The Evolution of Blind Typing: From Nokia to Modern Smartphones

Typing text messages without looking at the screen has evolved significantly since the early 2000s. This journey from Nokia's physical keypads to today's touchscreens highlights advancements in mobile usability and ergonomics.

Early 2000s: Nokia and T9 Texting

Nokia phones in the early 2000s featured physical keypads that allowed users to type without looking. The T9 predictive text system was a game-changer, predicting words based on key presses and enabling users to type quickly using muscle memory. This tactile feedback made it easy to text blindly, with experienced users often typing messages from their pockets.

Mid-2000s to Early 2010s: QWERTY Keyboards and Early Touchscreens

The transition to QWERTY keyboards, like those on BlackBerry phones, offered more efficient typing but less tactile feedback, making blind typing harder. Early resistive touchscreens required precision and were not ideal for typing without looking. However, improvements in predictive text and autocorrect helped users type faster with fewer errors.

Modern Smartphones: Touchscreens and Voice Input

Today's smartphones feature capacitive touchscreens, which are highly responsive but lack tactile feedback, making blind typing nearly impossible. Haptic feedback provides some assistance, but not to the extent of physical keypads. Voice input technologies like Siri and Google Assistant have emerged, allowing users to dictate messages hands-free, marking a significant leap in usability.

Swipe typing is another modern innovation, enabling faster typing but still requiring visual confirmation.

Conclusion

The evolution from physical keypads to modern touchscreens and voice input illustrates that the future of mobile usability might not be about better keyboards but about improved user interaction. However, the effectiveness of voice input can vary based on the user's native language, raising questions about its universal applicability.

This shift emphasizes the importance of creating inclusive and accessible user interfaces that cater to diverse needs and preferences in the ever-evolving landscape of mobile technology.

Transform Your Understanding of Design with The Design of Everyday Things

 Discover the Hidden Mechanics Behind Everyday Objects

Have you ever struggled with a door that wouldn't open the way you expected? Or found yourself baffled by a complicated remote control? These everyday frustrations are the very problems that The Design of Everyday Things by Don Norman addresses. In this revised and expanded edition, Norman, a pioneer in usability and cognitive engineering, unveils the principles of good design and explains how thoughtful design can make everyday life more intuitive and enjoyable.

Why This Book is a Must-Read

1. Understand the Importance of User-Centered Design: Norman introduces the concept of user-centered design, where the needs and abilities of users are prioritized. This approach helps you understand how products can be designed to be both functional and delightful.

2. Learn from Real-World Examples: Through engaging anecdotes and practical examples, Norman demonstrates the impact of design on our daily interactions with objects. These insights will change the way you look at everything from kitchen appliances to mobile apps.

3. Empower Your Problem-Solving Skills: By exploring the psychology behind how we use objects, Norman equips you with the tools to identify and solve design problems. Whether you're a designer, engineer, or simply someone interested in the way things work, this book will enhance your problem-solving skills and creativity.

What Readers Are Saying

"This book is a revelation! It opened my eyes to the intricacies of design and how it affects every aspect of our lives. Highly recommended for anyone interested in understanding the world around them." - Amazon Reviewer

"Don Norman's insights are invaluable. This revised edition is a treasure trove of knowledge for both beginners and seasoned professionals in the design field." - Amazon Reviewer

Take the Next Step in Your Design Journey

Don't let poorly designed objects frustrate you any longer. Dive into The Design of Everyday Things and start seeing the world through the lens of a designer. Whether you're looking to improve your professional skills or simply gain a deeper appreciation for the objects around you, this book is your guide to understanding the principles of effective design.

Get Your Copy Now on Amazon

Revealing the Unexpected: The Art of User Experience in a Self-Service Coffee Machine

As as a product and user experience expert, I continually find fascination in the intersection of design, functionality, and user interaction. When I discovered the self-service coffee machine at an upper-class hotel offering unique beverages such as "Kaffe Schnaps," "Kaffee Fertig," and "Kaffee Luz," (special Swiss beverages mixing coffee with some local spirits) my anticipation brimmed at the opportunity to interact with a machine promising to blend the worlds of coffee and spirits. Regrettably, my initial excitement gave way to a rather different reality. Let's unpack this experience, step by step.

