Tag: Android

Android Design Guideline Nonsense

Apple’s Human Interface Guidelines have historically been held in high regard, and they are considered to be required reading for anybody in mobile development, regardless of platform (iOS, Android or even the mobile web).

Google also has some guidelines for Android. They question is, are they any good? Are they good enough so that we should try to adhere to them whenever possible, or are they actually so confusing that we should actively steer away? Without a proven track record, this is a pertinent question to ask.

Which brings me to this blog post “Do Android UI guidelines really make sense ?”. I recommend that you read this. I have also noticed this awkwardness in Android’s UI, almost from the very first time I touched one. I had not idea that this was not just a mistake, but something that was strongly advocated for.

Problems Using Tabs Instead of Navigation Drawers in Android

A few days ago, I wrote about how the Navigation Drawer (side-navigation or hamburger menu) was removed from the Facebook app and was seemingly going out of vogue. In the case of Facebook, they used a Tab Bar in an implementation that was almost identical to how iOS has been using it (in the clock app for example) since the very first iPhone. This implementation is the default behavior of the TabBarController in the iOS SDK and is ridiculously easy to set up.

For the Android app, Facebook used the Tabs UI element in the Android SDK in a way that mimicked the TabBarController. This is not the way Google has been using it in their Google Play app for example, but it isn’t much effort to get it to work. Their result is the following screen shot.

However, there is one important deviation from the implementation in iOS. That is the icons do not have any descriptive text associated with them, so you have to understand what each button does from the icon alone.

NewImage

Compare this to the iOS app (below). In the iOS app, each icon has a descriptive text label which makes it easier to understand the function of each button.

Although I cannot claim to have a good understanding of why this is the case, I have observed the following which is likely relevant to some degree;

  1. The iOS SDK makes it very easy to add miniature text below the icon to aid users who are unfamiliar with the icons. You simply write the text in a field in the graphical UI design software. It is important to note that this was available since the original iPhone with its 3.5-inch non-retina display, which suggests that Apple viewed the text as a necessity for users unfamiliar with the icons.
  2. The Android SDK makes it similarly easy to add text. However, instead of placing miniature text below the icon, the Android SDK simply adds regular sized text to the right of the icon. This makes the button much wider, and in the case of the Facebook app, you would no longer be able to fit the five buttons.
  3. This is of course quite easy to fix. For example, you could simply add the miniature text to the icon graphic file. It is unclear why Facebook decided not to do this since Facebook generally adds text whenever possible to their icons to clarify their functions. It is unfortunate though that this issue discourages developers from adding text.

NewImage

Summary

The Android SDK has provided Tabs which allow applications to mimic the behavior of iOS TabBarControllers. However, they have omitted an important feature that would have made it easier for users to understand and explore new features.

In my own development, I doubt that I would ever use my own custom icons without explanatory text. On the other hand, I would also never let a tab bar overflow so that the user has to scroll to see all the tabs. I’m also very hesitant to use a Navigation Drawer because this creates an “out of sight, out of mind” situation and is very bad for discoverability.

Wither Navigation Drawer?

I’ve been thinking about mobile app design for our new Ponzu iOS app.

I’ve noticed that the Navigation Drawer has been removed from the new Facebook app, and instead, they are using either the native Tab Bar Controller in iOS, or Tabs in the Action Bar for Android. Let me explain.

Facebook changes

I’m using images I got from the web instead of my own devices, because I’ve already updated them to the newer versions of the Facebook app.

Previous Android Version

NewImage

The hallmark of the previous Android version is the “Navigation Drawer“. This is summoned by clicking the button on the upper left of the screen with causes the top view to slide to the right, revealing a menu list (right image).

On the left image, you also see use of drop-down menus from the Action Bar (the top bar). Interestingly, these items on the Action Bars are also included in the Navigation Drawer, creating redundancy.

The Navigation Drawer pattern was invented by Loren Brichter and was popularized by Facebook. Since then, it has been included into the Android SDK so any Android developer can easily use it, and it has been used extensively in mobile optimized web sites.

To see why Google thinks that this is a good navigation pattern, see their documentation. They basically use it at the root-level in the app’s navigation hierarchy.

New Android Version

NewImage

In the new Android version, we can see that Facebook has totally ditched the Navigation Bar, and instead are using Navigation Tabs within the Action Bar (a more graphical example).

This navigation scheme is very similar to Tab Bars in iOS. Tab Bars have been supported in iOS since the very beginning (iOS 2.0). Android used to have them as in iOS but they don’t seem to be actively supported in the SDK any more.

