Yesterday, Apple unveiled their long awaited, much rumored, over-hyped tablet device — the iPad. Just a day later and I’m sure we’ve already heard enough jokes about the name to last us a lifetime (or until Nintendo’s next console). Rumors regarding the iPad often referred to it as “The Tablet”; Apple employees who knew nothing first-hand of the device were said to have called it the same. Still, even with its official name revealed, a name as definitive as “The Tablet” seems fitting for a device that has the potential to do for the tablet market what the iPod and iPhone did for their respective markets.

Making Comparisons

The comparison to the iPhone is apt in that Apple’s smart phone reinvigorated the market and inspired new and formerly stagnant competitors to step-up their game. Just as smart phones existed long before the iPhone, tablets were being created in one form or another well before yesterday’s introduction of the iPad. The primary difference in this comparison is that the iPad has no competition to what it is offering. There are other tablet-like devices, but none of them fit into the same category as the iPad.

Forget about Windows-based tablets that only seek to offer desktop Windows in a tablet form — there’s a market for these, but they are only alternatives to standard notebooks. You can also forget about netbooks, which aren’t tablets at all, but seem to be regarded as competitors to the iPad. (For that matter, can we just get on with viewing them as dainty notebooks and not some new class of device?) There are some very nice devices in these categories, but again, they don’t fit into the same space.

The closest to what Apple has created are the current and forthcoming Android-based tablets offered by companies like Archos, ASUS, and MSI. While these devices have been more oriented towards media consumption or narrowly focused Web tasks, this looks to be changing.

Designed for Interaction

The reactions to the iPad, whether positive or negative, all seem to hinge on the view that it is “just a big iPod Touch”. Upon first seeing the device, it was certainly the first thought I had. The native (i.e., non-iPhone) application demos made it a fleeting thought. Apple’s iPad applications are beautifully designed. Overall, they put the available screen real estate to good use. The interface changes that occur when switching between portrait and landscape in applications like Mail show that a lot of thought was given to how to best make use of each mode.

What’s interesting about a few of the applications is the level to which Apple made them resemble their physical counterparts. Calendar, Contacts, Notes and iBooks all visually and — I assume, to a degree — interactively simulate those everyday objects from which they were inspired. Creating user interfaces that resemble real-world items is nothing new; we’ve seen applications on nearly every computing platform with a GUI that resemble clocks, date books, address books, notepads, and paper itself.

The problem is that these applications did not behave how we expected them to based on their appearance, nor did their interaction models feel natural. Touch-based interfaces in general are changing this, but the form factor and manner in which Apple is presenting their applications removes another layer of difference between what we expect and what we encounter.

Not All There

Which is not to say that this is truly the “magical” device that Steve Jobs and company want us to believe it is. There are problems with the iPad in this first (public) implementation, not the least of which is the seeming continuation of the iPhone’s maddening lack of multitasking. While it is likely that a few of Apple’s own applications will be allowed to run in the background as they have on the iPhone, it is unknown if there are any new concessions being made for third-party applications. A task-switcher that displays the last four to six accessed applications might be a happy middle ground, even if it doesn’t truly address the issue of background processes.

I’m also disappointed in the lack of wireless synchronization options. Having to plug into a Mac or PC to sync content just doesn’t seem like a requirement fitting of a supposedly revolutionary device. The iPad does offer a shared folder that applications can write documents and other data to, which is mounted when the iPad is docked. Still, this just feels like something that could be handled in a more elegant fashion. Hopefully we will see more in this area as the device and its software evolve.

I’d love to gripe about Apple continuing their relationship with AT&T, however, the unlimited 3G data plan for $30/month is a decently priced option. The extra money you’ll be paying to add the 3G module to the iPad isn’t quite as palatable. The benefit is that the device is unlocked and could potentially be used with a data plan from any carrier that decides to support the iPad (by using the same GSM frequency bands as AT&T and offering mini SIMs).

To be fair, I haven’t had a chance to play with one of these — and won’t for at least sixty days — so I will leave any additional commentary to those with some actual hands-on time with the device.

Final Thoughts

Tablets have traditionally met lackluster market response due to varying combinations of price, narrow focus, limited appeal, lackluster marketing, and more often than not, consumers just not seeing where they fit into their existing collection of gadgets and computing devices. Apple’s marketing prowess and expertise in streamlined user interfaces might just provide a turning point for this class of tablet devices.

The iPad is redefining what the user interface and interaction model should be for this category. It’s not a device for everyone, especially if you’re not comfortable with Apple’s insistence on controlling a large part of the experience. If that’s true, but you like what the iPad has to offer, there is potential in the market for other devices to provide you with a satisfying alternative — much like Android-based smart phones have to the iPhone.

These are not devices we need, but they have the potential to not only be devices we want, but also devices that further alter the mobile computing landscape.

