From my experience I wish I had just used valuable screen real estate to begin with and put Menu, Settings, Help on the screen. Almost the number one support question I get is about settings because users don't know that the Menu button can also be used for apps not just phone settings. So what do you think of this blog article about the Menu button going away? http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2012/01/say-goodbye-to-menu-bu...
When I read these I wonder how many Google engineers have any softwre development experience at all "in the trenches?" I wonder if they ever invite local area Android developers in to get an opinion. I'm not asking to be invited though Mountain View is about an hour or less from here but I did go to some Friday afternoon things that Palm had for developers to get opinions.
> From my experience I wish I had just used valuable screen real estate > to begin with and put Menu, Settings, Help on the screen. Almost the > number one support question I get is about settings because users > don't know that the Menu button can also be used for apps not just > phone settings. So what do you think of this blog article about the > Menu button going away? > http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2012/01/say-goodbye-to-menu-bu...
As much as I understand the purpose of the article, my feeling is anger for constantly changing core UI paradigms. What is cool today will suck and will be deprecated tomorrow. Some day, overflown menu will suck too.
From seeing so many problems on this list and elsewhere, I put in physical buttons, though I also react appropriately to the menu button.
The worst part is that, even if you are trying to tell your user in tech support how to access the menu, half the time you can't even say "press the PHYSICAL menu button" -- or even describe it by an icon or what it says -- since a lot of phones have soft buttons, and they all seem to have different icons. And of the phones that have three or four off-screen buttons, they all seem to be in different random orders as well. :(
> From my experience I wish I had just used valuable screen real estate > to begin with and put Menu, Settings, Help on the screen. Almost the > number one support question I get is about settings because users > don't know that the Menu button can also be used for apps not just > phone settings. So what do you think of this blog article about the > Menu button going away? > http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2012/01/say-goodbye-to-menu-bu...
> When I read these I wonder how many Google engineers have any softwre > development experience at all "in the trenches?" I wonder if they > ever invite local area Android developers in to get an opinion. I'm > not asking to be invited though Mountain View is about an hour or less > from here but I did go to some Friday afternoon things that Palm had > for developers to get opinions.
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 9:50:43 PM UTC+1, Tim in Boulder wrote:
Overall it's a tech support nightmare.
And it's just gotten worse with the menu button now going away. I frequently need to tell users to check something in their device's system settings, and it used to be quite easy: "Press Home > Menu > Settings > ..."
I can't even remember any users requiring additional help finding Menu after I sent them directions like that. Presumably even the low-information users knew they had a menu button from their home screen.
Now, though... how are you supposed to direct users to system settings? "If you have ICS on a phone, pull down the status bar and tap the icon with three lines next to the date. If you have Honeycomb or ICS on a tablet, tap the clock, then the icon with three lines on it, then the icon with three lines on it again. Otherwise, press Home > Menu > Settings > ..."
Oh yeah, that'll work well. I'm tempted to just add an item in my own settings activity that will launch the system settings; at least I know how to direct users to that.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Michael Pujos <pujos.mich...@gmail.com>
wrote: > As much as I understand the purpose of the article, my feeling is anger > for constantly changing core UI paradigms.
What is cool today will suck and will be deprecated tomorrow. Some day,
> overflown menu will suck too.
Agreed. Sad, but true.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Tim Mensch <tim.men...@gmail.com> wrote: > ... they all seem to have different icons. And of the phones that have > three or four off-screen buttons, they all seem to be in different random > orders as well. :(
OMG, that pisses me off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- TreKing <http://sites.google.com/site/rezmobileapps/treking> - Chicago transit tracking app for Android-powered devices
On Wednesday, 1 February 2012 05:16:38 UTC+8, String wrote:
> I'm tempted to just add an item in my own settings activity that will > launch the system settings; at least I know how to direct users to that.
I've been doing this for a long time. From within my About screen (only accessible via the menu!) you can click straight through to the App Details (Clear Data, Uninstall etc) screen, Voice Recognition settings, Text-to-Speech settings etc.
