Quick, what does this button do?
Go to the beginning of the current track? Hah! Of course not! Thanks to the brilliance of the designers of the Windows Media Player, clicking on this button takes you back to the beginning of the previous track.
So how do you get back to the beginning of the current track? Well, um, let’s see. You could click on what we’ll call the “beginning-of-previous-track button,” and then click on the next track button. Or you could drag the slider to the starting point of the track progress bar. From what I can tell, there really is no clear way to perform the very basic function of returning to the beginning of the current track. With the release of version 10 of the player, I thought for sure they would have fixed this embarrassing user interface screw-up, which I think has existed since the launch of the player. I am utterly mystified by how this blunder can have survived so many releases of the player. Usually, one can make an argument one way or the other for why a design decision was made, but in this case, it just seems plain wrong. Anyone who knows why this was designed this way, please let me know.
For all the brilliance of the iPod’s design, I think Apple must’ve outsourced the design of it’s somewhat lesser offspring, the iPod remote. It has a very unfortunate design flaw, unfortunate because the fix would be so frustratingly simple. The problem I’m referring to is the use of identical button shapes for different functions, play/pause vs volume up/down.
When I use the remote (which is the primary way in which I control the iPod), I am rarely, if ever, actually looking at the remote when operating it, usually because I keep it in my pocket or inside my jacket or somewhere tucked away and I don’t want to have to pull it all they way up so I can see it every time I need to click on something.
But because the shape of the volume and play/pause buttons are the same and it’s very hard to know which way is up or down when not looking at the iPod, I am constantly pausing when I want to be changing the volume or vice versa. It seems as if whoever designed the remote assumed that the user would always be looking at it when operating it, which in turn leads me to wonder if they actually did any field testing of the thing.
Seems it wouldn’t take much actual use of the remote to discover that it’s likely that the operator would not want to have to be looking at the remote to be able to operate it. Why not apply the functional identification to the shape of the button? In other words, why not give the up/down volume button a distinct shape, such as a triangle shape that maps to the volume level?
And while we’re at it, might as well apply the same concept to the next/previous track, making the shape-based concept complete. (In humble deference to the designers at Apple, I also corrected the icon they are using for the next/previous track; the one they are using is actually the icon for going to the first or last item in a list rather than the next or previous one…) This way, there is no need for any tactile guesswork every time you want to change the volume or track or whatever.
And in addition, after some wear and tear, when the white labels have all but faded away from the endless clicking of greasy fingers, that won’t matter much, since the user will still know which button is which based on it’s shape.