多位消費電子研究工程師在一場研討會上一致認為,嵌入式系統開發向標準化平臺發展的趨勢將必定加快。其中的諸多原因,都在07年最具影響力的消費電子產品iPhone上體現了出來。

Smart Design公司交互設計總監Jason Smart認為iPhone是“以用戶為中心的設計”的典型,響應了Tech Online總編Patrick Mannion關于iPhone是“軟件設計和消費者體驗的完美佳作”的說法。

Portelligent公司總裁David Carey把iPhone稱作一個“玻璃駕駛艙”,其最卓越功能是“幾乎完全消除了鍵盤的需要”,將用戶引入其觸摸屏的完美體驗。他認為iPhone的成功讓工程師重新考慮消費者使用電子設備的方式。

反過來,這又使得設計的重點從嵌入到產品的硬件,向能夠實現應用并詳細描述用戶界面的軟件轉變。

Carey說,當他的公司在某個產品時,第一件事情就是帶回家“讓老婆和孩子測試一下”。他想知道它的用戶界面是否能讓他的技術知識相對欠缺的家人很快就能上手,而不需要求助于用戶手冊。他表示,在這樣的測試中,很多產品都顯現了很高的故障率,十有八九會出現“影響可用性的重大缺陷。”

關于這一點,LinuxWorks公司營銷副總裁Robert Day援引了VCR的例子,將之稱為一個無法通過“家人測試”的經典失敗案例。他指出,有很多人從來都沒有學過如何去設置他們的VCR,甚至連時間設置都不會。但是VCR的后繼者TiVo卻能夠“在幾分鐘之內讓小孩和非技術人員學會操作”。

Robert Day表示:“這是一個巨大的成功,而這都是軟件帶來的成果。它是一個開放式標準平臺,不僅可靠,還帶有一個一流的用戶界面。”

國家儀器營銷和客戶運作副總裁John Graff舉了另一個例子 - 為Lego設計的機器人玩具,來講述軟件是如何簡化嵌入式系統以便于消費者使用的。他說,在開發一個孩子們必須能操作的界面時,精簡的才是更好的。

Graff表示,在這些玩具取得成功之后,他提倡他的工程師要在非消費型產品的設計上開始采用不同的思考方式。“我們將這些產品的功能放到一個專業的環境中去驗證。”

研討會的與會人員一致認為,要簡化一個電子產品以使之更簡單易用,反而需要更復雜的軟件設計。Smart說:“每個產品都有很多層功能,其中沒有一個是緊密關聯的。要解決這一問題,就需要另一個本身就很復雜的軟件層讓一個非常復雜的應用顯得非常簡單。”

Carey指出:“另一個導致向標準化平臺過渡的趨勢以及更多依靠軟件的原因,就是產品的成本因素。隨著芯片設計成本升高到一個極高的水平,工程師往往會習慣性地認為前一年的硬件設計是足夠的,至少可以再用一年。為了降低成本,軟件創新可以給舊芯片帶來新活力。我們要摒棄那種認為產品內部硬件創新是成功關鍵的想法。”

他說:“工程師應該不停地問自己,在某款芯片設計真正過時之前,他們能使用多長的時間？”

另一個迫使設計人員必須將在硬件之上依賴軟件程序的趨勢,則是將不同產品集成到單個環境中的需要。研討會的與會人員舉了這么一個例子 - 汽車的儀表板:它正在快速向一個顯示屏發展,顯示從音頻、視頻、引擎診斷信息、衛星導航到交通警報的所有信息。要避免產生混亂,就必須設計出一套能夠有效地將各個元件集成到一起的硬件。

國家儀器的Graff表示:“有很多產品雖然功能齊全,卻無法滿足快速上市的要求,除非能夠將更多的重點放在軟件設計上。”

回到iPhone這個話題上,Portelligent公司的Carey將摩爾定律和消費者進行了對比。他說:“按照摩爾定律,所有的數字式電子設備確實能每隔18個月就可在性能和功能上增長一倍,但是用戶接受產品的步伐卻跟不上。人的大腦機能不可能每18個月就增強一倍。”

他指出,當很多蘋果在手機領域的競爭對手都千方百計要滿足摩爾定律,以消費者無法接受其“創新”的速度推出大量新產品和新應用時,蘋果卻前進得“非常慢”,從iPhone問世以來僅僅推出了兩到三款新版本。

他說:“蘋果對此非常滿意,因為iPhone的銷量穩步提升,消費者也逐漸被帶動起來。有時候你必須慢下來,才能醞釀下一次加速。”

翻頁查看英文原文:

IPhone nudging embedded design toward standard

The trend toward standardized platforms for development of embedded systems is almost certain to accelerate, according to a panel of engineers who study consumer behavior. Many of the reasons for their conclusion are embodied in the most influential consumer device of the past year: Apple's iPhone.