On Jan 31, 8:44 pm, Michael Pujos <pujos.mich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31/01/2012 21:28, Brian Conrad wrote:
> > From my experience I wish I had just used valuable screen real estate
> > to begin with and put Menu, Settings, Help on the screen. Almost the
> > number one support question I get is about settings because users
> > don't know that the Menu button can also be used for apps not just
> > phone settings. So what do you think of this blog article about the
> > Menu button going away?
> >http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2012/01/say-goodbye-to-menu-bu...
> As much as I understand the purpose of the article, my feeling is anger
> for constantly changing core UI paradigms.
> What is cool today will suck and will be deprecated tomorrow. Some day,
> overflown menu will suck too.
My thoughts reading the article were a mishmash of
- Why is this article happening now? Couldn't/shouldn't it have
happened a year ago
- What is wrong with calling it a menu. Sure there is overflow but
that happened with the old menu system too
- Why do I feel so confused by the article? Shouldn't this be easy
peasy.
- I should really get around to removing long click from my app.
However many people have trouble with the concept of the menu button
I'm sure more do with long click.
- Do Honeycomb/ICS apps like Gmail and Maps update via the Market now
or only via OS updates?
> It's a total pain but thanks for posting, I learnt that I should be > targetting 13 instead of 14 to make sure I have an overflow visible.
> Pent
The Kindle Fire has no hardware buttons and runs 8. One of the first emails I got from one of those users was how to change settings, help, etc. However about the first item Amazon posts on their "navigating Kindle Fire" web page is how to gt the menu bar to pop up as an overflow bar.
> On Jan 31, 8:44 pm, Michael Pujos<pujos.mich...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 31/01/2012 21:28, Brian Conrad wrote:
>>> From my experience I wish I had just used valuable screen real estate >>> to begin with and put Menu, Settings, Help on the screen. Almost the >>> number one support question I get is about settings because users >>> don't know that the Menu button can also be used for apps not just >>> phone settings. So what do you think of this blog article about the >>> Menu button going away? >>> http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2012/01/say-goodbye-to-menu-bu... >> As much as I understand the purpose of the article, my feeling is anger >> for constantly changing core UI paradigms. >> What is cool today will suck and will be deprecated tomorrow. Some day, >> overflown menu will suck too. > My thoughts reading the article were a mishmash of
> - Why is this article happening now? Couldn't/shouldn't it have > happened a year ago > - What is wrong with calling it a menu. Sure there is overflow but > that happened with the old menu system too > - Why do I feel so confused by the article? Shouldn't this be easy > peasy. > - I should really get around to removing long click from my app. > However many people have trouble with the concept of the menu button > I'm sure more do with long click. > - Do Honeycomb/ICS apps like Gmail and Maps update via the Market now > or only via OS updates?
I get confused trying to figure out the new screen resolution identifiers and worrying about them even working as filters on the Market. Apparently the Market is the only place they work because they don't with the emulators. Other than using it as a marketing gimmick I'm not sure what a 1280x720p buys on a 7" display. It's a little like putting 1080p on a 32" LCD.
Brian Conrad wrote: > I get confused trying to figure out the new screen resolution > identifiers and worrying about them even working as filters on the > Market. Apparently the Market is the only place they work because they > don't with the emulators. Other than using it as a marketing gimmick > I'm not sure what a 1280x720p buys on a 7" display. It's a little like > putting 1080p on a 32" LCD.
I agree it's just so they can say HD screen, your eyes may be able to see the extra detail but you won't notice and your brain will fix any tiny pixelation. Similar to 10 megapixel cameras with a tiny lens just wasting space to sell. CRTs which are higher res than Full HD are only a couple of megapixels. Unfortunately IBM stopped developing the flat CRT.
CRTs are Analog and therefore curved (better, real life) and so can work at any resolution, flat screens can't which is why cleartype in Win XP came about. The media has to match on digital screens to prevent pixelation as curveless means it has to guess where the pixel goes, so credits on a dvd look terrible on a 1080.
P.s. I also think 4:3 is better than 16:9 as a square fits a round pupil better, if the media fit such as some of the footage in Imax Cinemas. I think that's more down to making hollywoods job easier over better, same as IBM ;-).
