[scottweiss]

Nokia has presented the UI Concept Proposal for Symbian^4. This discussion is open to the community for questions, comments, suggestions, requests, and generally anything that relates to this proposal. The corresponding Major Contribution Proposals are Orbit and Direct UI.

Following is the landing page for Orbit:
http://developer.symbian.org/wiki/index.php/Prop/Orbit#Current_drafts

Following is the landing page for Direct UI:
http://developer.symbian.org/wiki/in...Prop/Direct_UI

The following link is a downloadable version of the S^4 UI Concept Proposal submitted by Nokia on 14 January 2010:
http://developer.symbian.org/wiki/im...roposal_v2.doc

Please use this area to discuss this proposal.

[teknolog]

Very nice to see concrete details here.

Because of expressed agony over the .doc file, I took the liberty of converting it to PDF. Because the PDF was too large for the forum, I uploaded it to the wiki: http://tiny.symbian.org/S4UI

[nithyar]

Originally Posted by teknolog

Very nice to see concrete details here.

Because of expressed agony over the .doc file, I took the liberty of converting it to PDF. Because the PDF was too large for the forum, I uploaded it to the wiki: http://tiny.symbian.org/S4UI

Would it have helped to identify/analyse the 'betterments' over S^3? Atleast it can give a comparative preview to what we have right now as against what we'll have in the future.

[petteri]

Well the UI looks pretty much same as all the others right now. I was kind of expecting something like this to S^3 already. S^4 is not coming out any time soon so there should be time to make that total makeover which is so eagerly needed. And yes, I understand that these are v0.1 drafts but we should not forget that this change is crucial to the platform success so aiming higher should be encouraged. Also not to forget these actually usable phones like E71, is the form factor totally forgotten in these plans?

[bdonegan]

Seems to be a lot of comments Re: the font used. Is this something that's being considered? I appreciate these are just example screens and not too much should be read into them, but it would be interesting to know whether this is indeed the font face they are going for.

(I personally like it actually, BTW)

[micky]

I too feel the font should be revised. I too also think we need more WOW factor, and be distinguished from the competition, oh, and fast. People want things fast, and as you know, hate waiting for things to load, not to mention laggy transitions. Best to get things right with this, as there is an awful lot riding on it for Nokia.

[gecebekcisi]

I think being able to easily select & change default UI font style from control panel between some preloaded and user installed fonts would make perfect sense, that can even create a market for mobile fonts like themes and ringtones.

[teknolog]

Originally Posted by gecebekcisi

I think being able to easily select & change default UI font style from control panel between some preloaded and user installed fonts would make perfect sense, that can even create a market for mobile fonts like themes and ringtones.

I like this. Would you add it to the Ideas site?

[tontsa]

Changing the font UI style would be nice to have, but font size definition is a must have feature.
I know many 50+ aged Symbian device users, who cannot use their phones without having their reading glasses on...

[gecebekcisi]

Originally Posted by teknolog

I like this. Would you add it to the Ideas site?

Sure, here it is.

[antony]

Thanks for the update - great to be getting this kind of insight into the roadmap.

Echoing petteri - it'd be good to see some mock-ups of how the UI would work on a qwerty device. All the DirectUI and Orbit examples show iPhone form-factor devices, and obviously this is the form-factor that generates all the headlines. But the E71 is the best form factor for me and I'd be really interested to see how the Symbian^4 UI would work/look on that kind of device.

BTW -- unless the Symbian Foundation is going to start sending me a pay-check for my wonderful forum posts could someone there please change my "Staff" designation.

[marcelobarrosalmeida]

In my opinion it is interesting to create an UI that requires only one hand to be operated. When I see scrollbars at right and back at top right, I think the use case is related to two hands for operation otherwise your fingers will cover the screen (for left-handed people). If we use configurable scrollbars/back (right or left) it would help to use the phone with only one hand, but it may be not enough.

In addition, the UI seems beautiful. Multiple home screens are under consideration ?

