New Windows in Safari Touch: A Proposal

By Matt in Constructive Criticism, Design, Usability

Browsing the web on the iPhone is great — page scaling works wonderfully with the high-resolution screen, and Safari Touch (or Mobile Safari, if you like) is well-designed and makes reading in bed or on the bus a breeze. But there’s one thing that irks me: no easy way to open a link in a new window. When you’re browsing blog posts, Wikipedia articles, or, really, any webpage, it quickly becomes limiting to browse the Web in a linear fashion. If you’re like me, there’s some unease associated with trying to remember all the links you wanted to follow on a page. You want to finish reading the page you’re on, but that becomes more difficult as your working memory fills up with all the links you wanted to click further up. By the time you get to the bottom of the page, you’ve forgotten what they were, and you have to go reread from the top. The quickest way around the problem on the iPhone is to open a new page, open History, load the same page again and find the link you want. But that’s inconvenient and less than ideal.

But we’ve a better idea. Two, actually. In our traditionally constructive approach, here’s how ‘Open Link in New Window’ could work on the iPhone.

Click-and-Hold

The trick is in the click-and-hold. On iPhones and iPods Touch, touching a link and not releasing your finger brings up a little callout box with link text and URL, if available.

The Solution

Here’s where we step in. There are two ways, using another finger, that we could imagine opening a new window. The first requires no interface adjustments: just use another finger to hit the ‘Multiple Windows’ button in the lower right, and a new window is opened from that link.

Our second solution contextualizes the ‘New Window’ button by making it even closer to the link: it’s a button in the callout box itself.

If you don’t want to open a new window, and just want to follow the hyperlink, you’d just release your finger and the page would load in the same window, as it does now.

Admittedly, opening links in new windows isn’t the sort of thing every user does (on purpose), even on a desktop computer. The introduction of tabs has undoubtedly affected behavior in that direction, but it’s still the sort of feature that many people won’t miss. On the other hand, we might be willing to wager that the kind of user that has adopted the iPhone is the kind of user that opens multiple links in tabs. But the relatively hidden nature of the functionality in our proposal means there isn’t really a downside: the feature is conveniently tucked away where only those who will use it will see it. For those curious enough to click and hold a link, they’ll likely recognize the ‘New Window’ icon and experiment with it.

We tossed around other ideas (gestures, using the same finger to move to the ‘New Window’ button in the callout), but nothing seemed as natural and obvious as using the existing button. There aren’t any exact analogs to this sort of multi-touch functionality currently, but if you see the multi-touch page and photo zooming functions as “manipulation” actions, then this is a sort of manipulation itself — you’re performing an action on the link. Furthermore, the click-and-hold gesture brings up a loupe when editing text — it’s a sort of “closer look” to specify where you want to place the cursor. Similarly, click-and-hold on a hyperlink is a way to look closer at that link: it functions this way currently, showing you the URL. The addition of a ‘New Window’ button offers the choice of specifying how the link is opened.

So, there you have it: ‘Open in New Window’ for Safari Touch. Any alternative proposals?

Concerning the Mutilation of Typography

By Cody in Constructive Criticism, Design, Commentary

Say, just as a hypothetical situation, that you’re writing a book on phonological analysis. Since the entire book deals with the investigation of representations of human articulatory gestures, a good design tip might be to set the book in a type that actually includes the entire inventory of necessary IPA glyphs. It’s not like such fonts don’t exist — Adobe alone, in fact, has two: ITC Stone Phonetic Standard (in both a serif and sans-serif) and Times Phonetic Standard.

I really can’t deconstruct this design tip into constituent axioms any further than by simply stating it as I have done. It seems self-evident — like that stuff in the Preamble of the Constitution.

But, apparently, it’s not, because someone decided to set the entirety of just such a book with two completely different typefaces — mixing them not only within the same line, but within the same words.

All the IPA symbols that don’t exist in the book’s predominant face are set in a totally different face. The offending characters jump off the page at you in a jarring and discomforting way, because they have a variable stroke width while the dominant typeface has a uniform one, serifs where the principal face has none, a humanist axis in contrast to the other’s rationalist one, and even an x-height inconsistent with that of the main face. Bringhurst is turning over in his grave (and he’s not even dead). The guilty party here is whoever designed Introducing Phonology by David Odden. (Just in case you had any doubt, Tschichold’s golden canon of page construction unfortunately was lost on him, too.)

