People and Extensions

GNOME 3.0 Hackfest Day 5

2011-03-31T00:06:00.000-07:00

I'm reviving this blog to thank people for their awesomeness.

This year's GNOME.Asia is special, because of GNOME 3.0's release (which is postponed #April1) and the 5-day hackest. Today is the last day of the GNOME 3.0 Hackfest and the 3nd at Dayananda Sagar Institutions. The first two days were at Intel's office. Thank you for accommodating us, Intel and DSI!

I'd like to thank the GNOME hackers for joining us in Bangalore for this event. That's Allan Day, Andre Klapper, Andreas Nilsson, Chandni Verma, Frederic Peters, Josselin Mouette, Ryan Lortie, Vincent Untz, and Committee peeps. Having a good time with you guys!

We did student training yesterday and today at DSI, for 3rd and 4th year college students from different universities. People were very inquisitive. I like how it went, so thanks to everyone who made this possible. I enjoyed spreading the word about UX and GNOME.

Kudos to the GNOME.Asia Team! It was just like yesterday when we were discussing this in Taipei. The output is great so far.

I'm probably forgetting some names right now, but this one, I shouldn't forget. Thanks to the GNOME Foundation for shipping me from Philippines to India.

See you tomorrow at the first of two days of the Summit!

UXPhilippines.com

2010-11-22T04:09:00.000-08:00

Hello. Helloooo. Echooooo. Echoooooo.

Not much going on here. Head to UXPhilippines.com ! =)

0918 948 2520 <- My new number

2010-07-14T03:08:00.000-07:00

I finally changed my mobile number. Please save it (+63 918 948 2520) and delete the old one.

Thanks! :)

Twitter and Opera Mini 5: The Future of Android Apps

2010-05-04T02:20:00.000-07:00

Android is great, but like any other platform, there's room for improvement. As I wrote before, Android has conventions that are bad for UX. I was actually afraid that these conventions could not be broken, because those hardware buttons are here to stay and forcing changes could bring injustice to Android hardware buttons.

Twitter and Opera Mini 5 are two new Android apps that stand out because of their great UX design. I don't know if I should consider this fortunate or otherwise, but they're good because of not following Android conventions.

Twitter's deviations from Android app conventions include the title bar (thicker and has clickable elements), putting buttons on the screen that are usually found in the menu, and having different look and feel of tabs.

Opera Mini 5's share of deviations include the lack of menu, using the menu button to show/hide the Address Field / Search, and the inclusion of a mouse pointer among many others.

I consider all of the said deviations positive. Contrary to what I believed, the hardware buttons are still useful. They are also great especially because of showing more of the necessary GUI elements on the screen. It's time to graduate from hiding too many buttons in the menu. As I said, things that we see influence what we do. As long as clutter is avoided, it is good to show the user more of what's happening with an app and what he can do with it. After all, Google is open enough to allow deviations.

Twitter and Opera Mini 5 hold the key to the future of Android apps.

Is the iPad a Wasteful Innovation?

2010-04-02T07:28:00.000-07:00

When the iPad was announced, people made fun of it. In a world full of laptops, netbooks, and smartphones; what unmet need would the iPad address? It runs a version of iPhone OS, which is not significantly superior to the smartphone. Is its hardware significant enough to justify the existence of iPod Touch Jumbo?

"Technology first, invention second, needs last"

Don Norman described in an essay that design or marketing research did not play significant roles in shaping powerful inventions. He said that it has always been "technology first, invention second, needs last." Inventions are not always needed, but when they succeed, they affect our lives greatly. If you think about it, life used to be fine without cellphones.

Great UX design over features

Tim Gideon from PC Mag said:

There may be things it doesn't do, but what it does do, it does remarkably well.

This new type of mobile device isn't a smartphone or a laptop. Those two do things that the iPad doesn't. However, the iPad seems to do some things better than others. The tangible feel of the web on iPad is better than the browsing experience on laptop and desktop computers. The larger screen of the iPad doesn't require mobile versions of websites, unlike smartphones or other smaller devices.

