

IPhone Apps Design Mistakes: Over-Blown Visuals (2009) - acqq
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/07/21/iphone-apps-design-mistakes-overblown-visuals/

======
andrewljohnson
To this day, Motion-X absolutely kills it with their "overblown" designs. This
2009 article is harping on an app that was dominant for the two years
following its publication, and a design strategy that is still working for the
company.

It's true that you can make an excellent UI using the standard components, and
this also leads to other advantages like being able to adapt to new screen
sizes easily. But to say Motion-X's UI somehow fails is a disproven
hypothesis.

They went on to use the same kind of design approach for Motion-X GPS Drive,
which let me check... yep, makes more money than _Angry Birds_ in the US App
Store, ringing in at 11th grossing app overall (not in the category, on the
entire App Store).

Spot on, Smashing Magazine... you literally could not have picked a worse
example. Maybe I should be quiet though, since we compete with them on some
apps :)

~~~
dereg
How does the fact that the app sells well disprove the fact that the app is
badly designed? I have both Motion-X apps, and I love their features, but I
find myself using simpler apps because of the Motion-X UI clutter. Motion-X
offers an impressive feature set for the price, but why on this earth do I
have to deal with un-familiar graphical switches to change a setting? Where in
the real, tangible world does having more switches and buttons make something
better? I'd actually use the apps more than once if I didn't have to study the
UI in order to make a task-related decision.

For example, take a look at a screenshot from Motion-X's Drive app
(<http://i.imgur.com/uWXdk.jpg>). Compare that to the less-flashy Tomtom app
UI (<http://i.imgur.com/6mPKe.jpg>)

Which UI is more functional?

And for run tracking, which UI would you find yourself more inclined to use,
Nike GPS' (<http://i.imgur.com/80pLl.jpg>) or Motion-X GPS'
(<http://i.imgur.com/tTdMN.jpg>)?

I never can figure out how to use the Motion-X apps. Tease me all you want,
but the UI is a chore to me. I prefer the dumbed-down Tomtom app for
navigation and the Nike GPS app for my runs. While they may lose, _feature-
wise_ , they win on _functionality_. Why should a user have to deal with
artificial UI abstractions that add flair at the cost of increased cognitive
load?

~~~
rmc
_How does the fact that the app sells well disprove the fact that the app is
badly designed?_

Being well selling doesn't mean that it's not badly designed, it means there's
a financial interest in not changing it.

~~~
alexqgb
Exhibit A: the fucking ribbon.

------
bignoggins
My latest iphone/iPad app would probably be considered as "overdesigned" by
the article's standards.

[http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fantasy-football-draft-
monste...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fantasy-football-draft-
monster/id451545140?mt=8)

[http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fantasy-football-draft-
monste...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fantasy-football-draft-
monster/id459009632?mt=8)

Do you know why? Because overdesigning SELLS. My iPad app is currently ranked
top 75 overall and my iPhone app has been in the Top 100 overall. With 400K
apps in the app store, having a unique looking UI will attract more people to
try it.

I totally agree with having good UX and being consistent with the HIG, but the
user can't appreciate that until after they've purchased the app. So if you
want to actually sell a few copies, then suck it up and pimp out your UI.
You'll be glad you did.

~~~
mmatants
I don't think your app would be considered over-designed - check their "police
scanner codes" example.

Your app still uses normal buttons, and even the "tabs" are close to Apple's
toggle-button-array design. Your search field is exactly like the OS standard.
Compare that to the article's examples.

~~~
joshuamerrill
I would also point out that Apple is doing a lot more "overdesigning" itself
these days. I think the address book in Lion or the Reminders iOS 5 app are
evidence.

------
mikek
The author uses the fact that most apps are not used much after they are first
downloaded to to justify his argument that non-standard controls are bad. But
he fails to make a causal connection.

On the contrary, people will use apps if they are useful, and will learn any
UI to achieve their goals. Does Angry Birds use any standard UI controls?
Nope! But people play it anyway, because it's a great app. Standard UI
controls would just make it ugly.

------
jamesbkel
Decent points, but it's from 2009. Also, using 3D pie charts in an article
about proper design... maybe not the most effective technique.

------
Nickste
Glad the author used the Bloomberg stock finder input as an example.

I've been teaching my father in law how to use the Bloomberg app on his iPad
and this was one of his biggest stumbling blocks - he just couldnt work out
why the keyboard wouldn't appear.

With the adoption of these types of devices moving to include the "non-tech
savvy" population, who aren't as quick to work out unclear UI, we start to see
how small UI choices can have a dramatic effect on usability.

------
MetaMan
I agree with the principle of "over design" - we old guys call it "if it isn't
broken don't fix it".

However, some of his examples aren't convincing for me. I actually like the
ugly Motion-X toggle switches compared to the IOS toggles which are a bit
confusing I find - I can immediately see what is active / selected on the
motion-X screen but on his examples of the correct" design I couldn't
immediately work out what is selected/active. Also, the Motion-X tabs are much
clear to me - there I said it.

To be honest the author comes across as one of those who insist on people
following the "correct" rules even when they get in the way or there is a
better solution.

I'll bet there are a lot of people who also disagreed with some of his
examples but who won't say anything for fear of appearing "ignorant" in the
eyes of the "design police".

Another important point. He states

"On average, only 3% of people who have downloaded an app use it after 30
days. Why? Because the majority of iPhone apps don’t make any sense to users."

But where is the evidence for this? He shows App usage over time graphs which
don't separate between "over-designed" and "correctly designed apps" and then
goes on to make an unwarranted assertion that the fall off is due users not
understanding how to use the apps! How about the utility value of the apps not
being enough or users getting bored with their $0.99 fun purchase ?

Lastly, if you go to the author's web site. You'll see he's designed an app
for a pizza company. I downloaded it and it's beautiful (in fact I fancy a
pizza now)! However, It does not use ANY standard IOS controls and has gone
for a very nice custom dedicated UI!

His article spends a lot of time basically saying that the standard UI should
be used but as his own app demonstrates there are cases where a custom UI is
appropriate. His article would be much better if he provided guidance on when
using a custom UI is better and provided evidence for his assertions.

------
mattgreenrocks
If you want a look at the long-term consequences of a culture of pervasive
custom UIs, look at the current state of Windows apps. _Every_ single app
looks different in some minor way for no discernible reason. The sum of them
on the desktop adds up to visual noise and clutter that is needless. I realize
the differences in look are not intentional: GTK here, .NET there, each with a
different layout engine.

But the sad fact is, nobody seems to care about it. There is no standard UI on
Windows anymore, and it drove me nuts.

My favorite whipping boy in this argument is Trillian:
<http://pcworld.hu/apix/0911/trillian_astra.jpg>

------
flocial
I think the Reeder App is over-designed. The developer basically blazes his
own path and the app only follows conventions nominally. However, at the same
time it's done with great taste. In some cases, following HIG to the letter
might make it look like you slapped together an app with widgets.

Also, every application by Tapbots pretty much flaunts all conventions with
highly custom UIs, yet they post great sales. I suppose the same could be said
of all TapTapTap apps, they also sell great.

However, one thing they all get right is great functionality and performance
stability. You really can't trump that.