Pixelation isn't a problem on small screens as your brain fixes the errors digital introduces, otherwise a standard would certainly be needed. It would be far better if there was only one HD.
p.s. Internet HD is never large enough filesize to contain all that data and so likely can't suit any HD screen ;-).
On Jan 31, 12:44 pm, Michael Pujos <pujos.mich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As much as I understand the purpose of the article, my feeling is anger
> for constantly changing core UI paradigms.
I think the headline there, in an effort of eloquence, is a little
misleading. I like the move away from menus, because app functionality
lost in the smartphone shuffle thus far now resides front and center
(top right, rather). Menu, Settings for example can be placed there,
and they appear directly on-screen without any user interaction,
styled like all other apps that use the action bar. It's a bit of a
coding exercise if backward compatibility to 1.6 is needed, but
otherwise I found it pretty straightforward to just go run with the
action bar as described in the blog post and in the SDK
documentation.
I'd also venture to say much of the blame around the menu button would
have to be placed outside of the G. There's devices out there in the
tens of millions where the menu and back buttons aren't even visible
(i.e. lit) unless one of the three keys (home, menu, back) are
pressed.
> P.s. I also think 4:3 is better than 16:9 as a square fits a round > pupil better, if the media fit such as some of the footage in Imax > Cinemas. I think that's more down to making hollywoods job easier over > better, same as IBM ;-).
4:3 is a poor canvas for a film maker though. I prefer 16:9 or even better 21:9. No one is really sure why Edison's engineer chose 4:3 though they think it had something to do with the sprocket hole placement. The Lumiere Brothers chose the 5:3 aspect ratio perhaps because their film was set up for postcard pictures. And believe the actual argument goes our eyes see more like 21:9 than a square canvas (unless you're myopic). There was a good article the other day on why 4K HDTV for the home didn't make sense though they do for theaters. We get 16:9 displays on devices probably because the LCD market went that direction and the desire for users to play videos on them. 16:9 portrait is better than 4:3 for text (remember the Mac text monitors on the 1980s).
I think the legacy support for menus with overflow in ICS still misses
the mark just like menu button did originally in that you still have
to (a) know about it & be able to see it (b) press it just to see if
there are any menu items for any activity even when there is none,
often a wasted interaction. Surely it is a simple thing for legacy
support to have overflow or menu indicated dynamically - that there
are other menu items for an activity when there actually is, ie
actually be context sensitive to the menu state dynamically for the
activity not just one time for the application.
That's probably by design to prod you to update to the next
arrangement.
Regards
On Feb 3, 4:48 am, Brian Conrad <brianjto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > P.s. I also think 4:3 is better than 16:9 as a square fits a round
> > pupil better, if the media fit such as some of the footage in Imax
> > Cinemas. I think that's more down to making hollywoods job easier over
> > better, same as IBM ;-).
> 4:3 is a poor canvas for a film maker though. I prefer 16:9 or even
> better 21:9. No one is really sure why Edison's engineer chose 4:3
> though they think it had something to do with the sprocket hole
> placement. The Lumiere Brothers chose the 5:3 aspect ratio perhaps
> because their film was set up for postcard pictures. And believe the
> actual argument goes our eyes see more like 21:9 than a square canvas
> (unless you're myopic). There was a good article the other day on why
> 4K HDTV for the home didn't make sense though they do for theaters. We
> get 16:9 displays on devices probably because the LCD market went that
> direction and the desire for users to play videos on them. 16:9
> portrait is better than 4:3 for text (remember the Mac text monitors on
> the 1980s).
Brian Conrad wrote: > No one is really sure why Edison's engineer chose 4:3 > though they think it had something to do with the sprocket hole > placement.
I believe the first TV's were 1:1, they would have been round except it's expensive to make round glass. The square glass covers the round edges of the pictures produced by a cathode ray tube.
> And believe the > actual argument goes our eyes see more like 21:9 than a square canvas > (unless you're myopic). There was a good article the other day on why > 4K HDTV for the home didn't make sense though they do for theaters. We > get 16:9 displays on devices probably because the LCD market went that > direction and the desire for users to play videos on them.
