iPhone = Excellent
John
have had thousands available. The system is so easy to use that even total
idiots like Sandman would have no problem.
Steve de Mena
I got one too. Waited from 6-7PM at an ATT store
where the line wasn't moving and no one seemed to
know what was happening. Around 7PM I went to the
Apple Store in the Beverly Center (Los Angeles)
and by 8:30 I had one. (If I had understood I
needed a green ticket to wait in the main line I
would have had one sooner).
Everyone very friendly at the Apple store.
Steve
John
"Steve de Mena" <ste...@stevedemena.com> wrote in message
news:4685e64e$0$24695$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Waited in line at my ATT Store and then they came out and said they only had
37. My local Apple Store had at least 1000.
asjb...@gmail.com
Yeah, too bad you can't actually DO anything with the thing for a
smartphone.
3d java games? Nope.
Just ANY java games at all, like on the Cingular store? No.
IM? Even third party downloadable Java IM apps? No.
Picture sharing? Video? No.
Editing documents or spreadsheets or presentation docs? No.
Oh, yeah, it has Google Maps Mobile, something that any $49 feature
phone with java can also do.
http://www.google.com/gmm/index.html
It also has a slow-ass browser that takes 2 MINUTES to load yahoo.com,
when Opera Mini running on a $49 phone takes 10 SECONDS to complete
the same page.
gimme_this...@yahoo.com
I got one too. I'm not a total idiot but I'll let you know how it
goes:-)
Sandman
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Haha! :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Ubergeek
Hey don't upset iphoners with FACTS. After all, they're iphone makes
them COOOOOL!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Peter Hayes
There's some total idiots here,
<http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-Apple-iPhone-8GB-PDA-Cell-Phone-AT-T-TRUSTED-SE
LLER_W0QQitemZ160133142080QQihZ006QQcategoryZ64355QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem>
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
Oxford
> It also has a slow-ass browser that takes 2 MINUTES to load yahoo.com,
> when Opera Mini running on a $49 phone takes 10 SECONDS to complete
> the same page.
you are a complete LIAR, I just tested www.yahoo.com that was NOT cached.
11 seconds on the iPhone using Safari.
Buzz... Opera Mini has NOTHING on the iPhone. Maybe 1 second, but the
quality of the screen is freakishly clear and easy to navigate. Opera
Mini looks like a play toy in comparison.
Oxford
>
> Hey don't upset iphoners with FACTS. After all, they're iphone makes
> them COOOOOL!
you'll see! it's all about the fact the iPhone IS COOL, very cool, way
better than expected. WAY BETTER!
ZnU
empty-handed. I wouldn't have waited if I'd known it would take that
long. There weren't so many people there. AT&T was just taking 10
minutes to ring each customer up, plus apparently (from a conversation I
had with an employee) only one person had a key to the iPhones, so it
took a while to get each one out. Plus, AT&T's new order processing
system, which apparently had just been rolled out, went down for 15
minutes a couple times.
Anyway, I swung by the Apple store on Fifth Ave. today, not really
expecting them to have any. It was massively crowded, but apparently
Apple, unlike AT&T, actually knows how to run a high-volume retail
operation. 10 minutes later I walked out the door with an 8 GB iPhone.
Apple, rather than keeping them all under lock and key, just had them
stacked up by the hundreds in the cabinets behind the checkout line. You
could go up and ask for one, and check out in a about a minute.
Some people have been reporting activation problems, but I didn't have
any. My phone was activated in about 10 minutes (including entering my
info), and my number had been ported from T-Mobile within about 40
minutes.
So, how's the phone? Well, there's too much to discuss in detail. I'll
just say, it's hard to make a phone that justifies a $600 price tag.
Apple has done it. I get the same sort of feeling I got the first time I
used a Mac, all those years ago. Someone is finally doing things right.
This is the future.
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
asjb...@gmail.com
> Buzz... Opera Mini has NOTHING on the iPhone. Maybe 1 second, but the
> quality of the screen is freakishly clear and easy to navigate. Opera
> Mini looks like a play toy in comparison.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/technology/circuits/27pogue.html?_r=3&pagewa
The New York Times's home page takes 55 seconds to appear; Amazon.com,
100 seconds; Yahoo. two minutes. You almost ache for a dial-up modem.
Btw, the opera mini 4 looks like the iphone safari, plus you don't
need to throw away $600 to get and use it...you can use a $49, or
even a freebie phone.
Sandman
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
Great to hear! Always enjoy your input on these sort of things.
--
Sandman[.net]
Oxford
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/technology/circuits/27pogue.html?_r=3&pagewa
> The New York Times's home page takes 55 seconds to appear; Amazon.com,
> 100 seconds; Yahoo. two minutes. You almost ache for a dial-up modem.
>
> Btw, the opera mini 4 looks like the iphone safari, plus you don't
> need to throw away $600 to get and use it...you can use a $49, or
> even a freebie phone.
sure, but who wants to use a crappy $49 phone? just spend the money and
get the best, that way you don't have any regrets.
ZnU
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Incidentally, I was over at my mother's place today, and I let her play
with the iPhone. She's a technophobe -- she basically can't stand
anything tech-related, and has refused to get a cell phone for years.
But she was interested in getting a quick tour of the iPhone, I guess
because of all the media attention... and she loved the thing! Not only
that, but she figured out how to do a couple of things without my
showing her.
I think techies, even those of us talking up the iPhone's UI, are
underestimating exactly how much of a difference it's going to make for
all those people who don't really enjoy tech stuff the way we do, but
still want a capable device.
Snit
znu-645B14.0...@individual.net on 7/1/07 9:14 PM:
>>> So, how's the phone? Well, there's too much to discuss in detail. I'll
>>> just say, it's hard to make a phone that justifies a $600 price tag.
>>> Apple has done it. I get the same sort of feeling I got the first time I
>>> used a Mac, all those years ago. Someone is finally doing things right.
>>> This is the future.
>>
>> Great to hear! Always enjoy your input on these sort of things.
>
> Incidentally, I was over at my mother's place today, and I let her play
> with the iPhone. She's a technophobe -- she basically can't stand
> anything tech-related, and has refused to get a cell phone for years.
>
> But she was interested in getting a quick tour of the iPhone, I guess
> because of all the media attention... and she loved the thing! Not only
> that, but she figured out how to do a couple of things without my
> showing her.
>
> I think techies, even those of us talking up the iPhone's UI, are
> underestimating exactly how much of a difference it's going to make for
> all those people who don't really enjoy tech stuff the way we do, but
> still want a capable device.
That is the genius of Apple. The Mac, especially with iLife, allows users
such as your mother (from what you describe) be able to - with little help
and training - be able to get pictures from a camera into a computer, edit
them, make them into a movie with transitions and titles and other effects,
and then make that into a DVD. The Mac allows folks like her to be able to
easily view attached images on her email. The Mac allows for all this and
more even if she does not understand what a file or a folder are. No other
OS does that... at least none I have ever seen.
The iPod is much the same - it does not have every bell and whistle as the
competitors, but it is not about adding every feature under the sun - it is
about allowing users to *do* things. And they do. In droves.
The iPhone *seems* to be the same idea... and if it is then Apple just might
be altering yet another industry.
Now will they make a VCR? :)
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
John
"ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:znu-645B14.0...@individual.net...
iPhone is the first cell phone I have ever owned that I didn't have to RTFM
to use 100% of its functions. An amazing GUI!!
Sandman
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > Great to hear! Always enjoy your input on these sort of things.
>
> Incidentally, I was over at my mother's place today, and I let her play
> with the iPhone. She's a technophobe -- she basically can't stand
> anything tech-related, and has refused to get a cell phone for years.