NewImage

In fact, Facebook is using Android Navigation Tabs within the Action Bar in a manner that is much closer to the iOS Tab Bars in comparison to how Google is using them in their own apps. In Google’s apps, Navigation Tabs are typically present only at a high-level of the navigation hierarchy. They disappear as you move deeper into the application hierarchy. On the other hand, iOS Tab Bars are always present, providing the user with a global navigation element. In Facebook for Android, they put Navigation Tabs on every page, much like how iOS works.

Summary

In a nutshell, Facebook has ditched the Navigation Drawer pattern that it popularized. Instead it has migrated to the Tab Bar navigation pattern that was present since the very first iPhone.

This really shows how much thought went into the original iPhone UI, and how much they got right the first time.

As for reasons why the Navigation Drawer was not a good idea for Facebook, let me give my thoughts;

  1. To serve as a global Navigation Element, the Navigation Drawer has to be present at all times. However, the position of the Navigation Drawer button is the same as the “Back button” (or the “Up button” in Google’s weird terminology) and hence the two cannot coexist. If you want to display a “Back button”, you can’t display a Navigation Drawer. Hence the Navigation Drawer is relegated to the root-levels of the app navigation hierarchy and cannot be used in deeper levels. Essentially, the Navigation Drawer cannot be used for global navigation.
  2. The contents of the Navigation Drawer are hidden. Therefore, features that are only accessible from it will tend not to be noticed by many users. That is why in the previous design, Facebook put the more important menu items in the Action Bar (top bar) as well. Naturally this causes confusion because the same buttons are present in multiple locations but it’s better than losing large amounts of user enagagement.
  3. Since the Navigation Drawer is used mostly at the root-level pages, you could easily use a root page instead. Instead of sliding the Navigation Drawer from the left, you could simply provide a Back Button and show the list of menu items as a separate page. Since everybody is familiar with the Back Button, it becomes very natural for users.

Items 1. and 2. are closely related and have very much to do with the feeling of being “lost” within an app’s hierarchy. Regarding 1., having a global navigation visible at all times makes it easy to get back “out of the woods” so you always feel safe. Without one, you would have to tap the back button many times, and you probably have no idea how may taps you need. Unless your app hierarchy is shallow, you need global navigation at all times. As for 2., if the contents are hidden, users are not going to quickly learn what features your app provides. You should help users learn as quickly as possible by showing the list of important features often.

Slow Progress is Killing Firefox OS’s Small Opportunity

About a year ago, I discussed (mostly in Japanese) the possibility that Firefox could succeed if they successfully targeted the opening in the Smartphone market at the low-end.

At that time, Android did not have a solution for low-end smartphones. As a results, vendors were not using the latest OS but using Android 2.3 in the products instead. I stated that if Firefox OS worked smoothly on low-spec devices, it might be able to successfully enter the market.

That hasn’t been what has happened.

Just yesterday, Mozilla announce they are accepting preorders for Firefox Flame, a mid-tier reference Firefox OS device. It has a 1.2 GHz dual-core processor and a 4.5-inch screen. This is not a low-end device. In this market tier, it will be extremely difficult to compete with Androids.

I am pretty disappointed with the progress that Firefox OS has made. In a year, instead of focusing on the low-end, they seem to have moved up-market. Maybe Firefox OS didn’t work well on low-end devices. If so, then it would be an engineering problem.

The way I see it, Firefox OS has lost the ability to compete in the market where it could have been relevant. As Moore’s law progresses, the low-end smartphone market will be filled with higher spec phones which can run the latest version of Android. This will effectively close the small opening that existed temporarily.

There’s Still Time Left for Microsoft Tablets

Nine months ago, back when the flattening of iPad sales had not yet become obvious and when the majority of analysts were predicting tablets to soon imminently replace notebooks, I wrote quite a bit about Microsoft (in Japanese).

In summary, I wrote;

破壊的イノベーションが成功するかしないかの最大のポイントは、既存のトップ企業が、まだ間に合ううちに反撃に出るかどうかです。間に合うかどうかというのは、新興の企業･製品が十分に既存製品を代替できるところまで進化しているかどうかにかかっています。つまりスマートフォンとTabletが十分にパソコンを代替できるかどうかです。十分に代替できるところまで来ていれば、Microsoftは反撃のしようが無くなります。しかしそうでなければ反撃が効きます。

The largest factor determining whether a disruption succeeds or not is whether the incumbents respond in time. “In time” is defined by whether the entrant product has evolved to the point where it can fully replace the incumbent. In the context of Microsoft, it is defined by whether the combination of a smartphone and a tablet can replace a PC. If the answer is yes, then Microsoft cannot retaliate. Otherwise, a counterattack will still be effective.

