
I'm a huge fan of video games. The other day, I finally got a chance to sit down with the demo for _[The Gunstringer](http://www.thegunstringer.com/)_. I've been looking forward to this title since it was first announced, and downloaded it when it was released but never tried it. First off, I was able to _sit down_ with the game rather than stand, which is unique to the title! That was a pleasant change, as most of the other Kinect titles I've played involve some form of mild gymnastics, and aren't designed to be played for long periods of time. The uniqueness of this Wild Western game doesn't stop here.

The game makes use of your left hand to manipulate an onscreen puppet, moving him left and right, and firing his gun with your right hand. The puppeteer aspect suits the Kinect platform particularly well, and in my opinion much better than moving an onscreen figure with your whole body—the Kinect sensor just isn't slick enough to grasp complicated movements (such as when limbs cross). The illusion is broken the moment the avatar does not act as you do. In _The Gunstringer_, however, the movements are simple enough—and each hand moves _differently_ enough—that it's a fluid and consistent experience to what you're doing with your body.

How can this argument apply to other platforms and experiences? In the smartphone space, we've all seen the trivial accelerometer-and-compass games: replicating labyrinth tilt puzzles, fake spirit levels and tilt-to-steer racing games are a dime a dozen. Can we do better? Yes: augmented reality apps like [Layar](http://www.layar.com/ "Layar, an augmented reality browser") are pushing the boundaries of what you can do with a sum of precise and powerful sensors like accelerometers and compasses. What else can an always-on Internet connection, Bluetooth, NFC, state-of-the-art GPS, ad-hoc Wi-Fi, accurate gyroscopes and multi-megapixel cameras do? More like, what _can't_ they do.

Returning to _The Gunstringer_, it brings a simplified puppeteering concept to the Kinect but does not limit gameplay to what's possible with a puppet on a string. Your right hand, remember, controls the avatar's gun. This is done by mimicking the firing of a pistol with heavy recoil. I even found myself making a gun shape with my hand while I did this, and thus the game had won me over. [I'm not alone in that feeling](http://www.joystiq.com/2011/09/13/the-gunstringer-review/ "Joystiq's The Gunstringer review"). _The Gunstringer_'s puppeteer mechanic was streamlined such that it did not limit the game as it was adapted for the platform.

Now that the gimmick of the Kinect hardware has worn off, I'm looking forward to titles that make use of the platform in unique ways, as _The Gunstringer_ has. I know they can do better than the sports games and dance games, and create an experience full of intuitive gestures and unique experiences.

Many times, the adaptation of a physical concept to digital ruins the experience. The perennial example is the calculator: why click buttons that resemble a real calculator with a mouse? Why not allow direct text entry, and skip the buttons? Why limit the number of digits visible, as the old liquid crystal displays of old did? When picking an experience to model your digital creation from, take _only_ the experience, and leave behind the limitations of the medium. When designing, try _winnowing the chaff_ that weighs down your experience.


I'm a huge fan of video games. The other day, I finally got a chance to sit down with the demo for The Gunstringer. I've been looking forward to this title since it was first announced, and downloaded it when it was released but never tried it.

Making the Best Use of Your Tools


As applications move to mobile, the context and intended usage change. You can't expect a swiss-army knife of a desktop app to provide the same functionality on an iPhone or Android device. This is already well known, and there are many blog posts and books and courses on this topic. It's great for users, because well made mobile apps are tailored well to the mobile lifecycle they need to survive in.

When it comes to input methods on handheld devices, the same rules apply. You can't expect a standard desktop date-picker to perform well on a touch-only screen. That's why controls like the iOS UIDatePicker are so wonderful: they translate the desktop task to mobile. Some of the functionality is lost, however; in the date picker, showing which days are weekends doesn't translate to the iPhone at all. These reductions _streamline_ the process on a device dealing with a far lower attention span.

If you have the benefit of selecting the input methods for the app you're designing, take to heart exactly what the intention of the input method is for. This includes your target users, attention span and amount of user effort. An expert user might be willing to use a hard to use but accurate input method some of the time, but if the usage scenario includes using the app while rock climbing, you'll need to select an easier to use method, at the cost of precision.

In the Winter 2011 term of my PhD program, I took [Robert Biddle](http://hotsoft.carleton.ca/hotsoft/people/robert-biddle/ "Robert Biddle's homepage")'s course on Human-Computer Interaction for User Interface Design. I ran a preliminary user study comparing different touch-screen input methods for numerical input. I compared the two commonly found input methods of increment/decrement buttons and seek bar with thumb against the more whimsical method of a rotary dial—like a volume knob. The seek bar was the only absolute-scale input method, so values that users selected fell within the entire range of the seek bar used. Users "spun" the dial clockwise or counter-clockwise to increase or decrease the value for selection.

![Screenshots of different numeric input on a test Android app](/media/2011-07-25-input-methods.png "Screenshots of different numeric input on a test Android app")

The study actually ended up revealing an interesting result: the timing to select a value with rotary dial wasn't statically significant from the buttons or seek bar. Anecdotally, users preferred the dial as an input mechanism due to it's perceived ease of use. While very common, especially on Android, dragging a thumb across a seek bar requires more concentration. Personally, I feel that buttons are simply tiresome and dated.

Think carefully about what emotions your input method of choice evoke. If you want a fun or highly interactive application, losing some precision might be okay. More serious or rigorous applications have different design constraints too. Simply going with the default input method for your platform of choice is not always the best idea.

The dial lives on, if you're interested. A good friend of mine, [David Underwood](http://www.theflyingdeveloper.com "David's Blog"), has adapted my simple testing dial in his Magic: The Gathering life counter, [Life Dial](https://market.android.com/details?id=com.inflatableapps.lifedial "Life Dial Android Market Page"). Eventually, we'll get around to releasing source so you can add it to your own Android apps.


As applications move to mobile, the context and intended usage change. You can't expect a swiss-army knife of a desktop app to provide the same functionality on an iPhone or Android device. This is already well known, and there are many blog posts and books and courses on this topic. It's great for users, because well made mobile apps are tailored well to the mobile lifecycle they need to survive in.

Posts about input methods