How about tablet PCs that largely share the same form factor? Apparently, even if those computers do more than the iPad, the great unique experience that the big iPod Touch provides is more significant than its lack of features.

The slate is already influential

At this early stage, the iPad is already very important that the web and other things are being shaped to adapt to its existence. Many are moving to HTML5 and new mobile applications are being made just for the iPad. As Don Norman said; most inventions fail, but the ones that succeed change our lives.

Hiding features is better than removing features

When a person can carry an iPad, he can manage to bring a laptop or a netbook instead. iPad owners could end up carrying a laptop, an iPad, and a smartphone most of the time. This means many overlapping features. Now that it appears that Swiss knives aren't always better than specialists, humanity should find a way to conserve resources. Having to maintain many devices is very wasteful. A laptop replacement, which also has the great things about the iPad, would be best. There may be some people who can afford to purchase and bring many devices with them, but waste is not justified. Perhaps, avoiding this waste is a greater need than the small pretty things about the iPad. This piece of technology should get nothing more than the attention that it deserves.

formspring.me

2010-04-02T00:21:00.001-07:00

Ask me (just about) anything =) http://formspring.me/AllanCaeg

Physical Ergonomics of GUIs on Touchscreen Devices

2010-03-30T08:09:00.000-07:00

Touchscreen devices are becoming more popular these days, especially mobile ones. The market is full of great touchscreen smartphones from different makers. The release of the iPad will probably contribute more to this.

My question on UXExchange regarding window control positioning and arrangement started a discussion on how physical ergonomics should be considered when designing those controls. Perhaps, this issue would be a lot more relevant for touchscreen devices. Furthermore, window controls aren't the only elements that should be considered when talking about the physical ergonomics of interacting with a GUI.

The form factor of devices, screen size of devices, handedness of people, and effort required to hold the device are some of the factors that could affect the interaction of fingers of people and touchscreen interfaces.

The world should prepare to face a finger-friendly internet. The spotlight starting to move away from the mouse.

The Power of Prompts on GUIs

2010-02-20T03:27:00.000-08:00

I came across the idea of "prompts" on GUIs when I asked this question on UXExchange.com. Two people answered that "Share This" buttons prompt readers to share.

I have never used a "Share This" button or anything of that sort. Whenever I find something interesting online, because of the highly ergonomic setup of my computer, I always had the impression that sharing content on the web would always be more convenient if I do it manually than through an automated process, which could even compromise my social networking accounts. I haven't tested this so I don't have the numbers, but it's logical that "Share This" buttons can prompt people to share information, whether they are going to use the sharing service or not.

Recently, I have notable "prompting experiences" on mobile operating systems. On the iPhone, because of the limited hardware buttons, opening menus are done through the GUI. I appreciated this when I started being an Android user. On Android; going back to the previous screen, opening menus, and searching are all done with the use of hardware buttons. How are you going to know if and how those buttons are going to work on a certain screen? You have to test. There's nothing to prompt you.

Prompting and the lack of it largely influence the world. They're the advertisements of activities.

My Blog's Ironic Shortcoming

2010-02-20T03:10:00.000-08:00

I intended this blog to be a source of reliable information on human experiences with technology. The quality of my entries had always been my primary concern. I wanted to write entries that aren't far from journal articles. With that mindset; I tended to postpone posting because of the lack of time to write something lengthy, desire to share only big ideas, and reserve sharing great thoughts in more profitable venues. As expected, I rarely post and my few entries aren't as presentable as I want them to be.

This blog is relatively new and it probably doesn't have an audience that is committed enough to read lengthy posts about highly technical things. I'll keep in mind that I'm not blogging about pop stars so I'll have to make my posts as usable as possible for varied personas.