PS: I edited this post to add the link to this "Symbian idea" (Make the UI more friendly for left-handed people). Scott considerations at the end are interesting. BTW, I am not left-handed.

[nseriesfreak7]

Things look okay so far. Still worried about a few things though. Unlike everybody else it seems, I have no problems with the font chosen. I like it. I like the new status bar up top with a back/exit button and drop down menu. Where do all the icons show up though when you have a missed call, voice message, or text message though? There doesn't seem to be too much room for that.

Don't like what they've done with the homescreen so much or the video player. Regarding the video player, it would be much more user friendly if the playback controls were big controls in the middle of the screen, like they are on the iPhone and N900. The N900 has a lot of UI design elements done right to be honest. As for the homescreen, I like the multiple pages, but there needs to be more, and as long as all my widgets are going to be there, like a calendar one that displays meetings, and a profile shortcut icon, that's cool with me, and if I can change that clock to digital, that too would be great. I don't like the bottom of the homescreen either. Lose the dialing pad icon and bring back the shortcut menu bar on the bottom of the N97's homescreen. I'd much rather see a shortcut menu bar with quick access to three or four things, dialing pad included, than those icons, only because you could keep them there on every single homescreen you switch to.

Please add the scroll bar too. Try scrolling through 1500 images just by flicking your finger, to get to the one all the way at the bottom, because your phone constantly forgets the original sized image you set for a contact. It's far easier with a scroll bar to just drag it in 2 seconds all the way to the bottom. Practicality over looks please. How about something like on Android, where it appears when you scroll, and while it's there you can grab it and use it to scroll.

I also hope that like the N97, when you tap on the status bar and the drop down shows up, there will be useful things shown this time. Things like WiFi, Bluetooth, Profiles, then the usual connectivity, clock, and notifications.

Hopefully Symbian is going to an 800x480 resolution, and I'd like to see what their new on-screen keyboards look like. If they don't look like Android's or the iPhone's, where they don't take up the whole screen, they're a failure.

[bdonegan]

Originally Posted by micky

I too feel the font should be revised. I too also think we need more WOW factor, and be distinguished from the competition, oh, and fast. People want things fast, and as you know, hate waiting for things to load, not to mention laggy transitions. Best to get things right with this, as there is an awful lot riding on it for Nokia.

Avkon creates a feeling of being 'laggy' by exposing the draw operations to the user. The iPhone and possibly Android hide this by doing transition effects and letting the drawing happen in the buffer before exposing it to the user. The NGA render stage functionality will enable transition effects to give exactly this experience, not to mention the fact that Nokia have already stated that the frame rate is being upped to 45fps from 15fps.

All in all, I believe NGA (+Qt) is going to offer a massively improved graphical experience, hopefully not compromising any of Symbian's intrinsic qualities (great power management and resource usage) with it.

[boybawang]

How will the app launcher look like?
I hope we model it from Palm-Pre where it can be launched from anywhere without closing the current app. Current s60 closes the current app if you launch the applicaton launcher
Android is wrose because you have to go to homescreen first to access its launcher.
Windows-Mobile app launcher is good because it can be run from anywhere without closing the current app.

[nseriesfreak7]

Originally Posted by boybawang

How will the app launcher look like?
I hope we model it from Palm-Pre where it can be launched from anywhere without closing the current app. Current s60 closes the current app if you launch the applicaton launcher
Android is wrose because you have to go to homescreen first to access its launcher.
Windows-Mobile app launcher is good because it can be run from anywhere without closing the current app.

Last time I checked, Symbian keeps the app open in the background until you go and close it. Or in the case of the N97, just open up the web browser and photo gallery, and it will close everything automatically.

[teknolog]

Originally Posted by boybawang

How will the app launcher look like?Current s60 closes the current app if you launch the applicaton launcher

We are getting sidetracked here, but no, S60 does not close the app when you switch to the application launcher. However, if you press the red button, most applications do close. Press the white (which was previously the weird "ball and box orbiting each other") and nothing will close. This isn't very intuitive or obvious.

