iOS 6 vs. iOS 7 … Fight!

Everyone has their own metaphor for the changes that Apple has recently brought to iOS 7. Using the beta on my everyday iPhone since the keynote, there is no doubt it feels very different to iOS 6 and in some very specific but tricky to describe ways.

The new layers and depth, the 3D parallax effect and the flat unadorned, untextured surfaces throughout instantly make me think of the first videogames with proper 3D graphics. 

It's interesting to juxtapose the evolution of iOS -- perhaps the first OS whose visual and interaction design started with a clean slate and enough GPU power to make graphical interactions the core of its experience -- with the evolution of videogames from sprites and bitmaps to polygons and textures.

Consider Street Fighter II. A classic fighting game played on a 2D plane. All the visual depth and detail comes from the artwork itself. The background is drawn such that the floor looks like it's receding backwards and the fighters themselves get their solidity in the same way, through highlights and shadows that give their muscles definition and the cloth of their karate-gi's weight.

sf2-s3.jpg

Similarly, iOS 1 uses gradients, drop shadows and the signature glossy icon crescent to bring its interface to life and provide the illusion of depth.

IOS_1_Home_Screen.png

As technology improved, so did graphical fidelity. For videogames, this meant higher resolution graphics, more detail and sharper images. I'm cheating slightly by using a very modern Street Fighter II screenshot (for screenshot comparison consistency), but you get the idea.

And for iOS 6, the same applies. Everything about the interaction design remains identical, but the level of detail is cranked up even higher. There is detailed visual work everywhere. Drop shadows, inner glows, gradients, gloss, textures, faux wood, leather, plastic, glass and steel, the works.

Then one day, on a trip to my local arcade, I saw something completely new: Virtua Fighter. The first ever 3D fighting game sacrificed a lot of visual detail in order to achieve real depth rendered via multiple polygons on a projected z-axis.

When I first saw Virtua Fighter I was not impressed. The graphics were terrible compared to my favourite at the time, the also just released Mortal Kombat II, but it was the start of a new era that still continues today: the vast majority of new videogames are first or third-person perspective 3D.

The marketing told the story very clearly:

This game has an extra dimension. The quality of Virtua Fighter's static graphics didn't matter -- it was about how the game felt in motion -- rather different to the 2D fighting games that came before, even though the vast majority of the combat still took place in a single plane. The illusion of depth wasn't just painted on anymore, it was fully modelled and shaded and the player could move into it.

With iOS 7 the same holds true: the action takes place on a flat screen, but the feeling of 'real' depth is there too.

When you look at a static iOS 7 screenshot, all you can see is some simplified icons and a notable absence of drop shadows.

In use though, the new transitions, animations and physics combine to have a noticeable impact on how navigating the OS actually feels.

Regardless of what you think of the new visual design -- personally I think they've gone a little too far in removing button affordances -- I would urge you to wait until you've used iOS 7 before you judge the new interaction model as a whole. Watching the attract mode of Virtua Fighter wasn't enough to judge it accurately either.

So what does this mean for the future? Presumably that iOS 11 will require the Oculus Rift to experience it fully. Maybe Google is on to something with Glass after all.

 

Parallax Under Glass

Dr. Drang in my favourite blog post so far about iOS 7:

Most of us are better at manipulating physical objects than abstract concepts. If our software objects are given a more physical-seeming “place,” we’ll be better at using them. We see this in gestures like swiping and pinching. If the interface responds quickly enough to follow our fingers, it feels more realistic and we find it easier to use. In fact, we don’t even think about our actions; we just do them because they feel natural. I think the new depth—if handled well and consistently—will work the same way.

That in turn reminded me of my favourite essay on the future of user interfaces:
Bret Victor's A Brief Rant On The Future Of Interaction Design.

iOS 7 can't solve anything Bret talks about -- it's still very definitely Pictures Under Glass, but it does potentially open the door for a deeper spatial element coming to interface design at a platform level, and that's exciting in itself.

If you want to see what the iOS 7 parallax effect feels like right now on your iPhone -- it's certainly nothing technologically new -- you can do so in the free game Albert from Fingerlab.

You can see the effect by tilting on the game's start screen.

 

I don't understand the new Mac Pro

Steve Jobs in 2003: 

Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.

The essence of this message was reiterated a number of times in Apple's WWDC keynote yesterday and has somewhat become a design truism. 

Everyone knows that design doesn't just mean visual design or appearance.

So why is the new Mac Pro a small tightly packed cylinder?

What happened to form following function?

Virtually every single Mac Pro that's purchased for professional use will have to have external storage attached. External storage that will require an expensive Thunderbolt 2 enclosure (almost certainly costing more than the drives it contains), an external power brick and likely a cheap and noisy fan cooling system.

Apple are geniuses at industrial design and it's always fun to show off what you're best at, but I can't help but feel that this was absolutely the wrong arena for this type of hardware package design grandstanding.

Do Google care if you use Google+ ?

Charles Arthur at The Guardian:

Discussing [Google+] as if it were a social network which needs activity in the way that Facebook and Twitter do misses the point. It really doesn't matter if you never use it, never fill out your profile, never fill a circle, never get added to anyone's circle. What matters to Google is that you're signed in, in order that it can form its matrix of knowledge about you.

The whole piece is definitely worth reading and The Matrix analogy, though overblown, is apt. We all know Google (and perhaps -- as The Guardian revealed today -- the US government) capture all our search and usage data across all their properties and use it to sell advertising, but we continue to use them because they're the best. The red pill (Apple Maps, for example) is a considerably less pleasant option.

However, I don't think Google needed to create a social network purely as a means to tie this data together, they could do that just fine with the single sign on they already had.

Google+ is a hedge against Facebook the same way Android was a hedge against iOS. It's just a less successful one right now.

Google can't spider any of the information on Facebook, the more user activity that happens there the less Google sees. Not to mention all the super valuable relationship data that a social network generates.

I think Google would love people to use Google+ as a social network more and are leveraging their market leading products in other areas to try to encourage it.