The trouble is, no one really knows what makes a good Watch app yet. Apple can hand guidelines to developers, but even it doesn’t know for certain how people are going to want to use the watch. Developers almost have to code for it, though – waiting means losing ground, users, and publicity to other apps – so thousands are now taking a crack at it and hoping that they get it right.
Even of they aren’t any good yet, they will improve rapidly once the Apple Watch is in the hands of the millions of users who have pre-ordered them (and the many millions more buying them over the coming months). We’ll have to wait for the real applications to arrive later this year, when the native SDK arrives. The current ones are just small shells who have to beam virtually everything over from your iPhone, causing lots of performance issues across the board.
I do hope they get better looking though, because my god, the current crop is clunky, busy, and ugly. Those dark transparent backgrounds everywhere remind me of old Android widgets.
No.
http://tinyurl.com/cjuulsb
Will clicking shortened URL’s ever be smart?
No.
Wikipedia needs a link shortener. I didn’t want to give away the surprise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines
Edited 2015-04-23 22:39 UTC
I have been taught https://xkcd.com/1053/
This is a subjective opinion that can never be quantified one way or the other, so it’s almost pointless to even bring it up. It’s like with the iOS7 makeover; some people loved it, and some said it was the ugliest thing they’d ever seen. I myself don’t give a shit one way or the other about cosmetics, so I don’t have an opinion on the matter. I’ve just seen a lot of pointless debates over looks – people like what they like, and you will NEVER come up with a design that pleases everyone.
The Apple Watch has an OLED screen and black pixels require zero energy to display. Black is here for a purpose.
This is the first mainstream platform where the GUI is secondary to the haptic interface.
How your app vibrates, sounds, and reacts to bodily movement will define it far more than the 1″ GUI ever will.
The first developers that crack the usability barrier with no visual interface at all will be the trendsetter.
Servers run headless all the time. We are our own server in our digital world, and we can be informed of things using many methods more efficiently than with our eyes.
We can also respond in ways more efficient than typing or yes/no buttons. Wrist turns and finger taps offer several variations on quick input.
Positional, location, and heart rate awareness allows the watch to determine what you are doing and adjust your alert & response styles appropriately.
Just some thoughts…. I might be making my first watch app soon, I’ve been thinking a lot about these new interfaces.
Just about every neuroscientist would disagree. Auditory and haptic feedback are really only useful for drawing our attention (eg alarms or pain responses). They are extremely inefficient ways of conveying information.
Get used to it. We’re going to see more of this sort of rubbish as Apple fans and iWatch purchasers attempt to convince you, and themselves, that the iWatch is some sort of revolutionary device that will transform your life, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Rubbish? No it’s very simple.
Use case 1 of ?: Spouse texts wanting to know if I’m on my way home yet.
Old way:
My pocket vibrates and/or sounds. It could be a custom vibration or tone but it’s probably not. I pull phone from pocket, read the alert, unlock the screen, and reply. I can type a full message or maybe select from 1-3 already-typed strings. I send the message, lock phone, put back in pocket. 2 minutes later another text comes in. I pull from pocket, read text (is it “OK” or “buy dog food”?), reply if needed, lock phone again, put into my pocket. Driving home my phone is either out on the console or in my pocket. If it’s in my pocket I have to pull it out while driving. Plus texting & driving is straight up illegal in many places now.
Possible new way:
I feel a custom vibration on my wrist signifying a new message from my spouse. While working I glance at the watch to see the text and a simple touch replies a short, context-appropriate text {On my way, OK, Call me}. I continue packing up to leave and feel another short vibration on my wrist, this one signifying a message of “OK”, and I can dismiss it with a wrist flick forward or record a voice over text with 2 wrist flicks inward. When driving home my hands don’t have to leave the wheel no matter how many texts come in.
The absolutely critical word here is “glance”.
From all the reviews from people who had preview Watches the recurring theme is that the Watch is all about glances, very short snaps of information and communication. If you have minutes you use your phone, if you have hours you use your computer, but if you have seconds you use the Watch. Successful apps on the Watch will be ones that can deliver useful functionality in seconds.
That will require some careful work by developers. Just like best and most successful phone apps were not just miniature versions of desktop apps so Watch apps will not be miniature versions of phone apps. It will be very interesting to see which ones succeed and how they do so.
Every iteration of computing, every moment of true inflection when computing mutates in a major way, is met by the same mix of cynicism and dismissal by conservative techies (techies are far, far more conservative than general consumers) and by the same sense of confusion because what is being invented is a new dimension and grammar for human computer interaction.
Computing is now moving onto our bodies and becoming something we do in seconds.
Possible new way:
You have set up your phone so that certain people can ask for your location with a special message. Your phone will put a message in the chat that your location has been given at that time to that person. You can just go on with what you were doing and look at the message when you have time.
Edited 2015-04-26 06:04 UTC
It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve taken a stance on technology that someone claims “every xyz-tist doesn’t agree with you”.
There’s no fixed science like you guys seem to believe, not in the field of man-machine interaction. It’s constantly evolving.
Neuroscientists have never had anything like an iWatch to experiment with.
Apple is driving the science in this field, not following the rules you believe exist.
You could line up several nameless scientists to support your belief that most technology will not work. Your version of science will be updated soon by those that show it working.
I can’t even tell if you’re being serious. You’re not actually being serious are you?
Haha! I think he really is
he has a habit of openly dismissing established science, he’s an audiophool (doing quintessentialy what you describe here http://www.osnews.com/permalink?609580 ,just with audio gear), he’s serious.
Apple is a marketing company that sells consumer devices. They are not leaders in scientific research.
Researchers have been working on human-machine interfaces for the best part of 100 years. They have a very good idea of what works and what doesn’t.
The iWatch fails just about every guideline for the design and implementation of Human-Machine Interfaces.[eg auditory alarms should only be used as warnings, visual displays should be placed directly in the line of vision, only essential information should be provided on displays, controls should not need visual confirmation etc, etc.]
I can assure you that the iWatch and similar devices will prove to be a major problem rather than a solution.
Australian police have already stated that simply wearing (without even using) an iWatch while driving will be illegal due to the potential to distract.
from what I’ve seen he is pretty well on the ball.
The current apps do look like Android V1 (ok, 2.3) apps.
I’d expect them to begin to look slicker as the devs get used to the platform and they get feedback from the users.
will they be any good?
IMHO, you are only qualfied to judge that if you actually own a watch. Your experience with them over time is the key. Just reading reviewers comments at launch is not a real indication of their long term usability. (Just like hacks who review a Linux Distro by the installation process. Is that a real review of the long term use of the software? IMHO, no it is not)