I don't believe that, probably stemming from the too simple a test about moving fingers in front of your face I've seen by a university PHOTOGRAPHY LECTURER, not a biologist or brain specialist, we have a focal point as re-affirmed by the uk christmas lectures this year and it has more to do with the creators job and cinema wall shape than the viewer which is what it should be about. We do use peripheral vision to decide to move our focus, and eyelashes etc. may slighlty restrict the vertical but the finger exercise has more to do with the brain having the ability to decide which plane to prioritse at any given moment. Vertical for Batman jumping off a building for example, that was cool at IMAX.
There is no getting away from the fact our pupils are round and IMAX which is 4:3 and charges a premium is far more immersive.
I'm not even sure (I'll start trying it on my tablet) of 16:9 being better for text, it's certainly easier to hold a floppy piece of paper in that shape and people do stop reading sooner apparently if web page lines are too wide, I guess because it feels like they are not getting through the text and will be there all day. I know I prefer 4:3 over 16:9 for browsing in landscape.
Everyone I've ever met hates 21:9. Ask this, why do DVDs on TV almost always have black lines and yet cinemas want the largest pictures possible.
> On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:48:17 -0800 > Brian Conrad wrote:
>> No one is really sure why Edison's engineer chose 4:3 >> though they think it had something to do with the sprocket hole >> placement. > I believe the first TV's were 1:1, they would have been round except > it's expensive to make round glass. The square glass covers the round > edges of the pictures produced by a cathode ray tube.
They were round (think oscilloscopes). There are some YouTube videos of the BBC experiments with TVs in the 1930s. WWII put an end to TV until after the war. Early sets had round screens but with a ceiling and floor edges. Rectangle tubes came later in the early 1950s. Widescreen tube TVs were a problem for engineers to create and flat panels solved the problem. Pixel widths are just engineer methods to display wider images.
>> And believe the >> actual argument goes our eyes see more like 21:9 than a square canvas >> (unless you're myopic). There was a good article the other day on why >> 4K HDTV for the home didn't make sense though they do for theaters. We >> get 16:9 displays on devices probably because the LCD market went that >> direction and the desire for users to play videos on them.
> I don't believe that, probably stemming from the too simple a test > about moving fingers in front of your face I've seen by a university > PHOTOGRAPHY LECTURER, not a biologist or brain specialist, we have a > focal point as re-affirmed by the uk christmas lectures this year and > it has more to do with the creators job and cinema wall shape than the > viewer which is what it should be about. We do use peripheral vision to > decide to move our focus, and eyelashes etc. may slighlty restrict the > vertical but the finger exercise has more to do with the brain having > the ability to decide which plane to prioritse at any given moment. > Vertical for Batman jumping off a building for example, that was cool > at IMAX.
> There is no getting away from the fact our pupils are round and IMAX > which is 4:3 and charges a premium is far more immersive.
Read John Belton's "Widescreen Cinema" which is a definitive book on the subject. Artists long before movies and photography chose wide canvases for landscapes and and square or sideways tall canvases for portraits. Hence the two terms.
> I'm not even sure (I'll start trying it on my tablet) of 16:9 being > better for text, it's certainly easier to hold a floppy piece of paper > in that shape and people do stop reading sooner apparently if web page > lines are too wide, I guess because it feels like they are not getting > through the text and will be there all day. I know I prefer 4:3 over > 16:9 for browsing in landscape.
Portrait modes were first popular on PDAs because most of the software was for lists. And of course most people hold their phones that way but tablets introduce a different paradigm where people want to watch movies on them. I built a version of one of my apps that had tabs for 10" tablets that instead presented everything on the screen using fragments using a landscape layout.
> Everyone I've ever met hates 21:9. Ask this, why do DVDs on TV almost > always have black lines and yet cinemas want the largest pictures > possible.
> Cinema =>$ is my suspicion.
