"It's 2am, and ... I hate Motorola"
That's from the opening sentence of a BusinessWeek article about the columnist's repeated encounter with a misfeature.
It also provides a sort of extreme illumination of the frustration I've felt looking around at cell phones. They're sort of like aftermarket car stereos: They either have nothing, or they have six and a half zillion features - except for the two or three that would be really nice to have - and a price to match. And then there's this Motorola phone, with the sort of features that make you wonder if the designers have ever actually used their own products.
(Of course, here in the sprawling metropolis of Iowa City, part of my frustration stems from the fact that I read about all these nifty phones in this forum, and then go to a local service provider to hear that I have to get a phone from them, and they have all these fine products from Lucky Goldstar to choose from...).
It also provides a sort of extreme illumination of the frustration I've felt looking around at cell phones. They're sort of like aftermarket car stereos: They either have nothing, or they have six and a half zillion features - except for the two or three that would be really nice to have - and a price to match. And then there's this Motorola phone, with the sort of features that make you wonder if the designers have ever actually used their own products.
(Of course, here in the sprawling metropolis of Iowa City, part of my frustration stems from the fact that I read about all these nifty phones in this forum, and then go to a local service provider to hear that I have to get a phone from them, and they have all these fine products from Lucky Goldstar to choose from...).
Comments
That article above should be forwarded to every cell phone designer. Even the ones who aren't at Motorola.
Obviously, my obsession right now is a digital camera, not a mobile phone, but I think we share the same peeves.
Heh, this is my expensive hobby if you can't see already. Nikon's products are indeed amazing, and I have a lot invested in Nikkor optics, so I won't debate the Canon/Sony issue -- I'm just in with Nikon because that's what I started with and it'd be horrendously expensive to switch now.
And as far as Nikon's UI being a bit "cryptic," yes. That's sadly true. The only reason the DCS 620 escaped that was because Kodak built it, and all other camera interface designers should build around their example. It's simple, shooter-driven, and very hard to mess up accidentally. And the software on the computer end is incredible! All-at-once batch editing, white balance adjustment, and rapid export to Photoshop TIFs or JPEGs. Kodak seems to be one of the few in a balance (although I hear their newest DSLR has more to be desired).
- He has a child who has a propensity for snagging his mobile. Yet he insists on putting his phone in a place that is accessible to his child. Surprise, surprise, the phone isn't where it is expected.
-By his own admission, he can't even use the mobile at his home because of poor reception. Yet he keeps this essentially useless phone on all night.
- The phone beeps when the battery is low. However, it would appear that Christopher would rather the phone not beep, or beep constantly (can't quite be sure from his article).
- In the end, Christopher wants the phone to be smarter than him, to make up for his lack of analytical skills, apparently.
So I ask you, is it a poor UI? Or is it a poor user? I mean, come on, there are probably a lot better examples of poor UI than this. This is just lame.
( ok, end of rant
I have used Nokia and SE mobiles, and I can't really say they are that difficult to use. In particular, the main functions (calling and answering calls) are pretty idiot proof. Ironically, my SE has a very nice UI for low battery: it will beep very infrequently, but will flash a red LED on top to indicate the battery is low - subtle, but very effective...and quiet, too!
Not that the topic doesn't have merit, I think that mobiles (and digital cameras) can be made better (and IMHO Moto mobiles do have an awful UI). As much as I would like Apple to make a mobile (and digital camera, for that matter), I find it disheartening that companies don't spend a little more time and make a good UI. I also find it sad that Apple seems to be the only company that does take time to make something right. I guess that good design is not appreciated by either consumers or companies making consumer products.
- He has a child who has a propensity for snagging his mobile. Yet he insists on putting his phone in a place that is accessible to his child. Surprise, surprise, the phone isn't where it is expected.
You got a point there. He might be better off hiding it or putting it where the kid can't reach it.
-By his own admission, he can't even use the mobile at his home because of poor reception. Yet he keeps this essentially useless phone on all night.
No, he doesn't purposely keep it on, he plugs it into the charger as soon as he gets home and the only reason it'll turn on is because his kid sometimes finds it, disconnects it from the charger, and starts playing with it. Because it doesn't get any reception where he is I guess he isn't too concerned (unless he gets that low battery warning like he described).
- The phone beeps when the battery is low. However, it would appear that Christopher would rather the phone not beep, or beep constantly (can't quite be sure from his article).
I think he'd like it to be either one - either frequently, or not at all. I just don't think Motorola thought of his (rather unusual) situation.
- In the end, Christopher wants the phone to be smarter than him, to make up for his lack of analytical skills, apparently.
Well, it seems like he either wants it to be smarter than him or dumber than him. It's not difficult to incorporate a sleepy-time mechanism into the device that puts it into a low power mode if it's been open, on, and unused for a while. The iPod has this - after two minutes of being idle and not playing music, it just turns off. As soon as you hit a button it comes right back on to the same place. Why can't his phone do that? It would still be able to receive calls.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
You got a point there. He might be better off hiding it or putting it where the kid can't reach it.
No, he doesn't purposely keep it on, he plugs it into the charger as soon as he gets home and the only reason it'll turn on is because his kid sometimes finds it, disconnects it from the charger, and starts playing with it. Because it doesn't get any reception where he is I guess he isn't too concerned (unless he gets that low battery warning like he described).
