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

Proposed Plan for Socially Distanced User Study of Wix.com

Plan for User Study: www.Wix.com I. Introduction Although a usability test is unlikely in this socially-distanced and pandemic-filled world, if I were to do one, this post describes how I would see myself doing it as well as a basic overview of my plan of study, had this been an option. II. Identifying Users 1. The users of this site align most with the age group of 20-35. This demographic uses Wix primarily for educational purpose and small business website platforms. 2. Users in this case will work through website creation, as that is the main function of the site. III. Target Identification of Problems Below are the main heuristics and an associated question to further explore the content of the site as I plan a User Study. A. Engagement Are the screen and workplace too crowded, and are they layered to maximize engagement? Is the site   nested too deeply with helpful tools to be useful? B. Error Tolerance Does the Help Desk analysis show enough specific problem de...
Post a Comment
Read more

Design Surrounds Us

Despite surrounding us in every object that we own, encounter, and interact with, design is oftentimes an invisible sort of force. Good design generally directs the user without being overtly noticeable, which means that it is often easier for us to pick out elements of bad design—that is, we most often notice design when we’re frustrated or confused by it. However, when we feel these emotions, it is important to understand which aspect of a design has caused them. Sometimes the failure in design is not caused by the most obvious component; indeed, the design of a specific frustrating component may have been the best design available if there are external and unmalleable constraints that it had to work within. Noting which level a design fails at, then, will make addressing design concerns much more exact and relevant, as critiquing a specific frustration without addressing the wider problematic system brings about no progress. While perhaps not the most exciting topic, a strong exampl...
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