The first widescreen movie was shot back in the late 20's by Warner Brothers. It was a western and there may be a DVD of it. Also the anamorphic lens was invented back then. They dusted off the technology in the early 1950s when people started staying home and watching TV than going to movies. Then there was Cinerama another early immersive technology. Again 4:3 is really only good for talking heads and who wants to watch those all the time. I bought my 53" widescreen HD set in 2000 and was happy to have it since I am a movie buff as well as a videographer. And if you don't like black bars on a 21:9 picture they do make 21:9 LCD screen or at least Phillips had such a set. Many home theater owners have projection setup with screen to accommodate that. My local theater was one of the early theaters in the Bay Area with all digital projection (8 screens). These days they seem to think they're an amusement park with D-Box and 3D. :-D
Brian Conrad wrote: > And if you don't like black bars on a 21:9 picture they > do make 21:9 LCD screen or at least Phillips had such a set.
The only reason I'd buy that would be to burn it. I see video buffs using them with projectors that could do any shape they wanted (limited by choice of media of course) and just think they are sheep who can't think for themself.
Think simply about what you can see without a screen, concentrate on the vertical and then horizontal, do you really think that you see in slats?
You can't fill your vision with widescreen unless you lose the edges. IMAX is the most immersive experience I've had at a cinema purely because it is 4:3.
I believe it comes down to wall shape (cinemas wanting screens as big as possible) and ease of building film sets as well as wall shape in studios.
Big tapestries are widescreen (wall shape), most paintings are almost square.
On Feb 3, 12:26 am, gjs <garyjamessi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I think the legacy support for menus with overflow in ICS still misses
> the mark just like menu button did originally in that you still have
> to (a) know about it & be able to see it (b) press it just to see if
> there are any menu items for any activity even when there is none,
> often a wasted interaction.
As you have found, there are no meaningful menus in ICS any longer.
But this is not the point - from what I can tell, the G wants
everybody to move their menus to the action bar. Gingerbread and prior
will still roll menus, but in HC and forward we get prominent
placement of menu items in the action bar. This applies to items which
are marked accordingly. All other items are accessible through the
action bar flow over, which should be pretty obvious to users, as that
aligns with the prominent action bar icons. This works just like the
menu before, and carries forward what previously were sub menus.
I found this pretty straightforward to implement, even with reflection
needed for backwards compatibility to Android 1.6.
Action bar to me is a clear win and I feel was worth the little effort
it took to get it done.
> On Feb 3, 12:26 am, gjs<garyjamessi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi,
>> I think the legacy support for menus with overflow in ICS still misses >> the mark just like menu button did originally in that you still have >> to (a) know about it& be able to see it (b) press it just to see if >> there are any menu items for any activity even when there is none, >> often a wasted interaction. > As you have found, there are no meaningful menus in ICS any longer. > But this is not the point - from what I can tell, the G wants > everybody to move their menus to the action bar. Gingerbread and prior > will still roll menus, but in HC and forward we get prominent > placement of menu items in the action bar. This applies to items which > are marked accordingly. All other items are accessible through the > action bar flow over, which should be pretty obvious to users, as that > aligns with the prominent action bar icons. This works just like the > menu before, and carries forward what previously were sub menus. > I found this pretty straightforward to implement, even with reflection > needed for backwards compatibility to Android 1.6. > Action bar to me is a clear win and I feel was worth the little effort > it took to get it done.
That really depends on your app layout doesn't it? I suspect it's a piece of cake for simple layout apps but not for ones with more complicated layouts. Perhaps those of us with those should double the app price for the extra work involved. ;-)
> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:42:41 -0800 > Brian Conrad wrote:
>> And if you don't like black bars on a 21:9 picture they >> do make 21:9 LCD screen or at least Phillips had such a set. > The only reason I'd buy that would be to burn it. I see video buffs > using them with projectors that could do any shape they wanted > (limited by choice of media of course) and just think they are sheep who > can't think for themself.
> Think simply about what you can see without a screen, concentrate on > the vertical and then horizontal, do you really think that you see in > slats?
People don't see in slats, they see in an "aspect ratio." I definitely see wider than taller and most people do unless you're "Borg". :-D
> You can't fill your vision with widescreen unless you lose the edges. > IMAX is the most immersive experience I've had at a cinema purely > because it is 4:3.
