Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs Hates Buttons
ElvaWSJ writes "While many technology companies load their products up with buttons, Steve Jobs treats them as blemishes that add complexity and hinder their clean aesthetics.
The iPhone is Steve Jobs's attempt to crack a juicy new market for Apple Inc. But it's also part of a decades-long campaign by Mr. Jobs against a much broader target: buttons.
The new Apple cellphone famously does without the keypads that adorn its rivals. Instead, it offers a touch-sensing screen for making phone calls and tapping out emails. The resulting look is one of the sparest ever for Apple, a company known for minimalist gadgets. "
Admittedly I haven't tried the iphone yet, I may try one out but i'm not excited about the complete lack of buttons. Currently with my treo i can type out a phone number by feel while driving, or type out a text with the phone in my pocket. Also the buttons give you a confirmation that you gave input, as you can feel the button go down. Without being able to feel a keyboard it seems like typing could be a pain.
Half of the buttons on the iPhone are . . . volume buttons.
-Peter
This is well in keeping with Apple's philosophy of often breaking convention for "minimalism," which has simply been met with mixed success.
iMac -- made the "minimalist" move of omitting the floppy. I remember thinking at the time back in the late 90's this would create a data island, and being quite uncomfortable with the decision -- today, most would feel this was a smart move, and the ubiquitous USB drive has replaced the clunky floppy. Overall, a success.
Mouse -- keeps on pushing the minimalist single button. I detest this, and know many people (linux, mac, and pc users) that feel the same. Another button simply adds to the functionality -- I right click several hundred times per day, and don't want combo presses or holding down to approximate this. Overall, I view this as a bad move.
iPhone -- we'll see the verdict regarding this. I, for one, would appreciate a "hang up" button as I tend to push this a million times when I want to hang up... it is nice to have a solid feeling as you wait for the UI to respond. With a softkey, did you really hit it? Did the UI register it? You don't know without watching the screen. I view this as a bit extreme, but we will see if people complain. Buttons have their place when well-implemented.
Can you imagine getting on a "soft-key" elevator? I think it would be cool at first, then really annoying.
I'm happy that Apple pushes technology like this, but only in ways that force adoption of a better technology.
Ah well, we can all "vote with our wallet..."
Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
Mr. Jobs' blind hatred of buttons is a mistake. Sure, appealing looking designs are important, but that has to be balanced against the function of the device. Inconspicuous looking buttons are nice, but lacking buttons altogether? Not so much.
A perfect example is cited in the article: an elevator that has no buttons and stops on every floor. It's far less fucntional than an elevator with buttons. I don't like waiting unnecessarily. And if I were going from the top floor to the bottom floor, with no one else on the elevator, I would be fuming by the time I arrived.
Another example is the iPod itself. The lack of an explicit power button, also mentioned in the article, isn't a big deal. But having no separate volume control really harms the usability of the device. While I'm listening to music, I don't want to have to look at the screen. But because volume and seeking within the track are loaded up on the same physical control, I have to watch the screen as I toggle between the two functions. It feels like a huge step back from my Rio Karma, where I could easily adjust the volume with a pair of buttons and use the thumb wheel to seek in the track. If I'm reading, walking, or watching the scenery while listening to music, it's a big inconvenience to have to move my eyes to the screen.
The amount of time you spend navigating those menus is just sick. Want to enable shuffle? Navigate up to the root, down to options, back up to the root, and back down to your songs.
Want to select a song and start playing it in a fresh on-the-go playlist and, while it's playing, add more songs to the queue? Navigate down to select the song, up to the root, down to play from the playlist, back up to the root, back down to select your next song. Fantastic!
Now, of course, they could have made a more usable interface even with limited number of "buttons" they have. But it's easy to see that a couple more buttons would have helped immensely.
No offense or anything, but every time I look at my home theater interface I want to go after it with a hammer. I work with complicated crap for a living, and I don't get a 1/10th of the performance I could get out of my system, because the interface is cluttered, busy, poorly labeled.
Buttons that have one label are used in conjunction with different modes to change properties not reflected in the labeling of the button...Basically, you have to memorize the manual because the interface is the opposite of intuitive.
It's that way with nearly all consumer electronics. There will be ten buttons but there will be a need for 30 buttons, to follow that button-centric design philosophy, but you can't put 30 buttons on it so the 10 buttons have to have 30 buttons worth of functionality, which means some buttons toggle the functionality of other buttons.
So, in a nutshell, though I am not completely fond of Apple's obsession with minimalist controls, they do an infinitely better job on their crappiest product than any piece of home A/V equipment I've ever seen. One look at a universal remote will tell you that.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
You're missing the point. Buttons are intuitive, until you have 85 of them, all of which do something obscure.
The problem with buttons is they take up space - physical space and cognitive space. Watch a 65 year old try and use a modern A/V system remote, and they're totally lost. It's like looking at the cockpit of a 707.
It's a problem, because while 90% of the people only use 10% of the features, you have to be able to access the other 90% of the features. How many times do you change the surround sound mode of your home stereo? I did it once per input, then never did it again. So why do those buttons still take up space on my remote?
The harmony remote is one attempt at reducing the complexity - you trade complexity up front (you need to program the remote with your devices) for simplicity later. The above mentioned 65 year old had no problem watching TV with the harmony remote - on a system an order of magnitude more complicated than his.
The higher-end models have almost no buttons; they have screens that overload. In fact, you really only need four or five for a TV remote: volume up, volume down, channel up, channel down, power, change input. Sure, the number keys are nice, but they aren't necessary.
However, a more sophisticated remote costs more money. Simplicity always costs more up front, but pays off every day because there's less aggravation. Buttons are cheap. Removing buttons is expensive.
So those of us who are able to drive and talk safely should suffer with the rest of you?
Yes.
Most people can drive safely under normal conditions on the phone. Most people can drive safely under normal conditions with a BAC up to 0.15 or even 0.20. Most people can drive safely at 20-30mph over the posted speed limit.
Driving laws exist for the "not most" situations, however. Some people can't safely drive a monotonously straight road on a clear day while sober and well-slept. Roads occasionally get icy (in the North). Kids (or deer) sometimes jump out in front of your car with no warning (hey, I'd call that "Evolution", but the pesky legal system tends to call it "involuntary manslaughter"). People age and their eyes and reflexes get worse.
Put bluntly, we cripple the majority rather than take away the licenses of the 10% or so who should never get behind the wheel in the first place.
Yeah, and with no tactile feedback because it's a touchscreen. It's one thing to clean up the UI because of too many single-function buttons and displays (look at an old school 747 cockpit). However, I want a few dedicated buttons for important functions like volume, power, and send/hang up.
The TiVo remote control is just that. A device that remotely controls another device. You're paying attention to your TV. You shouldn't need to take your eyes off it to change the volume.
The iPhone isn't a remote control. It's the device you're using, so there's the presumption that you'll be looking at it with some sort of regularity while you use it.
Physical buttons are also *alyways there* ... and in a consistent location. So if there is any frequently used functionality, having an actual button ultimately lets you blindly use some of these basic functions by virtue of consistent placement and the all-important tactile feedback.
Blog