Archiving in the trash: The Instapaper UI(virtualpants.com)
virtualpants.com
Archiving in the trash: The Instapaper UI
http://www.virtualpants.com/post/31802630265/archiving-in-the-trash-the-instapaper-ui
10 comments
Imagine if you could "safely remove" a disk from Apple's own file management app by dragging it to the trash.
Instapaper's UI is discoverable and forgiving, which seems far more important than its particular choice of "iconography" when actually interacting with it.
Instapaper's UI is discoverable and forgiving, which seems far more important than its particular choice of "iconography" when actually interacting with it.
Actually, when dragging a disk to the trash in OSX the trash can turns into an eject button.
> Imagine if Android’s Gmail app made you click the trash to save something. We would certainly see complaining blog posts and snarky tweets all over the place. So why does Instapaper get a free pass?
I’m not sure that we would. There are some great designers working on Android apps, but I don’t get the feeling that the UIs get the same critical eye, especially because there is less consistency throughout Android.
Marco should probably have the Archive box and the trash icon in the main list view instead of the trash icon that does both. However, I get the feeling that he doesn’t care as much about the polish of Instapaper as some people do. Last year I sent him an email with a list of adjustments to bring Instapaper in line with how iOS apps should behave (e.g. table view cells should fade out with the back-navigation transition instead of after it), but months later, most of the issues aren’t fixed. It’s the little things that really show polish and he doesn’t seem to be responsive to fixing the little things.
I’m not sure that we would. There are some great designers working on Android apps, but I don’t get the feeling that the UIs get the same critical eye, especially because there is less consistency throughout Android.
Marco should probably have the Archive box and the trash icon in the main list view instead of the trash icon that does both. However, I get the feeling that he doesn’t care as much about the polish of Instapaper as some people do. Last year I sent him an email with a list of adjustments to bring Instapaper in line with how iOS apps should behave (e.g. table view cells should fade out with the back-navigation transition instead of after it), but months later, most of the issues aren’t fixed. It’s the little things that really show polish and he doesn’t seem to be responsive to fixing the little things.
Have you considered that he might care a great deal, but disagree with your specific suggestions?
Yes, but when it comes to suggestions about standard UI features, I’d be surprised if he disagreed. Apple sets a fairly clear precedent for how standard iOS UIs should work, and whether or not it’s in the Human Interface Guidelines, going against the standard Apple sets feels sloppy.
I would find it more likely that, even though (IIRC) the guy handling Instapaper’s support said he would pass it off to Marco, he simply didn’t see my suggestions or ever do anything with them.
I would find it more likely that, even though (IIRC) the guy handling Instapaper’s support said he would pass it off to Marco, he simply didn’t see my suggestions or ever do anything with them.
I think you can maybe even make the argument that it doesn't matter if he agrees, if he's going against the HIG or even established standards then he's wrong about it.
This is definitely not true. Many of the best UI ideas coming out of iOS go against "established standards".
This is assuming the stuff is intentional, of course. If it's unintentional, it may simply be a low priority. Whether the UITableViewCell is de-selected during or after the animation is a pretty subtle and innocuous ui artifact that could nevertheless require deep changes under the hood to fix. If I was Marco, I'd weigh the impact of leaving it how it is, with the work required to change it, and probably end up leaving it until next time I reworked that area of my code. One man operations require tradeoffs pretty much all the time.
You can always use Pocket if you can't handle the occasional not-very rough edges this results in.
This is assuming the stuff is intentional, of course. If it's unintentional, it may simply be a low priority. Whether the UITableViewCell is de-selected during or after the animation is a pretty subtle and innocuous ui artifact that could nevertheless require deep changes under the hood to fix. If I was Marco, I'd weigh the impact of leaving it how it is, with the work required to change it, and probably end up leaving it until next time I reworked that area of my code. One man operations require tradeoffs pretty much all the time.
You can always use Pocket if you can't handle the occasional not-very rough edges this results in.
Or that he might want to change it but knows that changing it will result in complaints and negative reviews because something changed?
In Build and Analyze #50 ( http://5by5.tv/buildanalyze/50 ), starting at around 22:30, Marco describes why he made these decisions.
The button he's calling the "share" button is in fact called the "action" button in iOS. It's supposed to bring up a context-sensitive list of actions that you can perform at a particular point in an app. The article says "same button, completely different uses in the same app" - well, that's how it's meant to be used.
http://bit.ly/OXvSyw
http://bit.ly/OXvSyw
That said, performing an action on the same object (an article) from the detail view or the list view should probably give you the same list of options... unless there is a very good reason not to... which there doesn't appear to be.
I once had the same confusion, even as an iOS developer. That makes me try to offer individual buttons for actions that don't fit into a "share" metaphor I at least until I run out of space.
Twitter for iPad (at least prior to today, I haven't updated) uses the same "Share" icon at the top of an embedded webview and at the bottom (so the same icon on the screen in two places at the same time) and they also summon different menus.
I always forget which one I want when I want to email a link to a page...
I always forget which one I want when I want to email a link to a page...
Ok, so I upgraded Twitter for iPad, and I don't think I'll ever use it again. So that's one annoyance taken care of!
I'm actually a little surprised that this passed apple's App Store screening. Clearly not in compliance with the infamous "Human Interface Guidelines".
Also irks me every time I use the app, as there is no quick way to archive and move onto the next item.
As a paid app, and a pricey one at that, one expects a little polish.
Grrrrrr make it better Marco!
Also irks me every time I use the app, as there is no quick way to archive and move onto the next item.
As a paid app, and a pricey one at that, one expects a little polish.
Grrrrrr make it better Marco!
Instapaper costs $2.99.