First Impressions

Upon first encounter, the coffee machine is a sight to behold. The sleek and modern design, with its sparkling clean surface and interactive touch screen interface, captures your attention and curiosity immediately. The strategic placement at the breakfast buffet adds a touch of grandeur and indulgence to the morning dining experience. The machine promises an experience of luxury and an adventure into unique blends of coffee and spirits.

In Search of A Spirited Blend

As I navigated through the touch screen menu, the options presented - among many more traditional coffee specials - were "Kaffe Schnaps," "Kaffee Fertig," and "Kaffee Luz." Each selection on the machine invited me to explore a novel world of flavors, promising an adventurous blend of coffee with an essence of various spirits. Intrigued by the Swiss tradition these names evoke, I started my exploration with "Kaffe Schnaps."

The Dose of Reality

After selecting "Kaffe Schnaps," expecting a rich blend of robust coffee and a shot of fruit brandy, I realized the actual function was to adjust the coffee dose and not to dispense the spirit as initially presumed. Similarly, choosing "Kaffee Fertig" and "Kaffee Luz" only adjusted the coffee strength and dosage, with no added spirits.

This discrepancy between expectation and reality is where the user experience fell short. The machine interface leveraged the allure of spirited coffees to attract interaction, but the result was a regular coffee with varying strength and dosages.

User Experience: The Gap Between Expectation and Reality

As a user experience expert, this situation underscores the significance of clear and honest communication in design. While the machine excelled in visual appeal and user-friendly navigation, the incongruity between the conveyed promise and the actual function led to disappointment.

This could be avoided with clear, accurate labels. Or, with a clear communication that these are for restaurant staff use only "pre-processing" steps when preparing the respective coffee - spirit blends manually. 

Concluding Thoughts

In the realm of user experience, the journey matters as much as the destination. When it comes to our luxurious self-service coffee machine, the overall aesthetics, usability, and brewing functionality are impressive. However, the user experience could be significantly improved with more transparency and accurate communication of the machine's capabilities.

In essence, as UX practitioners, we must remember that while it's essential to create captivating user experiences, meeting users' expectations with sincerity and transparency is crucial to creating a truly satisfying interaction. - "Kaffee Schnaps" at the push of a button would have been too much of a luxurious  breakfast experience ;-)

Over-engineering - design for a smarter world

On many occasions I became irritated as the user of a product when noticing that the product was designed to be smarter than me. - Just have a look at many software products we are using in daily life, or at user interfaces from coffee machines, or at text completion on a smartphone, ...

Now, these days I bumped into this funny video about testing the sophisticated design of a children's play. I feel so sorry for the designer. It must be so painful for her (yes, it's an actor, but having been in the role of designers, testers, and end users, I have seen this situation many times).

It's funny to watch this scene, but imagine the scene while designing the play!

The designer get's all these fancy, and sophisticated requirements and use cases from some innovator, a product manager, or just from potential customers of the product. The tell him thousands of things what feature the product needs to exhibit.

In development, engineers think about these requirements about features and ask themselves, what problem the end user is going to solve with the solution. - Confusion arrises.

Often - I have seen this so many times - a dialog between designers and product managers evolves.

- Engineer: "what do you want to achieve with these elements of different form and shape"

- Product marketeer: "don't ask questions, just implement it - that's what you are paid for. Otherwise I can not sell that product."

- Engineer: "but it does not make sense - can we talk to some end customers"

- Product manager: "just do it! You are jeopardising my bonus payments!"

- ...

And so on, until the engineer does what he is asked for at the level of features. That's what he is paid for.

The result: yes, we know it!

- End user: "what the f... these stupid designers and engineers, have they ever been talking to a potential user?"

The moral of the story - you do know all of these books about user centric design, about lean business build up, about most uncertain assumption testing, ...!

