First, you don’t need a plugin for native phone apps, and often native apps run more smoothly. They also still tend give you a better chance of being discovered than, e.g., a pure Web search. AND, with a native app, you can get both Web coverage (host a Web page talking about and linking to it in the app store) and whatever app store coverage you get.

Another point in native app’s favor is that they tend to be optimized for particular platforms from a Design perspective, i.e., they feel native, they feel like the experience that the platform promises–the one that the person decided to buy over the others. They are also (usually) consistent, following platform patterns.  These points are not typically true for Web apps–especially since a major benefit (from the app creator’s perspective) is the whole “write once run anywhere” thing, so you end up with a vanilla app experience that is either native for one platform or for none.

About IE10 and HTML5–it’s not going to be immediately adopted. It’s not clear when, for instance, touch/gesture support will be pushed out to WinPhone yet. Even then, it will take some time for folks to update their phones, and you can’t effectively “be sure” it is there for some time yet.

This adoption problem is much more an issue on desktop. Saying HTML5 doesn’t require a plugin doesn’t tell the whole story because it requires a current browser, which for all intents and purposes serves the same function as a Silverlight or Flash plugin–the user has to have special software installed to use it.  And both of those plugins have much more of an install base right now than HTML5, and will for some time yet (a long time, in software years).  It would be very surprising to see major enterprises all moving to IE10 right away.  It would be nice, but I’m not holding my breath.

Three years from now, maybe it will be true that HTML5 is the obvious winner on the desktop, but I’m still not convinced it will ever be on mobile devices.  Most likely, the best strategy will be to come out of the gate with a mobile Web app OR choose a platform you think gives you the best bang for your buck initially, and then you can fill in the gaps (either building native for other platforms or Web app for your non-primary target).

Just my 2c.

A while back, I was reading this post over at Optimal Usability about the gaps between interaction designers (IxDs) and visual designers (VDs). I am director of Design at Infragistics, which in practice means that both visual design and interaction design report to me (along with something we call “developer interaction design”).  Our core business for about 20 some odd years has been making reusable UI components and tools for developers. A few years ago, we started to diversify with designer tools, such as Quince and Quince Pro, and we are working on some other nifty stuff focused on helping designers, so we tend to think about them a lot, in addition to our own practice internally.

A lot of what Adeline says rings true for me as well–there is definitely a distinction in perspective and modes of thinking between IxDs and VDs. And in terms of not totally compartmentalizing design disciplines, of course, that makes sense.  Cooper advocated something similar back in 2008 and has been on the road with that “unified design” concept for some time.

But I have noticed what seems to me to be something of an unfortunate trend, and that is the tendency to characterize interaction design as an analytical and systematic discipline focused solely on optimizing for the user (basic usability and task completion concerns) while tossing, it seems, all aesthetic, business, and other considerations into the domain of other folks. The solution advocated, then, becomes something to the tune of “let’s involve everybody throughout the design process to ensure all of these concerns are represented.”

Involve Everybody!
In the article on Cooper referenced above, the proposition for this is in part based on a concern about apparent power struggles over the design itself.  Exemplifying a possible dispute about information density in which the IxD cites research, they say, “If the visual designer has no direct experience with that research, where does the conversation go from here?”

Again, the proposed solution is that all of the design disciplines should be involved in research so they all, in theory, can use “research” to beat each other over the head with when disagreements arise.  One key problem with this, though, is that more often than not, you’re dealing with interpretations of research.  So even if both parties are involved, they will still argue based on their interpretations and prejudices (in the absence of ever elusive definitive data to resolve things).

At Infragistics, we hear the same concerns, coming not just from visual designers but also from developers/engineers. The problem I see is that research, in these discussions, tends to be seen more as a tool to used in disagreements over designs to support “my” opinion on the right design direction. People at this point tend to look at it through the eye of proving their point rather than considering it all holistically as input. Exploratory research, on its own, can rarely be used to support this or that particular design choice, so it’s usually an exercise in futility anyways. If you want that sort of information, you typically need to do focused A/B testing, and be very careful about how you frame the tests.