>
> But she was interested in getting a quick tour of the iPhone, I guess
> because of all the media attention... and she loved the thing! Not only
> that, but she figured out how to do a couple of things without my
> showing her.
>
> I think techies, even those of us talking up the iPhone's UI, are
> underestimating exactly how much of a difference it's going to make for
> all those people who don't really enjoy tech stuff the way we do, but
> still want a capable device.
Yeah, I'm always cautious about making any statements about how easy
to use the OSX UI is, because, well - it actually isn't all that easy.
It may be easier tan other UI's, but it's still a very abstract way to
work with data.
The iPhone doesn't have the concept of applications, or even "quit".
As far as I can tell, the only multitasking application is the phone
application. If you hit the home button, the application you're in
"quits". Other applications open up to their last view, but may not be
running when other applications are at the front.
This is why it feels super-snappy all the time. It reminds me of how
Palm (used to) handle this as well.
iPhone also doesn't have cut/paste or even the concept of text
selections. It really seems to be super easy, without superficial
fluff or features you actually don't need.
I can't wait to get one.
--
Sandman[.net]
ed
news:mr-A6CDB8.07...@News.Individual.NET...
<snip>
> Yeah, I'm always cautious about making any statements about how easy
> to use the OSX UI is, because, well - it actually isn't all that easy.
> It may be easier tan other UI's, but it's still a very abstract way to
> work with data.
>
> The iPhone doesn't have the concept of applications, or even "quit".
> As far as I can tell, the only multitasking application is the phone
> application. If you hit the home button, the application you're in
> "quits". Other applications open up to their last view, but may not be
> running when other applications are at the front.
that can't be right- it's gotta be able to play music while playing w/ other
apps, no?
<snip>
gimme_this...@yahoo.com
They had about 120 iPhones stacked behind the cash registers and it
took less than 3 minutes for me to get my phone at 8:40 pm last Friday
night.
I didn't expect I'd like or use the YouTube application, but turned
out to be delighted at how cool it is to use. I searched on Malkin and
watched several hilarious vids.
The one thing I didn't figure out on my own was toggling the alpha and
numeric keyboards.
My 14 year old step kid navigated right to the phone, right to
contacts, and added her name (and later her picture) in less than 60
seconds - without having ever touched the phone before.
ZnU
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
The iPhone exemplifies a couple of important recent trends in UI design.
The first of these is context over consistency. In the early days of
graphical interfaces, developers were encouraged to do as much as
possible to be consistent with the OS and the other apps. Use standard
controls, place them in standard places, implement things like scrolling
in the standard way.
More recently, another school of thought has emerged -- create UI that
best fits the task. Not UI that's the same everywhere, but UI that feels
the most natural within a given *context*.
The iPhone does this in a bunch of ways. For instance, scrolling your
contacts list works differently from scrolling a web page, and keys on
the virtual keyboard change depending on the data entry requirements of
the field you're in.
The other trend it exemplifies is the increasing bias toward in-context
commands. On the iPhone, there are almost no cases (I can't think off
any off the top of my head) where the user first selects an object, and
then selects a command elsewhere. Rather, operations on objects are
carried out using command buttons on the objects themselves or by
directly manipulating the objects in other ways. This greatly increases
discoverability.
Together with the touch interface, these features help to make iPhone
apps feel more like little objects that you're interacting with, than
like typical computer applications.
Apple enhances this feeling in various ways. For instance, where desktop
OS X uses checkboxes, the iPhone uses switches, that you drag to flip.
And the fluid movement between screens and between apps makes you feel
almost like you're navigating a single coherent physical space when
you're moving around the UI. Even the screen is an important element,
because the resolution means you don't really see individual pixels,
which again makes the thing feel more like it's something other than a
computing device.
Yeah, it doesn't have copying or pasting. They would be nice, as would a
more convenient way to erase large amounts of text. I've been thinking
about how to best do these things, and the conclusion I've come to is
that you *don't* want to introduce text selection. Rather, there should
be a way to bring up a little toolbar with copy and erase tools, and a
paste button. You would pick the tool, then you would apply it directly
to the text you want to manipulate. That would, IMO, work much better
than porting desktop text editing metaphors to a touch-based UI.
BTW, the pinch-to-zoom gesture, which some were saying a while back they
didn't consider intuitive? I did show it to my mother; she asked me how
to zoom. But usually whenever I show her something on a computer, she
tells me to slow down and starts taking notes. This she got in about two
seconds.
Snit
mr-A6CDB8.07...@News.Individual.NET on 7/1/07 10:37 PM:
> In article <znu-645B14.0...@individual.net>,
> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> Great to hear! Always enjoy your input on these sort of things.
>>
>> Incidentally, I was over at my mother's place today, and I let her play
>> with the iPhone. She's a technophobe -- she basically can't stand
>> anything tech-related, and has refused to get a cell phone for years.
>>
>> But she was interested in getting a quick tour of the iPhone, I guess
>> because of all the media attention... and she loved the thing! Not only
>> that, but she figured out how to do a couple of things without my
>> showing her.
>>
>> I think techies, even those of us talking up the iPhone's UI, are
>> underestimating exactly how much of a difference it's going to make for
>> all those people who don't really enjoy tech stuff the way we do, but
>> still want a capable device.
>
> Yeah, I'm always cautious about making any statements about how easy
> to use the OSX UI is, because, well - it actually isn't all that easy.
> It may be easier tan other UI's, but it's still a very abstract way to
> work with data.
While the Mac is not ideal it is well ahead of the competition. Things
"common" users look to do:
* Surf the web: while there are pros and cons for different OSs and
browsers, really the defaults on OS X and Windows and most desktop Linux
distros meet the basic "needs" fairly well.
* Email: again, there are pros and cons, but those "needs" are met well.
* Digital Media: Here OS X has a *huge* advantage... the difference, for
many, between being able to make excellent products vs. not being able to do
squat. The fact that iLife allows a user to to do so much without even
having to understand the concept of a folder or file is simply amazing.
* Working with multiple applications: for the most part, again, OS X has an
advantage here: the Dock is easy to use and applications do not get opened
multiple times... as they do in most other OSs.
For the average non-techy user the Mac is easier... hard to argue otherwise,
though possible, perhaps, with specific tasks or desired workflows. And, of
course, this does not imply the Mac is the best tool for every "job"...
> The iPhone doesn't have the concept of applications, or even "quit".
> As far as I can tell, the only multitasking application is the phone
> application. If you hit the home button, the application you're in
> "quits". Other applications open up to their last view, but may not be
> running when other applications are at the front.
Well - music, presumably, continues to play... and you can have multiple web
pages open and easily jump between the open pages. I assume that those
pages stay open even when you jump to other applications. Same can be said
for multiple "tasks" given to different widgets, such as the weather widget
which can "look" at multiple cities.
> This is why it feels super-snappy all the time. It reminds me of how
> Palm (used to) handle this as well.
>
> iPhone also doesn't have cut/paste or even the concept of text
> selections. It really seems to be super easy, without superficial
> fluff or features you actually don't need.
Hmmm, I wonder if you can copy parts of a webpage and email it... not that I
have seen.
>
> I can't wait to get one.
Weren't you pretty lackluster about the iPhone not long ago? If so (I did
not check your past posts - but I think that is right), what changed your
mind?
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Sandman
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
Of course. Forgot about that. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
>> iPhone also doesn't have cut/paste or even the concept of text
>> selections. It really seems to be super easy, without superficial
>> fluff or features you actually don't need.
>>
>> I can't wait to get one.
>
> The iPhone exemplifies a couple of important recent trends in UI design.
