cullmanndesign blog

The release of the iPad and its settling into the market point to a distinction between the devices and software we use to “consume” media and create it. The digital workstation is long overdue for an overhaul and Microsoft Research is developing a solution. In recent demonstrations, Microsoft is leveraging their Surface technology to create a naturally manipulated user interface to draw, write, cut, copy and paste digital data. The demonstration presented shows how you can marry user input devices, in this case a pen, with touch to treat the screen as if it is a true “art-board”.

Surface, as demonstrated here, goes beyond previous generations of tablet and touch interfaces like those currently offered from Wacom and Adesso. Although these input devices make use of naturalistic behavior, they offer a limited surface area for manipulation and lack the utility of multi-touch demonstrated on the Surface technology. Both Microsoft and Apple have incorporated mutli-touch into their native operating systems, the keyboard and mouse software is still the primary paradigm for operation. This is partially due to software developers not yet taking advantage of the new native APIs available in the operating systems, but also a lack of clear indication as to how users will use these technologies. The introduction and evolution of “consumption” dedicated devices like the iPad may yield an answer.

Having used Wacom tablets for year and recently being able to spend time with the Surface, both offer an add a freedom beyond the mouse. Both pressure sensitivity and a natural movement allows fast and quick almost gesture-like actions. This is a benefit and attraction because of the nature of my work in design. I’m unsure how much wide-market appeal it will have or if, beyond page-turning and “flicking”, it can offer with today’s content structure. The iPad, the publishing industry and how developers begin to use this technology will help shape the next generation of user interface. I believe that this is why so many people are excited about the iPad and what it brings to the marketplace.

Interface design like the one presented by Microsoft Surface is creating a completely new arena for content creation and will also influence the aesthetics of design to come. Both print and new media designers may completely change their approach with the freedom presented by these new tools. It may seem strange, but there is an entire generation of designers who may not know what it is like to sit at a drafting table or balance a bottle of India Ink in their hands while burning the midnight oil.

Thanks to John Nosta for the Microsoft Research clip inspiring this post.

Roger Black has an excellent post on the Society for News Design Blog. The dialogue is an overview, but there was one point that I think was missed: From the perspective of Art Direction, it is becoming increasingly important that Content Creators and Designers construct their presentation is such a way that it translates, with its impact, across multiple platforms and media. This post (and the snd website) is an excellent example. The post, a standards based layout, features a full transcript.

Roger Black: the decade in design from The Society for News Design on Vimeo.

Apple’s announcement of the iPad this week and the incredible growth of Apple’s AppStore, I thought it would be appropriate to share my thoughts on software distribution and marketing in a closed eco-system for software. This post is the first half of a two part series on closed eco-systems, like the Apple AppStore, for application development and distribution and the effect that will have on customer adoption.

I design and develop websites and applications for commercial clients. Typically they are distributed for a small, focused audience and for a limited number of platforms. With the emergence of the iPhone as a leading platform, there is a lot of pressure to begin to move projects into this space. From a personal point of view, I’m excited to look at the iPhone as an inspiring new playground for interface design and a new venue for projects. For most users, it is an execution of what Apple does best: Easy. There is some baggage that comes with “easy”, but that will be outlined in the second installment of this series.

The closed-system that Apple has also offers some very important advantages:

The biggest advantage to consumers who via a closed-system like the Apple AppStore is security. By security, I mean the level of trust a use has when they install something. This has been a huge hurdle for Windows for many years. Without a central authority or trusted source to deem an application as “safe” users, are put in a position of risk with every application they install. The AppStore (and any closed-system requiring a centralized approval process) overcomes this hurdle by giving any application in the store its “seal of approval” as default with it’s inclusion.

Quality is also a big contributor to the popularity of the AppStore. Despite all the proliferation of “flashlight” and “farting” applications, the process of having an application OKed and included as an offering in the AppStore is a level of Quality Assurance. There is an assumed level of stability and finish that should make it an experience consistent to the platform. Any complaints can be managed within the AppStore’s policies and applications can be revoked and, potentially, removed remotely.

