I used “infer” intentionally in the sense that one can reasonably deduce/estimate a user’s commitment to an experience based upon their screen size. As I have found that this principle is not without it’s exceptions, I wanted to stay away from the terms you suggested which might present the concept as more of a presumed universal associative property which would not have been my intent.

“mobile applications might best be described as the boutique mobile platform.”

Thanks for the insightful article. It is a good reminder that while many folks have a whole slew of apps loaded on their phone, their is a user difference in those that have and have not installed applications.

It would be great to see a more open format for sharing apps across the board. Also, I think application packs that offer a bundle of well used and trusted apps would improve the download/install experience. Not just the mobile world, but lots of software suffer this exact problem in the form of plugins, modules, updates, and add-ons. Each seem to have their own spin on the solution, but it has increasingly become an apparent design problem without a standard solution.

Luke
lukevandeman.com

To begin, how are we defining mobile devices. Do we include “dumb” cell phones. Is the Kindle a mobile device? a PSP? A digital camera? This is relevant when discussing a truncated experience and the platform.

If mobile devices offer a truncated interface, which platform are we discussing and truncated compared to what? How is the interface for mobile voice communications truncated?
I’m also not clear on the distinction between data entry and data collection.

When discussing applications, why do we distinguish between applications installed by the user and ones that come included with the device? And I would argue the line between Internet and application is irrelevant.

I enjoyed the article but it does not align with what I see on the subway every day.

I wholeheartedly agree that voice will never go away. My rationale for labeling it’s future as nebulous pertains to the challenges of designing experiences that utilize vocal input. On a high level those challenges map to social concerns of public vs. private communication and the inefficiency of vocal input.

First the social implications… How many places is it socially appropriate for you to carry on a private conversation in public? That’s what vocal input equates to- an audible private conversation between you and your device. There are places where this is acceptable and appropriate (while driving in your car), and there are places where this is a social no-no (in a crowded elevator). There are also places where this could end your career (during a meeting). The personal nature of the mobile space privileges discreet interactions, and often, speaking out loud is often not discreet.

The second challenge I see is, as I said, is the general inefficiency of vocal interface compared to GUIs. In your case study, since I don’t have that number on speed dial, it would be 12-13 keystrokes before I even had the opportunity to start to place my order. In addition to this, vocal-only interfaces have difficult time confirming user input since the only option that is typically available is ‘reading the order back’ to the user.

If we consider your vocal/GUI combo, then we arrive at the model employed by most fast food drive-thrus where you say your order out loud and receive visual confirmation of the order via a display. My question to you is, would you still use the drive-thru if you were able to simply key in your order ahead of time (potentially paying for it in the process) and then just pick it up at the window.

Very good questions here. Let me see if I can answer them.

As far as how are we defining mobile devices, I don’t necessarily have a strict definition for that but I think that all of your examples would qualify. As we work towards a definition I we need to look at which platforms a device supports and whether or not those platforms are opened or closed.

“Dumb” cell phones have open support for voice, sometimes messaging, and sometimes the Internet while offering typically closed support for applications. The Kindle offers closed support for applications, and arguable closed support for the Internet as well. While the PSP offers closed support for applications and open support for the Internet. Finally a digital camera typically just allows closed support for image recording applications.

Moving on, my colleagues and I typically joke that an interface is truncated as long as you wouldn’t want to use it to write your thesis with. To use another example I can access relatively the same Internet with my iPhone as I can on my laptop, but I’m not likely to use my iPhone to do research for an article. I can type that article on my my 12 inch laptop, but I would much prefer to do so via the full sized keyboard that resides on my desk.

I agree with you that voice isn’t necessarily truncated, as it is the most native of the mobile platforms, but it has similar problems with efficiency.

As far as data entry vs. data collection: Data entry would be manually typing in a 50 character URL into your mobile device’s web browser. Data collection would be scanning a QR Code that contains that URL and having the associated webpage open automatically in your browser.

Why do we distinguish between pre-installed apps vs. user installed? The most simple reason is that it demonstrates user segmentation. It is one thing to know how to use the app that controls your mobile devices camera, it is another thing all-together to be the kind of user who knows how to install an alternative app with camera-control functionality.

Finally the most basic point I can make to demonstrate relevancy of the line between the Internet and applications is that using the Internet on a mobile device requires an active data connection while this dependency doesn’t necessarily exist for an application.