A panelist at the Embedded Systems Conference here this week, Jason Short, director of interaction design at Smart Design, referred to the iPhone as the epitome of "user-centered design." He echoed the words of moderator Patrick Mannion, editor-in-chief of Tech Online, who called the iPhone "a feat of software design and consumer enablement."

David Carey, who heads the "de-engineering" firm Portelligent, praised the iPhone poetically as a "glass cockpit" whose most significant feature was "almost dispensing fully with the keyboard" and directing the user toward the device's touch-activated screen. The success of iPhone is influencing engineers to reconsider the way consumers use electronic devices, Carey said.

In turn, this reconsideration has shifted design emphasis away from hardware embedded in a device and toward software that enables applications and defines the user interface.

Carey said that when his company reviews a device, an initial step involves taking it home for "the wife and kids to test." He wants to see if the user interface allows his relatively non-technical family to engage with it immediately, without resorting to the user manual. He said the failure rate in this test is "abysmal." Nine of ten devices tend to pose "some significant wall to usability."

Elaborating on the "usability wall," Robert Day, vice president of marketing at LinuxWorks Inc., cited the VCR as a classic "wife-and-kids test" failure. Few people, he said, ever learned to program or even set the time on their VCR. The antidote to the VCR, however, is TiVo, said Day, which can be operated by children and "non-engineering folks within minutes."

"It's a huge success and it's all software. It's an open-standard platform, it's reliable and it has a good user interface."

As further example of using standard software to simplify an embedded system for consumer ease-of-use, offered by John Graff, vice president of marketing and customer operations at National Instruments, were robotic toys designed for Lego. When developing an interface that children must understand, "less is more," said Graff.

When the toys succeeded, said Graff, they prompted his engineers to think differently about designing non-consumer devices. "We were taking functions out of it and putting them into a professional environment."

The panelists agreed that simplifying an electronic device, to make it more user-friendly, tends ironically to require a higher level of complexity in software design. "There are layers of functions in devices," said Short, "and none of it is very coherent." The solution is another layer of software " complicated in itself " that "makes a very complex application seem very simple."

Another reason for shifting toward more standard platforms and a broader dependence on software, said Carey, is cost. "As chip design costs go really stratospheric," engineers are getting "used to the idea that last year's hardware design is really adequate," at least for another year. For much less expense, he said, software innovations can breathe new life into old chips. "We need to abandon the notion that hardware innovation in the inside is the key to success."

Engineers should be asking, he added, "How long can I whip this horse before it really is out of date?"

A further trend forcing designers to layer over hardware with software applications is the need to integrate different devices in a single environment. The panelists' example was the dashboard of a car, which is fast becoming a display screen, offering everything from audio and video to engine diagnostics, satellite navigation and traffic alerts. Designing hardware that effectively stitches together the various elements of this electronic dash in every make and model is a recipe for confusion.

Said Graff of National Instruments, "A range of devices, all functional in there, can't meet time-to-market unless there is a measure of integration in those components," integration that requires "a lot more focus on design of software."

Circling back around to the genius of iPhone, Portelligent's Carey compared Moore's Law to its consumer alter ego, "Demi Moore's Law." Although digital electronics can indeed double capacity and power every 18 months, said Carey, "the user's ability to take on all this technology" can't keep up. "Our brain does not double every 18 months."

He noted that while many of Apple's competitors in the mobile phone industry struggle to keep pace with Moore's Law, flooding the market with new models and new applications faster than consumers can absorb the "innovations," Apple has moved "very slowly," offering only two or three variations in its basic product since its inception.

"Apple is very satisfied to go very slowly, shipping its product and very slowly bringing the consumer along," he said. "Sometimes you have to slow down to speed up."