Enough Coda for Everyone

Well, I have made the switch, and this was one not taken lightly.  I have been a Dreamweaver user since it’s first beta back in the 90’s and have held true ever since.  But the fact of the matter is, I have never used Dreamweaver for all its ‘features’, but more so as a text editor on steroids. Truth be told, the world of web developers has evolved and I am afraid that Dreamweaver has not.

I have watched CODA from afar for a while now.  I have always been a fan of Panic’s software and what designer does not know the Panic site?  This first version of CODA was nice, but just not enough to get me to drop Dreamweaver.  But as of late I have come out of my creative hiatus and have re-engaged my development side again.  Very exciting, but long story there.  Anyway, being back in the development pit again required getting up to speed with Subversion.  So now what?  Glomp on another app to support subersion?  Use a Subversion client from a PC.  Ummmmmmmm, no.

Like Photoshop, I feel that Dreamweaver has lost its way. Ever since Dreamweaver became the super app and incorporated Ultra Dev, it just has become a bloated application.  I don’t use any of the WYSIWYG tools, and like any of that stuff works for modern XHTML development these days anyway.  You know, it was great when I was starting out, but I have kicked off the training wheels long ago and it is time to move on. And not to mention, I am in NO WAY going to drop another $700 to upgrade to CS4 to get Subversion support.  Sorry Adobe, but you guys need to re-tool.

Well, while searching for a Subverison client I came across CODA again. Man, this really is a tight little package.  If you are a web developer and want to get back to basics of coding without all that extra junk that Dreamweaver packs in, CODA is for you.  The UI is clean, the features are simple and to the point, and as the tagline states, it is a one-window web development app.

One feature that really sold me was the split window screen. Man! This is gold. I can’t tell you how many times I would have killed for this feature in DW. Editing the HTML and seeing the CSS in the same screen, TIME SAVER! And unlike DW that tries to render the HTML as a WYSIWYG, CODA has a browser built in for previewing your work. As handy as that is, you still can’t beat previewing in FireFox with Firebug. How did we ever really get along without that?  Darkages man.

Ok, more CODA features. Spell checker. COOL!!  Anyone reading my blog will know that I am typo king, so this feature will really help me out. Live collaboration using the Subetha Engine. This is pretty cool. With tools like this, do we really need to work in an office any more?

Anyway, that is my rant.  Do with it what you will.  If you are a coder and use a Mac, I highly suggest giving CODA a try.

Why Apple should release a touch-screen Mac

Don Reisinger from cnet.com has recently posted an article on the subject of why he feels Apple needs to release a touch-screen computer.

His initial statement that Apple has ’stopped’ with the iPhone is laughable. History has shown very clear that when Apple introduces a new idea to the market, they need to give that product as much attention as possible to ensure it’s success, but that does not mean that they have stopped there. If that were true, they would still be trying to sell us the Newton. After all, the iPhone is really the Newton v2.0. But we will leave that kind of product development to the other guys.

I agree with his next statement that a multi-touch touchpad on a laptop is not revolutionary. But what I feel Apple is doing there is trying to bring a new UX to the laptop but not trying to force an experience into a UI environment that it was not built for. Why duplicate the mistakes of the tablet PC?

Really, the thing that makes the iPhone compelling and all other ’smart’ phones lame is the User Interface was clearly designed to match the User Experience. Apple did what no other company could do before, but created a fluid user experience that would resonate with users. They just didn’t replace the mouse click with a finger tap, they re-engineered the whole experience of human user interaction.

Clearly, the failure of the tablet PC and smart phones was the assumption that they could simply replace the mouse with a metal stick. Not very innovative. The UI is no different from a mouse interactive application. There is even a little pointer that follows the metal stick! Wow, revolutionary! NOT!

With the iPhone, Apple killed the mouse. In a handheld device, this is easier to pull off as the experience is more focused. A users tasks are more centralized. One window or application at a time. All actions are performed sequentially and independent. This is great for an iPhone, but not for a laptop.

One thing I feel that was lost with the iPhone UX is that it is Device Centric, versus User Centric. This always forces a user to circle back to a single start point to move forward versus always being able to move forward. I can’t tell you how many times I have read an email, clicked a link to go to Safari, but when I am done with that web page, I have to click the home button to tap the Email icon to get back to where I was before. Then my issues with email, the fact that when I am in an email folder and want to move to another, god forbid another account, I have to tap back-back-back, then forward-forward-forward.

