When planned obsolescence gets ridiculous

Software

Instagram and iPhone3G

As I previously explained, I stopped using my Instagram account five months ago and I haven’t uploaded new photos since their Terms of Service changed. However — since my contacts and friends are more important than the stupid bureaucracy of a service — I haven’t deleted the account and I still use Instagram clients to browse and like other people’s snaps. I use Carousel on the Mac, Iris on my iPad, and the official Instagram app on my iPhone 4. 

I also use my old iPhone 3G as an iPod touch, every now and then, and I still have a collection of working apps on it — basically, a lot of them are the same apps I use on the iPhone 4, saved on the iPhone 3G at their last iOS 4.2.1‑compatible version. The majority of these apps still work fine on the iPhone 3G despite the obvious lack of updates, and overall they help make the iPhone 3G feel like a device one can still use with a certain degree of flexibility. 

When you go back interacting with a five-year-old iPhone, you immediately notice you’re holding an older device because of its hardware performance. The iPhone 3G is still quite usable, but it’s slow and a bit sluggish when navigating certain parts of the system. But since I can still check my email, take shots with older versions of Hipstamatic and Camera+, manage Twitter with Twitterrific, use the official Tumblr client, listen to Spotify, read feeds with Reeder, upload photos to Flickr, and so on and so forth, this iPhone 3G doesn’t feel much limited or terribly obsolete(d).

Imagine my surprise, then, when last night I decided to take a look at my friends’ photos on Instagram using the older Instagram client on the iPhone 3G and I received the error message you can see above. The same app which was still working fine not long ago, now doesn’t even let me log in.

Perhaps I’ve missed something and there’s some technical reason behind this. Maybe they changed something in the way the client application retrieves and displays information passed by the Instagram servers. And maybe the older iPhone 3G app is no longer able to fulfil its duties for this reason. But if it’s not the case, then this becomes an example of mindless planned obsolescence. And I tend to believe it’s not a technical reason because on the Palm Pre 2 I still use an Instagram viewer app that’s as old as the Instagram app on the iPhone 3G (possibly even older) and works just fine.

I really don’t get why the older Instagram app has been crippled this way. Where’s the harm in letting it work, at least as a browser? The iPhone 3G is not my main iPhone, and I’ve stopped using Instagram actively, so this doesn’t bother me at a practical level (it does bother me at a logical level, though). But there are people out there who still use older devices, because maybe they don’t need to upgrade to the newer and shinier every 12 months — or they can’t afford it. The iPhone 3G is still a capable device (certainly more than an Android phone or Windows Mobile phone of similar vintage), and crippling apps this way doesn’t make sense to me. You don’t want people to post photos taken with old filters or with filters you have discontinued (like Gotham)? Fine, just prevent the app from uploading photos, but let people still use it as a viewer. Let people at least log in to the service. If Instagram (and Facebook) are interested in numbers, shouldn’t it come to their advantage if they let the client app work even on older devices? The more, the merrier, no?

A brief rant about Flickr’s redesign

Tech Life

What a mess. Really, I don’t even know where to begin. Let’s say that since Flickr launched the new site redesign yesterday, I don’t even want to load my photostream in a browser. This new graphic makeup is bloated, counter-intuitive, unnecessary, and a perfect case for the old recommendation Don’t fix that which is not broken.

The new banner (the area with an image between the two menu bars) is just a waste of space. The Flickr menu bars have grown to an unnecessary large size (wasting some more pixels in the process). Navigation itself is possibly more confusing than before, and what was accomplished with a single row of menu options once, now it’s scattered in four different places: Flickr bar top left corner, Flickr bar top right corner, User bar left, User bar right. When you point to your top right corner avatar, the mouse-over effect revealing the additional options is counter-intuitive. I don’t know you, but I end up clicking it all the time, landing in my Account’s settings page, while I was actually trying to access my Flickr Mail.

Presenting a photo at full size is nice, but now everything else — comments, conversations, and all the accessory information related to the photo — feels choked and drowned down at the bottom of the page, piled there like an afterthought. Perhaps someone thought that a photo sharing service should be all about the photos (this is the message I think the new visual redesign is trying to convey), but if you’ve been a Flickr user for at least one year, you’ll know that Flickr has never been just about the photos. I’ve been on Flickr since October 2005, and what I’ve always loved about it was the great balance between the ‘photo’ sphere and the ‘conversation’ sphere, on a conceptual level, and the great balance between visual design and functionality, on a usability level. Navigating Flickr, using Flickr, had increasingly become a fast, efficient, intuitive and overall pleasant experience. I can’t help but feel that this redesign is a significant step back. 

