Latest blog post: 10 Epic Dribblers That You Should Be Following →

Archive for the ‘Reviews’ Category

What makes iOS user experience so much better than Android?

Since starting my position as UI/UX Designer at Tapjoy I have had the opportunity to become more familiar with some of the latest Android Devices. Though I have been an iPhone user since the first iteration of the device, I consider myself open to new devices and experiences. I had heard a lot of hype about the Android phones (mainly the HTC) being a comparable alternative to the iPhone so I was excited about the opportunity to check them out. However, the point of this article is to tell you that, despite 4g, kickstands, larger screens, higher-res cameras, Android phones still can’t compete with the iPhone.

For the sake of clarity, I want to disclose that I will be looking at the phone from a user experience perspective. Typical reviews are quick to compare specs and features but don’t usually focus on the overall experience and aesthetic of the device. This aesthetic appeal is what makes the iPhone the top consumer handheld, despite any lacking features. So if you care more about features and specs than user experience, you might completely disagree with what I have to say. That being said, here are my thoughts on the two different experiences:

The Device

While both the HTC and the iPhone have a sexy factor (which I understand is completely subjective) I think the iPhone wins out on look and feel. The device is more solid and has less seams around the body. The HTC has a larger screen but it is nearly the same resolution as the iPhone. This makes the iPhone screen more crisp overall. Other than that the devices are pretty much aesthetically comparable.

The HTC has 4 physical buttons below the screen while the iPhone only has one. This, in my opinion, highlights the ease of use of the iPhone UI. They built it without the need for more than a single physical button. Also, depending on how and when you click this button, it executes multiple functions such as pulling up your music player, showing the multi-task pane, closing the current open program, waking up the device, accessing voice control. You have to hand it to Apple for this. They creatively and intuitively made a single physical button which accesses a wealth of functionality on the iPhone.

Home Screen

The HTC home screen is by no means ugly and it offers a wealth of information like date, weather, time, etc. The problem I have with the HTC home screen is the complexity. A 5 year old kid would have more trouble finding and launching a game on the HTC than they would on the iPhone. The reason the iPhone wins out is because everything is represented by an icon. Likewise on the HTC you have some icons, an arrow button to the bottom left and an art palette icon to the right, not to mention the physical buttons like home, menu, back and search which are on the device itself.

Some may see this as a trivial difference but I happen to think that this is a huge difference. It represents both brands as a whole. Apple has a reputation for creating increasingly simple interfaces, especially on iOS and that is what gives the device mass appeal despite the closed nature of the system.

Scrolling & Transitions

iPhone is the first device (and the only one that I have seen) to have fluid scrolling that doesn’t suffer from constant lag, over-sensitive touch sensors or unrealistic physics. When comparing the devices side by side it is clear that scrolling in general on the iPhone is much more realistic and lag-free than on the HTC. The iPhone is obviously trying to mimic reality by providing realistic flicking and easing.

I’ll give the HTC points for having respectable and usable scroll functionality, better than most of it’s fellow Android devices but it is still beat out by even a first-generation iPhone.

Windows Mobile / Blackberry Syndrome

I find the HTC interface to be a cross between Windows Mobile and iPhone. While it is a huge improvement over Windows Mobile, it is not as polished or refined as the iPhone. This is highlighted when interacting with many of the more mundane features and settings. Give both an iPhone and an HTC to a first-timer and give them a few tasks like changing brightness, connecting to wifi, managing contacts and adding a mail account and see what they say. More often than not the tasks will be accomplished more quickly on the iPhone and the user will prefer that device over the HTC. This is because you first have to click the bottom left arrow icon to access the real phone features and you are immediately presented with a huge Blackberry-style list of programs. Combine that with laggy scrolling and you have an overall bad experience.

Conclusion

My goal with this article was to explain why, regardless of bells and whistles, the overall experience of the iPhone beats out all Android phones I have used. This is due to crisp and lag-free scrolling, a basic child-like interface and usability standard, and intuitive controls, buttons, and layouts.

Though I have yet to use Windows Phone 7, I will likely be doing a comparison in the near future. I am excited about the platform and think it is great that Microsoft is finally taking a risk with their mobile platform and trying out some unique UI.

As always, thanks for reading!

My thoughts on the Starcraft II Beta

So I’ve been participating in the Starcraft II Beta for a few weeks and I wanted to share my thoughts on the game so far.

First off, I was a dedicated player of the first Starcraft and it’s expansion, Brood War (Which I somehow have 5 legitimate copies of sitting in my junk drawer.. I guess I kept losing them.. then finding them again!). The original Starcraft was a great game that seemed to dominate all other RTS games at the time, due to it’s balance and emphasis on micro-management. Starcraft II has a lot to live up to (at least in my eyes) in order to be an upgrade from the original.