[nseriesfreak7]

Fig. 6 on the proposal looks better than what is currently on Symbian^1, however I feel that from a usability standpoint, the playback icons should be much bigger, and in fact, be in the middle of the screen. with the play or pause being the biggest. This would make it much easier to control playback, and you wouldn't have to worry about accidentally hitting anything else.

[nseriesfreak7]

Concerning the autodismiss feature, the most important area this needs to be implemented is in the web browser. The web browser should, when the page is finished loading, automatically go full screen when the user touches the screen. I mean full screen too. Not like Android where it still shows the status/notifications bar. That, I hope happens, in addition to a new UI for the web browser, where all the buttons are on the bottom of the screen instead of the side. Currently as it stands right now, you have to wait a few seconds for it to automatically go full screen, and it’s extremely annoying.

[nseriesfreak7]

I can't believe this proposal is actually making a power key an "additional recommended" key to have on the device. That would be ridiculous to not have one. Where would you be able to change your phone profile as quickly as you can right now? A power key is useful, and I think, necessary on a smartphone.

As far as a back key and options key go, that would be a little redundant to have them, seeing how there will be a drop down options menu brought about by tapping the title/menu. The same goes for the back key. It will be at the top right of the titlebar region in all screens. There would be no need for such a key, unless they were trying to free up more screen real estate. Thoughts anybody?

[iain]

Originally Posted by nseriesfreak7

I can't believe this proposal is actually making a power key an "additional recommended" key to have on the device. That would be ridiculous to not have one. Where would you be able to change your phone profile as quickly as you can right now? A power key is useful, and I think, necessary on a smartphone.

It's cheaper to make a phone with just a keyboard/keys in one plane. Therefore the ability to be able to get an end key to double up as power means that you can lower the BoM cost of the handset (and potentially increase its reliability, since side mounted keys are more fragile). Therefore, by not *forcing* manufacturers to implement a power key, you allow them to make a slightly cheaper, more robust phone if they wish to. Equally, you don't have to buy the phones without a power key, so there shouldn't be a problem.

[nseriesfreak7]

Originally Posted by iain

It's cheaper to make a phone with just a keyboard/keys in one plane. Therefore the ability to be able to get an end key to double up as power means that you can lower the BoM cost of the handset (and potentially increase its reliability, since side mounted keys are more fragile). Therefore, by not *forcing* manufacturers to implement a power key, you allow them to make a slightly cheaper, more robust phone if they wish to. Equally, you don't have to buy the phones without a power key, so there shouldn't be a problem.

Makes sense. Unfortunately for me, Nokia is the only one that makes Symbian devices I like, and if they do that to me, I guess I'm sticking to what I have now for a long time. However, I don't think they'll ditch the idea of having one, especially when you look at history. Every single Nseries and Eseries has had one, and those are the only devices I buy.

[teknolog]

Originally Posted by nseriesfreak7

Makes sense. Unfortunately for me, Nokia is the only one that makes Symbian devices I like, and if they do that to me, I guess I'm sticking to what I have now for a long time. However, I don't think they'll ditch the idea of having one, especially when you look at history. Every single Nseries and Eseries has had one, and those are the only devices I buy.

But then you have validated the argument that the marketplace will sort this out. Demanding "expensive" features like a button from the OEMs doesn't help the Symbian community, since it is quite likely that devices that have these features will appear anyway on more expensive devices.

I love that you pay attention to this fine detail. It is thanks to members like you that the Symbian community thrives! Keep up the good work!

[brian_____]

1. In this proposal, applications will live in a nested "applications" folder just like in the past. The applications folder would be different from the home screen. The applications folder is always sorted alphabetically and isn't customizable by the user. The home screens are fully customizable, including the placement of items in it. This seems unnecessarily complex to me. Why not get rid of the applications folder, and put applications on the home screen, with new applications appearing at the end? And/or, rename "Applications" to "Hidden," put all apps on the home screen by default, and show all the stuff the user removes from the home screen in "Hidden" (which might be stuff other than 3rd-party apps).