I think he'd like it to be either one - either frequently, or not at all. I just don't think Motorola thought of his (rather unusual) situation.
Well, it seems like he either wants it to be smarter than him or dumber than him. It's not difficult to incorporate a sleepy-time mechanism into the device that puts it into a low power mode if it's been open, on, and unused for a while. The iPod has this - after two minutes of being idle and not playing music, it just turns off. As soon as you hit a button it comes right back on to the same place. Why can't his phone do that? It would still be able to receive calls.
I really don't want to defend Moto on their phone. I had a Moto mobile for about 2 weeks, and while I really liked the display, I hated how the phone 'worked' - its UI. However, I really think that in this instance, the guy is, frankly, a goofball. From the article, it certainly seems that he leaves the phone on in spite of the fact it is useless at his home. That would make me more upset than the low battery warning, but he doesn't seem to mind not being able to actually use the phone. But I digress. Your point is taken, so lets say he does turn it off...why would he continue to put it in a location where his kid is going to get it? The real problem I have is that he bases his whole rant on a problem that occurs as a result of a strange sequence of events rather than poor design: first, his child gets the phone (which shouldn't happen at all, but whatever), then it just so happens his child leaves it in a strange place, and just so happens it is left open, and (yet again!) it just so happens the phone batteries are low. Then the low battery warning goes, which is perfectly acceptable behavior. He is describing an event that has incredibly low odds of happening, and which he had full power to avert, and yet blames Moto for a poor design. That isn't right. All he needed to do was learn from one experience and put the phone in a better location. He might as well blame moto for not having a locking charger so his child can't even remove the phone, but that is neither here not there.
I don't want to defend Moto, and I wont post more about this as it detracts from a good thread. However, I think we need to actually think a little bit before using a gadget, and certainly not blame Moto (or whoever) when our own stupidity or laziness is just as much at fault.
Oh, just one more thing!
In the normal course of events, when I arrive home in the evening, I plug my cell phone into its charger...
Every so often something disrupts this routine, however. Sometimes I forget to take my phone out of my pocket. Sometimes my two-year-old finds the phone and, after exhausting the imaginative possibilities of make-believe conversation, abandons it under a couch or behind the desk. And there the phone sits, slowly trickling out of energy.
Obviously, the child found the phone, unplugged it, and started playing with it. It must turn on whenever it is opened. That seems pretty obvious to me.
Also I think he's trying to say that if the phone wants him to know it's low on battery, it should really let him know instead of teasing him. Once every four minutes might not be enough because if you're walking around with the phone in your pocket, you probably won't hear it. And it still doesn't explain why Moto didn't put an automatic sleep feature in the phone, like the iPod or any number of other gadgets.
Originally posted by tonton
Wait. Let me get this straight. Motorola phones still don't have batteries that last more than two days on standby? Oh, I see. The phone was left open and the backlight is on. Now. Let me get this straight. Motorola phones aren't smart enough to turn off the backlight automatcally when the phone is not in use?
No wonder the CEO quit. That's moronic. No wonder I haven't used a Motorola for five years.
My grandma's Moto turns it's backlight off after a few minutes. And as to phones compromising for human stupidity, they must. It's the Mac thing. They're supposed to work for us, not vice versa.
(1) The Nokia's batteries last much longer than 18 hours... they last several days on standby.
(2) Because of (1), I'd never become familiar with the low-battery sound and had no idea what I was hearing the first time it went off.
I was visiting my father in Florida, and trying to sleep on his sofa. I kept thinking the beeping that was waking me up was from something that belonged to my father, but couldn't figure out what it could be. Just like in the Motorola story, the beeps only sounded once every few minutes, so it was damned hard to track down the sound. I ended up sitting on the edge of the sofa, listening in dark for the next beep, and having to hear at least three or four beeps before I could track down the source.
All I could think of when I found the phone was "Couldn't you have just died quietly?"
I realize that beeping more frequently could be, under other circumstances, much more annoying (and battery-draining) than beeping every few minutes, but late at night when you don't know where your phone is -- when you might not even know that what you're hearing is your phone -- that kind of beeping seems designed for torture.
I'm not sure what the brilliant solution would be. Let the user configure low-battery behavior? (Me, I'd just turn the beeping off.) Use time of day to figure out frequency of beeping? It's a problem that doesn't lend itself to a particularly neat and tidy solution that's good for all occasions and circumstances.
I've experienced similar things with my phone. Some schmuck calls at 2am and leaves a message. The phone will continue to beep every few minutes until it is acknowledged. If I didn't have a land line, I'd be screwed, having to completely wake up and search for the phone during the few seconds it is ringing. Instead I call the mobile and search while it continuously rings.
Even worse, the back/cancel button is tiny and in the corner of the phone. Meanwhile, the button that will charge you for completely worthless web access is immediately next to the menu navigation buttons and screen.
If it weren't so costly to enter the mobile market, the current players would be dealing with intense competition.
Phone based web-access is next to useless for 99% of customers yet we still don't have rudimentary white/yellow-pages?
Why is it that we still don't have a phone book?
Oh wait, that's right, we get fee-based screen savers instead... sound like they've been studying the MS business model.