Sadly, most mobile phone user interfaces are sub par. Their designers are faced with the challenge of squeezing ever-increasing levels of functionality into ever-smaller devices.
I would argue that frustration with the user interface is the main reason for the recent backlash against the complexity of these devices. Anecdotally it seems that many people, and not just luddites, are now considering trading down to devices which offer less functionality, arguing that they do not need the features that they are being offered.
In a recent critique of the increasing complexity of mobile phones in the International Herald Tribue, Alice Rawsthorne commented:
Styling is only part of cellphone design, but is, or should be, the
easiest bit to get right. Designing the software with which we use the
phone - the user interface, as the industry calls it - is more
difficult. As bandwidth has expanded and new types of network, like
Bluetooth and WiFi, have emerged, the cellphone has been transformed
from a phone and phone book, into a multifunctional mobile computer.
No one could fault cellphone manufacturers for the zest with which they
have embraced these changes. But by redesigning their software to
incorporate each new function on a piecemeal basis within the same
small box, many companies have ended up with incoherent user
interfaces. That's why cellphones can seem difficult to use, and why
you have to relearn how to perform basic tasks whenever you buy a new
one.
Samsung (a client of ours) tried to solve this dilemma in their recent E900 slider phone (right) by changing the functions of each of the buttons depending on the mode (call, camera, music player) that the phone is in. The clever bit is that the images on the buttons actually change depending on whether the user wants to take a picture, make a call or listen to music. This dramatically simplifies the user interface because it reduces the overall number of buttons they need to use.
Whilst many manufacturers have been offering context-specific and even customisable menus in their user interfaces few have been able to properly integrate this into the design of the device in the way that Samsung has with the E900. I am convinced this is because in many companies the operating systems are developed independently of the phones - either in a separate corporate silo or by external designers. Where the iPod succeeded was in being able to deliver a simple user experience via the tight integration of UI and hardware.
Another company that appears to be thinking along the right lines is BenQ whose Black Box User Interface Communication concept (left) picked up a prize at the IF Design Awards in China this year. As you can see, the BenQ concept has no buttons. The entire surface is a dynamic context-specific touch screen. In many ways this is similar to the way a PDA touch screen menu works. Unlike a PDA however, the user interface appears to be designed around specific functions to ensure that the user experience is optimised.
Given all the rumours about Apple's iPhone, their multiple touch screen patents and their partnerships with Asian manufacturers along with the poor performance of the BenQ brand globally, I wonder if this might not be the kind of leap in UI and hardware design that will arrive one day under the Apple brand instead?
Or maybe we should be looking to the KDDI Corporation in Japan whose R&D has provided a number of interesting concepts this year including the Neon (right) from Naoto Fukasawa which offers a similar buttonless contect-specific dynamic interface.
What all of these concepts have in common is that they are trying to offer simplicity in user experience whilst continuing to offer the complex functionality that many of us would like to make use of.