How even Apple, king of usability, has a hard time being appropriate-first
In a time when there’s a lot of talk whether you’re digital-, mobile- or AI-first there should be a discussion about appropriate-first. This means taking full advantage of the technology you’re using and not getting stuck in emulating previous standards developed for technologies they’re derived from. This phenomenon is common when you want people to adopt something they’re not used to — from the car looking like a horse carriage to GUIs imitating like physical objects.
Another standard that is very much ingrained into, at least, western culture is the left to right, top to bottom “as a”(could remove) way of defining where to start and where to finish. I would guess, without researching, this was probably adopted when starting to put thoughts on paper (or stone, leather or any other medium) and due to the majority of people being right-handed this allowed you to more easily see what you have written. I’m spitballing here.
As mentioned, it’s not just letters on paper, but a universal rule for where you begin and end but this doesn’t mean it’s universally good. “For instance a digital world is completely dynamic, where we have all the opportunities to be appropriate and specific to every individual situation. I write this because of an observation I have made that has been bugging me for quite some time.
So… to the point. Apple, what is the reasoning of arranging the icons from left to right, top to bottom? On phones that get bigger and bigger and where you need support functions to reach the top of the screen it seems nuts to arrange the icons this way. Regardless of what hand you’re most comfortable with using, our arms are still attached to the body, meaning opposite side. It pushes you to clutter every page to enable arrangement of most used apps in the lower half. NOT OKAY. You’re the king of usability, cream of the crop, the go-to company for exemplifying simplicity. It’s not enough with a puny row of four apps.
In a world where we have real problems this is a minute detail, an observation hardly worth writing about. I do however think it puts sheds light on something bigger, about using technologies and create solutions that take advantage of their opportunities rather than getting stuck in how it “needs” to be. There are many things and areas that could gain from an appropriate-first approach. It could be about how we use resources and for what, how we make sure we spend valuable time in a meaningful way. It could help us tackle the big problems we are facing as population grows and gets older.
I believe service design is an important tool in creating change. Analysing systems rather than individual touchpoints broadens the perspective and identifies what is really broken, what is made by routine (which is perversely valued in old hierarchal systems) and act accordingly. To be transparent, daring to see the problem and further, being bold enough to implement a solution that wasn’t what you expected takes real guts. No doubt about it.
Without defining the problem and the context you will be less likely to choose the appropriate solution.
Start design with an appropriate-first approach.
