Pixel geek who loves to create stylish web sites, mobile apps and professional icons. Visual Designer @Cooper http://dribbble.com/jcsizmadi
7 stories
·
3 followers

The Z-Axis: Designing for the Future

2 Shares

For years we’ve thought about the web as a two-dimensional space filled with pages that sit side by side on a flat, infinite plane. But as the devices we design for take on an increasingly diverse array of shapes and sizes, we should embrace new ways of designing up and down. By building interfaces using a system of layers, we solve tricky design problems, flexibly adapt to a variety of screens, and create new patterns that will point the way to future interactions.

In geometric terms, the z-axis is the vertex that measures space above and below the x- and y-axes. Translation for those of us who napped through geometry: it’s how we describe panels and layers that sit above or below one another.

Designing on the z-axis simply means incorporating three-dimensional physics—as represented by the z-axis—into our interface designs. Not the faux-depth of skeuomorphic text shadows and button highlights, but an interface made of components that exist on distinct layers and move independently of one another.

As Andy Clarke has noted, the page is an outdated metaphor for what we’re designing today. Unlike the permanence of ink on paper, a website is a series of dynamic views that can occur in many combinations. Applications require us to consider numerous happy and unhappy paths, and even static marketing sites need reusable design components that can adapt to different content needs.

By using the z-axis to place interface elements above or below one another, we can create better design systems that are more flexible and intuitive to use.

Using the z-axis to solve design problems

While juggling the constraints of making an interface work across many different screens, I often encounter the same problems. Where do I put this? How do I make this effective for touchscreens? What can I show right away, and what can I hide?

The answers aren’t easy, but fortunately we can count on the z-axis to be there when extra pixels aren’t. Got an options panel that just won’t fit? Trying to add filters but the excess UI clutter doesn’t seem worth it? When you’re running out of space and searching for a clever solution, remembering that you have three dimensions to design in can save the day.

Creating an interface that seamlessly works across the z-axis requires two important elements: layers and transitions.

1. Layers

Incorporating layers is the key to designing on the z-axis, since layers are the way we differentiate levels above and below one another. A layer might contain a single UI element that sits above the rest of the view, or it might be a full screen that appears and disappears as necessary. However you incorporate layers, each should have a purpose—a reason it exists—and be used consistently throughout your site in a way that helps users better understand your design.

A panel that covers up the entire interface, for example, should be one of the most important functions on a site. On the other hand, an option in a secret panel that slides out from behind another object should relate to whatever sits above it, but be less important.

Menus

Generally speaking, the higher something sits on the z-axis, the more important it is. Primary navigation menus are usually placed on a higher level than other elements; they might pop over the rest of the view, they might stick to the top of the screen, or they might be accessed by zooming out to a larger menu presentation.

Teehan + Lax takes this to the extreme with the menu overlay on its website. It’s more than a popover; it’s like a page takeover. Look at our menu! it shouts. The sliding animation combined with a new screen layer grabs the user’s attention, while huge font sizes and a larger-than-usual menu of links deliver more content than a typical primary nav bar and (probably) justify the need for a separate layer.

Do I love this bold menu presentation? Yes. Do I think it’s a best practice we should incorporate into every site we build? No way. Not every site needs that much dramatic flair.

But I love how this inspires me to think about a menu as a piece of content in and of itself, and not just more interface cruft. Teehan + Lax highlights the act of presenting a menu to the user and how it can be more than popping up or sliding over from the left—it can be an opportunity for surprise and delight.

Action buttons

Primary action buttons, such as checking in or adding a new post, are often placed above other elements on the z-axis. It’s easy to tell what an app thinks is its most important feature when it’s sitting on top of everything else. Just take a look at Facebook’s chat heads.

Right now, Facebook clearly thinks that messaging is its most important feature. (If you’re unconvinced, Facebook also has a separate Messaging app, and recently paid $19 billion for What’s App.) Since layers allow elements to remain fixed in one place while everything else moves around them, floating action buttons are an easy way to make them more prominent without taking up a lot of valuable screen real estate.

