wireline home phone.

And guess what? They are using the mobile web. In great numbers.

Look around, kids are surfing on anything
with a connection and a browser.

Some folks are holding onto their Motorla RAZR. Yes, in 2009, the RAZR is still in the top 20 handsets hitting Admob-measured sites. Actually, it's number 6. Our UK readers may be aghast, but go look at your numbers. Three Nokia devices in the top 20? And none of an E-Series? And Apple taking over 50% of Admob traffic? (I keep mentioning Admob because they are measuring a non-random subset of mobile web data.)

And while you're at it, check out the increasing share of... Sony PlayStation Portable.

Design for more than smart phones

Okay, smart phones are great. iPhones are great. We like them. We use them. But they are not the only devices out there. Design for all the devices important to you. And by "important to you" I mean important to your customers.

"Wagging the dog"

Industry pundits have talked about how the iPhone is the tail wagging the mobile industry dog. That may be true, but let's look at user behavior instead.

I've spent time in the past few months helping my parents and a similarly-aged friend decide what device to get next. They are all very interested in smart phones, especially once I showed them applications. After all, applications let them do what they want to do, not what the mobile phone manufacturer thinks 80% of people want to do. And their needs aren't outrageous, either.

So we have increased interest in mobile web and mobile applications from folks who do not want the latest gadget. And they don't necessarily know that they need a specific brand or operating system to do it. If a device delivers a good web experience, and perhaps some downloaded apps, that may be all they need. Yup, I'm talking web and Java here, folks.

Feature phones can do it

Why won't they get smart phones?

Because they have to pay more per month, every month. $20 extra each month for Verizon, as of two minutes ago. That's $480 extra plus tax over the course of the contract, and the phone most likely costs more, too.

So my father would have to pay more for the smart phone, then pay more for the data for the smart phone. He's a smart man and is budget conscious. Why would he do this? He'll avoid it if he can. He doesn't need or want to download music or videos. Why pay extra for this?

And feature phones will serve most of his needs, especially once he discovers GetJar.

I believe that feature phones are going to be far more important in mobile data in the next few years, driven by these varying price points the operators are maintaining combined with the capabilities perceived to be part of smart phones only.

And guess what? If customers make this choice now, many feature phones have better browsers than Blackberry and Windows Mobile. So which is the better choice? As better BB and IE browsers deploy, this will be less true. But stay tuned.

^{Photo by Jan Chipchase}

Today I ran across Jan Chipchase’s blog about how, while conducting Nokia research, they were able to collect a huge number of Personalized Phone Cases in phone-recycling bins around Japan. Finding this entry by Jan coincidentally touched upon some things we’ve been talking about a lot here at Little Springs; specifically the notions of what the human elements of personalization bring to the interactive experience with a device.

We’ve all seen modded-out computers, from far-out and funny gaming boxes to Steampunk Verne-cising of modern machines. I’ve seen stickers and paint on laptops, and I’ve seen dangles, sparkles, and doo-dads on cell phones. Historically, whether its a hammer or a hard-drive, we want to make our tools “ours,” and to operate as extensions of our own personalities. Our modern mobile devices are as much accessories that speak to the world that we’re “ultra-clean,” “ultra-edgy,” “ultra-us,” etc.

As interaction designers, however, we have no control about this part of a user’s experience; we design, we create, we market, we let go of the product and let it become and mutate into what it will in the hands of the public. Leo Fender designed guitars, but he had no idea Jimi Hendrix would melt the sky with one (and Fender sees the value in offering customization). Henry Ford designed vehicles for transportation, but had no idea how they would be “kustomized” and reconfigured to the extremes we see in this day and age (such as these Japanese kustoms, for example). Would computer designers in the 70’s anticipate the modding and hacking of the physical machines they were creating (such as this great list of the variety of mods out there)? Would Alexander Graham Bell anticipate that a phone would eventually become a personalized device that would offer it’s user literally the world at the touch of a button?

What does all of this say about us, socially and anthropologically? Well, it says we like our stuff, and even if our stuff is like everyone else’s, we still want to bring something of our own personality to it, as it is that much more of a “calling card,” and in the relation to a mobile device, this is literally the case (no pun intended).

Let’s go back to this idea of car customizing. Or, more properly, “Kar Kustomizing.” Doesn’t that just feel better? The words themselves (like the products) are altered to give them more fit, more personality, more truth to what the spirit behind them is.

More than ever, this notion of tools and their kustomization is an important dialog these days. Here at Little Springs, Steven Hoober and I talk about the merits of humans being “tool-oriented creatures,” even to the extent of what that means in regards to the idea of having NO tools, as in how we might interact gesturally with future technologies? He and I plan to do some more podcast/vidcasts of these conversations by revisiting the tools in our very own workshops, so keep a look out for these.

Personally, I think we will always HAVE tools, devices, gizmos, gadgets (and their inherent mod-abilities), for this very notion: we are hunters and gatherers “by trade” as humans. We like to collect things. We like to have things in our hand to see what we can do with them. We like to see how something reacts to our own physicality, how it represents our own “spin of English” on it, our opportunity to literally swing the bat at it. Mostly, we just like to show off.

Just like the Japanese phones with the art on them, the hot-rod builders of American Kustom Kutlture, the box-modders of the Steampunk movement… it’s all about crafting something individual out of something generic. It’s D.I.Y., and I look forward to seeing what kinds of specialty kustomization happens with some of the future-facing technologies being explored currently.