Swiping left/right to access mulitple attached widgets?

[Brad_Olwin]

@false Pin a different widget.

[false]

@Brad_Olwin Do you think this is good UX?

[Mads Hintz-Madsen]

@false said in Swiping left/right to access mulitple attached widgets?:

@Brad_Olwin Do you think this is good UX?

What do you mean? You pin a favorite widget until you have a new favorite and pin that instead. What’s bad about that?

[false]

@Mads-Hintz-Madsen By default this position on the right is empty. So I see pin/unpin scenario just the same as on/off. Now you have to have your favourite widget but what if you don’t have one? Moreover all of the widgets are on your fingertips on the bottom screen where you can put your favourite widget on the top of the list

As far as I remember, on the previous software I was able to switch off all the widgets and leave with watch face only. It was really good

[Cassie Kim]

Hi I’m from Korea!
This update is absolutely terrible…I can’t focus on work-out even! I didn’t know what’s going on until I found this posting, so I reset my Suunto 9 pro… multiple times!
Please let us just use swiping left and right to access mutiple widgets!

[Brad_Olwin]

@false I prefer this UX over the prior one. I have asked for left to right swipe for one additional widget when testing this UX. So, different from your request, which I understand. If you want a widget you can simply vertical scroll. I get your logic and having no favorite ought to be a choice. Not sure this will get traction but I will mention it.

[A Former User]

@Cassie-Kim There is a poll on the forum and the majority prefer the new UI/UX for now.

[false]

@Brad_Olwin said in Swiping left/right to access mulitple attached widgets?:

but I will mention it.

It will be great. Thanks

[alschmid]

@Brad_Olwin. The question “Swiping left/right” for the widgets VS. the “new UX” apparently has stirred up some fuzz here on the forum. However, being new here, I find the discussion on this productive question took a rather destructive turn. What was missed, is the actual substance of the matter.

Therefore, I’d like to subsequently report on my recent experience. I do so in the hope that we could take up again the discussion in a more constructive way and maybe find a solution forward.

Just activated my Suunto Vertical, apparently with the “old UI” on it (whatever version). Much like described on (the still current) “HOW CAN I CUSTOMIZE THE WIDGETS OF MY SUUNTO WATCH?”, I could scroll through my widgets. Fairly intuitive, I found, also because one could scroll through the widget screens by swiping or the middle-button and getting a good grasp of the state of an athlete’s internal and external conditions.

It seems that the firmware on my watch was updated over night (to 2.33.12). This forced me to pin a widget, resulting in a different UX. The change came quite abrupt, not because the UX changed (differing also from as it described in the manual), but because the changed UI exhibits illogical behavior, some of it being:

a) The user can pin a widget, but not unpin. (Isn’t the logic of pinning that you can unpin whatever you pinned? Otherwise it would rather be two “screens/slots” to be filled.)
b) The user can only pin one widget, but not none, two, or more. (Why is ONE the right number of pin slots? If you can have one, it seems at least you should be able to have zero or better even also more than one.)
c) Widgets that are deactivated on the watch and/or in the smartphone app can still be pinned. (Why would a deactivated widget be “pinnable” at all, and appear when I scroll right, also after I deactived the widget (on the watch and/or the smartphone)? A deactivated widget should not be able to be pinned, leading back to the issues (a) and (b).)
d) Instead of scrolling through the widgets, in the “new UI” (speaking of 2.33.12) one can only scroll through the inventory of the widgets, only after “opening” the widgets does the relevant information become visible. (Why hiding functionality/information in more click depth, when it can be made directly available? The point has been made about gloves and water on the touchscreen etc…)

So, I find the question “old vs. new UI” (as suggested in the poll) is not what the (heated) discussion was or should be about. Also, it’s not a matter of preference or opinion, but logic, intuition, and accessibility (for non Suunto fans). The question would then rather be “how to address the unintuitive UX in the newer versions of the watch UX?”.

A simple solution could be to rename the “pinning” function. This might solve some irritation evoked by the term (esp. against (a) and (b)). However, point and (d) remain unresolved.

Addressing (a), (b) and/or would could solve the terminological confusion as well as it would address the disregarded user needs from those “preferring the old UI”. Think about it: unpinning the ONE would show me all widgest horizontally, or I could pin just all widgets I like to browse through horizontally. Deactivating a widget would unpin it, leaving me with none (or all?) widgest accessible horizontally…

Besides your personal preference (you prefer the “new UI” over the old one, according to the “divisively” formulated poll question), what do you think about the factual arguments on the reservations about the new UX, i.e., the vertical/horizontal arragement and the “depth” of clicks of the widget information?

[Anthony Guillemette]

@alschmid totally agree with your point of view

[Łukasz Szmigiel]

@alschmid I suspect that the answer to some of your questions is performance.

I think that mini widgets have either some form of cache or just less data than a full widget. When entering the widget, some fields can take time to populate suggesting that they load on demand.

As for why can a disabled widget be pinned: to make the list of widgets less cumbersome.

For example - I have a stopwatch pinned to top button and don’t have it on the widgets list. I use it often for tea brewing and cooking so it’s easily accessible without the need to scroll through the widgets.

But I personally agree that more than one pinned widget would be nice.

[alschmid]

Hi @Łukasz-Szmigiel, thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Your points on the cache sound quite plausible. I agree that there might be trade-offs: caching storage capacity, caching vs. battery life etc. However, I’d assume that on-demand loading might buffer some of those trade-offs, and any time-lag for them to laod to be acceptable in light of the convenience to have them “ready at hand”. Also, I’d prefer for such trade-offs to be decided upon by the user, not by unnecessary design limitations. Much like this is the case with the density of the GPS position recording: the more accuracy you choose for the positioning, the less battery life you accept.

Even with your explanation, the pinning and disabling functionalities still confuse me. If you’d be correct, then nothing would be disabled, but only "hidden. Disabling would have made sense to me, assuming it to reduce storage and/or computing resources. Hiding would be fine, too, but only if it’s called like that.

Best, Alex

[Łukasz Szmigiel]

@alschmid we’ll see how the interface evolves. It’s still quite young.