My observations

[AngriBuddhist]

Instead of creating multiple single threads about small things, I’m starting this and will add to it as I go.

These observations aren’t any sort of call to action or request, just thoughts that I form as I use TF.

As stated in another thread, the Search behavior in a MtM Link is odd.

MtoM Link Search behavior

As I also mentioned in another thread, on iOS, when a field has an icon to the right, the tap target for that icon feels (to me) to be to small, especially since tapping in different spots can cause different behaviors, rather than a response or no response. It feels like tapping slightly to the right of the icon shouldn’t cause the same behavior as tapping to the left. I live in touch screen devices and am very proficient with them, yet I experience this constantly.

Something that’s exasperated by the previous issue is how, like I mentioned above, tapping different parts of a field (an icon or to the left or even right of the icon) causes different behaviors, yet this behavior isn’t consistent. Tapping the Picklist icon in a field brings up choices to pick from. Tapping the i icon in a OtM Link field takes you to the linked record, while tapping to the left of that same field brings up choices.

Another example of inconsistency, although I know that there is a functional difference, is how choices are presented when tapping the fields (not icon) of OtM vs. MtM links. Tapping a MtM field shows you linked records and you have the check mark icon to choose additional records to link to. However, tapping a OtM, from the Many side, immediately presents you with choices to switch to. Combine this with my tap target issue and I envision people believing that when tapping this link, the next step is to choose one of these options, which would switch the parent record. It feels like the behavior should be the same as a MtM link field, you’re presented with the one record that is Linked to and that pressing the check mark icon should then present you with other records to switch to.

Again, these are just my thoughts, not suggestions.

However, if these or any future thoughts I write here do make any sort of sense but are considered to be changes that could put off existing customers, I wonder, are 100% of the TF1 customers the actual customers of TF2? Or is it likely that a large percentage of customers will be happy sticking with TF1?

[AngriBuddhist]

Usability. Can someone launch your software and figure it out? It’s not just your design, there’s also how complicated the concept is and the end user’s ability to grasp it.

Just yesterday, in less than 10 minutes, I built a simple inventory system in TF. Every item in my house can go into a box, which can go into a closet or onto a shelf in the garage. Things that you wouldn’t normally box up because you’d then forget where they are.

My wife, who has no knowledge of, or interest in, cells, tables, or forms can launch TF, hit the search tab, type in Batteries and it’ll tell her that they’re in the garage, on shelf A, level 3, in box A-23.

The Usability of TF, or Apple’s spreadsheet app Numbers, is designed for me, the user who has the interest and ability to build something. Then, if I’m so inclined, it’s my job to consider Usability for other people who’ll be using what I build.

If you’ve ever built a spreadsheet for a non spreadsheet person, then you know how you might be signing up to be their on call tech support.

I’m also working on a more sophisticated db that I may share with people who I don’t know, whose interest/ability are unknown and who I’ll never talk to.

I could just make a streamlined and beautiful db, which TF does very well, and say here figure it out, or riddle it with small Default Values and extended notes explaining everything, all of which the final end user will have to delete manually in each and every record. Or I can create Help records for everything, link to them and have the end user flip back and forth.

If anyone every reads this, your thoughts are very welcome.

All I can do now is imagine features that would help, which sometimes does lead to solutions that are already possible.

While setting a Default Value, could there be a Delete on Action toggle? When the user creates a new record, they can read the Default Value but when they tap the field that Value is auto erased?

Or something like Comments in a spreadsheet cell? Adding a Comment to a Form’s field puts a selectable “i” icon on the Record’s field, which then shows the Comment, it’s out of the way, and will be accessible forever.

Of course, I can solve this in some way currently, just not in ways that make it very easy for the very end user.

[AngriBuddhist]

Low level admin

Following on my previous thought…

Apps such as Tap Forms and Apple’s Numbers are designed to be as user friendly as possible, but for who? I’d argue that, unlike iMessages or Facebook, there are two types of users of such software.

There’s the Admin. This is the person who uses the software to build something and although there’s a range of skill there, these apps are very much designed to be usable by the Low Level Admin (LLA). That’s less profession or education and more about simply being the most technically minded in any given group.

And then there’s the Very End User (VEU) who wouldn’t be able to use the software to build anything but who could be trained to use it to enter data.

It seems as if many developers of apps for building a customized data collection system either don’t consider that there are two types of users or they are just fine leaving the LLA in the position of figuring out how to teach and support the VEU.

Tap Form’s presentation works well for both of these types of users. Either will find that it’s clean, familiar and comfortable.

Apple’s Numbers has the ability to create a Form from a table, allowing the LLA to give the VEU a more understandable, and less potentially dangerous, way to enter data themselves. However, you can’t choose which cells are exposed in the Form so the table can’t be too complicated.

Both of these apps are designed around the ease-of-use of the Low Level Admin although they don’t allow them many tools to turn around and do the same for the Very End User. They both give the LLA the option of using Default Values to guide the VEU but this clutters up the page. While TF allows the VEU to manually delete each instance of a Default Value (tedious), Numbers doesn’t.

There’s very little in the way of concessions for the LLA/VEU relationship. The state of customizable productivity apps seems to be…

Designed for a Low Level Admin to use.

Rather than…

Designed for a Low Level Admin to design for a Very End User.

Even for the LLA, there’s often an online manual to explain the functions/features of an app. How then can the LLA hope to build for the VEU, who often needs contextual help?

[Author]

Posts