Perhaps the most annoying change is the disappearance of layout preferences. Flickr never offered much flexibility in layout customisation, but before the redesign I could at least decide how to present my Flickr landing page. I could choose to show only a few photos (big thumbnails), or more photos (small thumbnails), with or without a sidebar with selected sets or collections. This way I could decide to have a specific group of photosets to appear along the last updated photos, so as to direct visitors towards the photosets I deemed most interesting or worth browsing first.

With the new redesign, even that bit of layout customisation freedom is gone, and users are forced to accept that their photos will appear as some sort of ‘photo wall’, and that all photosets are only visible separately by accessing the Sets page. I find this design decision to be rather disrespectful towards the user (or customer, given the large amount of paid accounts). They’re my photos — I would like to have a part, however small, in deciding how to present them.

Overall, past the extreme annoyance of having a lot of interface elements arbitrarily rearranged, much of the new design feels still half-baked to me, rushed, not thought through, like some sort of unfinished beta version. There are pages with a mix of new and old visual elements, there are little bugs here and there, the general navigation is slow (my Flickr landing page takes three times as long to fully load than before)… Speaking of bugs, here’s one I just noticed while writing this piece: if you have added some notes in the lower part of a photo, the new design cuts them:

newFlickr bug

These are simply some initial reactions on my part. Judging by the activity on the Flickr help forums, I’m definitely not alone in my dislike of this redesign, not to mention the new account structure and pricing, which is one of the most confusing I’ve encountered in recent times. 

Again, this new look feels gratuitous and favouring eye candy over actual functionality. It feels like a change for change’s sake, not a change that brings improvements. As a recurring Pro (= paying) member since 2005, I’m really dissatisfied with the imposed changes (knowing Flickr’s attitude in similar past circumstances, in fact, I don’t expect they’re willing to reconsider and revert to the old layout, no matter how many users they manage to annoy) and when my Pro account expires next August, I’m not sure I’ll renew it. Ironically, creating a photoblog in Tumblr now looks like a cleaner, cooler option.

There is nothing wrong with the page

Handpicked

In the ongoing ‘flat versus skeuomorphic user interface’ debate, a recent contribution that’s absolutely worthy of attention is Matt Gemmell’s article Tail Wagging. You should take your time and read it, if you’re interested in the subject, because Matt makes a lot of great points and I pretty much agree with most of what he says.

But there’s an observation I’d like to make regarding this passage:

We forget that physical objects are also just specific embodiments – or presentations – of their content and function. A paperback book and an ebook file are two embodiments of the text they each contain; the ebook isn’t descended from the paperback. They’re siblings, from different media spheres, one of which happens to have been invented more recently.

The biggest intellectual stumbling-block we’re facing is the fallacy that just because physical embodiments came first, they’re also somehow canonical. The publishing industry is choking itself to death with that assumption, despite readily available examples of innovative, digitally-native approaches.

[…] An iPad demonstrably is not a book, and doesn’t behave like one. Digital embodiments have their own unique strengths and weaknesses in comparison to physical ones, and metaphors from one world can only be stretched so far before breaking in the other. Usually, the seams appear quickly.

While I agree with the general concept, I think that the ebook/paper book example isn’t a particularly strong one. The structure of a book is rather simple: a cover and a bunch of pages bound together. Yes, it’s probably unnecessary to do a thorough digital emulation of a paper book, with page-turn animations, red ribbons as bookmarks and other elements such as gutters, visible corners, textblocks, etc. (That would indeed be a case of gratuitous skeuomorphism). But there’s nothing wrong, in my opinion, in maintaining pagination as a fundamental structural element in an ebook as it is in a paper book. When the book as collection of sheets (codex) replaced the scroll, the advantages were obvious: books were easier to handle and easier to read; information was easier to locate and it was easier to make references inside a text. 

Today, given the computational power of smartphones and tablets, an ebook could theoretically be structured as an ancient scroll, a continuous flow of text, without numbered pages or other rigid paper book metaphors; an ebook reader (whether a physical device or a software application) could handle the search for information inside a text very easily: a search field, a pop-up index where you just tap on a chapter or section to jump there, and so on. But I contend that reading an ebook with an ‘infinite scroll’ interface is not as practical as reading a paginated ebook. It may be fine for reading articles, essays, short stories, but it certainly becomes tiring and awkward for novels, especially novels where a chapter may go on for a hundred pages’ worth of text. 