This example is a good cautionary tale for many things. One, perhaps, is the importance of not coming up to your own solutions to problems that are already solved. Not only does the designer’s solution look awful, but it certainly wasn’t an expedient one. A quick Google search for an IPA typeface would have taken far less time than manually setting each IPA character in a different face. (Unless, of course, the designer did something even more cringe-inducing, like editing the font the book uses to include the glyphs of the secondary IPA font.)

Another is that a designer should really always start designing with the constraints of the particular problem in mind. A textbook on linguistics requires IPA symbols; therefore, the choice of typefaces—ceteris paribus—is constrained from the beginning to those which meet that requirement. Rather than pick a typeface on some other basis, without regard for the salient constraint, and then coming up with a hack to sidestep the inevitable problem, it would have been by far preferable to choose a face first that works best for the context of the design application in which it will be used.

Usability on Facebook: The People Take Charge

By Matt in Information Design, User Science, Design, Commentary, Usability

Something is happening on Facebook, but it’s not the sort of thing you’re going to read about on Techmeme. It has to do with usability; specifically, the readability of a collection of comma-separated interests in a person’s profile. Apparently some people think the lists are too close together, and because Facebook doesn’t allow the sort of customization that MySpace does, the users are bending what they can’t break.

For those unaware, one of the default applications that comes “installed” on all Facebook profiles is the “Information” application, which allows the user to list their points of contact as well as their interests, favorite books, movies, and music, and a few other mundane details. Here’s what mine looks like, for reference.

But recently, on a few of my friends’ profiles, I started to notice something different. Here, a friend has separated her massive list of interests with a single dash.

For some, a single dash isn’t enough:

So: users obviously think their interests are hard to read when smushed so close together, right? Or is it just a trend they’re following?

People gussy up their MySpace profiles for a plethora of reasons, none of which we would assume is very practical. I’m sure they’d do the same on Facebook if profiles there were customizable, but it’s interesting to see that this change is one that has to do with usability. The choice and arrangement of applications on one’s profile are one of the most customizable aspects of Facebook, but also prone to increasingly random placement as their number rises on a given profile page. Unlike the placement of applications, this dashes alteration is deliberate. Or is it? I decided to find out. I asked the two friends behind the profiles above about their choice:

Hi! I’m writing up a post for the Sakuzaku blog about something I noticed on your and a few other Facebook profiles. You separate your interests, music, TV shows, etc. with little dashes, like this: [Here I provided an example.]

I find it really interesting that you and a bunch of other people are doing this, and I wanted to ask whether you began doing it yourself or you noticed it somewhere else first? Do you remember where you first saw it, and when? Why, in your own words, do you separate them that way?

I had my replies in only a few hours. C— wrote:

Hiya! Well, actually, I was editing my profile one day and saw that it was a mite long-winded… I wanted to make it look less cluttered and easier to read. A couple of years ago, I had an even longer list of quotations, because Facebook didn’t have as much of a character limit. So, I used a separator at that point too, but it was a long row of stars (the Shift-8 kind). However, with the new character limits, I couldn’t do that anymore. Plus, the areas besides my quote wall were looking kind of cluttered too. So, the dash just seemed like the best solution. It was the first thing I came up with, after I realized I couldn’t do the stars anymore.

Note that she’d been doing it for years, and only recently switched from a row of asterisks to double-dashes because of a character limit.

Coincidentally, the other friend I asked had stopped “dashing” her profile by the time I got around to asking. K— replied:

I actually began doing that on my own when I saw that it was sort of hard to distinguish between what was in what section without a space in between just because of the amount of text I put in there. It doesn’t keep a space between sections if you press enter a few times, except for between the last section and about me. I’m really organized like that, so it was bothering me. I’m not really sure why I changed it back… I think it’s because I started deleting sections and just putting my music and my about me and then gradually added the others again over a short period of time.

Both mentioned, in their own words, that it was about usability: “I wanted to make it look less cluttered and easier to read.” “I saw that it was sort of hard to distinguish between what was in what section without a space in between just because of the amount of text I put in there.” Regardless of whether their desire to separate things visually is driven by a desire to draw more focused attention to their interests, the fact remains that they believe they’re correcting an error in Facebook’s design judgment. This is bolstered by the particularly interesting claim that they each made the decision independently. In a way, they were designing with their “users” in mind: the people consuming their profiles.

The central argument of the piece I published last year, in response to Clay Shirky’s article on A Brief Message about the iPod and MySpace, was that good design is not necessarily arrogance. But there was something else I hinted at: users care about usability, but don’t realize they do. Most people probably aren’t even familiar with the term on a daily basis, but they could probably give you examples of what it means in an applied sense, at least. Thus the popularity of the “beautiful and useful” iPod — it’s popular because it’s pretty and the easiest-to-use MP3 player on the market. They likely can’t tell you that it’s a masterpiece of usability engineering, but they can tell you that they like how it “just works.” Like the iPod, Facebook is a tool that is both usable and popular: A social network done right.

