The Think blog.
News and ideas on user experience.

Contact us

Tel: +44 (0)207 336 4700
Contact details
About Flow

Follow us on Twitter

The iPod Shuffle - Complex Simplicity

The original iPod Shuffle had a clear proposition; a cheap, simple, and minimalist music player. Technically the first iPod to use flash memory and physically the smallest, it lacked any display, scroll wheel or playlist management features. The constant need to control, skip, manage, and navigate was replaced with a simpler and more relaxed lack of control. Instead, the device simply shuffled music at random or played tracks in order. The front of the device had a simple interface:

  • Play/Pause
  • Next Song/Fast Forward
  • Previous Song/Fast Reverse
  • Volume adjustment

On the back was a three-position switch to play music in order, or shuffled or to turn off the unit.

The second generation was just as simple as the first, but had more storage and less than half the size.

On 11 March, 2009 Apple released the third-generation Shuffle.

One of the key design decisions was to simply not have any buttons, apart from a button that switches between 'Off', 'Random' and 'Order'. All controls are now part of the earphones.

According to Apple:

The new iPod shuffle is amazingly small and even easier to use.

But is it easy to use?

Soon after the launch, forums, social media networks and blogs started to criticise the new Shuffle. Whilst some disliked being dependent on using Apple's earphones, others criticised the new interface. Physically, the control could be difficult to grab during sporting activities or for those with bigger hands, but more importantly, most of the functions are controlled via a central button that has no labels.

The lack of visual display raises a design challenge. Unfortunately, touch is a less accurate sensory mode than vision and typically slows users down. Apple could have designed an interface with elements that could have been recognised through tactile attributes such as feedback, resistance, size, weight, and/or texture. The father and grandfather of the current Shuffle are good examples of such a control. However, the solution was to include VoiceOver technology, a feature that speaks 14 languages and plays back track and playlist names. Although a minor issue, VoiceOver struggles with pronunciation. Perhaps in the future, additional language information will be included with each track.

iPod Shuffle

One button, nine commands

Apple was once famous for the one-button mouse. Although historically some suggest that this decision was based on cost, it was often argued that one button is all you needed. The one button became a symbol of simplicity. In contrast, the new iPod Shuffle has a central button that accepts many user commands. In fact, this 'one button' handles 9 inputs:

  1. click
  2. click & hold
  3. double-click & hold
  4. triple-click & hold
  5. triple-click and hold within 6 seconds
  6. triple-click and hold after 6 seconds
  7. click until a tone is played
  8. click until you hear a name
  9. click & hold until exit

There is no direct cognitive mapping between users' goals and the required actions. For example, why does 'double-click and hold' fast-forward a track, but 'triple-click' rewind? Moving to the next track is achieved by double-clicking. So how do you expect to move to the previous track? Did someone at the back just say "triple-click within 6 seconds of the track starting"? Correct.

 Poor learnability?

Ultimately, if the device is used frequently, many users will move from being novices to experts. However, if learnability is poor, some users will remain perpetually intermediate and potentially frustrated.

Learnability is inherent in interface features that allow novice users to understand how to use a device and how to attain optimal (level of) performance. Learnability is based on five main factors:

  • Predictability: operation visibility - what elements of a user's knowledge from past interactions with this device can help to determine the outcomes of future interactions?
  • Familiarity: guessability - to what extent can users' knowledge from other systems and real world objects could be applied to interactions with the device?
  • Synthesisability: how does the interface help a user to asses the effect of past actions on the current state?
  • Consistency: likeness in behaviour. In this context consistency is related to user inputs and the subsequent output responses.
  • Generalisability: support for the user to extend their knowledge to other applications and devices.

In the case of the Shuffle, lack of visual display could slow down skills acquisition. The design is not based on familiar metaphors, and poor learnability may increase cognitive load. Many users will not be familiar with the Shuffle's interface, apart from iPhone users who use a similar earphone-based controller.

As a robust device consistency between actions and auditory feedback that arises as a consequence will be high and usage is likely to be frequent. Therefore, for many users learnability will eventually take place. It is possible that Apple plans to extend this interaction model to other devices. For those who mastered this control acquiring this skill will become generalisable and useful.

 

Does it matter?