That depends on where you sit, doesn't it? I sit about 8' from my 53" 16:9 TV and can see the whole screen. So I bet you're weren't a happy camper when the UK went to EDTV? :-D
> I believe it comes down to wall shape (cinemas wanting screens as big > as possible) and ease of building film sets as well as wall shape in > studios.
> Big tapestries are widescreen (wall shape), most paintings are almost > square.
Really? I think you need to get out more often. In the meantime we'll have to agree to disagree. :-)
Brian Conrad <brianjto...@gmail.com> wrote: > People don't see in slats, they see in an "aspect ratio." I definitely > see wider than taller and most people do unless you're "Borg". :-D
Actually it's more "Borg" like than you think. You focus on a point moving your eyes ever so fast, your brain discounts all frames between eye movements. This is a neat trick from the christmas lectures that proves it, try looking in the mirror and see your eyes move even slightly. Your brain is constantly analysing a large CIRCULAR input moving the focus to areas of interest dependeing on educated context and especially movement. You can focus on one point and sort of focus on another but both suffer from brain overload, if you do.
> > You can't fill your vision with widescreen unless you lose the edges. > > IMAX is the most immersive experience I've had at a cinema purely > > because it is 4:3.
> That depends on where you sit, doesn't it? I sit about 8' from my 53" > 16:9 TV and can see the whole screen. So I bet you're weren't a happy > camper when the UK went to EDTV? :-D
Yes and widescreen suits a football match because that's the fields shape but you can't get the "I'm there" feeling like IMAX gives without the edges going beyond your peripheral.
> In the meantime we'll > have to agree to disagree. :-)
Fine by me, it's not like Hollywoods going to spend money making their job harder anyway.
Ironically, often I prefer films on EDTV than DVD/BLURAY because there aren't any black lines. I'm not sure if they cut off the edges or get a bit more from the Master copy.
Considering your field do you know what caused that idiosyncrasy?
> Ironically, often I prefer films on EDTV than DVD/BLURAY because there > aren't any black lines. I'm not sure if they cut off the edges or get a > bit more from the Master copy.
> Considering your field do you know what caused that idiosyncrasy?
Do you have a 4:3 or 16:9 EDTV? In the US many of the channels when they show a 2:35:1 movie will crop it to 16:9. I hate that as you are not seeing the canvas as the director intended. You are missing part of the show. I'll turn off a movie when I see it that way. HBO is famous for it and their scientific research was asking the office staff whether they liked such films letterboxed. Cropped 2:35:1 looks claustrophobic. :-D
> On Feb 3, 11:51 am, Brian Conrad<brianjto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That really depends on your app layout doesn't it? > Actually no, action bars are independent from layouts.
No, I mean the "design" of your apps layout not the xml files. Anyway I tried the compatibility library and determined it wouldn't work with my app so the "design" layout would need to be changed.
From my personal experience with the Action Bar on Honeycomb and ICS I
am not really convinced that the Action Bar is a "clear win". Again
and again I wondered what an icon in an app's Action Bar meant. And
just recently I pressed the wrong icon in the email app and never
found that mail again, just because I was not sure which of the icons
was meant to mark the email as unread again. With a normal menu there
is usually (or always?) an item description that the user can read
alongside an icon for quickly recognizing the functionality. So if a
user is unsure what the icon in the menu means he can always read the
menu item text. An Action Bar does not have this possibility. If the
user does not get what the icon means then he has no means of finding
it out. For me that is a very bad user experience.
I fully understand that the menu button has its problems. I also had
emails from users which missed functionality in my apps which was
clearly accessible had they only ever clicked on the menu button. So I
agree that a menu button alone is not sufficient since a part of the
users never uses it. What I would have preferred, instead of moving
completely away from the menu to the Action Bar, is offering both,
i.e. have an Action Bar so that users can see the app options on the
screen _and_ a menu where he can match icons to a brief description of
what the icon means and a simple way to access more app options than
visible with the few icons in the Action Bar. That's what I would have
liked to see as a user. And this way I have implemented it in my apps,
using a normal menu and a hand-crafted kind of Action Bar.
Just my 2 cents
On 3 Feb., 19:32, JP <joachim.pfeif...@gmail.com> wrote:
