An interesting observation from the field now that I’m using the iPad with a keyboard every day. When I’m in a “consumption” mode, that’s to say, reading stuff, I almost always tend to be using the iPad in portrait mode. This (to me) feels like the the most appropriate mode for reading, whether it’s ePub documents in iBooks or Stanza, or reviewing PDF documentation. However, the moment that I switch to “production” mode where I’m writing and manipulating data, I find that the landscape orientation feels better. Perhaps it’s the years of conditioning working on computers that have a default landscape orientation. This also ties into my brief fling way back when with the Radius rotating monitors. Despite the fact that you could display an entire document in portrait mode, practically none of the people with those monitors used that mode very often. For some reason when working on a computer screen, mediated by keyboard and mouse, landscape feels better. However, without the mediation of the keyboard and mouse, the plasticity of the orientation options on the iPad changes the experience drastically. Part of this issue also comes from the UI design choices made by developers and the type of activity. The iPad’s left column (landscape mode) that transforms to a pop-over in portrait mode is a perfect view on the operational mode. When I’m interested in reading, the additional data column on the left is a distraction, so I switch to portrait and it disappears. If I need to interact with this data, the pop-over works but it’s non optimal, so I switch back to landscape. I posit that this is yet another subtle difference between the new tactile tablet space and the classic PC model. This is just one of the reasons that I think that the tablet truly is a post-PC device as it encourages different behaviours that on the surface shouldn’t make a difference, but for some yet unknown reason, do. This rejoins my experience in document review where I compose on the computer and print to review. I now print to PDF and use the iPad in portrait mode to review.
iPad vs Air
I’ve just bit the bullet and bought a MacBook Air 11” and am noticing that while the MacBook is clearly a more powerful machine, capable of doing everything I can do on the iPad there are a number of tasks that I find more comfortable on the iPad. When I’m going to meetings, taking notes and managing tasks and calendars I’m so much happier doing this with the iPad, InCase Origami Workstation and Bluetooth keyboard than the MacBook Air. Amusingly, the combination of the MacBook Air and the iPad weighs less than the 13” MacBook Pro I used to use. Granted I have power bricks at home and the office plus and I leave the external keyboard at the office so there’s some ancillary weight that’s not in my bag all of the time. But now my bag feels like a swiss army knife - I’ve got exactly the right tool for each task at hand. That said, I have to admit that the default choice is predominantly the iPad.
A question of ratios
There’s also a subtle difference in the interfaces that is imposed by the forms of the screens. The iPad’s 4:3 ratio is visually pleasing when using apps that have a column of selectable objects to the left and the content on the right. Similar UI designs on the 16:9 MacBook screen do not have the same proportions and as a result it’s less visually pleasing for many types of interfaces. There’s an interesting article over at brooksreview that goes into a little more depth on the subject of orientation (hat tip to Shawn Blanc) that’s well worth reading.
A question of taste
I suspect that this is also why my gut reaction to the 16:9 Android tablets that I’ve tested has been less than enthusiastic. It’s just too wide when doing anything but watch a movie, and that’s fairly low down on my personal use cases. And it’s too tall for reading. Over the last 100 years or so we’ve standardized on paper form factors for everything from pocket books to hard cover books to magazines that all fall into ratios that are closer to the 4:3 than 16:9. As far as I can tell, the only media we consume that is optimized for 16:9 is video content. I don’t have enough data on the evolution of the book to say how we got here, but given the practically unlimited possibilities offered by paper, I’m fairly sure that it wasn’t pure chance.