Tabletについては、まだまだパソコンを代替できていません。特にAndroidは7インチに偏っていて、娯楽に完全にフォーカスしています。Tablet市場がパソコンを使って仕事をする方向に向かっていません。これではなかなかパソコンは代替しないでしょう。

Tablet still cannot replace PCs. In particular, Android tablets are skewing towards 7-inches and are focusing on entertainment. The tablet market is not moving towards doing work. Hence, tablets are unlikely to replace PCs.

反撃にいったん出れば、既存のトップ企業はそうそう負けるものではありません。Microsoftの場合、まだ間に合う気がします。

Because of the vast resources they can deploy, incumbents rarely lose once they retaliate in time. In the case of Microsoft, I think they still have time.

Apple has released their sales figures for 1Q2014 and the sales of the iPad have clearly flattened. Although iPad sales volumes (~ 20 million units) are still very impressive, at this level, it does not look like they are on a trajectory to replacing PCs.

So Microsoft still has time.

In fact, the new Surface Pro 3 clearly shows that Microsoft understands this. Instead of launching a hastened response to the iPad which was the original Surface RT, they have launched a product that attacks from their dominant strength in PCs and office productivity software. They have realized that laptops are not going to be replaced by tablets any time soon, and that sales of Windows laptops will continue to surpass the sales of iPad-like productivity tablets. Hence their dominant power, although weakened, will still be a formidable asset for the foreseeable future.

So instead of starting afresh, they are playing their strengths and using their resources wisely. Instead of attacking tablets head on, their plan seems to be to embrace and to internalize tablets into their laptop products.

This clearly makes sense.

Of course, it will take time. But Microsoft has realized that it has time.

Funny Phablets

Phablets are a very funny product category. Nobody, at least in the west, seems to quite understand what they are.

I don’t either. I’m just observing that the information that we have is difficult to understand, and the common theories aren’t logically consistent.

Here is an example of a bullish prediction for phablets.

“Are Phablets Signaling a Butterfly Effect for Mobile Devices?”

While I have a large issue with how “butterfly effect” is being used in this article, that is beside the point. The point of the article is to illustrate how phablets might lead to significant changes in the mobile space.

In this article, the benefits of a larger screen are given as follows;

  1. “Bigger screens are becoming essential for browsing. They make it a lot more attractive – you can fit more information into a single screen.”
  2. “Email gets easier on a big screen too.”

Now compare this with a report by Opera Mediaworks “Phablets are no passing phad”.

What they find in terms of phablet usage is;

  1. Social networking is by far the top category (53.8% of total impressions served), far outpacing social site usage from phones and tablets.
  2. Phablet users are far less likely to use News & Information sites than phone users and fall well short of tablet users in their interest in Gaming, and Music, Video & Media.

So it seems that phablet users are less prone to browsing the web, and are more inclined to use their device for social networking.

What kind of social networking?

We can’t be sure, but if it is a lot of WhatsApp, then we can be sure that large screens aren’t making too much of a different. The same can be said for Twitter.

This doesn’t match the phablet benefits given above.

My feeling is that nobody really seems to know what the real appeal of Phablets are on purchase and how they are actually being used. Much less whether their success will be confined to Asia or whether they will penetrate other markets.

Moto G Sales Figures

A quick note as I try to gauge the success of the Moto G.

Total Smartphone Shipments in 2014Q1 were 281.5 million according to IDC and 279.4 million according to Canalys.

Motorola has not disclosed how many Moto Gs they shipped, but they tweeted that they shipped a total of 6.5 million devices in Q1. They didn’t make profits, but neither do most other players.

Of the 6.5 million devices, we know that Moto X isn’t a significant portion. Maybe 0.5-1.0 million.Moto X Sales

Kantar has reported that Moto G sold well in the UK. Moto G 6% in UK Kantar Moto G report

Nokia hasn’t reported on how many they shipped in 2014Q1, but it seems like somewhere between 5.6-8.1 million. Nokia Lumia sales

For some perspective on how other manufacturers are doing, IDC has a report. Samsung sold 85.0 million and Apple sold 43.7 million. Even LG sold 12.3 million.

I would say that for an Android phone that had very strong reviews, the Moto G sold in Nexus-like numbers. That means that it didn’t sell well relative to the big players, but would be significant to a player like LG which makes the Nexus 4 and Nexus 5 smartphones. In many ways, the Moto G is a Nexus device.

It is possible that Motorola could continue to grow upon the success of the Moto G. That is not however what happened for the Nexus devices. At this point, I expect Motorola to remain in their current position at best. As the association with Google disappears, it is more likely that it will actually go downhill.

Jobs-to-be-done in India

Just happened to read an article on The New York Times with a very interesting quote;

“Micromax is giving India what it wants: more bang for the buck,” Rahul Sharma, its co-founder and chief executive, said in a phone interview. “Most Indians don’t walk into a store asking for a smartphone; they go, “Bhaiyya, isme chat chalega?” (“Brother, will the chat apps work on this phone?”)

