I think one part is finding the right domain for innovative UI. I often see a weird UI on a tool I use once a year for a couple minutes. I would very much prefer it use the OS default, clunky UI everything else has even if it's less efficient. Going off the trodden path usually means things like shortcut-keys or scripting breaks.
We give a lot more latitude for "professional" apps (where we spend hours every day using). Often, those UIs are built up historically. I was watching an iPad thinking how much of a mess it would be to show them all of this on day 1.
A car infotainment system would be an interesting place to innovate. I don't know if it's because car companies have squandered goodwill or if I rent/borrow too many cars, but now I just want to use my phone to plug in and prefer knobs over touch screens.
That's a great area for improvement. Controlling a car absolutely needs a good physical controller that is very close (conceptually) to our human muscle structure. But what do car companies use for their new systems? Touch screens, the absolute worst choice for keeping your eyes on the road.
It also streamlines their work. Physical controls interfere with the design of the car, making changes and iterations more expensive. With touchscreens, the design process boils down to placing a screen somewhere, and they can pawn off UI design and software to another department or to a subcontractor.
We give a lot more latitude for "professional" apps (where we spend hours every day using). Often, those UIs are built up historically. I was watching an iPad thinking how much of a mess it would be to show them all of this on day 1.
A car infotainment system would be an interesting place to innovate. I don't know if it's because car companies have squandered goodwill or if I rent/borrow too many cars, but now I just want to use my phone to plug in and prefer knobs over touch screens.