Robin on Tech

For sheer exasperation, it is usually hard to beat the experience of teaching an older relative how to use a PC. We’ve all done it. Concepts as (supposedly) simple as cut-and-paste or browser back-buttons can become fiendish puzzles in the hands and eyes of someone whose earliest experience of computation technology was the slide-rule.

Interestingly though, this experience is not consistent. Some of those users – who come to computers late in life – have little difficulty in picking up the basics and getting on with it. After a few informal lessons, they can be left to surf, email and even cut-and-paste, without anguished calls to their indentured technical support hotline.

It’s an interesting contrast. Some users need to be taught, often repeatedly, how to execute every action on their PC. They fear a disaster, or even the possibility of ‘breaking’ the computer if they get a step out of sequence or a click in the wrong place. They seem unable to apply the knowledge they acquired in one application in order to use it somewhere else. For example, after learning cut-and-paste in Microsoft Word, they have to relearn cut-and-paste in Internet Explorer or Outlook. For these users, everything about their PC is arbitrary. It must be learned by rote. If they can’t remember how to do a task, the task cannot be done.

There is a somewhat patronising view that these people are unable to pick up IT because they “didn’t grow up with computers”. Yet the experiences of older users who acquire their PC skills without a struggle puts pay to the notion that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

So why is there such a difference? Why do some users find it so easy, while others struggle with every step? It’s certainly not an intelligence issue. We all know smart people who exhibit the fearful behavior described above.

It all comes down to rules. The (usually unwritten) rules that govern how interfaces operate. The rules that are rarely taught explicitly. In particular, the rules which determine how we use a mouse.

On a Windows PC, the mouse is the most fundamental method of interaction with the operating system and its applications. It is surprising therefore that new users are rarely taught how to use the mouse. An instructor teaching a newbie might suggest “Left-click on that button. Right-click on that icon. Double-click on that application”. The instructor is telling the user what to do with the mouse, but is failing to impart how to use the mouse. Crucially, the rules are not being conveyed. The basic rules of mouse interaction are short and simple

• Left-click to make a selection (e.g. a link / button / tick-box / menu item)
• Right click to open a context-sensitive menu
• Double left-click to open an application or document from an explorer window

OK. Slightly different terminology might be used to explain these rules to a new user (for example avoiding jargon like ‘context-sensitive’). And of course there are plenty of variations and exceptions to the rules. But for the kind of things that most newbies are likely to attempt, these rules are fit-for-purpose.

The problem with the directive teaching style (”Left-click on this. Right click on that”) is that everything about human-computer interaction then appears arbitrary. The user is forced to devote excessive mental effort into ‘learning’ applications and ‘remembering’ the correct sequence of button-presses. As the instructor, you’ll know that things have gone wrong when you ask your newbie to “click on x” and are met with reply “right click or left click?”.

If the fundamentals of human-computer interaction are taught in a way that misleads new users into seeing them as arbitrary, we should not be surprised when those users surmise that everything else about their interaction with the PC is arbitrary. The absence of rules from the user’s understanding of computer interaction is the root cause of the paralysis which subsequently affects their attempts to learn new applications. It is the reason that we’re met with questions like “Do I right click or left click here?… If I press the wrong one will I delete something / break the pc?… I know you just explained this to me, but I’ve forgotten already”. A new user’s claim to have ‘forgotten’ how to do something is another indicator that things are being learned by rote rather than by rules.

Of course, as noted at the start of this article, not all new users are afflicted by these issues. Some have tutors who explain the rules from the start. Others figure out the rules for themselves, and quickly make the logical leap between remembering the correct sequence of button presses, and applying the rules of interaction.

This article has dealt mainly with the ‘rules’ for using a mouse. But computer user interfaces are filled with rules that we expect to be applied consistently. For example, when presented with a choice of radio-buttons, only one can be selected. But when presented with a choice of tick-boxes, several (or even all of them) can be ticked. In principle these rules are easier for new users to learn because they are composed of strictly visual elements: a tick-box is very obviously ticked or not ticked. The effect of the user’s interaction with the computer is visually immediate and logically deducible: “if I click on the tick-box again, it’ll become unticked”. However, if the user has failed to grasp the fundamental rules of mouse interaction, the consequence might be that they double-click on the tick-box, and then wonder why they can’t get the tick-box ‘ticked’.

A frequent example of this issue is the propensity of many people to unnecessarily double-click on links inside web browsers. They have failed to fully grasp the rules of mouse-based interaction. Fortunately, the penalty for this specific misunderstanding is pretty low: a link that has been double-clicked will open anyway.