More to the point, interaction designers are trained and practiced in looking at research holistically, and letting the data speak for itself. It takes practice to separate yourself and your opinions from the data, and often those not practiced in this are only too quick to latch onto the data that seems to support their preconceived notions and to minimize or ignore what doesn’t. I’m not saying IxDs are never biased, but the point is that this is part of the IxD discipline, and it takes practice and conscious effort–things that other disciplines either aren’t interested in investing in or can’t due to other demands on their time.

And that brings me to the broader concern about involving everybody in research–except on small, startup-sized teams, it seems to me to be impractical and, in the business owner’s eyes, expensive. Especially so if your teams are geographically distributed. Not only that, as your teams grow, involving them all can seriously intimidate the research subjects, which screws up the data.

One suggestion to deal with this is to have the other team members only go to this or that research session. But that seems potentially worse because those team members will come away with skewed ideas, basing their notions on isolated bits of the research instead of the research holistically. And if they’re not trained and practiced in research (as most other team members are not), it’s all too easy for them to build up such skewed notions, and later to use them as weapons in design discussions–they know enough to be dangerous but not enough to be effective in terms of informing design directions.

On the other hand, I heartily agree that interaction designers should be involved in research as much as possible; ideally I’d even say they are the primary participant, with the design researchers (if such a specialty exists for a team) facilitating and executing research sessions and compiling the research for later reference. The IxD, in orgs without dedicated research teams, should be the folks who take over the researcher’s tasks. Of course, they won’t be able to do it as thoroughly as dedicated researchers, but they are the natural fit due to training and what is required of them to fill that gap as best they can.

It is the IxD’s job to take this research, to understand it, and most importantly to synthesize it into a holistic, coherent interaction design. That, I repeat, is the primary activity for IxD, and as such, the designs they produce should normally sufficiently embody and reflect the research so that it is not necessary for everyone to be involved in the research. The interaction design itself should speak for the research.

The other product disciplines need to trust that the IxD is doing her job. That doesn’t by any stretch mean that designs should never be questioned–quite the contrary, the more a design is put under fire, the stronger it should become. But if the IxD listens to the concerns and suggestions, can explain the rationale, and ultimately says, citing research if applicable, that this is the right design direction, then that decision should be respected as part and parcel of the IxD’s role and responsibility on the product team. It’s quite possible they could change the design in response to their peers’ criticism–I hope they would if the suggestion makes the design better. But this idea of getting everyone involved in the research so that everyone can leverage their interpretations of it to push the design in the direction they prefer is just unhealthy and can quite simply stall out forward momentum on the product. Design by committee is a sure recipe for disaster.

We’re Both Designers
The article on Optimal seems to imply that in order to get “lateral thinking” and thinking outside the box (“challenging conventions”), you really need to engage the VD. They also identify that the VD “has absolutely no input or access to the project until the wireframes are handed over” as a problem.  They say that IxDs are “great at models that work well for users” and testing them.  In the end, they, too, advocate plugging in folks throughout the process.

Now, first let me say that I 100% agree that collaboration and good communication between the various product disciplines is essential to great products. It seems almost axiomatic. And I might even be inclined to agree that good VDs tend to be more aesthetically oriented and good IxDs tend to be more analytically capable. I’d go further in agreeing that simply handing off annotated wireframes to a VD and washing your hands of it is a Bad Idea. But I don’t agree that the reason to involve VDs in the IxD process is that they are more creative/lateral thinkers.

While it may be true that the focus of interaction design is optimizing designs for human interaction and that visual design is focused on, particularly, visual aesthetics and the related communication (and even rhetoric), the people serving in either of these capacities are still (normally) designers. That is, they share a common way of thinking about problems–from the human perspective–and they both need to be thinking creatively about the design.

I don’t know who thought this would be a good idea. Presumably, at some point, someone said, “hey, this is the future!” And man, all these people just piled on and blindly followed. Geesh!

Why, you may ask, does it bug me?  Because, heck, when we’re babies, we eat food with our HANDS. Yes, that’s right. Have you ever seen a baby or toddler eat? I mean, wow, they really dig those hands in, squeeze it through every finger, and then rub it on their face! They clearly are having a much more enjoyable experience, and obviously, because they’re babies, they’re just doing what is natural and intuitive for people.  Hands are great!