>
> The first of these is context over consistency. In the early days of
> graphical interfaces, developers were encouraged to do as much as
> possible to be consistent with the OS and the other apps. Use standard
> controls, place them in standard places, implement things like scrolling
> in the standard way.
>
> More recently, another school of thought has emerged -- create UI that
> best fits the task. Not UI that's the same everywhere, but UI that feels
> the most natural within a given *context*.
Had not thought much about that - but I think you are largely right. Apple
has been playing with this and is now pulling back a bit with 10.5 and
trying to get all windows to have a more unified look.
> The iPhone does this in a bunch of ways. For instance, scrolling your
> contacts list works differently from scrolling a web page, and keys on
> the virtual keyboard change depending on the data entry requirements of
> the field you're in.
>
> The other trend it exemplifies is the increasing bias toward in-context
> commands. On the iPhone, there are almost no cases (I can't think off
> any off the top of my head) where the user first selects an object, and
> then selects a command elsewhere.
Well, each application is an "object" and then you select commands in those
applications, but there is nothing I can think of like, say, a
Photoshop-like toolbar where you change what a touch will do.
> Rather, operations on objects are carried out using command buttons on the
> objects themselves or by directly manipulating the objects in other ways. This
> greatly increases discoverability.
>
> Together with the touch interface, these features help to make iPhone
> apps feel more like little objects that you're interacting with, than
> like typical computer applications.
>
> Apple enhances this feeling in various ways. For instance, where desktop
> OS X uses checkboxes, the iPhone uses switches, that you drag to flip.
> And the fluid movement between screens and between apps makes you feel
> almost like you're navigating a single coherent physical space when
> you're moving around the UI. Even the screen is an important element,
> because the resolution means you don't really see individual pixels,
> which again makes the thing feel more like it's something other than a
> computing device.
>
> Yeah, it doesn't have copying or pasting. They would be nice, as would a
> more convenient way to erase large amounts of text. I've been thinking
> about how to best do these things, and the conclusion I've come to is
> that you *don't* want to introduce text selection. Rather, there should
> be a way to bring up a little toolbar with copy and erase tools, and a
> paste button. You would pick the tool, then you would apply it directly
> to the text you want to manipulate. That would, IMO, work much better
> than porting desktop text editing metaphors to a touch-based UI.
Makes sense...
> BTW, the pinch-to-zoom gesture, which some were saying a while back they
> didn't consider intuitive? I did show it to my mother; she asked me how
> to zoom. But usually whenever I show her something on a computer, she
> tells me to slow down and starts taking notes. This she got in about two
> seconds.
I have not used an iPhone, but the pinch does look pretty easy... as does
most of the UI in general.
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Sandman
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> The iPhone exemplifies a couple of important recent trends in UI design.
>
> The first of these is context over consistency. In the early days of
> graphical interfaces, developers were encouraged to do as much as
> possible to be consistent with the OS and the other apps. Use standard
> controls, place them in standard places, implement things like scrolling
> in the standard way.
>
> More recently, another school of thought has emerged -- create UI that
> best fits the task. Not UI that's the same everywhere, but UI that feels
> the most natural within a given *context*.
>
> The iPhone does this in a bunch of ways. For instance, scrolling your
> contacts list works differently from scrolling a web page, and keys on
> the virtual keyboard change depending on the data entry requirements of
> the field you're in.
>
> The other trend it exemplifies is the increasing bias toward in-context
> commands. On the iPhone, there are almost no cases (I can't think off
> any off the top of my head) where the user first selects an object, and
> then selects a command elsewhere. Rather, operations on objects are
> carried out using command buttons on the objects themselves or by
> directly manipulating the objects in other ways. This greatly increases
> discoverability.
>
> Together with the touch interface, these features help to make iPhone
> apps feel more like little objects that you're interacting with, than
> like typical computer applications.
Exactly. And I wonder how this will change OSX in the long run? Can
it? Could Apple pull off a total makeover of its UI? Maybe not.
But with its simplistic Dashboard UI (which, really, is a lot like
iPhone) I bet this kind of UI could possibly creep into general
applications. It's typically something you see in fairly modern web
apps, and in some desktop apps (like, say, the eject button next to
the camera device in iPhoto).
But this only works when it is discoverable, like the big red "delete"
in the contact list in iPhone. An iPhone contact in list view has
exactly two actions. View it or delete it. The most obvious action
(click it) leads to view, and the big red button leads to a delete
confirmation.
List view items in desktop application generally have more actions.
Like duplicate, options, edit, make alias and so on. I have been
struggling with that when it comes to my web applications, having
different solutions. One is one big "Edit" button in the header, which
reveals multiple action buttons on each list item. Or an edit control
on each list item that pops open a control view. But neither is
discoverable in the sense of "How do I delete this? Ah!" kind of way.
--
Sandman[.net]
ZnU
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
The UI makes no distinction between opening and closing apps, and
switching between them. What happens technically is anyone's guess. A
lot of the apps clearly continue to perform related functions in the
background -- music plays, e-mail checks, etc. Web pages even load in
the background (so you can go do something else while waiting for EDGE).
It's not clear exactly under what circumstances the iPhone quits
background apps vs. leaving them open.
The thing does appear to have 128 MB of memory (which is the number I
guessed at back in January, now verified by folks who have taken it
apart), so Apple doesn't have to be *too* aggressive about quitting
stuff.
Some other stuff:
The phone rings at full volume even with the headset plugged in. Some
don't. This is a nice feature, as I prefer headsets, and this way I can
just leave it plugged in.
The phone appears to remember three independent volume settings for the
built-in right/speakerphone speaker, the headset, and the handset
speaker.
You get a dock and a standalone charger in the box (both cost extra with
iPods). You don't get a little sleeve to put it in, as you do with
iPods, however.
There's VPN support.
The phone will give various statistics on its use. The usual stuff about
data and talk time, and a more interesting section that breaks out how
long the phone has been operating since the last full charge, and how
much of that time it has been in-use vs. in standby mode. Apple is
clearly pretty confident in its battery life claims.
EDGE is obviously a bunch slower than WiFi (this thing is *quick* over
WiFi), but it's usable. A bandwidth test shows I'm getting 152 kpbs.
The screen is probably the brightest I've ever seen on a portable
device, and adjusts brightness automatically based on ambient light
conditions.
More as I think of it.
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, I'm always cautious about making any statements about how easy
> > to use the OSX UI is, because, well - it actually isn't all that easy.
> > It may be easier tan other UI's, but it's still a very abstract way to
> > work with data.
>
> While the Mac is not ideal it is well ahead of the competition. Things
> "common" users look to do:
>
> * Surf the web: while there are pros and cons for different OSs and
> browsers, really the defaults on OS X and Windows and most desktop Linux
> distros meet the basic "needs" fairly well.
How do you figure? How is it easier to surf the web on a Mac?
> * Email: again, there are pros and cons, but those "needs" are met well.
Of course. Needs are met, but it's not always as easy as it could. I
was in reference to how applications are handled rather than what kind
of features they had...
It boils down to this controversy of applications staying open when
their last window has been closed and things like that. The users sees
an interface (the window) and closes that interface - so why is the
application still open? Things like that.
> * Digital Media: Here OS X has a *huge* advantage... the difference, for
> many, between being able to make excellent products vs. not being able to do
> squat. The fact that iLife allows a user to to do so much without even
> having to understand the concept of a folder or file is simply amazing.
You don't have to tell me that :)
> * Working with multiple applications: for the most part, again, OS X has an
> advantage here: the Dock is easy to use and applications do not get opened
> multiple times... as they do in most other OSs.
What do you mean by multiple times?
> For the average non-techy user the Mac is easier... hard to argue otherwise,
> though possible, perhaps, with specific tasks or desired workflows. And, of
> course, this does not imply the Mac is the best tool for every "job"...
