Should Apple become more function over form?
While Apple products are well thought out and meticulous in it's detail and aethetic, does form get in the way of function?
For instance, the PB is one of the sleekest looking laptop in the world. But could we stuff more power (and cool it easier) if it were a tad thicker? I mean, I could live with it if it was 1.2" thick.
The iMac is stunning in appearance, and the adjustable arm is very functional. Problem is, you can't use the screen when your iMac becomes outdated.
And then there's the mouse. Sexy, smooth like sculpted crystal. But don't dare put a second button or scroll wheel or else it'll look like crap.
I love the stuff Jonathan Ive and his team at Apple are producing. But I'm just throwing this out as food for thought. It just wonder if Apple sometimes can get too cute/clever for it's own good.
For instance, the PB is one of the sleekest looking laptop in the world. But could we stuff more power (and cool it easier) if it were a tad thicker? I mean, I could live with it if it was 1.2" thick.
The iMac is stunning in appearance, and the adjustable arm is very functional. Problem is, you can't use the screen when your iMac becomes outdated.
And then there's the mouse. Sexy, smooth like sculpted crystal. But don't dare put a second button or scroll wheel or else it'll look like crap.
I love the stuff Jonathan Ive and his team at Apple are producing. But I'm just throwing this out as food for thought. It just wonder if Apple sometimes can get too cute/clever for it's own good.
Comments
Beyond that, other aesthetic elements in Apple's design are useful.
0.2" added to the height of the Powerbook isn't going to afford it any more power. And the thinner, lighter design is more functional in the real world. The only useful laptop is the one you have with you, and the easier to carry around it is, the more likely it is you'll have it with you.
The iMac's screen is functional. The all-in-one design that makes an iMac an iMac inherently has a built-in screen for simplicity. How come nobody complained that they could keep the screen on any other all-in-one Mac?
From a UI point of view, one button simply makes more sense. I use a multi-button scroll mouse, but Jef Raskin will tell you, multibutton mice are simply not intuitive. The Macintosh is still about intuitive interface. Intuitive to someone who's never touched a computer before. Multibutton mice are a two-edged sword? you gain a shortcut, but with that comes an additional layer of abstraction. The Mac OS X UI guys need to remember this (how come I can't hold down the mouse button for a contextual menu?).
When a tool is beautiful, we are drawn to it, and use it more readily. That in and of itself is functional.
Originally posted by KeilwerthReborn
Form follows function. Nice-looking things often look nice to us because of mathematical form, which also happens to work the best with our bodies, because we also follow that mathematical formula (Golden Mean, anyone?).
The iMac's screen is functional. The all-in-one design that makes an iMac an iMac inherently has a built-in screen for simplicity. How come nobody complained that they could keep the screen on any other all-in-one Mac?
Because when you bought your previous models it was implied the whole thing was going to the tradsh when you are done using it. These days your computer will last you an eternity if you stick with average stuff and you might only want to get a new screen to refresh your computer.
From a UI point of view, one button simply makes more sense. I use a multi-button scroll mouse, but Jef Raskin will tell you, multibutton mice are simply not intuitive. The Macintosh is still about intuitive interface. Intuitive to someone who's never touched a computer before. Multibutton mice are a two-edged sword? you gain a shortcut, but with that comes an additional layer of abstraction. The Mac OS X UI guys need to remember this (how come I can't hold down the mouse button for a contextual menu?).
Reality check: the vast majority of potential mac users have been using a computer for a few years, they can figure it out. And why do some things in the OS require that extra button i.e the spell check! Scroll wheels are functional, right clicking is useful!
When a tool is beautiful, we are drawn to it, and use it more readily. That in and of itself is functional.
Yes Apple's are cute, but sometimes you want a little more out of your computer, like YSB 2.0 across the line!
Originally posted by satchmo
While Apple products are well thought out and meticulous in it's detail and aethetic, does form get in the way of function?
For instance, the PB is one of the sleekest looking laptop in the world. But could we stuff more power (and cool it easier) if it were a tad thicker? I mean, I could live with it if it was 1.2" thick.
Perhaps, but the thin, light body is not a case of form over function in a portable computer.
The iMac is stunning in appearance, and the adjustable arm is very functional. Problem is, you can't use the screen when your iMac becomes outdated.
I have never understood the point of this. The number of people who replace entire systems dwarfs the number of people who don't. And I'm more than willing to bet that based on what's coming down the pike, you really will want a monitor upgrade in a few years.
Hell, when I bought the 15" LCD I'm typing on, it was the bomb. Now its brightness, refresh rate, color fidelity, etc. are all considered poor.
And then there's the mouse. Sexy, smooth like sculpted crystal. But don't dare put a second button or scroll wheel or else it'll look like crap.
Not form over function at all, but this debate has been hashed out before. I will only say that neither I nor my wrists have regretted using a one button mouse. More is not better. That's the driving force behind functional design.
I love the stuff Jonathan Ive and his team at Apple are producing. But I'm just throwing this out as food for thought. It just wonder if Apple sometimes can get too cute/clever for it's own good.
They can, but none of your examples hold. If you want better examples, try finding the power button on an iMac; or, how do you power off an iPod? Ever try plugging a cable into a Cube?
Originally posted by jade
Because when you bought your previous models it was implied the whole thing was going to the tradsh when you are done using it. These days your computer will last you an eternity if you stick with average stuff and you might only want to get a new screen to refresh your computer.
Does anybody agree with this guy on that?
