These days, clients often mention the iPhone when describing their thoughts and goals concerning usability and user interface design, e.g. during project kickoffs.

On the one hand it’s nice to see user interface design and usability getting a good rap through the iPhone and more people realizing that the user interface is more than just the topping on the cake, but still, whenever those “Make it like the iPhone” statements are uttered, there are some things to discuss to set expectations appropriately.

First, it should be clarified that such a statement can be interpreted in two different ways. For one, it can mean “Make the user interface as easy to use and aesthetical as the iPhone’s”, which usually is the intended meaning. But it can also be interpreted as “Conduct the user interface design project in a way similar to the iPhone creation”, which is usually not the intended meaning, even though those two aspects are intimately intertwined.

Let’s have a look at both aspects.

“Make the user interface as easy to use and aesthetical as the iPhone’s”

This is basically demanding the “iPhone-ization” of a user interface. The first thing to notice here is that the iPhone applications one the one hand are constrained to a 3.5’’ display, on the other hand benefit from the multi-touch functionality. So the first refinement of the statement that should probably be made regarding the gross part of user interfaces is: “OK, like the iPhone but of course with a bigger screen and without multi-touch. But as easy to use and aesthetical.” Even if we leave aside for a moment that the iPhone user experience really results from the combination of hardware and software, it should be noted that the individual iPhone applications are of little to moderate complexity and that the device is not intended for working nine to five. (Even though spreadsheet applications for the iPhone exist, you probably would not want to give away your workstation to work with those from now on.) So the wish should be stated even more precisely: “Like the iPhone, with a bigger screen, without multi-touch, providing all required functionality in an environment that can serve as main solution for productive use over longer periods of time. But still offer user experience without compromises.” That wish is more precise and this is where the second aspect mentioned above comes into play, namely the way the user interface design project is conducted. Treating user experience / user interface design as paramount is easily said, so let’s have a look at what it meant in case of the iPhone.

“Conduct user interface design project in a way similar to the iPhone creation”

To get an impression of the iPhone development process, this Wired article is a good starting point. Some aspects that are mentioned regarding the design and development are:

“Apple retained complete control over the design, manufacturing, and marketing of the iPhone”

Even if we leave aside the hardware part, this still means that Apple – think: the user interface designer – had the last word concerning the user interface design and how it is communicated. A large part of real-life user interface design projects do not get even close. This is not to say that absolute power for the user interface designer is always necessary or feasible, but it is often a good thing evaluating just how much freedom can be granted.

“An iPhone would require Apple to create a completely new operating system …. radically stripped down and rewritten”

This means that existing solutions and frameworks were rigorously put into question in order to create exactly the environment in which the final product would flourish. Again, in real-life projects, starting from scratch is mostly not an option. Instead, the technical constraints are more or less fixed. Analogous to the previous point, even though completely adapting the technical landscape to the to-be-designed user interface may not be an option, it may be worth evaluating where technical constraints could impair the intended user experience and assessing the effort it would mean “tweaking” those constraints. This is a superior approach compared to leaving technical consideration out of scope from the beginning.

“One insider estimates that Apple spent roughly $150 million building the iPhone” (and from the first idea to market introduction, about five years passed)

That one needs no comment except: time and money were not only invested in hardware development.

So what are we to make of this? Of course, in most cases, good user interface design can not only be achieved by implementing a project of iPhone development proportions. But it can be helpful being aware of some of the conjunctures that made the iPhone great. The basic question is: how much weight is one willing to give to user interface design and how does one ensure that the corresponding efforts do not simply go up in smoke. And then of course, one should have realistic expectations regarding how simple the interface for an application can get. A good user interface design can do impressive things in terms of “packaging” functionality in the way that is really easy to handle, but one should not expect that any interface can be reduced to three buttons.

But if one keeps all that in mind, yes, “Make it like the iPhone” is a good way of saying: “We really take good user interface design seriously”.