The z-axis gives Facebook an easy way to keep messaging front and center, and even if I don’t like tapping on the disembodied faces of my friends and family, it seems to be working. For clients who want a button to “pop” a bit more, using the z-axis to give it its own layer is one of the more elegant possibilities.

Storytelling

Objects on different layers of the z-axis can move at asynchronous speeds during scrolling. This effect—usually called parallax—was pioneered in video games, but it’s become quite popular in interactive design. When objects move at different speeds, it creates the appearance of depth and simulates the passing of time, making parallax a powerful tool for online storytelling.

Superfluous use of parallax as a trendy eye-catcher has been rightfully criticized, but the ability to move layers independently of one another allows us to animate stories on the web in a way that hasn’t been as effective without the use of video. Sites like Let’s Free Congress and Inception Explained use asynchronous scrolling to turn what could have been flat infographics into visual narratives. By breaking elements apart using layers, each thread can unfold at its own speed while the user controls the pace of the action.

Web designers have always worked within the confines of flat, pixel-based screens, forcing complex interactions onto two visual axes. Layers on flat screens are a hack, but an important one; they’re the first step toward the true multidimensional interactions that are only a few years away. By creating layered patterns in our interfaces now, we help prepare users—and ourselves—for what’s ahead.

2. Transitions

When you use layers in an interface design, it’s important to include animations that smooth the transitions between them. Animated transitions serve several important functions: they help soften what could otherwise be a jarring moment of change, they describe where you came from and where you’ve arrived, and they provide cues about how information on the new layer relates to everything else.

Sliding

Sliding is one of the most common animated transitions because it’s relatively easy to execute and simple to understand. Navigation menus, hidden panels—just slide them out quickly whenever you need them, right? But like anything “simple,” sliding requires more care than you might expect.

The ubiquitous left-hand menu, used in many mobile apps including Gmail, is a perfect example. When activated, Gmail’s menu doesn’t slide anywhere; it’s actually the main window that slides to the right, revealing the menu on the left underneath your inbox.

The distinction is important, because the ability to see the first few words of each subject line keeps the inbox functional even when the menu is engaged; without that persistence, there’s little point to the inbox remaining there at all. Mobile websites that seek to mimic this interaction should take note—sliding a left menu over the top of a webpage usually feels clunky and intrusive compared to sliding the main view over instead.

You can also slide existing elements out of view to reveal hidden panels. Tweetlist slides the keyboard down to show additional tweet options like geotagging or attaching a photo. It’s a clever way to display secondary features that don’t need to be visible at all times, and using the back of the keyboard reinforces the relationship between these options and sending a tweet.

Zooming

Zoom animation has been around for a while, but its frequent use in Apple’s iOS 7 has increased both its popularity and its infamy. Some people have said the zooming used throughout the operating system—particularly when opening and closing apps—makes them nauseous. While this may be the case, it’s worth understanding the different ways we can use zooming to transition from one layer to another, and why some types of zoom may be more stomach-churning than others.

Enlarging or shrinking single objects has been a common animation in the Apple universe since the release of Mac OS X and the introduction of the dock. It naturally found its way into the mobile world on the iPhone, and users quickly grew accustomed to tapping a photo and zooming into it to see more detail.

In the case of photos, zooming is a simple illusion created by enlarging the image. Everything around the photo remains in place; only the photo itself moves.

The zoom effect used in iOS 7 is more complex. It works by moving the “camera” in and out as you open and close apps so that everything on the screen changes, not just one object. When you close an app, for example, the app window shrinks down into its icon on the homescreen. Watch the background behind the window and you’ll see all the other homescreen objects zoom back into the view as well.

This key difference—zooming the camera rather than a single element—creates a much more immersive illusion. It shifts the viewer’s perspective to a new level on the z-axis. That simulated perspective-shift adds to the wow factor by introducing an element of super-realism: it mimics real-world physics, while producing an effect that would be impossible in real life. It’s no wonder designers are eager to take advantage of the possibilities it offers, in spite of the potential side-effects.