UX of Android OS Buttons

2010-02-12T08:55:00.001-08:00

Typical Android devices have four buttons: "back ", "menu ", "home ", and "search ". I find them very useful on my Nexus One. They're too useful that they have to be much more accessible. On my hardware, they're just soft keys that seemingly lack calibration. I just found out on XDA that they should be touched on the upper part.

To those who aren't familiar, here is a table of what the buttons are for from Google's User's Guide

Button	Press	Press & hold
Back	Opens the previous screen you were working in. If the onscreen keyboard is open, closes the keyboard.
Menu	Opens a menu with items that affect the current screen or application.
Home	Opens the Home screen. If you're viewing the left or right extended Home screen, opens the central Home screen.	Opens the most recently used applications screen.
Search	In some applications, opens Quick Search Box for searching the phone and the web. In other applications, opens a search box for just that application. Press twice to open Quick Search Box from any application.	Opens Google search by voice.
Power (top left)	Turns off the screen.	Opens a menu with options for Airplane mode, for Silent mode, and for powering off the phone.
Volume Up / Down (left side)	When a call is in progress, increases or decreases the call volume. When the phone is ringing, silences the ringer. On the Home screen when no call is in progress, increases or decreases the ringtone volume, or sets the phone to be silent or to vibrate instead of ringing. In other applications, controls the volume of music, spoken directions, and other audio.	Quickly increases the ringtone volume to maximum or minimum.

This may sound good because those buttons don't have to be in the screen, unlike in the iPhone, which only has a "home" hardware button. Yes, this lessens the number of elements on the screen, but I see having those hardware buttons as a disadvantage.

On the iPhone, the back button, usually on the upper left, tells what the previous screen is. You'll know what you'll get when you go back. On Android phones, you have to remember what the previous screen is because nothing, other than your memory, will tell you. It is also inconsistent in some cases. If you open your browser from the home screen, clicking the "back " button will bring you to the previous webpage, if there is. If there isn't, you'll go back to the home screen. This way, you will have to guess what your back button will do.

The "menu " button is also confusing. Some apps don't have menus so pressing "menu " will not display a menu in some cases. I also love how menus are displayed on the iPhone. having a button on the screen that tells you there's a menu prompts you to see what the menu contains. On my Nexus One, some apps like Facebook preach the usage of the "menu " button. Their devs probably know that many people will likely miss features that they put on their app because of being hidden under the "menu " button.

I have no problem with how the "home " button works. I know that when I click it, I'll go back to my home screen.

The "search " button is confusing like the other two. On the home screen, it's given that "search " will open the "Quick Search Box" of Android. However, some apps have search functions so "search " will open the search box for the specific app. When there isn't a search function for the active app, clicking "search " will open the "Quick Search Box". How would you know if you're going to get the "Quick Search Box" when you click "search " while on an app? You test it.

In general, people have to guess if a button is going to work in a particular context the way they expect it to. The screen does not give any clue on how the buttons are going to work. The user has to rely on logic and memory. It is even harder for an app that the user is unfamiliar with. People will likely miss features of applications because they are impossible to find if the user didn't realize to press a button that isn't on the screen.

I suggest that Google and other parties come up with ways to show on the screen which buttons are useful in every context and give a clue on how they're going to work. Having those extra GUI elements means more use of the screen real estate, but those are too necessary to miss. They also have to make sure that those buttons are going to be easy to press, because of how often the user has to use them.

CLI and User Experience

2009-11-07T20:14:00.000-08:00

The command line interface (CLI), for those who are not familiar with it, is the (scary?) thing you see on your computer's screen full of text that is mostly gibberish to the untrained. Those who are familiar with it may argue with me because they are so comfortable with this type of computer interface. Actually, CLI is not bad for the user's experience all the time, but it generally is. As I implied earlier, it requires training (usually a lot of it). Without a manual or any sort of guide, operating it is nearly impossible. To be fair, every type of interface needs some kind of guide to the user, but the ones with the better design require much less education and are usually easy to understand for most people because they do not deviate very much from the conventions of other things that people interact with.