Of course not. It could use a few more work in the "discoverable" area
as well. Again, it's not like any other OS does it better, though.
> > The iPhone doesn't have the concept of applications, or even "quit".
> > As far as I can tell, the only multitasking application is the phone
> > application. If you hit the home button, the application you're in
> > "quits". Other applications open up to their last view, but may not be
> > running when other applications are at the front.
>
> Well - music, presumably, continues to play...
Yes, I forgot about that.
> and you can have multiple web
> pages open and easily jump between the open pages.
Yes, but they are only "open" in the sense of the application keeping
a list of urls. They're not cached in memory at the same time.
> I assume that those
> pages stay open even when you jump to other applications.
Well, in the sense that Safari saves the aforementioned list, but when
you hit the Home button, I bet Safari saves its state and then quits -
all to save resources to keep the UI snappy (and everyone seems to be
blown away of how snappy the UI really is - it actually is as snappy
as in the demoes - go figure!) :)
> Same can be said for multiple "tasks" given to different widgets,
> such as the weather widget which can "look" at multiple cities.
Again, it "saves" multiple cities. The wether widget isn't constantly
running in the background, I'd guess.
> > This is why it feels super-snappy all the time. It reminds me of how
> > Palm (used to) handle this as well.
> >
> > iPhone also doesn't have cut/paste or even the concept of text
> > selections. It really seems to be super easy, without superficial
> > fluff or features you actually don't need.
>
> Hmmm, I wonder if you can copy parts of a webpage and email it... not that I
> have seen.
Not parts. You can send the current URL as an email, that's all. Saari
has a "Share" button that, well, just prepares an email with the
current URL.
> > I can't wait to get one.
>
> Weren't you pretty lackluster about the iPhone not long ago?
Yeah - and I think I was always going to get one either way. But it's
not until recently I've started to really long for one. The online
demo movies really did the trick.
> If so (I did
> not check your past posts - but I think that is right), what changed your
> mind?
Basically, the UI. I really like my Nokia N95, but it's nowhere near
as slick.
And, I always liked the idea of a phone+iPod, but I thought the iPhone
lacked some features (3G, not enough storage) but I think I could live
with it :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C2ADE831.8673D%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, I'm always cautious about making any statements about how easy
>>> to use the OSX UI is, because, well - it actually isn't all that easy.
>>> It may be easier tan other UI's, but it's still a very abstract way to
>>> work with data.
>>
>> While the Mac is not ideal it is well ahead of the competition. Things
>> "common" users look to do:
>>
>> * Surf the web: while there are pros and cons for different OSs and
>> browsers, really the defaults on OS X and Windows and most desktop Linux
>> distros meet the basic "needs" fairly well.
>
> How do you figure? How is it easier to surf the web on a Mac?
As I said: there are pros and cons for each but all do a good job. The UI
of IE 7 confuses many users and there is a greater risk of malware with
Windows... but it is also true that there are websites Safari does not work
well with (though also true of IE 7, it is more true of Safari). Safari
does have private browsing and snap back, but, again, I think all do fill
the basic needs well.
>> * Email: again, there are pros and cons, but those "needs" are met well.
>
> Of course. Needs are met, but it's not always as easy as it could. I
> was in reference to how applications are handled rather than what kind
> of features they had...
As am I: the default email clients in the different desktop OSs all work
relatively well - though many users likely need someone to set up accounts
and the like.
> It boils down to this controversy of applications staying open when
> their last window has been closed and things like that. The users sees
> an interface (the window) and closes that interface - so why is the
> application still open? Things like that.
Sure: and there are differences there - but I think if someone just wanted a
machine for email and web then any of the OSs would work OK. OS X might
have an advantage in that it shows image attachment quite well and has some
other goodies, but overall I think they all work close enough to the same to
not make a *big* advocacy point. At least not as big as what I list, below:
>> * Digital Media: Here OS X has a *huge* advantage... the difference, for
>> many, between being able to make excellent products vs. not being able to do
>> squat. The fact that iLife allows a user to to do so much without even
>> having to understand the concept of a folder or file is simply amazing.
>
> You don't have to tell me that :)
>
>> * Working with multiple applications: for the most part, again, OS X has an
>> advantage here: the Dock is easy to use and applications do not get opened
>> multiple times... as they do in most other OSs.
>
> What do you mean by multiple times?
At once. I cannot tell you how many times I see people on Windows trying to
get back to a window by opening the application again... which creates more
confusion in that it adds to the task bar - and sometimes creates menu
buttons in the task bar which only confuses them more. I spend a lot of
time on this in classes... many people are baffled by it until they get
quite a bit of experience. Some never really get it.
>
>> For the average non-techy user the Mac is easier... hard to argue otherwise,
>> though possible, perhaps, with specific tasks or desired workflows. And, of
>> course, this does not imply the Mac is the best tool for every "job"...
>
> Of course not. It could use a few more work in the "discoverable" area
> as well. Again, it's not like any other OS does it better, though.
>
>>> The iPhone doesn't have the concept of applications, or even "quit".
>>> As far as I can tell, the only multitasking application is the phone
>>> application. If you hit the home button, the application you're in
>>> "quits". Other applications open up to their last view, but may not be
>>> running when other applications are at the front.
>>
>> Well - music, presumably, continues to play...
>
> Yes, I forgot about that.
>
>> and you can have multiple web pages open and easily jump between the open
>> pages.
>
> Yes, but they are only "open" in the sense of the application keeping
> a list of urls. They're not cached in memory at the same time.
Does it have to reload them each time?
>> I assume that those pages stay open even when you jump to other applications.
>
> Well, in the sense that Safari saves the aforementioned list, but when
> you hit the Home button, I bet Safari saves its state and then quits -
> all to save resources to keep the UI snappy (and everyone seems to be
> blown away of how snappy the UI really is - it actually is as snappy
> as in the demoes - go figure!) :)
Look here: <http://www.apple.com/iphone/internet/>. It keeps thumbnails of
the different pages... at the very least. I am not sure what happens when
you leave the browser and come back to it, but it does seem to allow you to
have multiple pages open at once when it is open.
>> Same can be said for multiple "tasks" given to different widgets,
>> such as the weather widget which can "look" at multiple cities.
>
> Again, it "saves" multiple cities. The wether widget isn't constantly
> running in the background, I'd guess.
True: but when it is running it might load multiple cities - even those in
the background. I do not know though... not sure it matters much.
>>> This is why it feels super-snappy all the time. It reminds me of how
>>> Palm (used to) handle this as well.
>>>
>>> iPhone also doesn't have cut/paste or even the concept of text
>>> selections. It really seems to be super easy, without superficial
>>> fluff or features you actually don't need.
>>
>> Hmmm, I wonder if you can copy parts of a webpage and email it... not that I
>> have seen.
>
> Not parts. You can send the current URL as an email, that's all. Saari
> has a "Share" button that, well, just prepares an email with the
> current URL.
OK.
>>> I can't wait to get one.
>>
>> Weren't you pretty lackluster about the iPhone not long ago?
>
> Yeah - and I think I was always going to get one either way. But it's
> not until recently I've started to really long for one. The online
> demo movies really did the trick.
Makes sense...
>> If so (I did not check your past posts - but I think that is right), what
>> changed your mind?
>>
> Basically, the UI. I really like my Nokia N95, but it's nowhere near as slick.
>
> And, I always liked the idea of a phone+iPod, but I thought the iPhone
> lacked some features (3G, not enough storage) but I think I could live
> with it :)
Rumor has it that it might work with better networks in your neck of the
woods...
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
€ Web image alt-text shouldn't generally be "space", "left" or "right"
Steve de Mena
> The phone appears to remember three independent volume settings for the
> built-in right/speakerphone speaker, the headset, and the handset
> speaker.