I do consider the iPhone the first Beta application of what is to come. And I think that there are great things to come. Things that may even address my petty issues.

In order to really perfect a product, you need to get it out in the market. You need to allow the market to speak clearly about what is good and bad. But of course Apple’s Betas are so wonderful that most people consider this the final product. But I don’t think so. Apple has used the iPhone as a spring board to bring innovations to the market what few have thought about or have the vision to achieve.

But for a whole computer to adopt a real touch user experience, this is an exceptional challenge and one that requires careful thought and planning. Where MS failed is where Apple needs to succeed. And simply introducing a laptop what tries to replace the mouse with a finger and not develop the experience to go with that would be as much of a failure as the Moto ROKR. A clear example where Apple took the short road to the market. Bad apple, bad . . . .

What do I think that the TouchBook will look like?
I see a device that flips open like a macbook, but the entire space is touch. No standard keyboard, no track pad, etc . .  See, where this experience needs to succeed is that the interaction of the human and the machine needs to be as natural as possible. That means allowing the UX to be fluid, three dimensional, spacial and relational. You will be able to push things in the background (far away) and be able to bring things forward. As you choose one action, related actions are brought up to the front.

Really, to make this a reality, Apple not only needs to reinvent the OS, but there will need to be significant investment from software developers. This would be the first revolutionary UX advancement since the invention of a window and a mouse click.

Do I think that Microsoft has an opportunity to gain ground?
Hell no! The fact that people consider MS gaining ground with the big ass table is laughable. Their execution is along the same lines as what HP did with their new touch desktop. All they are giving is a simple software application that sits on top of the same old crappy Windows that we have had for decades. Yes, decades.

What is so revolutionary about that? Nothing I say. Until you unlock the potential of the whole OS to a touch world, simply putting ‘touch’ applications on top is nothing to claim victory over.

I imagine that when Apple releases the TouchBook, this will be a revolutionary device where the human interaction is unparalleled. Or at least I hope.

Modal or not to Modal? That is the question.

In a recent posting from Signal vs. Noise, a great blog brought to you by the great minds at 37Signals, begs the question, modal or not to modal?

For those of you who this term may be new, wikipedia defines it as:

In user interface design, a modal window is a child window which requires the user to interact with it before they can return to operating the parent application, thus preventing the workflow on the application main window. Modal windows are often called modal dialogs because the window is often used to display a dialog box.

The use of modal windows in traditional application development and computer OS is subject for debate. In a modern workflow, programmers need to decide if it really is necessary to kill all other interaction with the computer while a process is running. But for web applications, there is typically a lot of going on, so locking a user out form interacting with the background when performing a particular action is typically the preferred choice.

In the early days of web application development, programmers would use a pop-up window for the application interaction. This transient  technique, in most cases, would work out ok. But the real issue was that the user could still interact with the background browser window, usually causing application issues. Not to mention users who would minimize the window into their task bar would introduce security issues.

When there was a case when the user was required to only interact with a specific portion of the application or web site, the next thing was to completely take that user out of their current environment and place them in a tool screen. This would increase stability in the application and eliminate risk of users performing background actions when they are not supposed. But this came at a cost as this had a pretty severe impact on the user experience.

The interesting point discussed in the 37Signals post is that even a company like 37Signals, who NEVER uses modal windows for their applications, can see promise in this UI application and advocate modal as good practice. I for one have been a fan of modal windows in web application development for years. In fact, many of the web applications I have worked on, we use modal windows as much as possible. We ask ourselves, does this task require removing the user from their location? If not, go modal.

As discussed in the 37Signals post, both Apple and Google have made great uses of this technique. Allowing the user to perform tasks without having to leave their location in the web application can really have a positive impact on your users experience. Yes, they will lose the ability to interact with the page they are on, but that really is the point. The designer is demanding that the user focus on the task at hand.

Aside from the user interaction with the web application, using modal windows drastically reduces the time needed to get the job done. Take Google Calendar for example. Sure I can simply add an event, but this is only basic event info. If I need to fill in all the details, I need to go to a new screen. Click, redraw, edit, save, redraw, see event. If the intertubes are clogged that day, man this can be a real issue.  Taking a look at Apple’s Mobileme online iCal, they did a great job allowing for quick entry and when you need to enter the details, you have a modal window. Click, pop, enter data, submit, redraw.

I am not saying that I have any brighter insight on web application development, but I came to the same realization of modal windows that 37Signals did, but 5 years ago. And from the tone of the comments on the blog, many readers are reacting positively to the change of heart from 37Signals.