Some of the reasons why some love the CLI are their familiarity with it, the speed of operating with it compared to the graphical user interface (GUI), and the things they can do with it that they can't with the GUI. However, the graphical interface is becoming faster and more feature-rich. Moving, copying, and opening files are among the most popular activities done on the CLI. Applications like Quicksilver (for OS X) and GNOME-Do (for Linux) can execute those commands even faster than on the CLI. Those applications are more ubiquitous than the terminal or an emulator, in most cases. Because of their accessibility and speed of execution of actions (like moving, copying, and opening files), they are more practical for more people than the CLI because of their presentability, learnability, and better User Experience design in general. In Linux, many power users are inclined to manage their software through the CLI. Thanks to Ubuntu, the Software Center serves a great GUI to manage software for new and expert users. It is so fast and smooth that it could be more practical than the CLI even for power users.

Graphical interfaces made by different parties, like CLIs of different platforms, usually have varied conventions, so new users of both kinds of interface will always have to learn new things if they are not limited to one perfectly consistent platform. What makes the GUI better than the CLI is its learnability. Let's face it. CLIs, at least the ones available today, always need manuals and they do much more than most GUIs.

Despite the points I mentioned, there will always be people who will have a good experience with the command line. This may be funny for most people, but some computer experts just love to see things happening in such a geeky way. The CLI is actually positively affective to a special breed of people.

To sum it up, having fast and feature-rich GUIs are much better than CLIs for most people, because of their richer capability of being designed for the human being.

Why I Bother Contributing to Human Experience Design and How I See Its Current State

2009-10-26T19:01:00.000-07:00

In 2006, I envisioned having a 'perfectly ergonomic' set of electronic gadgets. Because I cannot very much tweak my hardware, I aimed at the software. My Windows XP setup was working very well then. I had my ideas incubated in OneNote and Microsoft-friendly files. One day, I literally stumbled upon (through StumbleUpon :D) Ubuntu. Researching more about it gave me the impression that it is completely customizeable, is the best Linux distribution, and will change the world. Though my perception of it changed a bit, I still believe that it is completely customizeable, is the best Linux distribution, and will change the world.

Though it would not be the case if I did it with the software available today, switching was a very painful process. Burning the Ubuntu CD image file was already challenging to me. The worst thing is probably accidentally reformating my hard drive, which wiped out all my archived ideas and memories. Because of those problems, I have been advocating making the Linux community newbie friendly. Some even mentioned that if burning an image file is already difficult for a person, using the Linux desktop is not even an option. I never believed in that. My passion for integrating my gadgets to my mind pushed me to learn even if I was challenged. I ranted about people who mention RTFM (read the fscking manual) and "Google is your friend." Some may disagree with me and think that the Linux desktop should be for limited to the inclined, but I tell them this: I am inclined now, and if it was not with the assistance of the dedicated and understanding Ubuntu community, I would not even know how to burn a CD image.

Pushing friendlier communities and better manuals is no longer my main focus now. Technology should work for the human being with little to no assistance from other people or any form of reference. Before, the answer was usability. Now, Canonical (the commercial backer of Ubuntu) and other enlightened people are focusing on User Experience (UX).

Months ago, I bought an iPod Touch to know how it feels to own and use an Apple product. I must say that the experience of using it is very smooth and pleasurable. However, my inclination to side with more open platforms is making me less satisfied with this product. I will expound on this a bit later. When I first touched the Apple mobile device, I knew what to do it. Even my two-year-old niece knew how to play with it a bit. Apple products barely need manuals, while most pieces of Open Source software do.

