Inconsistencies in Deleting Objects on the iPhone/iPod Touch

Transfer of training is the concept that if you learn how to perform a function in one context, learning is much faster to perform the same function in a different context if the actions are the same. For example, copying and pasting is the same between Microsoft Word, Notepad, Adobe Photoshop, and others – Control-C and Control-V. These conventions are created through traditions and user interface guidelines, such as Apple’s Human Interface Guidelines for OS X and the iPhone. Consistency is good: users learn an action once, and it can be applied everywhere. Transfer of training.

However, the iPhone/iPod Touch interface has several glaring inconsistencies. One is how to delete objects. What’s been touted in Steve Jobs’ presentations has been swiping your finger across an object to delete it. For example, in Mail, the user swipes their finger across a message, and they get:

Then, they press delete, and it’s done. Simple enough, once users learn the finger swipe action.

This is almost the same with deleting a video. The finger swipes across a video and the red Delete button appears, but there’s a second confirmation:

This is not too drastic of a change, and adding a confirmation is not necessarily a bad idea, especially when it’s so obvious as to which buttons do what.

However, trying to delete a bookmark in Safari requires not only confirmation, but trying to guess at the meaning of buttons. The user brings up the bookmarks list, and a finger swipe does nothing. Instead, there is a button on the lower left labeled “Edit,” which does not evoke the “Delete” action at all. Once the user finally presses “Edit”, they are presented with little red circles to the left of the bookmark. It is important to note that this iconography is not used anywhere else in the interface. Finally, once the user clicks on the red circle next to the bookmark, they see the familiar red “Delete” button. Whew, that was different.

Moving on to the Notes application, however, shows a major breakdown. This, in my opinion, is the worst offender of implementing the delete feature. Deleting a note does not involve a finger swipe or an “Edit” button. Instead, to delete each individual note, they must be opened one-by-one. Of course, there is no indication of this. Once the note is opened, the user is presented with:

Suddenly, there is a Trash Can that is assigned the Delete command. More iconography that is never used in the iPod Touch interface, despite its familiarity to the user.

Yes, the iPod Touch interface is very new, but Apple is known for its consistent and intuitive user interface. This is an example of a total disregard for consistency in Apple’s shiniest new product, and it detracts greatly from the usability of the iPod Touch. Every computer user knows how to Copy and Paste, because the keystrokes are the same across applications. But when something as simple as a Delete command takes on four different implementation in four applications on a system, there is a problem. Apple desperately needs to standardize their interface to make transfer of training much easier from one iPod Touch application to the next.

iPod Touch User Interface: Touch controls

I know I’m extremely late to the party, but I just got myself an iPod Touch. It is quite impressive, and one of the major aspects of the user interface that I love so much is how intuitive the touch-based action gestures are. Being intuitive is hard to define, but I like to think that if something is intuitive it appeals to common sense.

The touch controls are something that have been highly touted and are well-known at this point. In order to zoom in on a location in Maps, a photo, or a web page in Safari, you put two fingers around the location you want to zoom in on, then you bring them closer together. This is known as the “Pinch.” Conversely, to zoom out, you spread your fingers apart (the “Anti-Pinch”?). Finally, to move around the map, you simply press your finger against the screen and move it in the direction you want the map to go.

This is an example from the Mobile Safari web browsing application:

These actions seem so intuitive that they elicit a reaction of “Well, obviously!” from many people. However, this is not one of those times when common sense would seem to point to these gestures. This seems to be more a function of hindsight bias (hindsight is 20/20) than anything else.

For example, the simple “pulling” action to scroll around in the Maps application is the most intuitive, gestures. This is so intuitive, in fact, that I find myself trying that with other map programs. Google implemented this first with their web-based Map application (so this was not an Apple invention). However, other companies have simply not caught on - MapQuest, for example, does not implement this feature. My GPS (a TomTom Go 720) has not, either. When I want to make sure the route it is giving me is correct, I want to be able to grab the map and scroll to get a better sense of where the route is taking me. Instead, the GPS thinks I tapped the screen, which brings up a different part of the interface. I am left unsatisfied.

The zoom controls are another aspect of the interface that are intuitive. I don’t find myself trying to pinch and anti-pinch on other interfaces. Instead, I am satisfied with a zoom bar (pictured below) or using a scroll wheel to zoom in and out.

The biggest reason for this is that zooming on the iPhone/iPod Touch requires two fingers, and there is no way to emulate that using the input devices available to modern computers. However, the iPod Touch pulls it off quite nicely, and it is continually impressive to show off. The master, Steve Jobs, certainly impressed the crowd when he introduced the iPhone:

---

What this all boils down to is ease of use, which can be split into two parts. One is ease of learning, which is what intuitiveness is all about. A shallow learning curve for these gestures means they are grasped easily. This then improves information retention, the second part of ease of use. Users remember what action to perform to reach a desired state, and they perform the action admirably.