2. The placement of the on-screen back button in the upper-right requires two-handed operation or awkward hand gymnastics unless you have large hands. Is that button also for use with in-application navigation, or only inter-application navigation? Honestly, I don't get how I would use it. What happens when the device has a hardware back button? It seems to me that if you had a hardware back button, you'd definitely want to hide the on-screen back button, and you'd then want to redesign everything else about the title/status pane.

3. Where do the time/missed call/email/text message indicators go? When I get a new email there should be some indicator show up on the screen, and I should be able to tap this indicator to read the email and/or go to my inbox. It seems that, because of the large on-screen back button and the large application title button, there's not going to be room for these directly-tap-able indicators.

4. The title pane is shown in two configurations: giant & touchable vs hidden. I think there are all kinds of apps that want as much screen real estate as they can get, but that still want to show system-level indicators and the time. So, some kind of small title/status pane design would be great.

5. I really think it doesn't make sense to make the application's title its options menu. I think it's better to reserve everything up there for global stuff and navigation--that is, reserved for stuff that ISN'T specific to the application--especially since that strange "back"/application switcher button is right next to it. Most well-designed applications shouldn't have items in that menu anyway, AFAICT.

6. Lot of applications are going to be displaying the application name in their own style/branding. So the application title is often (not always, but often) redundant. It takes up too much space relative to its utility as illustrated.

7. The video player example looks great on the bottom. But, I don't get why the top chrome isn't transparent too.

8. The video player example shows that on a 16:9 display, there's no room for such a large title pane at the top. It seems to me that, if you were willing to move the application title to the content pane (for apps that want it), you could design a new vertical status/title pane that could live on the left-hand side of the screen. That would make much better use of space for applications that (a) want to display the time and indicators in a standard way all the time, (b) don't really need a giant title/options button, and (c) have content that is closer to 4:3 than 16:9. I think this describes most cross-platform apps (think iPhone ports) other than games.

[handful]

I was going to make "bigger" Suggestion, and actually for the first time ( I will try to do more and with more consistency) but Brian suggested and pointed out plenty of mine concerns.

While I understand that the "Global" Top navigation seems to be a direct link between maemo ( top right back) and the new Symbian, it's funny to see how it makes sense in landscape mode ( your thumb is close to it, since landscape is almost always 2 hands ) but little sense in portrait mode, due to, depending on the screen size the "Real" problem to reach the back button.

In our usability studies (couple of hours with +40 iphone/non-iphone users) we saw the following pattern:

- Users do miss the back and edit button (top) a lot when doing it with one hand. Simple like that. Even those with slightly bigger hands missed it simple because the one hand operation ends up with thumb usage and to reach the top right the thumb touches the screen with it's side, then pressing bellow the intended area.

Real problem? For Apple? No. Why?
- Product empathy : This is the phenomenon everybody wants to have with their users but it's not simple.
iPhone users are considerably more "forgiving" to the company's mistake than other companies. What they do? They simple go and operate with 2 hands. The full experiences make it less important.

Solution: Very hard to come up with a "feasible one" so I will not try here in a single post

While there's almost zero chance ( seeing from a design perspective, this is probably in "locked" state) to this to be changed (because this would mean changing the WHOLE design) it really brings a challenge in the table: The rest must be so go, that people really don't mind going 2 hands. And the problem simply goes away.


My "New" comment is probably useless, but I wanted to make it visible here (probably it's just mockups mistakes so let's go)

1. Why there's a back button in the home screen?

2. Why there's a title bar in the home screen (is it because you need to use the same menu?)
But why waste such a widget / bg picture content space for users with the "Homescreen" name?

