Archive for category bad design
Amazon’s list of products is a mess
Posted by jasonwong in bad design, clutter, visual search on January 29th, 2010
Amazon, like any shopping website should, lets you browse their great deals. Today, there was this:
Oooh, cheap laptops? How could I not click. Then, I was presented with this unholy mess. Seventeen laptops on the same page. All have the same picture, extremely similar specs, and virtually identical names. (Click for full size)
There were some filtering options on the left side but they would not be very good at narrowing choices, considering how similar these all were.
One part shame on Acer for creating SO MANY similar models: the AOD250-1694, the AOD250-1695, the AOD250-1842, etc. etc. etc.
One part shame on Amazon for presenting all of these options in what is quite possibly the worst method for displaying this kind of information. There should be a much easier way to, at a glance, compare these laptops, or the filters should actually involve computer factors.
Either way, I’m not buying an Acer laptop today – certainly not from Amazon.
The Apple iPad: Thoughts
Posted by jasonwong in bad design, good design, marketing, thoughts on January 28th, 2010
Disclaimer, in case you didn’t know for some reason: I have a MacBook and an iPhone and I enjoy them very much.
The iPad is intriguing. I have seen many people ask why they would want one. I think Apple essentially presented several use cases (eReading, couch surfing, airplane video watching), but it boils down to this: if you’re in the market for something that’s cheaper and less useful than a laptop but is more expensive and useful than an iPhone, the iPad is your device.
I am just curious as to how big that market is.
A friend of mine has an iPhone and Apple desktop. He doesn’t do work when he’s mobile, so he is interested in this device. For me, I can’t justify one right away. I would not get the more expensive 3G model, so I’d be stuck with just a WiFi connection, which means mostly home use. Since I already have a laptop as my main computer that I can bring with me, I don’t see the iPad use case working for me.
In terms of striking the balance between a cheaper laptop and a more useful iPhone, they leaned more towards the iPhone. However, they brought along many iPhone shortcomings – namely, multitasking and Flash in the browser. Therefore, you cannot have Pandora streaming, have your IM client going, and also work on something in Pages at the same time. With a $500 iPad (which Josh Gruber says is fast, fast, fast), you can only do one thing at a time. This just kills it for me.
I don’t think a big enough deal is being made about the fact that Apple is using its own Apple A4 chip in the device that makes it “fast, fast, fast.” Apple bought P.A. Semi and is now designing their own ARM-based chips in house. So, from this, the iPad is faster. I would like to think the processor can handle more than one application at a time, though. Yes, you could say that the iPad would bog down running too many apps, but so too can the MacBook. People expect multitasking and, if Apple could design an elegant system to do so, they should. Essentially, my argument boils down to this: Apple can’t possibly have unitasking as a written-in-stone design goal; at some point, they are going to have to introduce multitasking. It seemed like the introduction of the iPad, with its wickedly-fast processor, was as good of a time as any.
John Timmer, Science Editor of Ars Technica, nails it for me (scroll to the bottom of the page to read his thoughts directly):
Steve Jobs very explicitly placed the iPad in the category class between the phone and notebook, and it very nicely splits the difference between the two. And that’s precisely why I’m a bit disappointed by it—it doesn’t share enough of the features of either one of those two devices to actually make it useful to me.
When I leave the apartment for anything beyond local errands, I’m almost invariably carrying both a cell phone for communicating and a laptop for getting work done. A truly useful device would be one that could let me leave one of those devices and its added bulk, cables, and worries about charge status at home. The iPhone went a little way towards that dream—it was a phone, but its ability to handle a bit of web browsing and some light e-mail meant that leaving the laptop at home was possible in a few additional circumstances—but, for the most part, I’m still stuck lugging two devices.
The iPad doesn’t fix that. It’s clearly not a phone, so my phone would still have to come with me. It would do a better job of e-mail and web browsing than the iPhone but, if I’m carrying one of those anyway, that’s not a huge help. On the other side of its category divide, the iPad might add a few more cases where a laptop is unnecessary, but very few. I’m a touch typist; I take notes on presentations while watching the speaker, and I am often writing in one application while looking over a document in a second. With no physical keyboard and no multitasking, the iPad simply wouldn’t work for me. It’s just too limited to mean I could leave my laptop home any more often than I already do.
Apple looks like it nailed its target of creating a truly distinct device that’s somewhere in between the phone and the laptop. And, for precisely that reason, it doesn’t seem like it would be all that useful to me.
Google’s Flight Information: Wild Guesses, not Actual Data
Posted by jasonwong in bad design, data visualization on December 28th, 2009
Google is useful for all kinds of things: certain information typed in a search box will bring up the information automatically. For example, “weather 02841″ will bring up the weather for the Newport, RI zip code. Additionally, typing in “UA 628″ or “DL 1064″ will bring up flight information for the United Airlines or Delta Airlines flight. One issue with this, though. The site that Google uses to pull up flight times in flightstats.com, which is not ideal for this task.
Let me explain with a concrete example. I was flying back from San Francisco to Providence on Saturday, December 19: the day of record snow (20 inches) in Washington, DC due to a blizzard all up and down the East Coast. Thankfully, I was routed through Atlanta (no snow), but things were messy enough that day that I was worried about being late.
My flight was to leave at 6 AM from San Francisco, but we hadn’t boarded at 5:45 AM yet. The gate said no change, but putting “DL 1064″ into Google brought up these results:
Delayed by 3 hours?! Instead of leaving at 6 AM, we’re leaving at 9 AM?! What? And then I noticed the words “ESTIMATED DEPARTURE” and decided to pull up the Delta site. Sorry for the poor resolution:
However, you can kind of squint and see that the flight was scheduled for an “ON TIME” departure. Turns out that we left maybe 15 minutes late.
The lesson here? The information that Google usually pulls up can be trusted. It’s flight information cannot, because it pulls Estimated Times from flightstats.com instead of current data. In this case, Google has failed to anticipate the information users want (actual data, not wild guesses), and that makes this a human factors error.
I am giving a Google Tech Talk today!
Posted by jasonwong in attention, bad design, clutter, eye movements, good design, visual search on December 16th, 2009
My friend from graduate school, Ricardo Prada, now works at Google in the User Experience Group. He saw that I was in the Palo Alto area for a week on a work project, and he invited me to give a Google Tech Talk. It was an opportunity that I could not turn down (not that I would ever want to!). After about a month of work on this talk and hours of practice, today is the day. Here is the talk announcement:
Google tends to record these talks on video and put them up on YouTube, so I hope this occurs with mine. I’ll link to it as soon as it’s up.
Movie User Interfaces
Posted by jasonwong in bad design, data visualization, good design on December 3rd, 2009
Gizmodo says it perfectly:
What do The Bourne Identity, Mission Impossible 3, Mr & Mrs Smith, Children of Men, and Agent Cody Banks 2 have in common? Absurd, futuristic, and totally fake software interfaces, designed in part by one man: Mark Coleran.
Designing a fake dashboard for an imagined supercomputer or a hovering control panel for a worldwide surveillance system is a different process than creating a genuinely usable UI. Your goal is to imply things: that a machine is powerful; that a villain is formidable; that the software is intuitive, but that the breadth of its powers borders on unknowable. At no point does real-world usability factor in, and nor should it—this is pure fantasy, for an audience raised on Start Buttons, desktop icons and tree menus. Here’s a gallery of some of the most famous interfaces; see how many you recognize.
Coleran Reel 2008.06 HD from Mark Coleran on Vimeo.





