UI Design – oneOS Enrico Galassi December 19, 2018

Abstract:

Design is a never-ending evolution of constant changes including font-types and sizes, color pallets, blur effects and countless other elements. It becomes a crucial part of any application development. Design can either allow or prohibit a user from understanding how an application functions which ultimately will bring in new users or fend them off entirely. The way something is designed will have a mirror reflection on how it is used.

As the aspects of design are consistently shifting to trends and styles, so does the way applications are ultimately navigated and understood. For my project, I will be focusing on the operating systems used on Android devices and how they are implemented for usability. I will take on the task of designing a new operating system for Android which will include new design elements and easier navigation for users such as a main hub a user will never have to leave, simpler navigation and accessibility changes. To guide my research, I will also be focusing on the two, main design patterns on Apple and Android products. This will allow me to narrow down my research for better results with the two most popular operating systems in the world.

After all was said and done, my results were astonishingly good. The feedback received from testers allowed me to make small changes to the OS that I would have never thought of which is why user testing is so important. One change was so small, it came down to the way a specific button was designed. Such small changes can affect the entire way a user navigates their mobile device. Users preferred simplicity and quick navigation over anything. Although the Android users I tested enjoyed the way Android can be customized, they still appreciated using oneOS even if it was in its early stages of development.

Background:

In the early days of computing and with the introduction of computers, user interface design began with physical buttons, punch cards, and absolutely no digital screens of any sort which did batch processing. There was no real-time human interaction with these computers so using them was not very friendly.

As evolution ran its course, computers utilizing digital monitors now ran CLIs or Command Line Interfaces. These CLIs allowed for users to input data instantaneously as well as remove data almost as fast with the help from key input. Although CLIs had no interface, they still revolutionized the computing industry.

In the 1970s, the introduction of GUIs or Graphical User Interfaces were implemented in computing machines. This was a major leap in computing history because GLIs now permitted user interaction by ways of a keyboard and a mouse. GUIs displayed graphical and colorful information with digital buttons a user could click on. They now allowed the common man to use a computer without having the knowledge on how to use command line codes. With the introduction of GUIs came a snowball of user design aspects including where to place certain buttons such as close and minimize buttons as well as the use of new and bold color pallets to catch a user’s eye.

This sparked the revolution in computing and the way interfaces were designed to be user- centric. Along with the came countless new industry standards and guidelines created by companies which allowed developers to create and design their applications in the image and likeness of the machine they operated on.

Further down the line from desktop computing also came the mobile phone craze. First, we had small phones with tiny screens and a number pad to dial out. The came along flip phones with bigger, colored screens. And finally came the first fully touch-enabled device; the iPhone. The iPhone would go on to change user interaction as we know it. This was because users could now utilize their own fingertips in making technical decisions without even having to type a single character into a command line. The first iPhone user interface was simple, easy to use, and extremely intuitive. Almost anyone would be able to learn and use the phone with a shallow learning curve. Thanks to Apple, user interface design was changed forever.

In present day there are so many operating systems, all coming with their own obstacles and setbacks when compared to others. When we think of Apple, we tend to think of continuity and uniformity. When the Android operating system comes to mind, we may also think uniformity, but we also think of customization. And this is where the line is drawn between the two. Both operating systems share their own level of design continuity, but one is greatly more customizable than the other which can lead to some inconsistencies, although both Apple and Android have guidelines in place for developers to use when designing their applications.

To this, the design process is a fairly cut and dry process, but why has there not been significant changes to the UI elements for these mobile operating systems? Aside from simple modifications like color, buttons, new fonts and flat design, not much has been done to the OS’s that run on these devices.

Literary Review:

Authors Kees Dorst and Nigel Cross have some great information in their research article in the Journal of Design Studies. Their piece, titled “Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution” gives great insight as to how and why humans create and design things the way we do. Their study, conducted on nine experienced industrial designers, opened the doors on a process to better understand “relevant new concepts of ‘default’ and ‘surprise’ problem/solution spaces” which permits us to better recognize the methods used when designing something. This can be directly related to user interface design because humans have tendencies to create the simplest and easiest path to and end goal, no matter what is being designed.

Dorst and Cross further write upon four key points in their study; 1. The Protocol Study, 2. Observations of Creativity in Design, 3. Modelling creative design as co-evolution, 4. Bridges, frames, defaults and surprises. It was found that “when specialist assessors were asked to grade designs on ‘creativity’, they were quite consistent. Apparently, they are much more in agreement (in an admittedly intuitive way) about recognizing the creativity of a design than the inconclusive discussions about the definition of creativity would suggest” (Dorst & Cross, 426). This is interesting because the study shows how a user can recognize good design as opposed to bad design standards.

Another conclusion from this study was that “the more time a subject spent in defining and understanding the problem, and consequently using their own frame of reference in forming conceptual structures, the better able he/she was to achieve a creative result” (Dorst & Cross, 431). From the study conducted, it showed that the more time spent attempting to understand the design problem at hand, the better off the final design turned out to be. Although the final product varied among all designers, the main concept still remained, and the general finalized ideology was congruent amongst all designers.