Expert users may fail to appreciate the importance of the rules until they’re faced with learning a new application which provides an interface that breaks the rules or implements them in odd ways. Older versions of Photoshop and The Gimp (an opensource alternative to Photoshop) are good examples of this.

Students of usability might correctly recognise the ‘rules’ for mouse interaction as another expression of the concept of mental models. They might also see this as an example of the difference between implicit and explicit knowledge. Mental models are more commonly used to explain users’ understanding (or misunderstanding) of objects such as toasters, elevators and ovens. There isn’t space in this article for a full discussion of mental models. But what makes the mouse example so interesting is the pivotal role it plays in our IT skills, and the lack of attention it gets when attempting to impart those skills to other people. The ‘rules’ may indeed be hidden, but that shouldn’t and doesn’t detract from their significance.

The Register is one of the best-read and best-written IT sites. It carries plenty of news and analysis, and doesn’t bother hiding its opinions behind a rhetorical smokescreen of ‘balance’. A recently published rant entitled How the Mobile Phone Biz Lost the Plot is worth reading in full. The gist of the polemic is that in a rush to introduce glittering fripperies, the mobile phone manufacturers have lost sight of what’s important: simple interfaces, reliable operating systems, decent battery life and straightforward implementation of core functionality (i.e. making phonecalls and sending text messages).

Brendon McLean – the article’s author – raked over Nokia’s range of self-described “multimedia computer” handsts…

“The N-series must surely take the cake as the world’s most ill-conceived range of phones, being slower than treacle, as reliable as Windows 3.1 and clearly designed by a committee of unloved marketing droids”

Then, like a nostalgic grandparent, he harked back to the days when one Great British Pound would be enough to purchase ice-creams for the whole family, and still have enough left over to buy a three-bedroom semi in Hackney, by invoking the legendary Nokia 3210 as an example of the Right Way to design a handset.

“The 3210 is the Model T Ford of mobile phones. By 2000, the phone was cheap enough that almost anyone could afford it. Yet despite its affordability, it was packed with features not yet seen in the mass market; most of them market firsts. Among other things, it introduced internal aerials, T9 predictive text input, downloadable ringtones, downloadable operator logos and a user interface as easy to use as a doorbell.”

The praise for old-style handsets is fully justified. The Nokia 3210 was both simple and groundbreaking. And some of the denunciations hurled at modern models are equally valid. As the article points out, it is absurdly difficult to remove the SIM from modern Sony-Ericsson phones, and the operators do have a nasty habit of crippling key functionality. But the criticisms of modern handsets in general and the N-Series in particular are way off the mark. A cursory examination of many modern phones will reveal a panapoly of features that didn’t exist 10 years ago. From 3G data, to 3 megapixel cameras; from html browsers to GPS receivers, our handsets increasingly resemble pocket-computers. Fulminating against this remarkable integration of technology is rather like complaining that your PC is more complex and crash-prone than your abacus.

But here’s the rub. The spirit of the Nokia 3210 is still alive and very very strong. If you want an ultra-reliable handset with great battery life and a simple interface, then look at the Nokia 1100 which has shipped over 200 million units since 2003. A post on Engadget helpfully puts this astonishing figure into context by comparing it with the 100 million iPods, 50 million RAZRs, 10 million LG Chocolates and 115 million Playstation 2 consoles sold so far.

So, why have you probably never seen this remarkable handset? A search on Froogle (now unfortunately renamed Google Product Search) will reveal plenty of Nokia 1100 handsets available, plus its variants, the 1101 and the 1110. Other maufacturers also have similarly pared down (albeit less successful) handsets for sale. In fact, most sales of the world’s best-selling piece of consumer electronics have been into developing countries such as China. Meanwhile, richer Western consumers have generally gone for fancier models – like the Nokia N-Series, with their GPS receivers, megapixel cameras and “treacle” interfaces.

The point is that there is always a choice. Nobody is forced is to buy a flashy handset – although the salespeople in most retailers will invariably try to lead you in that direction. Looking back to the Nineties – as if it were some long-gone golden age of handset simplicity – is misleading and wrong. Today’s advanced handsets do have faults, some of which were accurately highlighted in McLean’s article. But McLean completely ignores the merits of choice and competition by heaping blame on the handset maufacturers for developing sophisticated handsets. He fails to acknowledge the benefits they bring, and then totally ignores the simpler contemporary models – whose predecessors he professes such admiration for.

For those who want it – and there are many – advanced handsets offer a richness of functionality that was unimaginable 10 years ago. Meanwhile, the world’s best selling mobile phone is simple, reliable, robust and available everywhere. 200 million consumers have realised this. Quite how it managed to pass by Brendon McLean is a bit of a mystery.

Regular readers of this blog will know that debunking faddish technologies is a frequent activity around here. Continuing in that vein, the recently launched Nokia N77 showcases another example of clever but ultimately useless mobile functionality.

The N77’s ‘killer feature’ is the integration of a DVB-H mobile TV tuner. In addition to all the usual functionality we expect from a Nokia N-Series phone, this one will allow the user to watch TV on-the-move, without incurring huge data-charges. And yet scant attention is paid to the context-of-use issues that will plague mobile TV, rendering it no more than a novelty add-on.

‘Context-of-use issues’ are factors specifically relating to the situation or circumstances in which a technology is used. These can significantly affect the choice to use one technology over another, or the way in which a technology is used. Mobile phones – due to their omnipresence in our lives, and their versatile range of functionality – are affected by context-of-use issues more than any other technology. For example, when one is in a meeting and silent or discreet communication is required, text messaging is usually preferred over a voice call. In that situation, social and professional norms are the context-of-use issue. Similarly, in a loud environment (such as a rock concert), ambient noise becomes a context-of-use issue. Again, the user would probably choose text-messaging over voice-calling.

The key to understanding why context-of-use issues are so important is to consider where and why somebody would elect to use a particularly technology. In doing so, it soon becomes clear what a dramatic effect context-of-use can have on the frequency with which a technology is used, and with it, the potential profitability. Mobile TV is a brilliant example of this.

Let us consider where someone might want to watch mobile TV.

• It’s unlikely to be useful in the home, where most people already have access to large TVs.

• Most people don’t have access to TVs in their offices or workplaces, but then most people don’t have jobs in which it would be practical, acceptable or appropriate to watch TV on a mobile phone. And even if they could get away with it for short periods, it would be easier and more comfortable to watch content on their PC than a phone.

• Hotel rooms invariably have their own TVs, so there would be little to be gained there either.

• While socialising or undertaking leisure activities it’s (hopefully) safe to assume that the user would either be too distracted by other things to watch TV; or simply too embarrassed to be caught watching TV instead of talking with friends.

Maybe mobile TV is intended for use ‘out-and-about’ or for filling periods of ‘dead’ time (e.g. while travelling). It goes without saying that there will no reception while flying or taking underground trains. It might be possible to watch while taking an overground train. But the all-too-common problem of dropped voice-calls should be enough to convince anyone that constantly losing sound and pictures while going through a tunnel or an area of poor reception would result in a pretty unrewarding viewing experience.

An iPod or any other digital audio player allows the user to listen to music whilst doing something else, and often makes that ’something else’ a more pleasant experience e.g. jogging. This is not true of mobile TV. It is not possible to watch mobile TV while walking around, working at a desk, carrying bags, exercising or really doing anything which requires hands or eyes.

There is also the issue of sound. Most users would want to listen through earphones. However, there are very few handsets which incorporate the standard 3.5mm headphone socket. Instead, most handsets use proprietary headphone interfaces or a 2.5mm socket. This limits users to the (generally abysmal) earphones which are bundled with handsets by manufacturers. If the user has an iPod (or any other audio player), two different pairs of headphones would need to be carried around: one pair for the phone, and one pair for the iPod.

So, for mobile TV to be useful, all of the following would have to occur simultaneously: The user would have to be: on the ground; in an area of good reception; carrying the proprietary headphones; not at home; not at the office; not in a hotel; not walking or running; not carrying anything; not socialising or talking to other people, and not undertaking any other task or activity which requires the use of eyes or hands.

In a procession of daft technologies, mobile TV would be pretty near the front.

It’s a fairly banal truism that when Apple launches a new gadget, a lot of people get very excited.

Most of the news coverage of Apple’s iPhone dealt with the somewhat underwhelming technical specs and the innovative interface. However, the really interesting part was barely covered until a few weeks later: the backstory of how Cingular ended up inking a deal with Steve Jobs to become the exclusive carrier for Apple’s new gadget. And why Verizon – Apple’s first-choice carrier – turned it down.

Jim Gerace, a Verizon VP was quoted as saying “We said no. We have nothing bad to say about the Apple iPhone. We just couldn’t reach a deal that was mutually beneficial”. Apparently, the major sticking points were that Apple wanted a cut of each subscriber’s monthly bill while retaining control over how and where the phones could be sold.

It is understandable that Verizon would find these conditions problematic. No other cellphone manufacturer is allowed to take a direct cut of subscriber revenues, nor to dictate how their phones should be sold. Verizon may have felt that it would be setting a terrible precedent if it capitulated to Apple’s demands.