The Soap Dispenser on Public Toilets

Every time I wash my hands in a public toilet I notice how badly positioned the soap dispenser and sink usually are. 

Yes, you should wash your hands with soap ... And, to do so, making use of the dispenser usually creates a big mess.

Soap dispensers regularly are placed to the left of the sink. If there are several sinks next to each other depending on where you are standing it might be to the right ;-)

The dispenser is mounted in a way that if some droplet of soap - given principles of gravity - drops, it drops on down to the floor.

Watch out for it! - You will rarely find a public toilet where underneath the soap dispenser there is not a big mess. Even the regular cleaning by cleaning staff over time can not cope with permanent stains.

The worst is with automatic dispensers. Dispensers having a sensor and dispensing only after the hand has been moved underneath. - Given the issue of latency time ... these designs are just too slow ... (see also my articles on general issues with latency in the automatized and digital world: Latency no. 1 and Latency no. 2) ... to securely drop the pre-specified amount of soap into the users hand. Usually one has already pulled back the hand before the soap dropping, resulting in systematic mess with soap on the floor.

As a result it then requires at least two attempts by the end user in order to get his soap into the hand which heavily impacts soap consumption.

A little bit better are dispensers which deliver soap as foam. The improvement here is just that the foam either sticks to the dispensers nozzle, or that the portion of foam does not drop that fast, so that a fast reacting user can still catch it before it is hitting the drop zone on the floor.

Now, the big question: why is this almost everywhere - exceptions apply - the case?

• Is there a norm or standard that requires such design?
• Is it just because nobody cares?
• Is it because consumers and users just accept it and do not complain?
• Is it because the cleaning staff just accepts it?
• Why?

I doubt that I am the only one to notice. And I doubt that I am the only one who sees this a problem.

And given the enormous number of public toilets around the globe I doubt that there is no opportunity for a decent solution to that problem!

A gardeners struggle - the soil bag

During spring and early summer, in the time of the year when plants start growing, everything is sprouting, nature in bloom, people start working in their gardens. According to statistics a habit two thirds of people in Switzerland share (reference).
The current COVID measures seem to drive this statistics even more in favor of sales of gardening supplies (reference).

Everybody is buying soil in various quantities. Many different flavors of soil. And, all packaged in laminated plastic bags. Bags, usually 80 - 100cm long, 40cm wide, and 8cm thick. Filled with premium soil at volumes of few liters for plants on terraces, up to 50 liters of garden soil for big projects. In any case, the package has a certain weight.

I never understood this packaging format! Why would you choose such packaging?
Obviously the responsible designers for these products have never been working in the garden. Or, they are extremely resilient to handling inconvenient products.

Every time I have to carry such a package I get upset.
If I grab the package with two hands on one of the short ends, it is difficult to carry the package and it risks constantly to slip out of my fingers.

If I grab the package with my hands along the longer dimension, then the package - given its weight - is bending through, slips out of my hands, and falls down on the ground.

If I grab it in the middle along the shorter dimension, it is bending through equally and it becomes difficult to carry.

When then loading the packages into the car, the next struggle starts. The dimensions of soil packages are not really fit for purpose. Obviously I need to pile the packages into the trunk of my car. And this is not an easy job. Virtually impossible if you are not Olympic weight lifter. Unloading is the same struggle in reverse order.

And then when ripping them open and trying to dose the amount of soil to be scattered into the plant bed. As soon as a certain amount of soil is missing in the package, the laminated bag becomes unstable. If not emptying the entire bag at once it becomes difficult to handle the package in controlled manner.

  

My practical experience with such packages is repeatably negative leading to higher levels of frustration.

How could one decide for this packaging format? What have been the requirements to come up with such package design?

One reason might be the possibility to pile many packages on a standard palette for transport and storage. 

Obviously an important argument and requirement. Efficient transport and storage is essential for a economically viable product. But, does it need to come at the price of modest customer experience and usability.

What I wonder is, if this packaging format has ever been put at a test with real day to day users.

Apart from the described scenarios above, many users can barely carry such packages given its dimensions and weight. I don’t want to know to how many serious back problems of people struggling to handle such packages the lack of customer centricity can lead.

