[IxDA Discuss] Motorola Motofone User Experience

[Joshua Seiden]

Let me just be clear about my point: I think motorola phones have the worst
software UIs of any phone I've ever seen. I've had many Moto phones over the
years, and I am always left with the same impression. I think they do a nice
job with hardware design, and a %^&^ job at software design.

My point is not about the nature and relationship of one discipline to
another. My point is that Moto has a blind spot to a the type of design we
are gathered here to discuss.

I don't know why this is. Is it the titles of the people they hire? Is it
the "disciplines" those people employ? Is it the management focus? Is it
politics? Can't comment, beacuse I have no information.

All I do know is that Motorola are talking loudly about the power of design
now--marketing it every chance they get--but they have yet to demonstrate to
me that they are DOING anything different. I just see them talking about it
in a new way.

JS



On 12/7/06, Vinay Rao <vr at bangid.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Josh
>
> As someone who has significant HF, ID and IxD (Each in their
> conventional walled-garden definitions) experience, I would agree with
> Dave that there are fast blurring boundaries between these disciplines.
> I trained many years ago as an ID'er, and practised hardcore ID till we
> realised that there was a serious disconnect between our original design
> intent and what hit the market after the GUI team were done with their
> work.
>
> We now approach ID and GUI together under overall UX, though admittedly
> they have significantly different deliverables to different teams. Look
> at the devices around you. Each comes with its own method of 'scroll'
> and navigation that is dependant largely on the style of the physical
> interfaces on the device - joystick/ 5-way key/ side-scroll-wheel/
> dedicated keys and soft keys, etc. Eg. as an ID'er I'd want intuitive
> user reactions to say answering a call, increasing volume, skipping a
> song, without even having to look at the screen. There are still
> interactions.
>
> GUIs work best as extensions of user's mental models, while the physical
> interfaces are extensions of natural (physical) and learned (mental)
> human gestural abilities and styles. When you ask "By what medium beyond
> the GUI is this phone responsive to user behavior?" you are making a
> sweeping statement that there is nothing more in the dialogue between
> user and product beyond a screen. As an IxD'er you have probably
> conditioned yourself into making you purchase decisions on the
> quality/type of the GUI alone. But in the real world out there, the user
> sees this as a unified experience.
>
> And then there's the style thing, which really is the game I primarily
> play. Moto's tried to make internationally acceptable
> black/dark/mysterious phones within which you can have
> Indian/European/American style skins on the GUI without looking
> seriously discordant. I'm not sure if the other phone manufacturers have
> been as successful.
>
> I havent seen the Moto presentation (It does not work from my location -
> India). Is there any other method to copy-paste and host it elsewhere so
> that it can be seen out of the US?
>
> Vinay Rao
> Bang Design
>
> Joshua Seiden wrote:
>
> > By what medium beyond the GUI is this phone responsive to user behavior?
> > Sound design is important, but in the case it's not richly interactive.
> > Tactile feedback is important, but again in this case it's not richly
> > interactive.
> >
> > So--in this case--the richly interactive portion of this experience lies
> in
> > the software response to hardware. And--again in this case--the software
> > responds by means of a GUI. So, are they not thinking about it, or just
> not
> > talking about it?
> >
> > JS
> >
> > On 12/7/06, David Malouf <dave at ixda.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Joshua Seiden wrote:
> >>
> >>>Because without software, it's either ID or User-centered design.
> That's
> >>>doesn't mean it's not interesting or valuable. It just means it's not
> >>
> >>IxD.
> >>
> >>hmmm? I disagree with that statement.
> >>While I agree that a digital component is almost always require. Digital
> >>does not mean "GUI". (I'm interpretting your use of the term software to
> >>mean software with a graphical user interface).
> >>
> >>Phones had an IxD component before they ever had a screen display.
> >>
> >>How the phone responds to different interactions? What if it was only an
> >>IVR system behind it?
> >>
> >>GUI is not the only thing that makes IxD.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> > List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> > (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> > Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> > Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> > Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> > Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
> >
> >
> >
>