Lukas Mathis explained this more eloquently in two articles published last November. In Scrolling vs. Pagination he writes:

[…] the kind of control scrolling gives to users seems completely meaningless in the context of the task the user is engaged in. She’s reading a book. It’s a mostly linear affair. Her main goal is to go through the text from beginning to end. The additional control isn’t helping with that goal, it’s just creating more work. […]

If I’m reading a novel, the experience I’m having should be the book’s story unfolding in my head, not my fingers scrolling the page every few seconds. In this case, good UX design means not interfering with the actual experience the user is having: the book’s story.

Pagination gets out of the way. Read a page. Push a button. Read the next page. Repeat. No needless interference with the actual text being read, no unnecessary interactions that could pull the reader out of the book’s world. (Of course, switching pages still interrupts the reading experience, but to a lesser degree than constant scrolling does.) 

In More on Pagination, Mathis writes:

Look at iOS’s home screen. There are pages of apps. You jump between pages, you don’t scroll. Is the home screen’s pagination an artifact of paper book technology, or is it simply a better idea than having a home screen that can be scrolled? I’d argue that it’s a better idea.

This example also shows that a simple interaction model isn’t pagination’s only advantage. How do you find apps on your home screen? For many of the apps you use often, you probably find them by their position. Pagination allows you to organize things spatially.

This (typically) doesn’t apply to automatic pagination, where page breaks are chosen in a way that can’t be predicted by the author, but it does apply in many other situations. If you use iBooks author, you design individual pages that perfectly fit the iPad’s screen. This means that you can ensure that paragraphs that belong together are on the same page. You can make sure that illustrations and pictures are next to the text they belong to. And your users can identify things by their position: «look at the image at the bottom left of page 35!»

To summarise, Gemmell is right when he says that “The biggest intellectual stumbling-block we’re facing is the fallacy that just because physical embodiments came first, they’re also somehow canonical”, but at the same time I think that we shouldn’t dismiss all the elements of a physical medium when it comes to designing and building its digital counterpart. Structural elements of physical embodiments — such as pagination in a paper book — can still work quite well in a digital context. 

Back to flat vs. skeuomorphic design

Back to the general debate, that an interface is drawn to suggest a two- or three-dimensional representation doesn’t really matter, in my opinion. As I’ve said previously, an interface design isn’t necessarily good and efficient because it’s minimal, and isn’t necessarily bad and gratuitous because it’s skeuomorphic. What a skeuomorphic UI design shouldn’t do is deceive the user. What a minimal UI design shouldn’t do is provide non-obvious methods of interaction. 

As a corollary, I’ll add that what really matters in creating a good, usable application is coherence. Choose a model and/or æsthetics and stick with it all the way. There’s nothing inherently wrong in designing a calendar app that looks like a paper calendar or desk appointment diary, provided that the illusion is gracefully maintained everywhere and all visual expectations fulfilled. If minimalism and abstraction are the design principles of a similar app, make sure that all interactive elements are consistently apparent, and that the minimalism for minimalism’s sake doesn’t lead to an interface that’s too mystifying due to its lack of visual cues.

Why Newton

Tech Life

Newton MessagePad 2000

Every now and then I like to post photos of my ‘mobile office’ setup of the moment. Very often this setup includes one of my Newton MessagePads, and often enough, when people see I have a Newton with me, they’re curious to know why I keep carrying a 15-year-old device (20-year-old in the case of the Original Newton MessagePad). I’m talking about people who actually recognise the device. Sometimes — especially in person — I get asked what’s that thing I’m using that looks like an ebook reader but it has a colourful Apple logo on it and why is that and so on and so forth. I also get the occasional opinionated feedback: why use that old Newton when I’m also carrying an iPhone and a 9.7″ iPad.

The answer is quite simple, really. The Newton offers me a unique experience: writing naturally using a pen-like instrument, on the surface of a device which recognises and transforms my handwriting in typewritten text I can edit, copy, paste, and send to my Mac as a text file.

Today we are accustomed to technologies that give us instant gratification. In this regard, the Newton demands a bit more patience. Forget the jokes about the poor handwriting recognition: the later MessagePad models and version 2.x of the NewtonOS handle handwriting recognition much better than the first models. You have to practice a bit, there’s a stage of training and adaptation, where you help the device to understand your writing by correcting its mistakes, and where you sort of adjust your writing rhythm in a manner that the Newton can gracefully keep up with you, interpreting and transforming your words as you jot them down. Having patience at this stage is crucial. In my experience, you get to sacrifice a bit of instant gratification at the beginning, only to have a very satisfying reward later.

