1. Author: Jakob Nielsen Presented by: Annam Abbasi

2.  iPad vs. iPhone  First Studies  Whacky Interfaces  Inconsistent Interaction design  Crushing Print Metaphor  Card Sharks vs. Holy Scrollers  Conclusion: Toward a Better iPad User Experience

3.  The tab bar is better on the iPhone,  iPhone users prefer applications over websites.  Read-tap asymmetry exists due to the fat finger.

4.  The usability of iPad applications was tested.  The participants were 7 iPhone users, one with previous iPad experience.  Popular applications tested include:  ABC Player  eBay  IMDb  Yahoo! Entertainment

5.  The first image map was created in 1993.  Any part of any picture is a user interface element.  There are standard Graphic User Interface (GUI) guidelines.  The iPad utilizes an “etched-screen aesthetic.”  Users do not know where to click  There is no visual distinction.

6.  Each application works differently.  iPads do not have an undo button (i.e. browser’s back button).

7.  Touching a picture  Nothing happens  Image is enlarged  User is taken to another page  Image flips to reveal other images  Navigation options pop up  Continuing to read  Scrolling down  Swiping left  Swiping up

8.  Electronic Media:  Users do not have a homepage to select from.  Users must swipe to move from article to article.

9.  Two hypertext models exist.  Card sharks: fixed canvas (iPad applications)  Holy Scrollers: infinite scrolling (the Web)  Users want scrolling.

10.  Will the iPad attract crowds other than the entertainment-oriented?  How can iPad usability be improved?  Create visual distinction  Apply consistent interaction techniques  Use standard navigation Questions?