I suspect that this is not only relevant to the Indian market, but also key to getting “late-majority” and “laggards” to switch from feature phones to smartphones, even in countries like Japan with its ferocious appetite for high-end iPhones.

This is the ultimate jobs-to-be-done for smartphones. The specs or OS or ecosystems of smartphones don’t really matter.

Mobile Addicts

Flurry released a report on how many times people launch applications in a day. The data is quite interesting.

  1. People launch applications 10 times per day on average with a significant proportion opening apps more than 60 times per day (the addicts).
  2. Women are more likely to be addicts then men.
  3. In addition to people under 24-years of age, middle-aged parents were also more likely to be addicts.

In the report, Flurry touches on wearables;

Mobile Addicts launch apps over 60 times per day, making them consumers that are effectively wearing their devices. This analysis of the Mobile Addict should give us a sneak preview into the make-up of early-adopters of Wearables, and what types of apps and experiences will resonate with them. To date, many applications for Wearables have focused on fitness and health, but thinking about what’s next, developers should think about the other experiences that will delight the people who need to be connected all the time. This includes Teens, College Students and Middle-Aged parents who are interested gaming, autos, sports and shopping, and who may have a constant need to entertain or educate their children. After all, the people who we consider “Mobile Addicts” are already essentially wearing their devices 24/7/365.

While I agree with the general conclusion on wearables, I think we can go a bit deeper into discussion. My feelings are the following;

  1. Addicts are launching apps over 60 times per day. If we assume that launching means more than simply being notified, then it is likely that notification-type smartwatches are not enough for the addicts. Addicts aren’t satisfied with being notified; they want to do more.
  2. If smartwatches are going to replace the time that you spend on your smartphone, it has to be a better experience for the key task which addicts do 60 times per day. As long as smartwatches focus on notifications, they will never be a better experience, because that is only a small part of the jobs-to-be-done.
  3. Flurry suggests that wearables focus on what the addicts do. I do not agree. Addicts are obviously quite satisfied with their smartphones and have high demands. It would be difficult for a wearable to sufficiently replace them. Replacing a high-end product with a low-end one won’t work.
  4. Instead, wearables should focus on other things; things that do not require constant user interaction. Wearables should focus on being a new-market disruption.
  5. I am very interested in what role the form-factor plays in the constant-interaction shown by addicts. Obviously, if the phone is going to be accessed more than 60 times a day, it has to be in a very convenient location and has to be easy to pull out. It is obviously better for the device to be small enough to carry close by. Although there is a trend towards large smartphones, I’m doubtful if those phones allow this kind of constant-interaction, especially for women.

Data Usage Statistics

There are quite a few companies that provide insight into browser (web) usage statistics. Both StatCounter and NetMarketShare provide reports that you can just point your browser to. Chitika provides detailed analysis of topics-of-interest.

One criticism of these data when applied to mobile platform analysis is that they do not include app usage. Hence data usage from the native Facebook, Twitter or WhatsApp applications are not included. With PCs, most people use web browsers to access online resources so this is not an issue. However on mobile, we know that a lot, if not most of Internet access is actually through these native applications and not through browsers. Therefore the data from StatCounter, NetMarketShare and Chitika is less relevant for understanding user behavior.

Data usage on carrier networks is separate statistic that provides information from a different angle. This counts traffic from both native applications and web browsers. However it only includes usage on the carrier networks and does not include WiFi usage. Let’s compare this data.

First web usage data from StatCounter for Europe, Oct 2013 (only mobile data excluding tablets). This data shows that Android is a little bit ahead of iOS in web usage. Compared to the US, Android usage is higher in Europe. A common explanation is the lack of attractive subsidies for the iPhone in Europe, which make the iPhone much more expensive to own than an Android phone.

StatCounter os eu monthly 201310 201310 bar

Asymco recently tweeted data usage on network carriers in Europe for the same period (source Amdocs). We immediately notice that iOS (iPhone) usage is much higher compared to web usage.

BlzKOleIQAA7ZVK png large

These two sets of data are not directly comparable, and care should be taken in their interpretation. Regardless, considering other evidence, I think it is safe to say that iPhone users seem to use Apps much more than Android users. This is why Android beat iPhone in web usage, but lost in total data usage.

This is unlikely to be a simple App ecosystem issue. Although developers still tend to target iOS first and Android second, for the apps that most people use, these are already available cross platform. These cross-platform apps (Facebook, WhatsApp) probably constitute the vast majority of data usage and it is difficult to image that iOS only apps make a huge difference.

I don’t know the answer to this. You could say that it has something to do with engagement, but it’s a pretty broad term and I’ve never seen information that tells me how user behaviors change with engagement levels.