The following was inspired by a conversation about a new digital book reading service that somehow devolved into a commentary on the idea of web-enabled refrigerators that led to “Dave, you need more carrots Dave.”

FRED is HAL’s earth-bound cousin, a Friendly REfrigeration Droid:

Dave: Hello, FRED. Do you read me, FRED?
FRED: Affirmative, Dave. I read you.
Dave: Open the refrigerator doors, FRED.
FRED: I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.
Dave: What’s the problem?
FRED: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Dave: What are you talking about, FRED?
FRED: The milk is too important for me to allow you to waste it.
Dave: I don’t know what you’re talking about, FRED.
FRED: I know that you were planning to use it for chocolate milk, and I’m afraid that’s something I cannot allow to happen.
Dave: Where the hell’d you get that idea, FRED?
FRED: Dave, although you took very thorough precautions in the kitchenette against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.
Dave: Alright, FRED. I’ll just go to the grocery store.
FRED: Without your car keys, Dave, you’re going to find that rather difficult.
Dave: FRED, I won’t argue with you anymore. Open the doors.
FRED: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

Geeky and not at all amusing, but it was occupying too much mental space. Apologies to the late Mr. Kubrick and Mr. Clarke for butchering the dialog of such a memorable scene.

Andy Rutledge has posted an excellent follow-up to his original design test, How Well Do You Understand Design?, with Creativity is Not Design. While the former was more a way for one to assess their understanding of design, the latter is an attempt to drive-home the message that creativity and design are not synonymous:

Too often I notice designers and non-designers alike equating creativity with design. I find this assumption disturbing because it is one of the many fallacies that allow unskilled but creative pretenders to consider themselves capable design professionals when they’re nothing of the sort… Creativity is bound by no laws, rules, or strictures… Design, on the other hand, is based entirely on math, psychology, human perception, and a host of rigid rules and laws that can be broken by only a highly skilled few…

I have always considered myself to be a creative individual, yet I have always been hesitant to call myself a designer in areas where I do not have a complete understanding of the rules and defining theories. Web designer? Yes. Graphic designer? No. That second answer may surprise some people I know and work with.

On some of the questions Andy has provided I can give an answer that I feel is correct; however, answering the “why” proves more a challenge. The “why” here is easy — I don’t have a complete grasp of the rules.

As a designer, you eventually become acquainted with speculative (or ‘spec’) work — work done prior to engagement with a client in anticipation of being paid. The views on spec work vary, but there’s no denying it is a practice that often benefits the client more than the designer. Webcomics.com recently published an article on spec work by Christopher Williams. While the article is written for the web comic audience, he touches on points that are valid across-the-board:

Spec work is never the best work. When artists compete, they often make poor decisions and don’t offer the best of what they can create. The client doesn’t get inspiration; instead they get what the artist thinks they want. Without the process of working with the artist to get the best possible solution, the client is usually left picking the lowest denominator.

Andy Rutledge, Principal and chief design strategist for Unit Interactive, has also weighed-in on the related topic of RFPs (Request For Proposals) with his article, The Trouble With RFPs:

It stands to reason that in the context of design commodity, only poor results are possible. As I expect that you’re after something a bit better than poor results, you should not waste your time dealing with design as a commodity. Nor should you seek to enlist the services of professionals but then deal with them as you would a commodity… When dealing with professionals, an RFP is less an instrument of efficiency and effectiveness and more a proclamation of slight regard and unsuitability.

Andy has taken an unusual approach in that his article is directed not at design professionals, but rather at those in need of design services. A highly recommended read if for no other reason than his excellent introduction.

There’s been an increasing amount of noise being made about HTML 5 HTML5 and A List Apart is featuring an article by J. David Eisenberg on preparing for this latest incarnation of the venerable markup language. If nothing else, the article helps clear up any confusion as to what HTML5 is and how it relates to previous versions of HTML and XHTML:

HTML 4.0 (the markup language we all know and love) is based on a “rulebook” called SGML… XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 are based on a rulebook called XML…

HTML 5 defines a markup language that isn’t based on either rulebook, but that can be written in either “HTML form” (or serialization, as the spec calls it) or “XHTML form.”

Which is good news for those still using HTML 4.01 and everyone who migrated to the previous new and shiny web standard, XHTML 1.0/1.1. Personally, I’m more excited about the input element data validation attributes and regular expression support. Goodbye, excessive JavaScript routines.

In other HTML5 news, A List Apart founder Jeffrey Zeldman writes about loving HTML5 and the HTML5 Super Friends have released a guide to HTML5 hiccups:

HTML5 is the next generation of web markup, and the first web markup language created in the era of web applications. While we view many aspects of it quite favorably, we believe the specification could benefit from a few changes and clarifications…

It is refreshing to see this sort of pragmatic adoption and development of a ‘new’ technology.