I think a 4th - Bluetooth headset - also.
>
> You get a dock and a standalone charger in the box (both cost extra with
> iPods). You don't get a little sleeve to put it in, as you do with
> iPods, however.
They didn't at first. They started that after
complaints about scratches/fingerprints. The
iPhone isn't.
> There's VPN support.
>
> The phone will give various statistics on its use. The usual stuff about
> data and talk time, and a more interesting section that breaks out how
> long the phone has been operating since the last full charge, and how
> much of that time it has been in-use vs. in standby mode. Apple is
> clearly pretty confident in its battery life claims.
>
> EDGE is obviously a bunch slower than WiFi (this thing is *quick* over
> WiFi), but it's usable. A bandwidth test shows I'm getting 152 kpbs.
>
> The screen is probably the brightest I've ever seen on a portable
> device, and adjusts brightness automatically based on ambient light
> conditions.
>
> More as I think of it.
Steve
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > How do you figure? How is it easier to surf the web on a Mac?
>
> As I said: there are pros and cons for each but all do a good job. The UI
> of IE 7 confuses many users and there is a greater risk of malware with
> Windows... but it is also true that there are websites Safari does not work
> well with (though also true of IE 7, it is more true of Safari). Safari
> does have private browsing and snap back, but, again, I think all do fill
> the basic needs well.
Yeah, I think features that make web browsing easier is form auto-fill
and things like that. The UI of the web browser is pretty secondary to
the UI of the web pages, generally. Basically, for a new user I can't
see any huge difference between Safari/IE or even Safari/Firefox when
it comes to how easy it is to surf the web.
> > It boils down to this controversy of applications staying open when
> > their last window has been closed and things like that. The users sees
> > an interface (the window) and closes that interface - so why is the
> > application still open? Things like that.
>
> Sure: and there are differences there - but I think if someone just wanted a
> machine for email and web then any of the OSs would work OK. OS X might
> have an advantage in that it shows image attachment quite well and has some
> other goodies, but overall I think they all work close enough to the same to
> not make a *big* advocacy point. At least not as big as what I list, below:
Sure, but in the sphere of "discoverability", the UI of the Mac could
be improved. Just to use Mail as an example;
1. How do I move a mail message - ok, I just drag it to a folder. Fine.
2. How do I delete a message? Ok, I mark it and then click the delete
widget in the top.
3. How do I delete several messages? Ok, I select several and click
delete.
4. How do I select several messages? Hmmm, shift/command key while
clicking? Hmmm, ok
And so on... Discoverability breaks down the more complex the task is.
How do you change the UI to make this easier? Can it even be done?
>>> * Working with multiple applications: for the most part, again, OS
>>> X has an advantage here: the Dock is easy to use and applications
>>> do not get opened multiple times... as they do in most other OSs.
>>
>> What do you mean by multiple times?
>
> At once. I cannot tell you how many times I see people on Windows trying to
> get back to a window by opening the application again... which creates more
> confusion in that it adds to the task bar
Isn't this true only for web browser? I really don't know. I just
tried to click ProntoEdit Professional in the start menu while it was
already running and it just brought the app to the front.
Plus, what should actually happen when you click the application icon
again? The general rule on OSX is to bring all application windows to
the front, or if there are none, create a new window. Yeha, I think
that is the best way to handle it.
It's harder to switch between open windows in OSX, however.
> > Yes, but they are only "open" in the sense of the application keeping
> > a list of urls. They're not cached in memory at the same time.
>
> Does it have to reload them each time?
Yeah, as far as I've understood.
> Look here: <http://www.apple.com/iphone/internet/>. It keeps thumbnails of
> the different pages... at the very least. I am not sure what happens when
> you leave the browser and come back to it, but it does seem to allow you to
> have multiple pages open at once when it is open.
Yeah, well, thumbnails != cache. And when I think about it, I read
about it not keeping cache of the *history*, i.e. when you hit "Back"
you actually have to reload that page.
Multiple windows may be a different story, I admit.
> > Again, it "saves" multiple cities. The wether widget isn't constantly
> > running in the background, I'd guess.
>
> True: but when it is running it might load multiple cities - even those in
> the background.
Oh I hope it does. This really doesn't constitute having multiple
applications running at once, though. :)
> > Not parts. You can send the current URL as an email, that's all. Saari
> > has a "Share" button that, well, just prepares an email with the
> > current URL.
>
> OK.
Which, as far as I can understand, is the only way to get anything but
iTUnes-synced data back to your Mac. The Notes application doesn't
even sync back to your Mac.
However, that may be because iPhone was supposed to be launched at the
same time as Leopard, which does have Notes functionality.
> Rumor has it that it might work with better networks in your neck of the
> woods...
Yeah, I think Apple has to do this for the European launch...
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C2ADF8C9.86752%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> How do you figure? How is it easier to surf the web on a Mac?
>>
>> As I said: there are pros and cons for each but all do a good job. The UI
>> of IE 7 confuses many users and there is a greater risk of malware with
>> Windows... but it is also true that there are websites Safari does not work
>> well with (though also true of IE 7, it is more true of Safari). Safari
>> does have private browsing and snap back, but, again, I think all do fill
>> the basic needs well.
>
> Yeah, I think features that make web browsing easier is form auto-fill
> and things like that. The UI of the web browser is pretty secondary to
> the UI of the web pages, generally. Basically, for a new user I can't
> see any huge difference between Safari/IE or even Safari/Firefox when
> it comes to how easy it is to surf the web.
Well, when you open a PDF IE presents multiple print buttons and has other
oddities - but, yes, all do the job adequately. So it does not sound like I
am just picking on IE, I will say when I have a lot of tabs open I getting
the spinning wheel with Safari more than I would like - though I do not see
it much on newer hardware.
>>> It boils down to this controversy of applications staying open when
>>> their last window has been closed and things like that. The users sees
>>> an interface (the window) and closes that interface - so why is the
>>> application still open? Things like that.
>>
>> Sure: and there are differences there - but I think if someone just wanted a
>> machine for email and web then any of the OSs would work OK. OS X might
>> have an advantage in that it shows image attachment quite well and has some
>> other goodies, but overall I think they all work close enough to the same to
>> not make a *big* advocacy point. At least not as big as what I list, below:
>
> Sure, but in the sphere of "discoverability", the UI of the Mac could
> be improved. Just to use Mail as an example;
>
> 1. How do I move a mail message - ok, I just drag it to a folder. Fine.
Most can do this after being shown once.
> 2. How do I delete a message? Ok, I mark it and then click the delete
> widget in the top.
Mark it? Do you mean select it? You can also delete it the same way you
move messages - just drag it to the trash. Or, if the message is open, just
hit delete.
> 3. How do I delete several messages? Ok, I select several and click
> delete.
And selecting multiple is not really very discoverable... Picasa tries to
deal with this but I am not sure I like how it handles multiple selections.
Some programs have check boxes next to the messages (or files). This seems
to work better - and I will say MS is doing this more than is Apple.
> 4. How do I select several messages? Hmmm, shift/command key while
> clicking? Hmmm, ok
>
> And so on... Discoverability breaks down the more complex the task is.
> How do you change the UI to make this easier? Can it even be done?
Check boxes in your example... but sometimes I am not sure it can be done...
not without cluttering the UI. Programs such as Photoshop or Flash have
enough "modes" and functions where it makes discoverability challenging for
most. MS Word suffers from this as well - it is one of the main things MS
is trying to solve with their new UI. I look forward to working with it
more and seeing more people work with it - so far it seems like a relative
success... and I am sure there will be tweaks to improve it as time goes by.