Another interesting observation is the fact, that all manufacturers of packaged soil products use the exactly same packaging design. Why is that?

I can imagine several hypothetical reasons.

1. Nobody cares about the user, given the fact that there is no alternative and people still are buying.
2. Every producer is copy pasting from his competitor. Nobody is searching for differentiation. Nobody believes in consumers paying a premium for improved usability.
3. Even tough there are many different vendors and brands there might be only very few producers of soil.
4. There is only one serious manufacturer of respective packaging and filling systems. This would explain why there is almost no alternatively packaged products available.
5. The packaging design experts are only doing me-too. With complete lack of usability exercises or user research.
6. The cost requirements for packaging of garden and plant soil are so incredibly low that no other packaging is affordable.

There might be many more reasons ... And, are we as consumers willing to accept these?

What price would we be willing to pay for a better packaging design allowing acceptable handling of soil bags in the shopping, the transport, and use process?

How would a better package look like? What would be the features of a more ideal soil bag? Is there a format that could meet most of above requirements?

Some internet research gives already some hints. There might still be some products which are packaged in other format. Formats which might be more convenient to handle.

The package here to the right for sure has several advantages over the standard laminated bags. 

The handle on the top - foldable for being able to staple them on a palette (transport and storage requirements) - seems key to me. Only with a handle one can carry packages in a serious way. And depending on other dimensions and weight of the package it would even allow me to carry two packages at once, one with each hand. A much more balanced and more efficient way of carrying them.

If the package is less of a slim long bag, but more of a cuboid shape the usability of carrying them by the handle on the top becomes even better. A cuboid shape also fulfills the requirements for stapling the packages on a palette. They could be better organized into the trunk of a car, and could be better stored around the garden.

Also when using them in the garden; cutting the cuboid package open at one corner would allow to much more keep the shape of the package and dosing soil for use.

So, pretty simple and obvious to come up with a packaging format that might lead to much better customer acceptance. 

I am not a packaging expert. And I can well imagine that a packaging system for a cuboid product with a handle requires to manage some more degrees of freedom. But, given the quantities of soil being produced and sold in that business, and given the fact that such packaging and filling can be highly automated I would assume there is a case for such scenario. I could well imagine that going for such packaging could be a differentiating factor.

If you had the choice? Which package would you buy? And, would you pay a price for more convenience?

Latency - No. 2

As discussed in my earlier post - Latency - No. 1 - latency times in today‘s computerized products are a true pain to user experience.

There are different ways of handling it, if it can not be shortened down enough by design.

The most common one is the spinning icon.

However, there is also the traditional solution through good documentation and user guidance.

The good old SOP - standard operating procedure.
Do‘s and dont‘s ...

See to the right - recently found at the breakfast buffet in a tourist hotel in Ticino, Switzerland.
If it truly solves the problem - I doubt it!

At least for me it didn‘t work out. It took me longer to find my language to read - I can read and understand them all - and act on it, than to make everything wrong already in parallel while not waiting for the slow machine to take its time.

Yes, it‘s well documented. And yes, I was the one, impatiently not following the SOP. And, yes, if you would follow it - just slow down - the user experience would be pretty seamless and clear.

As user experience, UX experts usually generate evidence by observing and testing a statistically relevant sample of users. Here, the job obviously has been done. Otherwise nobody would have solved the problem with such a nice SOP in four languages and four colors.
And, from a user end it is always hard to get product design changed in a true user centric way. Once a product is launched, in most cases, there is no room for user centricity and agility to adapt to it any longer. Quality in UX is then only measured in terms of units sold or generated revenue.

In the example given above, a very nice SOP, written by a very pragmatic and customer focusing person, will prevent the manufacturer of the coffee machine from going out of business due to poor UX. What a success!

My new iPad Pro

I recently got an Apple iPad Pro. - Yes, the one with the fancy pencil, and the fancy keyboard.

Once again I was impressed by the overall user experience. Starting with the evaluation phase in the internet. Reading through the specifications and reviews. The lean product photography is already appealing and raises the desire to hold respective product in my hands.