Dorst and Cross explain that design is not a matter of first “fixing the problem and then searching for a satisfactory solution concept. Creative design seems more to be a matter of developing and refining together both the formulation of a problem and ideas for a solution, with constant iteration of analysis, synthesis and evaluation processes between the two notional design ‘spaces’—problem space and solution space” (Dorst & Cross, 434). From their study, Dorst and Cross concluded that design is a matter of developing and refining that development when problems are discovered.

Design and development are always a great practice in manufacturing an interface, but how does the interface become the norm? The key here is persistency and time. Sure, different operating systems can only function with certain hardware presented in different devices due to constraints, but why has there not been a significant and new update to any OS in recent years?

According to Sumit Sharma in the International Journal of Computer Science, Engineering and Applications, a “User Interface is the component of a product where human interacts with the product. A user interface is a linkage between a human and a device or system that allows the human to interact with (e.g., exchange information with) that device or system” (Sharma, 178). It’s imperative the main goal of an operating system is to allow a user to be able to interact with it without an issue. And this is where many problems can arise in today’s operating systems. Both iOS and Android alike have their flaws and drawbacks. They even have many glitches and security flaws which cause the user experience to drastically decrease, thus not allowing for a fluid usage.

Another great point made by Sharma about user interfaces and operating systems on a mobile device is that “in mobile user interface of touch screen phones, the rule that dictate the designing is that clarity outflanks density, which means that the interface should not contain a lot of elements but single element or a few elements able to provide basic functionality. But nowadays this rule is being implemented to the individual elements but not to the complete user interface. The applications International Journal of Computer Science, Engineering and Applications which launch as a result of the shortcut on the screen are containing lesser elements, but the home screen is crowded because of trying to make every feature accessible from the home screen. Such kind of interface is highly effective” (Sharma, 178-179).

It’s very apparent with today’s operating systems that attempting to make everything accessible from the main screen is more a challenge than not. And as Sharma says, it can cause clutter overall, however, if this feat can be overcome, the interface would be highly effective which is why I designed oneOS the way it appears.

Conclusions:

To conclude my research on operating systems, I found out quite a bit about what it takes to make a better user interface for an operating system. One of the main issues was clutter and chaos amongst users. OneOS solves this by splitting different interface elements onto different pages, but keeps the fluid look of almost a single scrolling page. I have seen similar designs before through different Android OS skins, but none really suited my needs or caught my eye. They also seemed to be a bit too cluttered, although some stood out among the rest. OneOS fixes many of the problems of clutter by displaying items in a card style. This allows the user to distinguish between different items, even if flat design is all the rage. Also, as I usually do when designing and implementing, larger buttons were added as a feature to help allow the user to navigate simpler.

The few users who tested oneOS said it was nice to use (minus many features which can be implemented over time). They said the color scheme was nice and bright, as it caught their eyes, but may be a bit over the top. A suggestion of more soft colors was made. The navigation was also easy to do for the users. After a few seconds of fiddling around with the XD document, each user found his or her way around the OS and with time, they became familiar with how to use it. This goes for all first-time users of new operating systems though. When an individual picks up an iPhone for the first time or an Android device they have never used before, the device does not come with step-by-step instructions on how to work it. This is the downfall of many operating systems, but Apple and Android have gotten their user interfaces pretty down pat. The OS’s have a shallow learning curve meaning users can learn how to navigate their mobile device in a short period of time.

Summary

In summary, I had a very fun time going through the design process and taking on the challenge of developing a new operating system, even if it has limited functionality. I think the way systems are designed is crucial to the success of any OS, but sometimes having too much is overwhelming for the user, especially if they are not familiar with how it works. I’d love to be able to develop oneOS further, but due to the time constraints for this Fall 2018 semester, money and lack of more resources and co-developers, I have to conclude the project where it is now. Maybe one day in the near future a great development team and I can make this project a reality.

Sketch Diagrams:

Photoshop Mockups:

References:

Ali, A. (2014). A Review of Different Comparative Studies on Mobile Operating System. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 7(12), 2578-2582. doi:10.19026/rjaset.7.570

Böhm, S., Adam, F., & Farrell, W. C. (n.d.). Impact of the mobile operating system on buying decisions: A conjoint-based empirical analysis (Vol. 9228). Springer Verlag. https://doi-org.authenticate.library.duq.edu/10.1007/978-3-319-23144- 0pass:[_]18

Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001, June 25). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X01000096

Global Enterprise Mobile Operating Trends Report - How Mobile Operating System Usage has Changed Over Eight Years. (2015). PR Newswire. Retrieved from https://authenticate.library.duq.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dir ect=true&db=edsgbc&AN=edsgcl.437689636&site=eds-live

Michel, R. (2017). Android’s growth in the warehouse. Modern Materials Handling, 72(11), 38– 43. Retrieved from https://authenticate.library.duq.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dir ect=true&db=buh&AN=126121778&site=eds-live

Sarrab, M. ( 1 ), Al-Darmaki, A. ( 1 ), & Elbasir, M. ( 2 ). (n.d.). Empirical study on mobile platforms selection, based on system, information and service quality characteristics. International Journal of Wireless and Mobile Computing, 9(3), 257–266. https://doi-org.authenticate.library.duq.edu/10.1504/IJWMC.2015.073108

Sharma, S. (2012). Age Based User Interface In Mobile Operating System. International Journal of Computer Science, Engineering and Applications, 2(2), 177-184. doi:10.5121/ijcsea.2012.2215