So what does it all mean? I think there are two important and intriguing things to take away from this.

The first is that once users are committed to something (or even, indeed, forced to use it for lack of alternatives), they will change what they think isn’t perfect, to the best of their ability, to adapt the thing to their own standards of usability. Ergo, iPod cases to prevent scratching, and dashes separating big lists of interests in Facebook. (If they can’t change it enough, of course, they’ll leave, if they can.) Secondly, trends in style (especially in technological contexts) inevitably include elements of usability — however unnoticeable they might be to the people participating in the trends.

Sometimes the most fascinating and telling elements of the user experience are found in the smallest of details. Do you agree? Have you seen anything else like this on the Web?

Two Leopard Bugs: Followup

By Matt in OS X, Design, Commentary

Just about two months ago I identified two visual bugs in Leopard that were annoying me: application switcher icons were darkening, and Mail wasn’t properly changing the font color of quoted text. I’ve come up with a reproducible case for the former and a workaround for the latter.

I haven’t the faintest idea why, but if your cursor is in motion over the application switcher while it’s appearing (we’re talking fractions of a second), the application icon over which your cursor was moving will be darkened. Here’s a video demonstrating the oddity. While I hesitate to call this a 100% reproducible case, I am able to trigger the bug on my machine reliably at any time. Reports from readers such as yourself are, of course, appreciated.

And for getting properly-colored indented quotes in Mail, you have two options. First, the workaround: cut the offending text and any leading or trailing whitespace and paste to an empty text document in your favorite editor, and then cut it from there and paste back into Mail. The text will have lost whatever it is that causes the color issue. This is, admittedly, ridiculous. Thankfully, your second option works just as well and is a lot easier: just ignore it. It may display incorrectly before being sent, but once sent, the quoted text in your delivered messages will not stay uncolored, so you don’t need to worry about your recipients seeing something unexpected.

Minor offenses though they may be, attempting to find the cause of bugs like these is a valuable exercise for the developing and curious alike. We’ve filed bug reports through Apple’s Radar Bug Report system for the switcher and Mail issues: #5671975 and #5671970 respectively. Though 10.5.1 brought no cure, we can always hope for a fix in future point releases.

Hunt and Peck: An Investigation and Proposal for Better Custom Keyboard Shortcut Management in OS X

By Matt in OS X, Constructive Criticism, Design, Commentary, Usability

The short story: The interface and functionality of custom keyboard shortcuts in OS X is awkward and unreliable. There are two possible direct reasons for this — Apple’s development priorities and non-standard application resource organization — and any number of underlying causes. I propose a solution.

This is the very long story. I am primarily a Camino user, but like anyone developing for the Web on a Mac, I usually have Firefox and Safari open at the same time too. My keyboard shortcut habits were formed in Firefox, though, and it’s too late to switch from ⌘+K for the search box, and ⌘+⌥+← and ⌘+⌥+→ for tab navigation. Having acquired a new laptop recently, I was reminded just how awful the process for setting up custom keyboard shortcuts is in Mac OS X.

Of Mysteries and Ellipses

If you’ve set custom keyboard shortcuts before, this interface will look familiar. In fact, it remains unchanged since OS X 10.3.

The problems here are manifold.

First, you have to find the exact name of the menu option you want to access. This requires switching back and forth between an open application and the Keyboard & Mouse preference pane, with nowhere but your mind (or a piece of paper, or a Sticky, but come on) to store the title of the menu command, which is itself potentially buried several levels below the top-level menu options.

This is further complicated by the fact that keyboard shortcuts don’t take effect until you’ve closed the very application you were getting the menu option from. (It doesn’t say that anywhere in the interface itself; you just have to come to that conclusion by trial and error or Help when it doesn’t work immediately.) Even if you remember whether, say, that app capitalizes “to” or “from,” there’s no way to assure you’re typing the right thing. The best example of this is the ellipses, used to denote a menu option that triggers further action in a dialog box.

Can you spot the difference?

Here you go:

Apple specifies in the HIG section on Style that menu options requiring further input or confirmation should feature genuine ellipses:

Important: Be sure to create the ellipsis character using the key combination Option-; (Option-semicolon). This ensures that an assistive application can provide the correct interpretation of the character to a disabled user. If you use 3 period characters to simulate an ellipsis, many assistive applications will be unable to make sense of them. Also, 3 period characters and an ellipsis do not look the same because the periods are spaced differently than the points of an ellipsis.