3. Why use iPhone's (unfortunately it became) "trademark" little balls as pagination indicators?
There's a couple of different ways to do that, as demonstrated in the:

a. PalmPre bars in one side that slides to the other to point out movement
b. Simple "rectangles" in the corner, leaving more content space ( used in Android devices like? )
c. other shapes than a ball

4. The Font :
While there's no discussion about the craft and suitability of Erik Spiekermann's work in Nokia Sans, it's clear to know that it was designed for the first era of Phones. Nowadays, specially for Symbian and Maemo there's a clear need for a new, more suitable font. It doesn't have to be done from scratch again( Nokia anyhow can sponsor that) but it's time to evolve Nokia Sans So I am dreaming about Neue Nokia Sans where high resolution display, better typography is possible in Symbian devices using it.

5. Basic theme : Probably this is going to be worked out from Symbian^3 since there was already a RFP to the official theme. But looking like apple 5 years ago is not a way to debut a great, much needed UI to Symbian.

6. Drag Elements : Video has a drag component. The basics are there:

a. video positioning / stop ( time )
b. Draggable piece
c. possibility to see the time you're tracking when doing it with the right hand.

suggestion : slightly bigger dragger piece, with clear "this is draggable" indication or at least visual clues for it.


*maybe shallow suggestion* But what if you do it with the left hand? Covering the video? Is there ( of course can be and it's simply not shown) a popup element on top of the finger or relative that shows the time you are?


Well, all good hopes for this new UI!

Br

Marcelo Eduardo
www.marceloeduardo.com

[gecebekcisi]

Here are my thoughts on the proposal.

Four user-facing libraries: Contacts, Music, Photos, Applications. Applications Library replaces Main Menu

First of all, I don't quite understand why music and photos have such a higher priority, when compared to other applications which are caged under generic applications library (aka old main menu). There should be more libraries (like messaging, internet etc) and user facing ones should be user selectable since every user's priorities differ and customisation was the key success element of Symbian for ages.

S^4 layouts are prepared in 9:16 aspect ratio (portrait dominant), 3.2” display dimensions

So I imagine using a device like the Nokia 5800. I think the back button placement at top right corner for both portrait and landscape modes is convenient, since my thumb can reach both places easily in both usage scenerios. I'm using my right hand, but what about left handed people? I guess UI should be able to adapt itself to user's habits. Again, customisation was the key success element of Symbian for ages.

improved task switcher minimizes Exit commands and provides improved visual access to backgrounded ‘continuous experience’ applications (e.g., music playback, active call, etc.)

What I understand from this, is, task switcher will be "live" as Maemo's task switcher, as showcased in ScreenPlay video from 2007. If I understand correctly, I like that pretty much.

Additional keys recommended but not required include Back, Options, Power, and a lock mechanism (button or slidelock). Power may be mapped to the End key but certain conditions apply.

As indicated above, power key is a really useful feature. I don't understand the reason to "fix the unbroken" and I don't care if "side mounted keys are more fragile"; they are harder to press accidentally (unless they're too protuberant) and that is pure improvement in functionality (unless they're too recessed into the main body). So I think a power key and a lock mechanism must be required as well, since they improve functionality/usability a lot for a relatively small cost.

Also, right now I'm using a "power mapped to the end key" phone and I can't count how many times I accidentally ended with shutting the phone down while just trying to end a function.

Cascading menus are permitted and there is no guideline limitation on extending the Options menu to a number of menus

I think there should be a level of limitation to create a consistent behaviour. Just set reasonable limitations (like the number of commands in the Options menu) and force developers to create more useful UIs, instead of letting them using cascading menus till everything is messed up on the screen.

The applications folder is always sorted alphabetically and isn't customizable by the user.

I couldn't find an exact statement for this in the proposal, but if this is true, again, I really don't understand the reason to "fix the unbroken" and I desperately feel the need to remind that "customisation was the key success element of Symbian for ages" once more time.

[nseriesfreak7]

Originally Posted by brian_____

1. In this proposal, applications will live in a nested "applications" folder just like in the past. The applications folder would be different from the home screen. The applications folder is always sorted alphabetically and isn't customizable by the user. The home screens are fully customizable, including the placement of items in it. This seems unnecessarily complex to me. Why not get rid of the applications folder, and put applications on the home screen, with new applications appearing at the end? And/or, rename "Applications" to "Hidden," put all apps on the home screen by default, and show all the stuff the user removes from the home screen in "Hidden" (which might be stuff other than 3rd-party apps).