This means that now I can write a note on my Newton faster than I can type it on my iPhone or iPad. Also, if I’m in a hurry and I need to write down something quickly, I can tell the Newton not to recognise the handwriting on the fly — I can simply save the note ‘as is’ and go over it later.

The long battery life and the incredibly persistent storage are another two features that make my Newtons invaluable tools. I haven’t lost one bit of information since I started using my first MessagePad 2000 twelve years ago. These pieces of 1990s technology already got rid of the manual Save command well before the advent of iOS and other mobile operating systems. Whatever I input in the Newton, I know it won’t be lost (unless, of course, the device suffers some catastrophic failure), and if I need to do some extended word processing, I can always put down the stylus, connect the keyboard, and type away. But again, what really fascinates me and keeps me incredibly attached to my Newtons, is the experience of just writing down something as if I were using pen and paper, and see my writing recognised and neatly arranged in editable form.

There’s so much talking lately about how we live in the future, how ‘magical’ technology can feel today, and so on and so forth. I remember July 2001, that first weekend I spent learning the basics of my then-new Newton MessagePad 2000, and seeing my first handwritten notes and calendar entries digitised. Despite being already discontinued, I felt I was holding a powerful, futuristic device. Even today, at least in part, I still can’t consider it an obsolete piece of technology.

Paul Miller’s debriefing: some considerations

Tech Life

At the end of April 2012, Paul Miller, one of the writers at The Verge, started his experiment — staying away from the Internet for a year. During his leave of absence, The Verge periodically published his observations about his newfound ‘unplugged experience’; I read a few of those articles, and I’ve enjoyed Miller’s style and musings. I remember, one year ago, how many people considered his experiment just a silly thing. Some — rather patronisingly, I must say — were quick to point out that to have a well-adjusted relationship with today’s always-on state of connectedness, it’s better to use the network wisely, to actively control its influence over our lives, and to act accordingly when we perceive it’s just too much.

I defended Miller’s intentions and his desire to start a path of self-discovery. In the past, people left their urban environment and went to India and the Far East on trips of self-discovery (and I mean trips in every way). Miller’s journey is no different — a kind of modern equivalent of that, if you want. 

Now he’s back, and he has summarised his year away from the Internet in a very interesting article. Sure, Miller’s considerations can be condensed as follows: leaving the Internet was great at first — more time to think, focus, read, write and give friends and relatives the attention they deserved; but after a while old (bad) habits resurfaced, things devolved into periods of inertia, and also came the realisation that the problem isn’t Internet per se, but lies within one’s self.

Therefore, some people (Miller included, perhaps) will consider this Internet-deprivation experiment a failure. I don’t think it’s been a failure. If this one-year sabbatical has brought Miller a better understanding of his self, then it’s been successful. Anyway, Miller’s summary has been a thought-provoking read, so here are some observations I’d like to add. 

Back to where you’ve never been

There’s a detail that struck me when reading Miller’s piece. At one point, not far from the beginning, he writes:

I thought the internet might be an unnatural state for us humans, or at least for me. Maybe I was too ADD to handle it, or too impulsive to restrain my usage. I’d used the internet constantly since I was twelve, and as my livelihood since I was fourteen. I’d gone from paperboy, to web designer, to technology writer in under a decade. I didn’t know myself apart from a sense of ubiquitous connection and endless information.

Using the Internet constantly since the age of twelve means not having much memories of how things were before the Internet. What’s good about this is that Miller’s viewpoint isn’t much affected by nostalgia. You can’t really pine for what you don’t know. This, in a way, made Miller’s journey away from the Internet more ‘pure’ and also more challenging. For comparison, when I started using the Internet constantly I was 28. That makes a huge difference. If I were to do a similar Internet-deprivation experiment, it would be quite easy for me to switch back to my pre-Internet days. I could find and relive my good old routines in a few days. This is mainly because, having developed a life before the Internet, I’ve never really felt my online and offline dimensions as two inextricably intertwined components. As I wrote in my article Online, offline, and the ‘need’ to share:

I tend to see some kind of separation between the online and the offline because, well, I lived that moment when the online started creeping into my life. I lived that moment where the online started becoming an activity that separated me, in some ways, from my surroundings. I lived that moment in which logging in and ‘going online’ was somehow like going someplace else. And since I could spend (a lot of) time doing things in this ‘other place’, the experience was more addicting and detaching than, say, losing myself in a book (an ‘offline’ activity). While over the years and especially in these recent years I’ve come to accept this increasing interconnection between the online and the offline, while I’ve come to terms with the fact that technology has gone under our skin (figuratively for now, and maybe literally soon), for me the “disconnection from the smartphone and social media” is still a disconnection, and “the logic of social media” doesn’t follow me long after I log out.