Why do I want to buy an iPad Pro? - My old iPad Version 4 is seven or eight years old. Performance is getting limited, and that bulky pen with the balloon rubber bubble tip was a great user experience increasing usability especially when reviewing articles back then but not necessary today any more.

Why am I reaching limits in performance of that old iPad 4? - Probably mainly because my user behavior changed somehow. I am more often switching between apps, I am having several apps simultaneously open, and pushing the resources of that device. Everything else is working fine. It has been one of my best devices bought ever.

And then that fancy Apple Pencil on the new devices. - A gadget designed to the maximum of usability. But to experience this I need to go to the shop. No e-commerce will make me feel that experience over the internet. Haptic feeling and my biggest fear - will it work for left handed people - drives me to the next Apple shop.

But it‘s not only the hardware of this device which sounds appealing. It is also the imagination of what new possibilities such a setup could open up to me.
All my private and professional office in a small pocket, the possibility to do work wherever I am, bringing creative ideas - yes, the fancy pencil functionality again - to my digital devices as soon as possible...

I am walking into the shop. I tell the seller that I am interested in buying an iPad Pro. He asks me if I would be using it mainly for private or rather for business. My answer is - both!
Yes, private and business is blending more and more.

I am deciding quickly and walking out the shop with three well designed clean white packages. Spent some money on a new device which should bring some more joy to my life.

Am I a victim? - A victim of consumption? - Or, a victim of excellent usability and user experience design? - How did this all influence my buying decision?

Develop for the better - The new Netflix App swiping left and right experience

Netflix, a company known for innovation, creativity, and user experience.

Their recommendation system has been developed in a co-creational way using crowdsourcing in order to match best user experience. This competitional approach even made it into a Harward Business Review. This, as an example of user centricity and focus on the client.

And now, with the newest release of the Netflix App on the Apple TV I am back in stone age when it comes to swiping through these recommendations. - Why? What happened?

The entire user interface is built to scroll left and right for selection within one of my automatically identified favourite categories. And to scroll up and down for selection of respective categories.

And now, this "home", "search", ... menu bar has been moved to the very left and pops up every time I want to swipe left in order to go back while scrolling.

Going back, since the invention of computer terminals and the back space key, probably the most widely used function. The functionality of reflection, of reassessment, and of reconsideration.

I am wondering, what would happen to usage statistics, if you would take this "going back" feature away from the user experience.

So, Netflix in a way did, and probably knows these figures.

What I do not understand is, what designers expect me now to do? - Why has this been implemented?

Do they expect me not to reconsider any more? 

Meaning, always move forward, don't look back, think only about what is coming and do not reflect what you have experienced a fraction of a second ago.

Do they want me to not remember the order of my favourites in "My List"?

Why doing it this way then? Would this not be easier with just randomly sort and resort those lists in the same way grocery stores work against our consumer habits by changing the place of items in the shelfs from time to time?

Do they want me to quit from Netflix on Apple TV? 

If I get annoyed by non intuitive behaviour of the user interface, I will spend less time on the app, I will get stressed, and - since Netflix is rather part of recreational phases of my life - I will not turn back.

This can not be the goal!

So, what were they thinking?

Do they want to teach me to think prior to scrolling?

Slow down, decelerate, relax, ... If so, it does not work!

Now, how was the situation before deployment of respective change a couple of weeks ago.

Same, issue hit the end user actually while scrolling up and down in a way. Just, that the "home", "search", "settings", ... menu bar was seamlessly part of the rest of the experience. Integrated into the categories of favourites. And given the usage of respective functions, I am not sure why this was not a good solution.

I can understand that technically this was not the most logic way of doing it. But it worked.

Or was I just part of one subgroup of users who perceived this implementation as intuitive, while a majority of end users did not.

Is this the struggle with usability? - On one hand everything gest more granular and more personalised. On the other hand, when it comes to simplicity and reaching populations of users with simple implementations one needs to make tradeoffs in disfavour of certain populations.