I hate to break it to you Brian, but Apple already did that, so you might want to go pick up one of their phones. Symbian has always been about giving the user a homescreen that displays useful information, and gives them the ability to customize it, now with whatever they want. I like having that customization, and don’t want to see all my applications there, like it is on the iPhone.

Originally Posted by brian_____

2. The placement of the on-screen back button in the upper-right requires two-handed operation or awkward hand gymnastics unless you have large hands. Is that button also for use with in-application navigation, or only inter-application navigation? Honestly, I don't get how I would use it. What happens when the device has a hardware back button? It seems to me that if you had a hardware back button, you'd definitely want to hide the on-screen back button, and you'd then want to redesign everything else about the title/status pane.

I disagree on that point. I don’t know what phone you have, but on my N97, with one hand I can reach everything on the screen holding it in portrait orientation, so having the back command at the top right would be great. Especially since it opens up more room on a toolbar for an additional command where the back command would otherwise be. I don’t have basketball player hands either.

Originally Posted by brian_____

3. Where do the time/missed call/email/text message indicators go? When I get a new email there should be some indicator show up on the screen, and I should be able to tap this indicator to read the email and/or go to my inbox. It seems that, because of the large on-screen back button and the large application title button, there's not going to be room for these directly-tap-able indicators.

These will be accessible via tapping on the signal/battery status indicators. I too am wondering where they will show the notifications. My guess is that it will be similar to Maemo 5 in that the indicator area will expand to the right showing a notification when there is one. My issue with the area is where is the clock going to go?

Originally Posted by brian_____

4. The title pane is shown in two configurations: giant & touchable vs hidden. I think there are all kinds of apps that want as much screen real estate as they can get, but that still want to show system-level indicators and the time. So, some kind of small title/status pane design would be great.

The small titlebar region would make it difficult for a user to touch it, unless you implement a swipe down feature like on Android. That wouldn’t be very original, now would it? Personally, I think Symbian needs to do what Apple does, and tell developers this is the blueprint from which you need to design around. Consistency is a great thing.

Originally Posted by brian_____

5. I really think it doesn't make sense to make the application's title its options menu. I think it's better to reserve everything up there for global stuff and navigation--that is, reserved for stuff that ISN'T specific to the application--especially since that strange "back"/application switcher button is right next to it. Most well-designed applications shouldn't have items in that menu anyway, AFAICT.

I wasn’t such a big fan of this idea when I first saw it. But now that I’ve thought about it and looked it over a few times, I like it. The reason is because it now opens up room at the bottom of the screen, or where ever the toolbar is, for more room, or an additional button.

Originally Posted by brian_____

7. The video player example looks great on the bottom. But, I don't get why the top chrome isn't transparent too.

I'd like to see bigger playback controls that reside in the middle of the screen, with all other playback options in the toolbar at the bottom of the screen as they are now.

Originally Posted by brian_____

8. The video player example shows that on a 16:9 display, there's no room for such a large title pane at the top. It seems to me that, if you were willing to move the application title to the content pane (for apps that want it), you could design a new vertical status/title pane that could live on the left-hand side of the screen. That would make much better use of space for applications that (a) want to display the time and indicators in a standard way all the time, (b) don't really need a giant title/options button, and (c) have content that is closer to 4:3 than 16:9. I think this describes most cross-platform apps (think iPhone ports) other than games.

I hope they ditch 16:9 displays and go with 800x480 from now on. After seeing the difference between the N97 and N900 screens, I’ll take 800x480 any day of the week. Then there won’t be any problems with things taking up space, and no need for a silly looking vertical status bar on the side of the screen.

[nseriesfreak7]

Originally Posted by gecebekcisi

Here are my thoughts on the proposal.


First of all, I don't quite understand why music and photos have such a higher priority, when compared to other applications which are caged under generic applications library (aka old main menu). There should be more libraries (like messaging, internet etc) and user facing ones should be user selectable since every user's priorities differ and customisation was the key success element of Symbian for ages.

