Skip to main content

Simplicity is Sophistication

Apple’s sense of design has spoiled us, which is (probably) a good thing.


Throughout my life, I have consumed significant amounts of time using a variety of Apple Inc. products, including the iPod Nano (2008), iPod Touch (2010), iPhone 6 (2016), and MacBook (2015). I cannot say how much time I have spent with these over the years, but I can say that just today (it’s 6:00 p.m.) I have spent 2 hours and 32 minutes on my iPhone and 5 hours and 37 minutes on my MacBook. That’s 8 of my 10.5 waking hours spent using an Apple design.


If that average was consistent to the past 10 years (and I cannot definitively say it is not), it would be roughly 30,000 hours on Apple devices. What has caused me to invest so much time in this brand? Good design.

Apple prioritizes design in a way that other technology companies did not throughout the development of personal computers and smartphones. I would argue that Apple is still at the vanguard of technology development today.

Their outerwear is clean and simple, with a minimal number of ports, speakers, and buttons. Attachments like earbuds, air pods, charging cords, and Apple TV are also aesthetic pieces that look good on my desk, nightstand, pockets, and pretty much everywhere I go.

However, it is their user-centered interface that keeps me spending time with the devices. I recently read Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs, aptly titled Steve Jobs, and was struck by Apple’s early adaptation of user interface testing. Jobs and his team were obsessed with constantly interrogating the usability of every minute feature. As Jobs says, “We believe that customers are smart, and want objects which are well thought through.”

The science of usability testing has increased our ability to create user-centered products. In fact, in following principles of design testing, and exerting enough time and energy into the process, it is becoming difficult not to create usable design. At a certain point, all mobile phone producers will make their features so usable that the distinction between sending a text on an iPhone and Android is only micro-seconds.

In this world, the iPhone’s beauty, and its simplicity of outer design is as important as its functionality. It is not enough that the devices we spend our time using have functionality, they need to look good doing it. Apple made tools that are also art, and in doing so have spoiled us as users.

Things as simple as exposed black wires or ugly fonts now drive me crazy, mostly because I am so used to being in the hands of Apple. There is nothing wrong with my design standards being raised by a particular brand, but sometimes innovation is messy. Not every new discovery that progresses technology forward will start with beauty and simplicity, but the discussion on where to sacrifice functionality for beauty and vise versa is far from being over.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The UX behind Among Us

The online multiplayer game, Among Us, took the quarantined world by storm. A year ago the game boasted under a hundred players. Today, the social deduction game has nearly 400,000 players in a given month. Players join the online game to play against their friends or randomly assigned players from the internet in a murder mystery free for all. At the start of a game, users are assigned the role of crewmate or imposter. Crewmates must complete mini tasks and identify the imposter who is running around murdering crewmates and avoiding detection. The game has proven to be incredibly successful, but how well does it stand up to user experience standards? Accessibility This game appears rather simplistic; however, there are a few major accessibility design flaws. The first of which is something that I personally would have never considered until I discussed the game with a friend. The primary objective of Among Us is to identify the imposter who is sneaking around and killing crewmates...
Post a Comment
Read more

Think “Experience Architecture”

At the beginning of this class, we were assigned readings and videos about airports in order to conceptualize the main theme of the course, experience architecture. Experience architecture is the design of spaces (architecture) for users (experience), such as an airport. In de Botton's work, "A Week at the Airport," de Botton addresses a doubt about experience architecture that sheds light on the scope in which the concept applies. "Standing before costly objects of technological beauty, we may be tempted to reject the possibility of awe, for fear that we could grow stupid through admiration...[and] yet to refuse to be awed at all might in the end be merely another kind of foolishness. In a world full of a chaos and irregularity, the terminal seemed a worthy and intriguing refuge of elegance and logic." (de Botton, 2009, p. 3-4). Simply put, experience architecture is design that is meant for the experience of the user. De Botton communicates this through an exp...
Post a Comment
Read more

One Purdue and the Employee Launchpad

Before the pandemic began, I was able to easily clock in and out of my on-campus job by swiping my Purdue ID card. Now, however, I have to clock in online through One Purdue and the Employee Launchpad. I often do this from my phone via the mobile website. Frustration led me to choose One Purdue for my expert analysis because I was often unable to accomplish my task. The mobile website often failed by not loading or giving an error. The options shown on One Purdue were also inconsistent, and I often couldn’t locate the Employee Launchpad before my shift began, even though it is the only application I have ever consistently used. In response, I decided to analyze One Purdue’s desktop website. In my findings, I have found that the desktop website is only somewhat better than the mobile one. Beginning with One Purdue’s weaknesses, there is simply too much going on. All of One Purdue’s 73 applications are included under the “Most Popular” category with very little information to distinguish...
Post a Comment
Read more