QUOTE]Originally posted by jade
Reality check: the vast majority of potential mac users have been using a computer for a few years, they can figure it out. And why do some things in the OS require that extra button i.e the spell check! Scroll wheels are functional, right clicking is useful!
[/QUOTE]
Reality check: The majority of Windows users NEVER use the right click. Right clicking adds a second level of abstraction. The idea of pointing and clicking should be simply that. In reality, if you touch something with your finger, it doesn't matter what finger you use. It shouldn't on a computer either. If users desire to add that functionality and abstraction, more power to them (I have a four-button mouse, like I said), but the default should remain the simplest solution.
Whew, OK, calming down...
I don't hate one or the other per se, I hate how they are supposed to be mutually exlusive of one another. Neither one leads or determines the other; they are two sides of the same coin you might say. Without form, functionality simply doesn't exist, and without functionality, a form has no purpose to exist. Neither is complete in itself. They need one another, affect and influence each other. A computer might have great features under the hood, but without a way to access them or handle them properly, they are not functional. Likewise, having slots, chips, programs and buttons without any use clutters and destroys the apparent form.
You can add all sorts of ways to make a Mac a series of a la carte components, monitor, programmable buttons, etc. But functionality isn't just about going from A to B in a straight line. There are functions such as image/iconography, apparent simplicity, deliberately making some things less flexible or less accessible, etc. There are any number of functions to incorporate into a design, some of them may be less obvious or their solutions may seem counterintuitive at first glance until you think about how you're using the thing.
If you put the USB and Firewire slots on the front of an iMac, it might look more functional, but would it express simplicity and ease of use with a bunch of plugs in front? Would someone looking at an iMac think it's more complex because it looks more complex? It's a function of curb appeal in essense. Could the iMac use 2-3 ports in the front? Sure, I think so. But I imagine only about three, and they must be very apparent what they are for without the need for extra stuff: glyphs, instructions, or doors to cover them. Anyway, functionality covers a lot more than just vis a vis usage of each piece.
I think the issue in a lot of those cases is one about modularity, not functionality, or put another way, more particular functionality in Apple's designs runs counter to perfect modularity of commodity PCs. Apple's designs clearly try to solve more particular problems, and in that way they often limit or discourage certain functions in lieu of others. They don't want you to turn off your desktop that often, so why present you with the power button? They made the OS so you don't have to or want to power down all the time. They incorporated sleep functionality in the power button too. They didn't do it because they could, they did it because they wanted to, because they felt it was best for the user. Why wait for all that startup stuff when it's less stress on the power supply and sleep takes about as little power as leaving the cmputer plugged in?
Also, look at how they saved users the trouble of having a separate power cord and a cable from the monitor to the computer. One power cord, no video cable, less work and clutter and climbing behind the computer. Obviously, some people do keep their old monitors when they change out their PCs, but there are two things about this that I've found: 1) this demonstrates how people don't generally upgrade their PC components, they buy a new one. There are of course plenty of people who feel it's worth the effort to save a buck. There are a ton of people who are willing to pay more for the convenience of having it already ready for them. 2) people generally buy a new monnitor when they buy a new computer. They usually get a better one, a bigger one, a flat screen, etc.
Apple isn't making most users' computers more complicated when only a few would take advantage of what's offerded by doing so. Apple is one of maybe a handful of technology companies that doesn't complicate their designs for the sake of user choice, choice which most users don't exercise. So Apple makes assumptions about their users and their computers to design certain functionality and implement it in certain ways. I've found that the Apple hardware of the last 5 years has been much more sophisticated than anyone else's. They make complex things and present them simply or they take some of the decision-making burden off the user's shoulders.
Originally posted by KeilwerthReborn
Reality check: The majority of Windows users NEVER use the right click. Right clicking adds a second level of abstraction. The idea of pointing and clicking should be simply that. In reality, if you touch something with your finger, it doesn't matter what finger you use. It shouldn't on a computer either. If users desire to add that functionality and abstraction, more power to them (I have a four-button mouse, like I said), but the default should remain the simplest solution.
Not only that, but the default simplest solution should be *enforced*. *That* is the real reason Apple ships only one-button mice. Sure, they could ship two button mice. OS X handles them without problem.
And then you'd see developers making *some* actions be right-click-accessible *only*, where they're hidden, unintuitive, and confusing to users unfamiliar with the product. By only shipping a one-button mouse, Apple forces all developers to make every bit of functionality *somehow* accessible with simple point and click. If they want to also make it available through right click, scroll wheel, seventh button plus your left leg in the air, then that's fine, and it may be that users find those trigger mechanisms more convenient in the long run... but at all times, simple point-and-click should be the only tool *necessary* to discover everything about a product.
One button for learning, multiple buttons for speed. It's a learning curve, and it doesn't matter how many years you've been using a computer (any computer), the first time you sit down at a new application, you're learning all over again. Consistency is what allows me to trouble shoot my family members through applications I've never used before... over the phone. I can guess with pretty good accuracy how to go about doing what they want to do, because everything is discoverable with a single button.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Have I ever mentioned how much I HATE the expression, "form follows function"? Hate it. Hate. It. Hate! ...It!
Whew, OK, calming down...
I don't hate one or the other per se, I hate how they are supposed to be mutually exlusive of one another. Neither one leads or determines the other; they are two sides of the same coin you might say. Without form, functionality simply doesn't exist, and without functionality, a form has no purpose to exist. Neither is complete in itself. They need one another, affect and influence each other.
You're another Christopher Alexander fan, aren't you?