So here are my thoughts overall and then I’ll give you my thoughts on each race:

When I first started playing on Battle.net, it seemed like I was getting Zergling or Reaper rushed every game. However, once I became more familiar with the units that comprised my race of choice, I found that there seems to be a counter to everything your opponent can throw at you. It doesn’t seem like one race stands out among the others in terms of strength and special abilities. The key is the element of surprise and the ability to micro-manage your units and make the most out of each of them. If an opponent doesn’t cover the rear of their base, it can be easy to sneak in a strike a deadly blow to their economy. Keeping an eye on the empty base locations is also very important. Before you know it your opponent will have four bases scattered all over the map and you won’t have a clue. If a Terran player is in an intense firefight with another race, the Raven unit can throw up a Point Defense Drone which shoots down enemy missiles, giving your troops both on the ground and in the air a big advantage.

The new Battle.net

If you are a veteran of the original, you will notice right off the bat that Battle.net has been completely re-vamped to include matchmaking, rank placement system, party system and some awesome UI enhancements.

One of the great things about PC games is that you have control over every details. In the the Starcraft II options screen players can tweak every detail to get the game running as smooth as possible for their setup.

In general, this beta feels fairly polished and balanced, with the occasional bug or crash here and there, but nothing that stands out. There seems to be a new patch for the beta every week with very noticeable fixes to balancing and bugs, which lets you know that Blizzard is paying close attention to the reports sent in by their beta testers. Battle.net is better than ever and is only going to be improved from here on out.

Terran

Terran seems to be the most popular race in Starcraft II. Likely since they are the humans and we naturally relate and understand them the best.

Like other races, Terran units range from both light to heavy and just like in the original Starcraft, the Marine is the first unit built from the barracks. It looks like the Firebat was replaced by the Reaper, a light ground unit that can traverse uneven terrain and has a special attack that can eradicate a building very quickly.

My favorite Terran unit is the Banshee, a cloakable air unit that has a strong ground attack but no air defense and is created at the Starport. With a group of 6 or more banshees, it is possible to slip into the back of an opponents base undetected and deliver a barrage of rockets into their main Command Center/Nexes/Hatchery giving you a huge economic advantage.

Overall the Terran race has it’s strong and weak points. While their Siege Tanks can absolutely decimate ground units, they are defenseless to air attack. The Terran Missile Turret is a great air defense, but cannot target ground units. It seems that the key to Terran is creating a good mix of air and ground units for defense as well as offense.

Protoss

The Protoss have mastered psychic abilities. Units are warped in at their corresponding facility and some units even have the ability to warp other units across the battlefield. Each Protoss unit also has a shield that, once drained, can be replenished. While this seems like a huge advantage over other races, the Protoss actually have quite a few weaknesses. Their build times are much greater than Zerg and Terran. This makes it almost impossible to rush with Protoss units early on in the game and makes them weak against a Zergling or Marine rush.

Protoss seems to be the most dependent on minerals and gas since many of their high-level units require a large amount of materials to create. Building a new base and increasing economic output early on is essential.

Many of the units from the original are present such as the Zealot, Dark Templar and Carrier but there are a slew of other units from the Colossus, a large War of the Worlds type of machine that can traverse uneven terrain much like the Terran Reaper and can be targeted by both ground and air attacks, to the Warp Prism, a flying unit that can warp other units across the map like a Terran drop ship might carry them and the ability to convert to a temporary Pylon, providing power to buildings within it’s matrix.

Overall, Protoss seems to be the most n00b friendly race and the most straight forward, although they do have some unique abilities that will only be used by advanced players. They appear to be quite balanced in spite of their special abilities and units which can attack both air and ground.

Zerg

The Zerg are, in my opinion, the more complicated of the three races. Units must be built on “Creep” which can be expanded by Creep Tumors and by a shower of creep released from beneath an Overlord.

All of the Zerg structures are organic, living creatures which are morphed from the basic Zerg worker unit, the Drone. This is a key disadvantage since a worker unit is lost with every structure and must be replaced.

The Zerg have a ton of special abilities. The Infestor can use mind control on enemy units to take control of them, the Queen showers some goo on a building and restores 125 hit points and the Roach can move around the battlefield while burrowed underground.

Of all the races, Zerg seems to be the least popular and the most complicated. That isn’t to say they they are any better or worse than Terran or Protoss, just harder to master.

Conclusion

I have enjoyed participating in the beta thus far and am surprised that this game feels so much like the original. While there are some new key features and much needed improvements, it still feels like you are playing Starcraft.

Battle.net has also been greatly improved and now has integrated matchmaking, ladders and friends list which makes for an awesome online experience.

Once Starcraft II is officially released, I’ll be sure to post my thoughts on the single player. Thanks for reading.

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes

The best way to contact me is through one of the networks on the left or by emailing me at
ericbieller [at] gmail [dot] com.