I feel like the annoyance that Dave2D is pointing out here is essentially getting mad that there’s an accepted convention and the device is attempting to challenge it to some degree.
Like, OK, the Rabbit R1 isn’t the bees knees. But constricting everything into the same form factor is a depressing dead end for product design.
Don’t get me wrong, maybe the Rabbit R1 and Humane AI Pin are just bad (or at least deeply experimental) products, but his solution is essentially to force hardware to fit into one specific shell.
This is sort of why I remember being frustrated with some of Jakob Nielsen’s early UX proclamations back in the day. The thing is, convention is great up until the point when it forces everything to look exactly the same with little room for creativity.
“What do you mean this doesn’t work like my phone?!”
“It’s not a phone. Also, your critique is completely predicated on the physical controls of the device, despite the fact that this is a voice-controlled tool.”
@ernie I mean, you're essentially talking about the entire subject of #UX in a nutshell, that the entire PRACTICE is based on the question, "How do we deliver exactly what the user is already expecting to get?" Creativity and uniqueness is the hated enemy among UX people, something to be very consciously and deliberately stamped out of existence.
@jasonpettus Yep, I’m asking for a little room to paint outside the lines, which is verboten in so many circles, and why so many designs look like glossed-over junk.
Add comment