Couldn't agree with you more. There should be a breakdown of things. Contacts, Messaging, Photos, Music, Video, Internet should all have their own separate library, so things aren't all jumbled together just so there can be a so called clean look to the UI now. If I'm looking to go watch a video, I expect to open up the applications menu and go into Videos and find the one I want. I don't want to go into Photo's and have to dig through it to find all the videos, and the one I specifically want. Even now on my N97, it puts video's in the photo gallery, and that's wrong on Symbian's part.

[boybawang]

Originally Posted by nseriesfreak7

Last time I checked, Symbian keeps the app open in the background until you go and close it. Or in the case of the N97, just open up the web browser and photo gallery, and it will close everything automatically.

That's what i mean! S60 unnecessarily minimizes the current app to the background everytime you bring the menu launcher. Try to close the launcher and the current app is no longer there. You have to run taskswitcher inorder to get back to that app (what a waste of time).
In Palm Pre or Windows Mobile, you can show,hide,show,hide,show,hide the launcher without minimizing the current app.

[brian_____]

Originally Posted by nseriesfreak7

I hate to break it to you Brian, but Apple already did that, so you might want to go pick up one of their phones. Symbian has always been about giving the user a homescreen that displays useful information, and gives them the ability to customize it, now with whatever they want. I like having that customization, and don’t want to see all my applications there, like it is on the iPhone.

I'm not suggesting to go (back) to the "array of icons" UI like the iPhone has.

Let's say you install the app "Zero Balance." Obviously, you downloaded it because you want to run it. So, how many taps/scrolls do you need to run that app after it's installed? In the proposed design, apps by default get put in an inconvenient place, and then it's the user's responsibility to do some inconvenient and non-obvious things (that they might not even know how to do) in order to make using the app more convenient. In my suggestion, the user has to learn the "get this out of my way" action and that's basically it. The user has to learn "get this out of my way" in the proposed interface too, because devices will always come preloaded with a bunch of stuff the user doesn't use/want/understand, so my suggestion isn't adding any complexity to the UI. With my suggestion, once you've hidden everything you don't want, you are left with everything you do want, and new things that you specifically requested show up in the "stuff I do want" part of the UI automatically.

Originally Posted by nseriesfreak7

The small titlebar region would make it difficult for a user to touch it, unless you implement a swipe down feature like on Android.

Yes, the swipe-down guesture is kind of what I was thinking of.

Originally Posted by nseriesfreak7

I wasn’t such a big fan of this idea when I first saw it. But now that I’ve thought about it and looked it over a few times, I like it. The reason is because it now opens up room at the bottom of the screen, or where ever the toolbar is, for more room, or an additional button.

I just think the top of the screen could be more functional if less space was reserved for this giant button that few people will ever need to use. Imagine having a row of just tabs/icons up there. The foreground app's tab would be highlighted, and you could (long-)tap it to get to that menu. But, there's be plenty room for the email app's icon (which could function as an email alert indicator), the clock/alarm app's icon (doubling as an indicator showing the current time), the IM app's icon (also doubling as an indicator), the home icon (which could flash as an indicator for when a new icon shows up on a home screen page), etc. Then you don't really need the "back" button up there at all--instead you'd have a button to show the icons that don't fit on the screen.

One thing I really like about the proposed design: It seems applications' "exit" command will be hidden the title bar menu that people won't use, so we end up with a WinMo/UIQ-like "users don't worry about process management" UI. I'm looking forward to seeing what kind of resource management patterns and APIs support that.

Marcelo, you have a great point about the back button being optimized for landscape mode. However, AFAICT, the poor back button placement has been argued about for many months behind closed doors already, so I agree anything written here is likely to have an effect on it, since it's less than a year away from shipping. Still, it seems obvious that it doesn't make sense to have hardware back keys and that on-screen button at the same time, so I'd like to know what happens to the on-screen UI when hardware back keys are present.