Is this what is happening here? Is this what I am experiencing as a Netflix user on Apple TV? - Am I traded off against a statistical majority of other users?

Never mind. The current solution feels so odd that I can not imagine above scenario to be true. - But, who knows?

Latency - No. 1

Latency Definition. Latency is the amount of time a message takes to traverse a system. In a computer network, it is an expression of how much time it takes for a packet of data to get from one designated point to another. It is sometimes measured as the time required for a packet to be returned to its sender. (reference: link)

Everybody working with computer systems is facing latency problems.

The time the computer needs to start in the morning - Windows welcoming the user for several seconds.

The time the washing machine takes to be ready to start the program when switched on.

Do you know that feeling? - The TV system asking you "Please Wait...", then "System downloading software upgrade...", "System updating...", "System rebooting...", ... your impatience levels are raising, until you finally get a TV image just to notice that the weather report you wanted to watch is over and you are supposed to consume some publicity instead.

Who guarantees that the reading of your newest smart watch is not compromised by latencies in the management of its computing resources?

Latency, now even when starting up your car, the coffee machine, the vacuum cleaner, ...

One of my favourites is when pushing the power on button on the remote control of my TV screen. The time it takes until the TV shows a visible reaction is so long, that usually I happen to press the button a second time which makes the TV to switch off again. There is no way of seeing wether the first push is doing the job or not!

Another example are SW applications with long response times. Leading to the user clicking around and inducing more and more actions to the system leading to even worse response.
The worst is if typing on a keyboard and the characters showing up on the screen are substantially delayed.

How much latency are we willing to accept?

On one hand we believe that digitisation is improving productivity, reducing inefficiencies, making us more productive and effective. On the other hand we are facing more and more time of enforced delays at steps of our working processes where we have many needs as users, but absolutely no need of waiting.

“For example, Amazon calculated that a page load slowdown of just one second could cost it $1.6 billion in sales each year.” (reference: link)

Already in the very beginning of broader prevalence of computer systems impact of response times on human performance have been performed. There are many studies on the subject being performed in the 1970ies and 1980ies (see: link). These studies have been focusing on response of command entry on keyboards, and response of database requests.

Now, with more and more digital technologies entering our daily life. What are impacts of response and latency times in our life processes?

Is it truly offering added value if my washing machine has a digital control unit which takes 10 seconds to start up compared to the electromechanical version 10 years ago which was instantly ready? - The time prognosis on completion of the washing program is still inaccurate by +/-10 minutes both in the digital and in the electromechanical world.

Having a backward camera on the car which activates when switching to the rear gear is definitely a major improvement compared to the cumbersome navigation by turning your head in non-anatomical positions and looking through small mirrors on the side of the car. But it only helps if switching on the backward camera does not take longer than a couple of tenths of a second.

Or DAB radio. Yes, it is beneficial to have good quality or no signal at all. No tweaking of signals with difficult to manipulate buttons. But, what is the benefit of having to wait several seconds when switching radio channels. In the analog world this was instantaneous with mostly acceptable instantaneous sound quality.

There are many examples where we are limiting ourselves by accepting latency times in the context of technological advancement.
Why are we doing so?
Is it because we are most likely driven by technological fascination and not necessarily by user experience.
Also, the willingness to accept latencies as reality is often too high because end users are not in the position to change anything. And adaptability of users to the current situation of response is quite high.

Nevertheless - for me focus on efficient response and low latency times is one of the most important aspects when designing user experience.
We should always ask ourselves what it we would have to accept in alternative solutions. If these alternatives are old analog or mechanical solutions. We should challenge if accepting longer response times than the mechanical solution can truly be part of a beneficial solution.
If we want to sell the digital solution as a major benefit in efficiency gain for a previous process. Then the tolerance on waiting times should not be too big.

An easy rule of thumb could be something like:

If the system's response times are longer than the reading, inspecting, and thinking times of the user, then it is definitely adding pain to the user experience.
If the response times are longer than the time required by the user between two manipulations then this is definitely not adding value but becoming a stress factor.