> "His job is to make Android's interface so good that companies like HTC or Samsung don't have to spend so much time improving it."
An admirable goal, but IMHO never going to fly. HTC, Samsung, et al are desperately fighting not to become commoditized as merely hardware manufacturers (Foxconn style). They desperately need to differentiate themselves and convince consumers that they're buying a unique experience, as opposed to simply doing the hardware fabrication for the Google Experience.
I mean, look at their current changes to stock Android - IMHO nothing really compelling. In fact, most of these OEM-specific UIs seem like just cruft on top of the Android experience. Wholly unnecessary even without the Honeycomb makeover.
I guess there might be some credibility in the suggestion that if the current stock of OEM makeovers usually make an OK interface slightly worse, they would make a very good interface only slightly less very good.
Another thought, I wonder if Google initially anticipated the amount of makeover work that OEMs would put into Android.
Does anyone know how hard/easy the current presentation layer makes customisation? If they released a more easily & deeply skinnable version of their UI, do you think it would be possible for Google to steer manufacturers towards making less sweeping customizations, leading to a more standard (although still distinct) UI/UX?
I suspect that, not only did they anticipate it, they fully expected it. HTC's Sense UI started on Windows Mobile before HTC ever sold an Android device. Google's customers for Android aren't you or I, they are the device manufacturers and carriers and a customizable user experience is a big selling point for a company like HTC.
If they were actually competing to differentiate themselves, wouldn't they have issued android os updates to their users phones in a reasonable time frame? And not ship phones with outdated versions? I mean I really just want a manufacturer I can trust.
Lots of complaints in the article about the hidden menu. I like the hidden menu, at least on devices with small screens (all phones). I know it isn't as discoverable as an always-visible toolbar, but discoverability is not the only valid concern in the design of a UI.
Yeah everyone seems to rag on the menu button, but I like it, saves space on the screen, seems logical to me. When I'm looking for extra options, I hit that menu button. When using my girlfriends iPhone I miss it, instead of having the one menu button I have to look for the applications personalized menu icon on on the screen - it's not consistent.
Perhaps its just that most people are used to the IOS way of doing things?
I notice that with some reviewers; they often translate "not like iOS" to "not good UX", and I don't think that's fair or accurate.
I also think that phones and tablets are different kinds of devices, and that the tradeoffs appropriate for one aren't always right for the other. I might prefer a menu button on a phone and a toolbar on a tablet.
The problem with the hidden menu in Android is that Google set a precedent of bad UX by hiding primary tasks in the menu. It's ok to put secondary tasks in a context menu, but primary tasks should be visible at the top level. Desktops have the same problem with putting too much functionality in the right click context menu.
It's like making a painting app where the only way to paint is to select the brush and colors from a context menu. Or making a web browsers where the only way to navigate back and forth or change the address is via a context menu. Or a tabbed text editor where the only way to switch files is via a context menu. You don't have to be an Apple fanboi to agree that that is just bad UX. People who disagree are probably developers and developers should not be designing UX. That's why open source programs have notoriously bad UX.
Fortunately, Google recognizes this problem and is fixing this I newer versions of their apps. For example, you can now finally locate yourself in the Map app without going to the menu.
The major problem I have with the menu button, and all the Android buttons, is they are disruptive to the flow of using the software. Until the touch buttons are as sensitive as the touchscreen itself it's going to be a bit jarring to switch back and forth. This raises the problem of the touch buttons getting activated accidentally if they are too sensitive. I prefer having all the UI elements accessible from the touchscreen itself. It's probably a bit of a compatibility nightmare to attempt to solve now. Using touchscreen UI elements in tablets and a physical or touch button in SmartPhones is definitely not the most consistent way to approach the problem. Many people use their phones in a landscape orientation. IIRC at least one Android phone maker implemented the menu/back/home/search buttons in a second small LCD. This would probably be the best approach. The buttons themselves could change orientation as needed.
The Nexus One solves this problem -- the 4 button are just dedicated chunks of the screen, and they're precisely as responsive as it sounds like you'd like.
I strongly prefer physical, mechanical buttons; they work better with muscle memory. Some devices implement some of the buttons as on-screen soft-buttons. It's probably possible to do with all of them. At least one upcoming tablet has no off-screen buttons. Fortunately, Android is an open platform with lots of flexibility so we can each get devices we like.
If only they'd bring back trackballs and 5-row keyboards... then I'd be happy.
WebOS is turning out to be one of those things that are commercially unsuccessful/unpopular but massively influential. Both Android 3.0 and RIM's playbook (whose OS will eventually make it to their phones) seem to be more influenced by webOS than the iPad.
To put it another way, WebOS:Android = Pixies:Nirvana (things like this seem to happen a lot in music).
I've liked almost everything I've seen about webOS except the actual phones, which is a shame. webOS has always felt much more polished to me than Android.
On the flipside, the new Nokia phones look awesome, but I don't think I could drop my iPhone for Symbian.
In any case, if Android turns out to be a bit more like webOS, I could see myself switching for an Android phone.
I really wish they'd get rid of the hardware back button.
Some apps, like the gmail app, use it to mean "go back up one level in the UI" - for example from reading a mail back up to the list of mail in your inbox. Other apps, like the browser and maps, use it to mean go back through your history (just like the back button in a desktop web browser).
It causes just enough cognitive dissonance that I frequently end up trying to use it for the wrong thing. It's very annoying.
It's interesting to think of Android as "the tide that rises all boats", a platform that accelerates mobile development not just for smartphones, but also for tablets, media players, digital cameras, TVs, cars, appliances and much more.
My main pain point with my Android (2.1) phone is the soft keyboard. The spelling options hide the current text when text messaging, but there is no way for the keyboard to know where the text being edited is on the screen to avoid this.
An admirable goal, but IMHO never going to fly. HTC, Samsung, et al are desperately fighting not to become commoditized as merely hardware manufacturers (Foxconn style). They desperately need to differentiate themselves and convince consumers that they're buying a unique experience, as opposed to simply doing the hardware fabrication for the Google Experience.
I mean, look at their current changes to stock Android - IMHO nothing really compelling. In fact, most of these OEM-specific UIs seem like just cruft on top of the Android experience. Wholly unnecessary even without the Honeycomb makeover.