It was $4.99 for a very long time, and $9.99 before that. I guess people remember you as an expensive app even after you drop the price.
http://appshopper.com/news/instapaper-pro
http://appshopper.com/news/instapaper-pro
I have a problem with the idea that $9.99 is expensive. I bought a croissant to go with my coffee this morning and ended up spending that.
The idea that using hours that bill at $150-$200 (current stab at journeyman iOS dev rate) to build products that sell "pricey" at anything over $1.99 is a problem. Problem might be the wrong word. Con.
Marco will be fine. Or he won't, I guess. That's not my problem with this line of pricing thinking.
The idea that using hours that bill at $150-$200 (current stab at journeyman iOS dev rate) to build products that sell "pricey" at anything over $1.99 is a problem. Problem might be the wrong word. Con.
Marco will be fine. Or he won't, I guess. That's not my problem with this line of pricing thinking.
It's the $10 croissant and coffee when all the other coffee shops are selling $3 ones. It better be a damn good croissant for the extra money.
It probably is, but that's not why I paid for it; I paid for it because it's the coffee shop in my building and I'm not going to go out of my way to optimize over 5-6 dollars.
If it was crappy coffee, it would not matter to me if it cost $0.50. I can get crappy coffee for free in the lobby of the parking garage I park at.
If it was crappy coffee, it would not matter to me if it cost $0.50. I can get crappy coffee for free in the lobby of the parking garage I park at.
There may be problems with your line of pricing thinking, too. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4393817
Thanks for linking to that; it makes a better case for what I'm saying than I'm willing to spend the time making now.
Stop encouraging people to burn $150/hr hours making things that are "pricey" if they cost more than a buck.
Stop encouraging people to burn $150/hr hours making things that are "pricey" if they cost more than a buck.
I consider Instapaper "expensive" because Pocket is free and, in my opinion, superior.
1: http://getpocket.com
1: http://getpocket.com
Though this is oft-repeated: nothing is "free". Pocket plans to make money off you somehow, whether directly or indirectly. Instapaper is simply more up-front about how and when you will pay.
> Instapaper is simply more up-front about how and when you will pay.
Whatever Pocket ends up doing, nothing's preventing Instapaper from doing it too.
They may not need to, but as we've seen in the past, you can't assume that that one-time purchase means you're now the customer again (and not the product).
Whatever Pocket ends up doing, nothing's preventing Instapaper from doing it too.
They may not need to, but as we've seen in the past, you can't assume that that one-time purchase means you're now the customer again (and not the product).
It's pretty disingenuous to equate the two that way.
There's no reason to believe that Instapaper won't or doesn't already do everything that you're suggesting Pocket could do.
As it stands:
Pocket (Free), Instapaper ($3.99/$2.99)
Pocket (No ads), Instapaper (ads)
Pocket (Free API), Instapaper (Subscription fee for some API functions)
There's no reason to believe that Instapaper won't or doesn't already do everything that you're suggesting Pocket could do.
As it stands:
Pocket (Free), Instapaper ($3.99/$2.99)
Pocket (No ads), Instapaper (ads)
Pocket (Free API), Instapaper (Subscription fee for some API functions)
The difference, as far as I see it, is that Pocket makes being free a selling point, whereas Instapaper users are used to paying for features. Instapaper can continue to exist without substantially shifting business models for the foreseeable future - Pocket can't.
Unless I'm missing something?
Unless I'm missing something?
Apple doesn't enforce the HIG like this. App review will catch big, ugly, user-confounding violations (some times) but not these little fiddly bits around the edges.
To be honest, I think the HIG standard would be to just have the rightmost action icon, that has options for "Delete", "Archive", "Move to Folder", etc. So it wouldn't really be nay faster.
Also, the App Store review certainly doesn't enforce the HIG.
Also, the App Store review certainly doesn't enforce the HIG.
Speaking of unintuitive archive icons, I think Android's Gmail one is terrible. http://www.google.com/help/hc/images/android/android_ug_40/i...
Why? It's a file cabinet; a place where you archive things.
"share w/ /dev/null"
Last time I tried to archive something, I hit the leftmost button, since a down-arrow on a folder kind of seems like an archive function. Then I hit the rightmost button, since it seemed like an action. Finally I hit the trash, because it was the only one left.
One interesting thing about this design is that if there were separate trash/archive icons, they would probably have confirmation popups, and so the number of taps is the same either way.
One interesting thing about this design is that if there were separate trash/archive icons, they would probably have confirmation popups, and so the number of taps is the same either way.
In gmail if you don't archive something it goes away on its own and it's lost. I've been using Instapaper daily for about 3 years and have always considered it one of my favorite iOS apps. I use the 'read later' folder for exactly what it is. A dumping ground. A sort of limbo. When I want to save things for an extended period I just move them into a different (non-readlater) folder. They stay there. Not only that, but they are categorized.
There are a lot of stories/comments on HN that I disagree with, but in this case I really don't understand what the problem is at all. Maybe I am missing the point because I'm not using a designated "archive" function and don't realize how much better it is. Is there a reason archiving is better?
There are a lot of stories/comments on HN that I disagree with, but in this case I really don't understand what the problem is at all. Maybe I am missing the point because I'm not using a designated "archive" function and don't realize how much better it is. Is there a reason archiving is better?
>In gmail if you don't archive something it goes away on its own and it's lost.
Er, what? You don't need to explicitly archive anything in GMail. You can leave everything in your Inbox if you want to. The only folders that get auto-purged are Spam and Trash, where items older than 30 days get deleted.
Er, what? You don't need to explicitly archive anything in GMail. You can leave everything in your Inbox if you want to. The only folders that get auto-purged are Spam and Trash, where items older than 30 days get deleted.
+1. Better UI design = win!
As we can all plainly see, it doesn't.