So it might be difficult to learn. Arguably, it has beautiful industrial design, long battery life and impressive storage capacity. Apple could sell many of these fashion accessories to users who would simply click to play whilst sitting on the train, running, or going to the gym.

The best way to gain an in-depth insight would be to test the Shuffle with users. In the next few weeks we are planning to evaluate the Shuffle in one of Flow's experience laboratories and analyse its performance and user experience.

- Ofer Deshe, Principal User Experience Consultant

Thanks to Thibault Baradat-Bujoli for the original illustrations

6 comments

6 Comments so far

  1. Tonio Loewald March 17th, 2009 1:43 am

    I wonder how many critics of the shuffle bothered to use one before leveling their critiques?

    It doesn't really matter if all of the functions are learnable or guessable, as long as the functions most people need most of the time are guessable, and the device is *forgiving* (which you left out -- undo is the single most important feature of the original Macintosh UI because it gives users the confidence to try things). Since nothing you do to your Shuffle will cause damage, you can afford to experiment.

  2. martin March 17th, 2009 5:16 am

    I hope you will be installing exercise machines in the labs in order to evaluate in context. I don't buy your example of sitting on the train - a scenario where having a screen to navigate music is a pleasure, and where weight is a non-issue.

    The shuffle is the bike, run, and gym ipod - where you can't read a screen, where multiple buttons are hard to distinguish by touch, in motion, and where the only choices you want or need are volume, skip a song you're tired of - and now - navigate to a playlist. The building of the playlist is outsourced to iTunes, which has a bigger screen than any ipod.

    The shuffle is for when you don't even have your (i)phone with you, but just (house/locker) keys and water.

    I'm convinced the move of the controls from the shuffle to the headphones is based on watching users *whilst moving*.

    Multiple clicks seem complex, but anyone who's used quark in anger has double, triple and quadruple click wired into their muscle-memory. However, I agree that few users will find all nine controls easy to learn.

    Looking forward to the test findings. Please include the subjects' heart-rates.

  3. jon wyndham March 18th, 2009 6:50 am

    Of course, the real problem is that I have to use Apple's notoriously sh**e headphones...or go out and buy yet another pair of really nice sound-canceling headphones (which I paid £65 for) but now with a iPod Shuffle control...OR...get some adaptor to plug my lovely headphones into...probably for half as much as both the shuffle and the headphones. Talk about user un-friendliness. They got it right when they worked out that many people had systems with lots of peripherals and didn't want to replace all of it with an iMac...hence the mac mini. The new shuffle seems to have missed that little insight about how few people actually use the headphones that come with ipods.

  4. Simon Johnson March 19th, 2009 4:54 pm

    I like the article because it raises questions, but leaves the conclusion to user-testing. I always like that user-testing moves the debate from good/bad design to what works and what doesn't.

    I look forward to reading the complete review of the results of the exhaustive lab-based testing. Will Flow be also conducting contextual field-based research? I presume that it will be conducted in, at least, 10 different countries!

  5. Button Madness April 21st, 2009 5:40 pm

    This article raises good points. One question on my mind which hasn't been directly raised, is what was wrong with the previous generation shuffles? How did Apple conclude that having 3 buttons on the headphone cord were better than 5 on the device?

    The decreased size/weight and playlist functions of the 3rd generation are not really important here, as they could have similarly been applied to the 2nd generation form factor without changing the controls. To the outside observer, it seems that Apple's agenda to "eliminate all buttons" for the sake of a better-looking and simpler-looking device has overridden the need for intuitive controls.

    I think that Apple looked at people using the existing shuffle and studied the frequency of use of each button. They then determined that certain functions were used much less, and that a trade-off could be made to eliminate some buttons. Those less frequented functions were relegated to more obscure stacked commands on a reduced button count. 2 buttons gone; mission accomplished.

    Unfortunately, simpler-looking doesn't equate to simpler to use. For those few people who use the less-frequented functions, it's a cognitive price to pay. For the majority who don't, there's no loss. Apple calculated that was a loss they could afford for making a simpler-looking and differentiated product (in order to maintain sales in a shrinking market).

  6. [...] http://www.thinkflowinteractive.com/2009/03/16/the-ipod-shuffle-complex-simplicity/ Published on Fri 13 Mar 09 at 8:26 in vrac , modified Thu 23 Apr 09 at 10:51 [...]

Leave a reply