Weird talking about MS solving some UI issues... just weird!
I am not convinced Apple's methods in Pages and Keynote is really working...
>>>> * Working with multiple applications: for the most part, again, OS
>>>> X has an advantage here: the Dock is easy to use and applications
>>>> do not get opened multiple times... as they do in most other OSs.
>>>
>>> What do you mean by multiple times?
>>
>> At once. I cannot tell you how many times I see people on Windows trying to
>> get back to a window by opening the application again... which creates more
>> confusion in that it adds to the task bar
>
> Isn't this true only for web browser? I really don't know.
No, this is true for most - though not all - applications. So things like
this happen - say a user is working in Word and wants to copy an image from
some website to it. The open IE and navigate to the image and, assuming they
know how, right click and select copy. They then click the Word icon in the
quicklaunch bar and open a new document in Word. They get confused. They
try to go back to the image in IE... and open a new instance of IE. Now if
they look at their task bar they have (at leas) four options... and are
stuck.
Windows does not make working with multiple applications as discoverable as
does the Mac.
> I just tried to click ProntoEdit Professional in the start menu while it was
> already running and it just brought the app to the front.
Hmmm, try some other apps.
> Plus, what should actually happen when you click the application icon again?
> The general rule on OSX is to bring all application windows to the front, or
> if there are none, create a new window. Yeha, I think that is the best way to
> handle it.
Agreed.
> It's harder to switch between open windows in OSX, however.
Sometimes... an assuming the task bar on Windows does not get overcrowded
and assuming the "tasks" on the taskbar do not become menus... though even
then you just click the item - on OS X you have to click and hold or
control/right click.
>>> Yes, but they are only "open" in the sense of the application keeping
>>> a list of urls. They're not cached in memory at the same time.
>>
>> Does it have to reload them each time?
>
> Yeah, as far as I've understood.
>
>> Look here: <http://www.apple.com/iphone/internet/>. It keeps thumbnails of
>> the different pages... at the very least. I am not sure what happens when
>> you leave the browser and come back to it, but it does seem to allow you to
>> have multiple pages open at once when it is open.
>
> Yeah, well, thumbnails != cache. And when I think about it, I read
> about it not keeping cache of the *history*, i.e. when you hit "Back"
> you actually have to reload that page.
>
> Multiple windows may be a different story, I admit.
Though seems likely it would reload those as well. Sort of a pain
considering its slow network.
>>> Again, it "saves" multiple cities. The wether widget isn't constantly
>>> running in the background, I'd guess.
>>
>> True: but when it is running it might load multiple cities - even those in
>> the background.
>
> Oh I hope it does. This really doesn't constitute having multiple
> applications running at once, though. :)
Not multiple applications but multiple tasks.
>>> Not parts. You can send the current URL as an email, that's all. Saari
>>> has a "Share" button that, well, just prepares an email with the
>>> current URL.
>>
>> OK.
>
> Which, as far as I can understand, is the only way to get anything but
> iTUnes-synced data back to your Mac. The Notes application doesn't
> even sync back to your Mac.
>
> However, that may be because iPhone was supposed to be launched at the
> same time as Leopard, which does have Notes functionality.
I expect that when Leopard ships the iPhone will also get some functionality
bumps... if not right then shortly after.
>> Rumor has it that it might work with better networks in your neck of the
>> woods...
>
> Yeah, I think Apple has to do this for the European launch...
From what I know the phone situation in Europe is well ahead of what it is
in the US - in general. Apple will have to account for that.
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
Patrick Nihill
> In article <mr-A6CDB8.07...@News.Individual.NET>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <znu-645B14.0...@individual.net>,
> > ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>
> The iPhone exemplifies a couple of important recent trends in UI design.
>
> The first of these is context over consistency. In the early days of
> graphical interfaces, developers were encouraged to do as much as
> possible to be consistent with the OS and the other apps. Use standard
> controls, place them in standard places, implement things like scrolling
> in the standard way.
>
> More recently, another school of thought has emerged -- create UI that
> best fits the task. Not UI that's the same everywhere, but UI that feels
> the most natural within a given *context*.
>
> The iPhone does this in a bunch of ways. For instance, scrolling your
> contacts list works differently from scrolling a web page, and keys on
> the virtual keyboard change depending on the data entry requirements of
> the field you're in.
I think the two examples you mention here illustrate some of the plus
and minus points of context-sensitive UI. The values on the keys change
in the second example, but the usage and function of the keys themselves
remains the same. In the first example, the whole mechanism of scrolling
changes depending on the context. Not being in a position to use an
iPhone first-hand myself, I'm wary of drawing too many conclusions, but
will this not come across as arbitrary and confusing to most users? What
clue or context is there in the iPhone that lets someone know the
scrolling action has changed?
> The other trend it exemplifies is the increasing bias toward in-context
> commands. On the iPhone, there are almost no cases (I can't think off
> any off the top of my head) where the user first selects an object, and
> then selects a command elsewhere. Rather, operations on objects are
> carried out using command buttons on the objects themselves or by
> directly manipulating the objects in other ways. This greatly increases
> discoverability.
It *can* greatly increase discoverability, but that depends on being
able to come up with an intuitive manipulation of the object for each
possible action. Realistically, there is a very low limit on the number
of commands you can tag an object with before it all gets too messy.
This is all very well for the iPhone right now, which has, compated to
desktop OSs, a very limited vocabulary. But if the iPhone's interface is
to grow into a complete new paradigm for computing, it'll have to expand
considerably here.
> Together with the touch interface, these features help to make iPhone
> apps feel more like little objects that you're interacting with, than
> like typical computer applications.
>
> Apple enhances this feeling in various ways. For instance, where desktop
> OS X uses checkboxes, the iPhone uses switches, that you drag to flip.
> And the fluid movement between screens and between apps makes you feel
> almost like you're navigating a single coherent physical space when
> you're moving around the UI. Even the screen is an important element,
> because the resolution means you don't really see individual pixels,
> which again makes the thing feel more like it's something other than a
> computing device.
>
> Yeah, it doesn't have copying or pasting. They would be nice, as would a
> more convenient way to erase large amounts of text. I've been thinking
> about how to best do these things, and the conclusion I've come to is
> that you *don't* want to introduce text selection. Rather, there should
> be a way to bring up a little toolbar with copy and erase tools, and a
> paste button. You would pick the tool, then you would apply it directly
> to the text you want to manipulate. That would, IMO, work much better
> than porting desktop text editing metaphors to a touch-based UI.
Toolbars and buttons might be necessary in the end, but they lose the
direct feeling of manipulation that the iPhone's interface makes
possible. I think it should be possible to come up with a new procedure
for text-manipulation that doesn't seem so...retro.
Multi-touch should make it very easy to drag arbitrary blocks of text
around on screen, for example. No need to even have a seperate select
process - put two fingers in a text area, and whatever's between your
fingers then moves as they move. The little pop-up windows Apple uses
can help ensure accurate selection, even of small areas or single words.
That's a simple, obvious gesture, much like dragging files to move them
on a conventional desktop. To delete a block instead of moving it,
perhaps you could quickly "throw" it to the side of the screen? Grab the
block, and quickly move your fingers to one edge, as though you were
picking a bit of fluff from the screen.
It's tricky to think of a gesture that would intuitively capture the
idea of duplicating the text instead of moving it. This isn't exactly
surprising, as it doesn't have a real-world counterpart. The only thing
that occurs to me off-hand is to select the text with two fingers, just
like copying, and then to "pinch" the two fingers together - as though
you were peeling the text off the screen, leaving both the original in
place and the fresh copy "between your fingers".