Compare this with a new computer user learning Copy and Paste. Click + Drag over text, choose one of 50 different commands that let you copy (right-click, the Copy button in the toolbar, the Edit menu, a keyboard shortcut…) and then repeat for paste. The learning curve is somewhat steep, and the retention of information is not all that great.

The iPhone/iPod Touch, however, gets it right.

Microsoft Word 2008 keyboard shortcut insanity

One of the rules of software design is that menus and commands should be as similar as possible between all applications. In OS X, Command-C means copy and Command-V means paste. This eases Transfer of Training from one application to another. Microsoft Word 2008 violates this principle, however. To initiate a search, the standard Command-F is used. However, to find the next instance of the search term, Command-G is traditionally used. This is not the case, unfortunately. It is possible to re-assign shortcuts to different commands. As blogger Pierre Igot found out, it is surprisingly and ridiculously difficult to do.

Snip:

“Easy,” you say. “Just go to the ‘Customize Keyboard’ dialog box, find the ‘Find Next’ command and assign command-G to it.” Right.

First of all, good luck finding “Find Next” in the list of commands in the “Customize Keyboard” dialog box. Due to Microsoft’s completely nonsensical way of naming Word’s internal commands, the “Find” command is actually listed as “EditFind,” but the “Find Next” command is not listed as “EditFindNext”:

That would be too easy. Instead, it is listed as… “RepeatFind”:

In the menus, the commands are listed as “Find” and “Find Next.” However, in Word’s internal naming, the command is “RepeatFind.” That’s not even transfer of training - that’s simple consistency, and it is not followed here.

Hit up the rest of the post and read about this exercise in frustration.

User interfaces in Iron Man

First off: possible spoilers ahead!

Iron Man was an excellent movie. However, since this blog is not dedicated the movie reviews, I thought I’d discuss some of the user interface elements involved instead.

This video highlights two UI elements that were well thought-out. There are more I’d like to discuss, but I couldn’t find them. There are two clips: one is of a holographic prototyping interface and the other is the Iron Man suit user interface and flight interface:
Click to download (6.5 MB MP4 video)

Holographic Prototyping and Direct Manipulation on the Cheap:

The first clip ends at around 26 seconds and shows off Tony Stark’s (aka Iron Man) holographic prototype interface. The hologram is a sci-fi cliche, but its usefulness is immediately evident. Direct manuipulation has been discussed before, and this typically requires something physical to manipulate. These physical prototypes are expensive to fabricate, especially if multiple revisions are needed. In the clip, Stark has already built out the specs for this piece of his suit, and he’s able to add and subtract parts and accurately visualize the effects of the modifications without fabricating lots of physical prototypes. The coup de grace is when he is able to stick his arm inside of the hologram and test it out. It’s direct manipulation of a prototype without the expense. Because this kind of manipulation is so natural, very little cognitive effort is needed to use this interface.

Flight Suit Interface and Transfer of Training:

The second clip starts at 27 seconds and demonstrates part of the suit’s user interface and the flight interface as well. The flight interface is very similar to that of a fighter jet, which will make transfer-of-training easy from a fighter jet to an Iron Man suit. This will cut down on the need to train users of the Iron Man suit - if they can fly a fighter jet, they can fly this suit.

Main Suit User Interface Voice Commands:

What was most interesting in the clip was how the general UI was controlled. The heads-up display is directly in front of the user’s face, but the user cannot touch the display. Therefore, direct manipulation is out of the question. The suit does take voice commands, as shown in the video. This is an obvious choice, but it is slow to use. Imagine flying at some insane speed under high stress - do you want to have to yell out a command that takes several seconds to issue, then wait for a reply from the suit? Probably not a good idea. The closest thing to voice interaction in this world is the Microsoft Sync system. This system integrates bluetooth phones and MP3 players into Ford cars and is all voice controlled. When it works, the eyes stay on the road for longer and less attention is required to make a phone call or play music. But when it doesn’t work, the error correction is simply a mess. It takes a huge amount of effort and is bad for driving or flying.

This is a great review of the Sync system (see 1:45 for an example of a Sync error as how the user simply gives up):

Main Suit User Interface and Eyetracking:

Besides voice commands, the other control option is eyetracking. If the eyes are focused on something in the environment, a command can be issued to zoom in, take a picture, etc. Issuing that command, however, would have to be done using a voice command or a button-press. The eyes are needed to focus, so something other than the eyes must issue a command. This is not the ideal situation because it requires coordination of multiple systems - the eyes must remain focused on the target while another body part confirms the command. Overall, though, this is not too much of a problem. It is similar to tracking the cursor on a computer screen and clicking the mouse with your finger. Nonetheless, it is a less elegant solution, especially during flight or in combat and the hands are required for another task.

Wednesday Funnies

The best graphs are the ones that are easily readable. It helps to play off previous knowledge, too:

Link to source (Flickr).