This design experiment from Creative Dash shows how zooming the camera all the way out allows us to use the liminal space around a window. Our canvas is both deep and wide, and this takes advantage of both—though the extreme zoom depth would probably make quite a few users feel sick.

Foursquare has used a much more subtle version of zooming the camera to reveal map details. You don’t travel very far forward, but the zoom-in reinforces the notion that you’re going to a deeper level of information.

Whether you apply zoom to a single object or an entire view, it’s important for the animation to be consistent with the information hierarchy you’re using. When you move the camera out, you should be at a higher level, while zooming in should provide more detail.

Other transitions

Sliding and zooming are two of the most common animated transitions used today, but there are other options, including flipping or folding.

Three-dimensional objects have two (or more) sides, but most user interfaces are like the moon: they have a “light” side that’s always visible and a “dark” side we never see. Flipping an object over creates a new visual space that’s easy for users to understand. The only downside? Flipping is, well, flipping slow.

While flipping is sometimes applied to create a more magazine-like feel, 180 degrees is a big transition; it often feels slow and disruptive. In contexts where speed is critical, the time a flip adds to interactions usually isn’t worth it. That said, if deployed in the right place in the right way, it could be flipping fantastic. Card-based layouts offer plenty of opportunities to flip objects over and reveal additional information.

What comes next

Gesture-based command centers, holographic interfaces—whatever technology lies over the horizon, we’ll be better prepared to adapt our skills if we understand the principles of designing for information, not just visual tricks for laying things out with boxes and color. Just as print designers once learned to take their talents to the web, we need to learn to take our talents beyond the screen—and getting comfortable with the z-axis is a great place to start.

Read the whole story
jcsizmadi
3879 days ago
reply
San Francisco
Share this story
Delete

‘A $5 App Isn’t Expensive’

2 Shares

Lex Friedman, writing for Macworld:

But, to a certain extent, it’s become a catch-22: Developers are pricing their apps too cheaply, because that’s what they think people will actually pay. And so long as they’re right, we as cheap customers are having a negative impact on a lot of both real and potential businesses.

Read the whole story
jcsizmadi
4186 days ago
reply
San Francisco
Share this story
Delete

Android Fragmentation

3 Comments and 4 Shares

Jonny Evans, reporting for Computerworld:

The BBC Trust today responded to a complaint the broadcaster favored iOS devices when it comes to adding features to its catch-up on demand iPlayer service for Android phones. This complaint was rejected because the Trust found “no evidence” to suggest iOS had been “unfairly favored.”

Instead of pro-Apple favouritism, the Trust found a series of quite logical reasons why Android lagged iOS when new features were added to iPlayer, mostly surrounding the “complexity and expense” of developing for Android.

The company also noted a couple of other logical reasons why developers dealing with limited time and budget would opt for Apple’s mobile OS:

  • Engagement is higher on Apple devices
  • Android is fragmented
  • Android development is complex and expensive

OK, but other than that, how did you enjoy developing for Android, Mrs. Lincoln?