If you want to get a cut and copy between different applications thing
going on, the "delete" and "copy" gestures I've mentioned above might
place the text involved onto the clipboard, which could have a dedicated
software button on the screen that would display the current contents.
That leaves us needing a gesture to encapsulate the idea of "paste the
clipboard here". Perhaps dragging your finger from the clipboard icon to
the location you want to paste it would do the trick?
ed
news:C2AE8BF2.867B2%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-4ED686.15...@News.Individual.NET on 7/2/07 6:45 AM:
>> Yeah, I think features that make web browsing easier is form auto-fill
>> and things like that. The UI of the web browser is pretty secondary to
>> the UI of the web pages, generally. Basically, for a new user I can't
>> see any huge difference between Safari/IE or even Safari/Firefox when
>> it comes to how easy it is to surf the web.
>
> Well, when you open a PDF IE presents multiple print buttons and has other
> oddities - but, yes, all do the job adequately.
that's the plug-in, not ie. firefox and safari on windows does the same
thing.
<snip>
>> 4. How do I select several messages? Hmmm, shift/command key while
>> clicking? Hmmm, ok
>>
>> And so on... Discoverability breaks down the more complex the task is.
>> How do you change the UI to make this easier? Can it even be done?
>
> Check boxes in your example...
like windows explorer... :P
> but sometimes I am not sure it can be done...
> not without cluttering the UI. Programs such as Photoshop or Flash have
> enough "modes" and functions where it makes discoverability challenging
> for
> most. MS Word suffers from this as well - it is one of the main things MS
> is trying to solve with their new UI. I look forward to working with it
> more and seeing more people work with it - so far it seems like a relative
> success... and I am sure there will be tweaks to improve it as time goes
> by.
i didn't like the new office ui at first, but it's definately grown on me.
> Weird talking about MS solving some UI issues... just weird!
eh, you may not like ms's ui decisions, but they do a LOT of research.
> I am not convinced Apple's methods in Pages and Keynote is really
> working...
which is a bit ironic given that they have a lot less functions...
<snip>
>> Isn't this true only for web browser? I really don't know.
>
> No, this is true for most - though not all - applications.
i don't know about most- it was back in the day, but it seems pretty evenly
split now...
> So things like
> this happen - say a user is working in Word and wants to copy an image
> from
> some website to it. The open IE and navigate to the image and, assuming
> they
> know how, right click and select copy. They then click the Word icon in
> the
> quicklaunch bar and open a new document in Word.
i personally like that behavior- it's handy for opening a new doc, w/out
having to switch to your old one. :D
> They get confused. They
> try to go back to the image in IE... and open a new instance of IE. Now
> if
> they look at their task bar they have (at leas) four options... and are
> stuck.
why would they be 'stuck'?
>> It's harder to switch between open windows in OSX, however.
>
> Sometimes... an assuming the task bar on Windows does not get overcrowded
make it bigger, eh? ;D
<snip>
Snit
tThii.19055$RX....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net on 7/2/07 6:46 PM:
> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C2AE8BF2.867B2%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
>> mr-4ED686.15...@News.Individual.NET on 7/2/07 6:45 AM:
> <snip>
>>> Yeah, I think features that make web browsing easier is form auto-fill
>>> and things like that. The UI of the web browser is pretty secondary to
>>> the UI of the web pages, generally. Basically, for a new user I can't
>>> see any huge difference between Safari/IE or even Safari/Firefox when
>>> it comes to how easy it is to surf the web.
>>
>> Well, when you open a PDF IE presents multiple print buttons and has other
>> oddities - but, yes, all do the job adequately.
>
> that's the plug-in, not ie. firefox and safari on windows does the same
> thing.
Sure - but the browsing experience on a Mac is, by default, better (in this
area). It does not matter, to the user, if it is because of the OS, the
browser, the plug ins, or whatever else.
>
>
> <snip>
>>> 4. How do I select several messages? Hmmm, shift/command key while
>>> clicking? Hmmm, ok
>>>
>>> And so on... Discoverability breaks down the more complex the task is.
>>> How do you change the UI to make this easier? Can it even be done?
>>
>> Check boxes in your example...
>
> like windows explorer... :P
Yes - I was thinking of that when I wrote what I did... that and most web
based emails.
>> but sometimes I am not sure it can be done... not without cluttering the UI.
>> Programs such as Photoshop or Flash have enough "modes" and functions where
>> it makes discoverability challenging for most. MS Word suffers from this as
>> well - it is one of the main things MS is trying to solve with their new UI.
>> I look forward to working with it more and seeing more people work with it -
>> so far it seems like a relative success... and I am sure there will be tweaks
>> to improve it as time goes by.
>
> i didn't like the new office ui at first, but it's definately grown on me.
It does take a little getting used to, but it does seem to make things more
discoverable for non-techy users. Overall I think it is well done, though I
have not used it a great deal yet.
>> Weird talking about MS solving some UI issues... just weird!
>
> eh, you may not like ms's ui decisions, but they do a LOT of research.
Can you give examples where they have done things significantly different -
and better - than others before them (even relatively common "others"). Two
levels of tabs does not count. :)
>
>> I am not convinced Apple's methods in Pages and Keynote is really
>> working...
>
> which is a bit ironic given that they have a lot less functions...
Agreed: while I think Keynote is pretty good its UI is only mediocre... and
Pages is pretty darn bad, though more tolerable on a wide screen.
>
> <snip>
>>> Isn't this true only for web browser? I really don't know.
>>
>> No, this is true for most - though not all - applications.
>
> i don't know about most- it was back in the day, but it seems pretty evenly
> split now...
It is true for many applications... not sure if it matters if it is most or
not. The fact it is inconsistent is not really a good thing. :)
>> So things like this happen - say a user is working in Word and wants to copy
>> an image from some website to it. The open IE and navigate to the image and,
>> assuming they know how, right click and select copy. They then click the
>> Word icon in the quicklaunch bar and open a new document in Word.
>
> i personally like that behavior- it's handy for opening a new doc, w/out
> having to switch to your old one. :D
It has that small benefit for experienced users - but for far too many users
it is simply a pain.
>> They get confused. They try to go back to the image in IE... and open a new
>> instance of IE. Now if they look at their task bar they have (at leas) four
>> options... and are stuck.
>>
> why would they be 'stuck'?
They do not know what to do... they intended to work on two "tasks" and now
they have four or more... and they freeze up. I see it often.
>>> It's harder to switch between open windows in OSX, however.
>>
>> Sometimes... an assuming the task bar on Windows does not get overcrowded
>
> make it bigger, eh? ;D
That would help to reduce the grouping of buttons... but it might not be the
best way. :)
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
ed
> "ed" <n...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> tThii.19055$RX.3...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net on 7/2/07 6:46 PM:
> > "Snit" <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> >news:C2AE8BF2.867B2%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> >> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> > <snip>
> >>> Yeah, I think features that make web browsing easier is form auto-fill
> >>> and things like that. The UI of the web browser is pretty secondary to
> >>> the UI of the web pages, generally. Basically, for a new user I can't
> >>> see any huge difference between Safari/IE or even Safari/Firefox when
> >>> it comes to how easy it is to surf the web.
>
> >> Well, when you open a PDF IE presents multiple print buttons and has other
> >> oddities - but, yes, all do the job adequately.
>
> > that's the plug-in, not ie. firefox and safari on windows does the same
> > thing.
>
> Sure - but the browsing experience on a Mac is, by default, better (in this
> area). It does not matter, to the user, if it is because of the OS, the
> browser, the plug ins, or whatever else.
so get a none-adobe plugin (i'm not even sure if ie and firefox come
w/ the adobe one by default... and that comments for your benefit, i
don't care about abstract arguments about what you think is better for
the 'average' user or what not. :P )
> > i didn't like the new office ui at first, but it's definately grown on me.