So what lamebrain came up with the idea of a FORK? I mean, really.  In addition to making the eating experience less tactile, all these annoying social conventions grew up around it, so now it’s like considered crude to eat with your hands.  And now we have to spend years, I mean literally years, teaching kids to not eat with their hands and instead separate themselves from the food with this tool, that, I mean, all you can do is poke and scoop (and push, okay) food around.  Have you tried eating with your hands lately? I mean, look at all the other cool stuff you can do with food using your hands!

Good grief! How could society have let this happen?!?  It’s not like forks spontaneously generated like mold. I mean, some morons came up with them and then everybody just CHOSE to accept them and use them.  Come on, people!

And don’t get me started on these:

Seriously. How unnatural are those things? I mean, you’re totally separated from the road (especially in Cadillacs!). You can’t feel the gradations on the ground under your feet, the rhythmic thud, thud, thud. (Plus, it’s exercise!)  And worst of all, we have to have all these dang roads all over the place that totally cut swaths through nature, so we ride smoothly along instead of stomping through forests and glens.  I’m not even so sure about shoes–have you walked on the ground without them? It’s almost titillating!

And then there’s this lovely thing:

What kind of doofus dreamed this up? I mean, the state of sci-fi in that day was so ridiculous. Where were the dreamers?!?  I mean, have you ever swam in water? Do you love the feel of it as it tickles your skin and all those little hairs?  Just how many nerves do you think you have in your skin? What about the feeling of the resistance of water versus that of air?  It’s quite something, ain’t it?  But this dude was like, screw that, I’m gonna make this boat that can go under water, so you don’t even get to touch the water any more.  And not only that, compare how many different ways you can squirm, and roll, kick, and paddle–all those different swimming strokes that you lose out on, and what can this thing do? Just like go up and down and left and right a bit, using air bladders, propellers, and rudders?  And do you think that piloting these things is easy or natural?  Ha! Most of them you can’t even pilot on your own!

You know what, all I’m asking for is that we not pursue any technology unless it involves full sensory experiences that are completely innately intuitive. I mean, I don’t care how much value it might add, how much easier it might make things, how much it might improve our ability to do stuff or communicate better. If I can’t do it with my own whole darn body without having to learn and practice how to use it, well, forget it!

—-

P.S. Thanks for the inspiration. For the record, I’m all for exploring tactile technologies, but really, we humans are lazy, and we usually want to achieve things in the least costly way possible. Why use a hammer, when you can use a nail gun? When was the last time you used a hammer for the sheer joy of pounding nails? Most of us use them cuz we don’t have nail guns.

If you want tactile, sure, write a letter with paper and pen. Pick up a paper book, flip through it, and read it. But don’t tell me that a Kindle or iPad is bad because it doesn’t replicate that experience–kids can carry their entire set of textbooks on these little devices instead of breaking their backs with backpacks full of books. You can browse and get new books in seconds.  The list could go on–other such examples are above.

Some technologies are worth learning because of the value they add and the way they make things easier, even while sacrificing more sensory rich and “intuitive” interactions. I happen to like flipping a page by just clicking a side button or tapping on the edge; sometimes I’d rather swipe, and that’s okay, too.  I happen to like using a touchpad for prolonged computer use–it’s simple, easy, fast, and fluid once you learn it, and a lot less trouble than constantly reaching up to do things on the screen and getting gorilla arm in the process. I’d hate to think how obnoxious it would be if I literally had to manipulate windows and tabs (or other objects that don’t truly benefit from direct manipulation) in 3D space…

When we want to have richer sensory experiences, we humans will figure out how do that–we can have both fast food and slow food. But when we’re just trying to get things done, don’t make us do things slower, “richer,” or theoretically more intuitive just for the sake of those things.

In addition to adding this new capability, we made a new, light theme (the IG Theme) that anyone can choose to use for free. Just go to Customize Account and choose the IG Theme as shown below.

As we added this capability, we made a few other tweaks that we hope you’ll like.  First, we updated the top menu to be thinner and redesigned for simplicity; we did this both to maximize usable application space as well as make it feel a bit more standard as far as menus go.

And we also did something similar for the design library home:

Of course, we snuck a few other nifty surprises in there that (e.g., dramatically better new item notifications emails), while small in themselves, should add up to a better overall experience with Quince. And it may just be me, but it seems a little bit peppier all around now.

Hope you enjoy it as much as I know I will!