But just because something’s in the HIG doesn’t mean developers will abide. Firefox is a great example. A sample custom shortcut:

And sure enough, it matches up:

This is problematic.

Of course, it’s known that third parties aren’t the only ones who don’t adhere to the HIG. The “Search Google…” menu option in Safari, pictured above, raises a few tangential questions: Does it even deserve an ellipsis? It just quietly puts focus on the Google search bar, which I didn’t notice until I’d tried selecting it a few times. The neglected HIG doesn’t account for menu items that do things like that. Hidden as it is, this menu option in Safari almost seems to exist for the sake of being custom-shortcut’d.

Assuming you do get the menu command title right, there’s no guarantee that setting the custom shortcut function is actually going to work. I spent twenty minutes trying to set keyboard shortcuts in Safari and wondering why they would show up sometimes but not others. In the end I had too many screenshots to deal with. I think this one, taken after I attempted to create a shortcut for “Private Browsing,” will suffice:

Some sort of type-ahead mechanism that would fetch the right menu command for you would solve this problem, but that brings us to why this functionality isn’t already built-in.

Not a Key Feature

Obviously, making the custom keyboard shortcuts interface eminently usable is not a priority for Apple. For the most part, only a minority of users actually know and use keyboard shortcuts. Of those I bet a significant number desire at least some level of customization, but at the end of the day, it’s not a feature that moves units. It’s understandable, then, that it hasn’t been prioritized.

I initially suspected another reason: that improving the process would actually be quite difficult. Here’s why.

While it’s possible to get a complete list of the menu options of any running application with Applescript, it would be best if the preference pane didn’t need to run the application just to get the menus. So instead, providing a searchable list of default menu options for an application (dynamic things like the bookmarks and history in a web browser should be ignored) would require a registered list thereof for every available application. But do these even exist? If so, where?

Turns out they do. But “where” is exactly the problem.

In many applications (both Apple’s and those by third parties), the default menus are found in the MainMenu.nib interface file of an application. See for yourself: ‘Show Package Contents’ on the Safari application, navigate down through Contents › Resources › English.lproj › MainMenu.nib. If you’ve got Developer Tools installed, you should be able to open that file. You’ll see in the MainMenu.nib window something called “MainMenu,” an object of the NSMenu class, which manages an application’s menus.

Theoretically, a list of menu options should be obtainable from this .nib file. Unfortunately, it’s not always in the same place. For Calculator, it’s in Calculator.nib instead of MainMenu.nib. With DVD Player, it’s in MenuBar.nib. For Mail, I couldn’t even find it. So the preference pane wouldn’t know where to look without loading the application to tell it. Right?

Wrong! The location of the MainMenu-containing interface file is specified in the NSMainNibFile property of a given application, listed in the Info.plist directly inside the Contents folder of every application. Knowing this, it’s easy, for instance, to find the appropriate .nib for Mail, MailViewer:

Peachy Key’n

I’ve leave the implementation for another day, but all of the pieces are already there. The Keyboard & Mouse preference pane can already tell when an application disallows keyboard shortcuts:

And it knows that because — and here’s the kicker — it checks the Info.plist file! Check it out:

If a property exists to disallow keyboard shortcut customization, we can only assume that the list of available applications listed in the Keyboard & Mouse prefence pane is drawn from a cached list of applications whose menu commands can be edited. It wouldn’t be too far a stretch to get Keyboard & Mouse to then cache a list of the available commands from the MainMenu object in the appropriate .nib for each safe application.

The interface for finding the right menu command should work just like the new Help menu in Leopard. The screen would dim and a facsimile of the selected application’s default menus would appear. Start typing a command, and the close matches would be pointed out visually with the bobber. Once you’d selected a command (by searching or by manually navigating through the menus with the mouse), the command would fly from the menubar into the preference pane, where you could set a keyboard shortcut for it which would then be checked against existing shortcuts.

Click for a larger view.

A warning dialog indicating that changes to existing keyboard shortcuts wouldn’t take place until the application was restarted would then appear, offering, like Software Update, to quit said application immediately or postpone quitting.

It can be done. It should be done. The ball’s in your court, Apple.

See Also

John Gruber’s article Losers, Weepers speaks to the problems of the OS X custom keyboard shortcut feature, and was written way back in 2003 when the feature first appeared. (There are a lot of similarities there, but it’s worse that the problems haven’t been addressed in four years than me not remembering John’s original post.) He mentions a key problems not mentioned or addressed here but just as vital — the lack of conflict management.