However, there is a lot more to this than might be initially apparent. Significantly, handset manufacturers do already take a cut of subscriber revenues – but they do so indirectly – via handset subsidies. Many consumers demand a new handset every year. All operators heavily subsidise handsets (or even give them away free) as a way of reducing churn and enticing new customers. While the size of the subsidy varies depending on the price of the handset and the monthly spend of the customer, it still constitutes a significant chunk of revenues. If the networks didn’t subsidise the handsets, the manufacturers’ sales figures would go through the floor. Thus the network operators are already (in effect) giving a big chunk of each subscriber’ tariff to the handset manufacturer.

Apple’s plan is to sell the handsets with little or no subsidy (at $599, the 8gb iPhone would be the most wallet-busting mainstream handset available) and to take a cut of operator revenues instead. Of course, one of the most salient points in this discussion is how much of a cut Apple have managed to wangle from Cingular’s grasp. That information is presently a secret. But it means that Cingular avoids taking a hit when the handset is purchased because it is no longer subsidised. Instead, Cingular ends up sending a portion of its revenue to Apple, depending on how much the customer spends on voice and data.

This leads on directly to a broader point: the real significance of the iPhone’s new interface.

It is always risky to comment on the details of a device which one hasn’t used, isn’t yet available and for which few hands-on reviews exist. Nevertheless, from the demonstrations and information Apple has made available, it is apparent that the iPhone has an innovative and easy-to-use interface.

In addition to voice calling, the iPhone puts useful data services front-and-centre in a way which other manufacturers and network operators have previously failed to do on consumer devices. As a case-study of how not to do it, there is no better example than the disasterous campaign launched by British network operator Three - which heavily promoted its video-calling service as a USP. By heavily pushing a consumer service that consumers really weren’t interested in (and were even less interested in paying for) Three failed to attract subscribers and simultaneously tarnished their brand. Of course, this is just one example, but there are countless others. Having paid through the nose for their 3G licenses, the UK operators have conspicuously failed to monetise them by failing to realise their own projections of vast consumer data revenues.

The iPhone could allow them to buck the trend. Examine the picture below.

There are 15 buttons on the screen, of which 5 are data services (Stocks, Maps, Weather, Mail, Web). Crucially, the icons and choice of nomenclature accurately ‘describe’ the services they link to. This compares well with many other handsets, which routinely describe web/wap access as ‘Services’ and use low-resolution, poorly defined iconography. The weak iconography is often compounded by the operators’ ham-fisted attempts to plaster their own branding – or worse – their own interface on top (check out the awful Orange Homescreen for another example). Apple’s insistence on maintaining control over the handset should prevent the operators from destroying the iPhone’s elegant navigation and look-and-feel.

Everything that has been seen so far suggests that uniquely, Apple has produced a very data-centric handset aimed at the consumer market. The quality of the interface is significant because it can affect how much consumers use their handsets each month, and with it how much they spend each month (the ‘Average Revenue Per User’ or ARPU). By providing an elegant interface and a simplified setup, Apple is indirectly encouraging users to spend more by using data services more frequently. This is likely to see more customers signing up for ‘unlimited’ data plans (e.g. T-Mobile’s Web ‘n’ Walk) or using more pay-as-you-go data on existing tariffs.

The idea that if you make something easier to use, people will use if more frequently is rooted in both common sense and empirical evidence. Nokia is a good example of this, as their handsets are frequently perceived as being easier to use than many of their competitors and they usually lead ARPU research findings.

• In their 2002 mobile report, Continental Research showed the average Nokia user spends £22.06 per month; making 15 voice calls and sending 18 text messages each week. This contrasts with an average of all the other handsets manufacturers, whose users spend a mean of £15.14 per month; making 11 voice calls and sending 10 text messages each week.

• Nokia’s own 2006 study had 30,000 respondents across 6 European countries. The three highest ARPU generating 3G handsets were all from Nokia.

Of course, correlation does not equal causation. There are potentially other signficant variables such as age. It would be difficult to prove definitively that Nokia’s ARPU advantage is derived solely from its superior user interface. However, the Director of Continental Research suggests usability may be significant – “handset functionality may also encourage greater usage. If it is easier to use a phone it may stimulate calling and usage of text messages.”

So, Apple is launching a device which should significantly raise the consumption of mobile data amongst those who own the iPhone. This should raise ARPUs, and benefit the network operators. This brings us back to Verizon. Should Verizon have embraced Steve Jobs’ offer? Did they screw up by saying ‘no’? It all depends on the cut the man from Cupertino was asking for. And that it is likely to remain a secret for the forseeable future.

In the mean time, we can only wait to see if the iPhone fulfills its promise to the operators as well as to consumers.