I believe in Open Source software even if they generally need better design more than some alternatives. Mozilla's products are probably the ones with the best UX design in the world of Open Source. On the other hand, the complete Apple experience is probably the smoothest. Most of the time, I use Ubuntu as my operating system and it runs Open Source applications. The cost of doing things this way includes the problems I mentioned earlier, but they are slowly being resolved now. The biggest problem now is probably the lack of commercial support. Flash and other proprietary formats need to be heavily polished. Also, using some devices with Linux could be from painful to impossible. I cannot watch our SlingBox or sync my iPod Touch with the latest firmware on Ubuntu. Some may mention reverse engineering, but they are often hard to execute if not impossible because mileages vary between different setups.

As for maintaining an Apple lifestyle, the problems are very easy to state. It requires a sustained spending of a good amount of money and it is too closed. The first point is somewhat self-explanatory. Apple products are just too expensive for most of the world. Some may argue that their hardware can be cheaper than their counterparts, but they are still generally expensive. After spending for a piece of Apple hardware, you will be locked up in the platform and be forced to keep on paying good amounts of money to Apple. You can choose to resist, but you will lose the 'Apple experience,' which defeats the purpose, in my opinion.

My suggested solution is to stick with open platforms. We can exclusively live with Linux-based platforms for the operating systems and avoid their proprietary counterparts for us to have a symbiotically related set of electronic gadgets. It would be a pleasurable experience, but there is still so much to learn from Apple and other technology firms.

Proprietary pieces of software generally have smoother design than their Open Source counterparts. My solution is not to live with them because their being closed, among other things, give me a bad User Experience. I choose to live with Open Source and help improve its User Experience design to help make people more satisfied.

Why I Have Not Been Posting Here

2009-10-26T18:32:00.000-07:00

When I put this blog up, I had many topics lined up. However, a number of reasons have been stopping me from posting. The first is my ownership of the information I am to post. I am not very familiar with copyrights and other legal factors that are involved in writing. Some of the topics that I have lined up were intended for my competitive advantage when I am already making money out of what I love to do and to be properly cited. I was not willing to just give away some of my potentially expensive ideas. However, it contradicts my open principles. My deeper goal is to make this world a little better by contributing to the repository of human knowledge.

The second issue is related to quality. I do not want to spread unreliable information. Also, I am not familiar with warranties. As much as possible, I would fix the problems caused by the misinformation that I could spread, but I may not have the power to do so every single time. I will just add disclaimers.

I am not very much into writing. The third issue is my lack of confidence in my proficiency in writing scholarly blog entries. I have been tweeting because it does not require a perfect writing style. What made me more confident in publishing weblog entries are some of the dugg entries (on digg.com and similar sources of social news), that are not perfectly written. I realized that content matters more. In this world of amateur media, netizens buy good ideas as long as they understand them.

The last issue that I am to mention is procrastination. I have been telling myself that I am too busy to bother writing. The ironic thing is that I manage to do unimportant things that have no urgency. Yes, though I am currently taking a (hopefully) brief vacation between graduating and having a job, I have more than enough responsibilities to keep me busy. That is no excuse, though. Everyone, including great bloggers out there, are busy with a lot of things.

Now, I'm off to writing my next blog entry.

First Post!

2009-10-16T03:47:00.000-07:00

Hello World!

Okay, that seems to be working. Lemme finish the mic check. There! Game.

You found a small spot in the Intertubes where Allan Caeg's technology User eXperience (UX) thoughts are going to be posted. I put this blog up because of my need to share with the world my ideas about Human Factors and Ergonomics. Earth is too unusable for human beings and it needs a hell lot of polishing. Usability is not the only issue, though. UX lovers are nagging about that topic now, but there is also evolution going on. UX designers have seen that usability is not enough. A good reference would be Human Factors International, which preaches persuasion, emotion, and trust. The development of Human Factors and Ergonomics are phrased in different jargons, but what is important is the goal to make design more suited for the user.

Join me in my journey to shape the world into an environment that provides the best possible experience to its inhabitants!