Read the whole story
jcsizmadi
4188 days ago
reply
San Francisco
Share this story
Delete
3 public comments
tedder
4186 days ago
reply
in the dev world, it's fairly well accepted that even if Android makes up 40-50% of the installed user base, they are much less likely to spend money (to buy your app, for in-app purchases, or for subscriptions). And I'm an Android person.
Uranus
mstrneal
4186 days ago
I think thats also the nature of the userbase and a willingness to pay.
MotherHydra
4188 days ago
reply
Thing is, he has a point. If your device target is two different OS versions, plus half a dozen top handsets here and there, it could get messy quick. Plus contentious skins that sap resources such as sense. No, I can't really see why someone would put themselves through that willingly given the low rate of engagement for Android handsets. Follow the money, as "they" say.
Space City, USA
jhamill
4188 days ago
reply
So the argument for a large national TV network for not keeping their app feature parity on 1 of the 2 main mobile OS's is, and I'll paraphrase here, "it's hard"? Right. Gotcha. Sure. Okay.
California
leonick
4188 days ago
Or, paraphrased slightly differently, "Lack of incentive".
jhamill
4188 days ago
Yeah, cause what media company that broadcasts TV would want their customers to get annoyed and go elsewhere?
sashae
4188 days ago
FWIW, I work for a large media company as well, and our Android applications generally trail iOS for the same reasons -- development is more difficult (tools aren't as good, OS doesn't offer same development features), testing is VASTLY more difficult (many, many more devices/screen resolutions/OS revisions) along with changes wrought by individual carriers and vendors affecting how stable applications are, it's no surprise. Also, Android ad rates are MUCH lower (for ad supported applications) than iOS, so you make less money AND it's harder to work with.
jhamill
4188 days ago
As a moderately technical person I understand the reasons for not developing on Android, cost, device differences, tools, and ROI. But, as a consumer, I don't give a crap how much it costs company "Holy Hell you make a lot of money" to make an app. I, as a consumer, want to have the same experience on every device that I use your service on. Saying that it's expensive and hard just sounds like whining to me. Now, that opinion only applies to large companies who make a lot of money. I don't expect indie devs to have to do that but, EA, BBC, and other multi-national companies that make and are worth billions of dollars have no excuse, IMHO, to complain about the cost of developing for Android. It's just sad.
sashae
4188 days ago
The reason large companies make more money is that they make business decisions to support/not support certain projects -- if the return on investment isn't there, then why do the work? It's not a charity. Obviously, MANY users have and love Android devices, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense to develop for them. If it takes me six months and two developers to make an iOS app that returns 10x my development costs, and the same time to return 1x, which would you do first?
jhamill
4188 days ago
This isn't a conversation about first. This is a conversation about a large, multi-national broadcast company that has decided to NOT serve a large section of their customers because "it is complex and expensive". I think that is a copout. I think that, for an again billion dollar making company, is a crap reason. I think that alienating a large section of your customers because you don't have parity between your app on different platforms, again for a billion dollar company, is a larger problem than if developing for one platform is "complex and expensive". I think that a billion dollar company can find a way to reduce that complexity and expense.

Photo

2 Shares


Read the whole story
jcsizmadi
4190 days ago
reply
San Francisco
Share this story
Delete

Apple, betrayed by its own law firm

1 Comment
Aurich Lawson

When a company called FlatWorld Interactives LLC filed suit against Apple just over a year ago, it looked like a typical "patent troll" lawsuit against a tech company, brought by someone who no longer had much of a business beyond a lawsuit.

Court documents unsealed this week have shown who's behind FlatWorld, and it's anything but typical. FlatWorld is partly owned by the named inventor on the patents, a Philadelphia design professor named Slavko Milekic. But 35 percent of the company has been quietly controlled by an attorney at one of Apple's own go-to law firms, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. E-mail logs show that that attorney, John McAleese, worked together with his wife and began planning a wide-ranging patent attack against Apple's touch-screen products in January 2007—just days after the iPhone was revealed to the world. 

Jennifer McAleese reached out to numerous "troll patent" companies, as she called them, convinced she and Milekic had an "excellent position against Apple" if and when they chose to sue. She reached out to top patent lawyers at Google and Nokia, competitors known to be in patent clashes with Apple.

Read 35 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read the whole story
jcsizmadi
4190 days ago
reply
This unbelievable!
San Francisco
Share this story
Delete

Newsblur

2 Comments and 3 Shares

Gabe Weatherhead:

Rather than throw out a bunch of alternatives that I’ve never used more than five minutes, I’ll give you my opinions from the ground up. This post begins with the winner, Newsblur.

Great in-depth review.

∞ Read this on The Loop

Read the whole story
jcsizmadi
4190 days ago
reply
Just switched to my reader to @Newsblur
San Francisco
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
MotherHydra
4187 days ago
reply
Here Here! I'm glad Newsblur is getting notoriety, I can't imagine my online life without it.
Space City, USA
Next Page of Stories