So, if I disconnected from the Internet for a year, I’d simply remove the ‘online’ component, and it’d be easier for me because I always felt the ‘online’ component as something that has been added to, not implanted in (or grown within) my life.

That’s why I think Miller did a rather good job in finding his ‘offline space’, at least at first. And in my opinion, one of the reasons why things haven’t stayed great in Miller’s Internet-less life is precisely because his experience without Internet was somehow new, was something he never really experienced before as an adult. This has a significant impact when it comes to connect and socialise with other people. Or in this case, maintaining connections that have for the most part developed within the Internet era.

Out of sync

Miller writes:

But without the internet, it’s certainly harder to find people. It’s harder to make a phone call than to send an email. It’s easier to text, or SnapChat, or FaceTime, than drop by someone’s house. Not that these obstacles can’t be overcome. I did overcome them at first, but it didn’t last.

It’s hard to say exactly what changed. I guess those first months felt so good because I felt the absence of the pressures of the internet. My freedom felt tangible. But when I stopped seeing my life in the context of “I don’t use the internet,” the offline existence became mundane, and the worst sides of myself began to emerge.

I would stay at home for days at a time. My phone would die, and nobody could get ahold of me. At some point my parents would get fed up with wondering if I was alive, and send my sister over to my apartment to check on me. On the internet it was easy to assure people I was alive and sane, easy to collaborate with my coworkers, easy to be a relevant part of society.

So much ink has been spilled deriding the false concept of a “Facebook friend,” but I can tell you that a “Facebook friend” is better than nothing.

My best long-distance friend, one I’d talked to weekly on the phone for years, moved to China this year and I haven’t spoken to him since. My best New York friend simply faded into his work, as I failed to keep up my end of our social plans.

I fell out of sync with the flow of life.

These observations perfectly exemplify the point of view of someone whose life, relationships and connections have all been developing in a meaningful way within the Internet era. It’s hard being disconnected when everyone else in your life is not. It’s hard having to communicate through ways — the phone call, the written letter, dropping by someone’s place — that are considered dated and quaint. Today, an unannounced visit (even among friends) is basically frowned upon, almost treated as an unauthorised intrusion. I fondly remember a time when it was considered a pleasant surprise. 

The ‘finding people’ aspect Miller talks about is another thing where my experience and his experience significantly diverge. Having developed my strongest friendships mostly before the advent of the Internet, if I were to stay disconnected for a year, I wouldn’t encounter much friction in reverting to ‘older’ ways of (re)connecting with my best friends. We all used to chat a lot on the phone, and arrange meetings and outings via phone or text. If I could afford such an Internet-free sabbatical, I guess it would be beneficial to my personal relationships, because most of them actually started suffering when the Internet began pervading our lives. For someone in my position, all this talking about Internet that ‘connects’ people, all this babbling about the ‘power of social media’, is rather ridiculous. For someone in my position, apart from a good few exceptions, the ‘connections’ developed via the Internet can’t really compare with relationships developed and cultivated in person, in the ‘offline’ dimension. 

In general, Internet has brought convenience, more than depth, to the way we connect with one another. That’s why, for me, a “Facebook friend” is not better than nothing. That’s why, for me, certain ways of being ‘connected’ via the Internet aren’t all that different from when people keep the TV or the radio on because “it keeps them company”.

Yes, when we put Internet aside, we also put aside its convenience: every road looks uphill, we see every small delay or obstacle as ‘friction’, and it’s hard to keep up when everyone drives a car and you’re the only one on foot. Perhaps Miller could have been more proactive in his attempts to keep in touch with people, but I also think that his friends and acquaintances — knowing his situation — could also have gone the extra mile more often. What I find especially sad in that “falling out of sync with the flow of life” is that we’re living in such dysfunctional times where people of Miller’s age (and younger) feel compelled to return to the Internet because, as Miller writes, “The Internet is where the people are”. Internet should be a part of the flow of life, sure, yet I’m feeling that Internet is progressively commandeering the flow of life. And while not everything Internet has brought with it is bad, I can’t help but feel saddened by where things are going.