The AppStore is also a great place to look at all of the offerings for a platform in one place. This is what I also appreciate about the Apple Download Page for OS X: A consolidated collection I can search through easily with consistently presented write-ups, screenshots and ratings. This is also fueling the rise of the “AppStore” as a trend for all platforms as well. It’s excellent branding and a better experience for the user to have all of a platform’s best work in one location. The Apple experience is especially well thought-out. Consumers looking for a solution, the ability to search a term and be presented with several options, all with good feedback, and an easy-to-compare structure in one location is a huge benefit. It relieves one of the heaviest burdens of an open system which is finding the perfect solution be wading through review after review on Google and in forums. It benefits the user, the brand and, in the end, the developer.

For developers getting their start, working within a previously existing infrastructure is a great way to get your first branding and marketing start. You can leverage already existing traffic to the channel and, if you get picked up as a spot-light project, your application can take-off and define you or your company as an major player in the space. There is very little risk as not getting any traffic or a big hit will not deter future users and the quality assurance process will only sharpen your programming skills. Once accepted, being able to add a download badge or similar store “call-to-action” on your application’s homepage or blog gives you a strong air of credibility. [[INSERT APPSTORE BADGE]] The central location of your app within the infrastructure will also provide you with a higher probability of a reviewer or blogger finding your application and finding it. A review outside of the eco-system is likely to give you traffic and strengthen your brand.

The most obvious and, depending on your motivations, the most important part of a gated infrastructure for applications if the financial eco-system. With the exception of free-applications, the nature of a closed system centralizes the transaction between the developer and end-user and simplifies the messy monetary exchanges. This usually comes at a cost. In the case of the Apple AppStore, developers are losing 30% of every sale. If you are in the business of developing applications, you have to weigh the positive affects of an infrastructure versus the costs for marketing themselves and supplying a transaction system or working with a third-party sales portal.

Although I have many personal objections to the undocumented review process and closed nature of the Apple AppStore and many similar application distribution vehicles that aim to mimic it, the power of their offering to users and the convenience they provide is undeniable. I would not be able to comfortably recommend not making use of an application eco-system if one where available for a client’s project. In fact, as someone who works in marketing, I would object if a client where to try to avoid a potential channel for distribution. From the developer’s perspective, the closed eco-system of these stores represents a heavy cost in monetary compensation and also in the confines that SDK, user agreements and licensing put on works. If the purpose of a developer’s application is to support a separate channel and use an application as an accessibility solution, then the model works very well (many of the popular apps in the iPhones store use this ideology). If the intent is to sell a software package as a complete deliverable, then the creators should look at what the distribution opportunity really represents before committing to any agreements.

With the introduction of the iPad and Apple’s clear movement to delivering more and more content through the AppStore, the closed system of Apple looks to cut-off content creators who employ a more open and accessible model. At the time of publishing, it looks as though the iPad will have no support for Adobe Flash, a preferred video delivery and casual gaming format. This will force users who want to use this device for entertainment to get almost all of their materials through the AppStore. This is an ironic turn when compared to the iPhone release. Apple had originally announced that there would be no application development for the iPhone, but rather all content and utility would be delivered via a fully-functioning browser on the device. Times have changed.

UPDATE: The second part of this 2 part series: A Case For The iPad (and Closed System Development) Part 2 is available for reading.

Google is partnering with prominent newspapers in the US to help make the content they provide more relevant to users. This new format moves well beyond the formula of providing the same content from a print to the screen with the addition of some images and a social media mechanism. The new format, the Living Story, is a much more contemporary approach to online news. Beyond the pedestrian inclusion of video assets and link sharing tools, the living story, as the title indicates, is in a constant state of change.

Reading a living story allows the user to view provided content within the branded channel and also see related content from the same source, from other authors and content providers. Once an outside link is visited, it falls from the selection options unless that same story is updated. Video and multimedia pieces are also managed the in the same way. What this provides is a single URL that provides a broad range of coverage and becomes more robust as the story grows.

In tune with the needs of savvy users, the story can be tailored by the users and viewed from a number of perspectives. A user can choose to read the story in summary, from a chronological perspective or from a sub-set topic. Based on user interaction, related articles and posts are noted as relevant or not as relevant and fall from prominent position in the interface.

As with many other news services, users can leave comments for others to read. Persons making comments of note can also be elevated in position and shown as relevant contribution to the living story. Google labels the sources of the components making up the story as well. Any Opt-Ed pieces are marked clearly as are any unofficial contributors.

Currently, there are only a few stories available in the Google Labs stable. This is the most impressive evolution of the newspaper industry I have seen. It is very easy to envision how a solution like this might be leveraged on a device like the rumored Apple tablet or similar device.