>
> It does take a little getting used to, but it does seem to make things more
> discoverable for non-techy users. Overall I think it is well done, though I
> have not used it a great deal yet.
it's not just discoverability- i still largely use the same features.
the different ribbons just makes it easier to get to some tasks that i
often use, that were several menus down. and it 'sticks' so it's
quickly RE-accessible (that's the biggie for me).
> >> Weird talking about MS solving some UI issues... just weird!
>
> > eh, you may not like ms's ui decisions, but they do a LOT of research.
>
> Can you give examples where they have done things significantly different -
> and better - than others before them (even relatively common "others"). Two
> levels of tabs does not count. :)
well, since you couch it as different, and BETTER, but i initially
stated that 'you may not like ms's ui decisions...', this discussion
is likely to go around in circles, eh? but a couple come to mind- one
is the old argument about font rendering- apple made the decision to
go w/ font / print true rendering, but ms made the decision to modify
the fonts to make it clearer on the screen. obviously if you're in
print / media, you're going to prefer apple's choice, many others
prefer ms's. office 12 ribbon is another one. then they have wacky
stuff they're playing with like step ui. in vista, there's little
things, like the sidebar title bar going to black on maximize- the
first time i noticed it, i was like, what the heck- but after using
vista for a while, it really IS a good decision. they've obviously
been doing a lot of work on 3d user interfaces. their direct object
interaction with surface. lots of stuff- you may not like it all, but
they do a lot of work in the area.
> >> I am not convinced Apple's methods in Pages and Keynote is really
> >> working...
>
> > which is a bit ironic given that they have a lot less functions...
>
> Agreed: while I think Keynote is pretty good its UI is only mediocre... and
> Pages is pretty darn bad, though more tolerable on a wide screen.
>
>
> > <snip>
> >>> Isn't this true only for web browser? I really don't know.
>
> >> No, this is true for most - though not all - applications.
>
> > i don't know about most- it was back in the day, but it seems pretty evenly
> > split now...
>
> It is true for many applications... not sure if it matters if it is most or
> not. The fact it is inconsistent is not really a good thing. :)
i actually disagree- differnt programs w/ different functions, i want
to behave differently. for example, if i don't have my handy-dandy
hp-48g, and i need to do multi step calculations where i want to keep
track of interim results, i'll pop up multiple copies of calculator.
it would suck if i had to jump through hoops to do it. and frankly, i
don't care if dumb people get confused if they end up with two
calculators on their desktop and get 'stuck'. :D
> >> So things like this happen - say a user is working in Word and wants to copy
> >> an image from some website to it. The open IE and navigate to the image and,
> >> assuming they know how, right click and select copy. They then click the
> >> Word icon in the quicklaunch bar and open a new document in Word.
>
> > i personally like that behavior- it's handy for opening a new doc, w/out
> > having to switch to your old one. :D
>
> It has that small benefit for experienced users - but for far too many users
> it is simply a pain.
but everyone that keeps using computers becomes an experienced user,
eh? why should they get shortchanged? :D
> >> They get confused. They try to go back to the image in IE... and open a new
> >> instance of IE. Now if they look at their task bar they have (at leas) four
> >> options... and are stuck.
>
> > why would they be 'stuck'?
>
> They do not know what to do... they intended to work on two "tasks" and now
> they have four or more... and they freeze up. I see it often.
as in they literally can't figure it out?
> >>> It's harder to switch between open windows in OSX, however.
>
> >> Sometimes... an assuming the task bar on Windows does not get overcrowded
>
> > make it bigger, eh? ;D
>
> That would help to reduce the grouping of buttons... but it might not be the
> best way. :)
it'd still be better than that monster sized default dock that morphs
and gets in the way! :D
teec...@gmail.com
> In article <mr-A6CDB8.07374402072...@News.Individual.NET>,
> Yeah, it doesn't have copying or pasting. They would be nice, as would a
> more convenient way to erase large amounts of text. I've been thinking
> about how to best do these things, and the conclusion I've come to is
> that you *don't* want to introduce text selection. Rather, there should
> be a way to bring up a little toolbar with copy and erase tools, and apastebutton.
> You would pick the tool, then you would apply it directly
> to the text you want to manipulate. That would, IMO, work much better
> than porting desktop text editing metaphors to a touch-based UI.
According to Wayne Westerman's PhD thesis "Hand Tracking, Finger
Identification and Chordic Manipulation on a Multi-Touch Surface" (on
which the iPhone's multitouch tech is based), copy & paste was planned
to work as follows (page 13, section 1.2.2.5):
"Even after all this, some room remains in the chord space for common
menu commands. Setting the thumb and forefinger down apart and then
pinching them together intuitively invokes cut. Copy becomes a simple,
simultaneous tap of the thumb and a fingertip. Setting thumb and
forefinger down together and flicking them apart invokes paste. A
clockwise rotation as if turning a screw saves the current file, and a
counter-clockwise rotation pops up the open file dialog. Additional
menu commands could be invoked on future systems with handwriting
gestures."
I've head that some "deletes" on the iPhone are accomplished by
sliding your finger across the length of the item (as if you were
going to cross out something) which will bring up a "delete" icon. Has
anyone tried the copy and paste finger chords on the iPhone?
Cheers,
Chuan
Sandman
teec...@gmail.com wrote:
None of the above constitute neither discoverable nor intuitive
controls. You'd have to read about them in a manual and them remember
them.
> I've head that some "deletes" on the iPhone are accomplished by
> sliding your finger across the length of the item (as if you were
> going to cross out something) which will bring up a "delete" icon. Has
> anyone tried the copy and paste finger chords on the iPhone?
Yes, but this isn't discoverable, so it's just a secondary option.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
1183446774.0...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com on 7/3/07 12:12 AM:
> On Jul 2, 8:11 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> "ed" <n...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
>> tThii.19055$RX.3...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net on 7/2/07 6:46 PM:
>>> "Snit" <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>>> news:C2AE8BF2.867B2%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
>>>> mr-4ED686.15452102072...@News.Individual.NET on 7/2/07 6:45 AM:
>>> <snip>
>>>>> Yeah, I think features that make web browsing easier is form auto-fill
>>>>> and things like that. The UI of the web browser is pretty secondary to
>>>>> the UI of the web pages, generally. Basically, for a new user I can't
>>>>> see any huge difference between Safari/IE or even Safari/Firefox when
>>>>> it comes to how easy it is to surf the web.
>>
>>>> Well, when you open a PDF IE presents multiple print buttons and has other
>>>> oddities - but, yes, all do the job adequately.
>>
>>> that's the plug-in, not ie. firefox and safari on windows does the same
>>> thing.
>>
>> Sure - but the browsing experience on a Mac is, by default, better (in this
>> area). It does not matter, to the user, if it is because of the OS, the
>> browser, the plug ins, or whatever else.
>
> so get a none-adobe plugin (i'm not even sure if ie and firefox come
> w/ the adobe one by default... and that comments for your benefit, i
> don't care about abstract arguments about what you think is better for
> the 'average' user or what not. :P )
Many PCs, at the very least, come with the Adobe plug in - and it does
present multiple print buttons (and others) when viewing a PDF. This leads
to confusion for many users.
>
>>> i didn't like the new office ui at first, but it's definately grown on me.
>>
>> It does take a little getting used to, but it does seem to make things more
>> discoverable for non-techy users. Overall I think it is well done, though I
>> have not used it a great deal yet.
>
> it's not just discoverability-
Agreed - there are other benefits.
> i still largely use the same features. the different ribbons just makes it
> easier to get to some tasks that i often use, that were several menus down.
> and it 'sticks' so it's quickly RE-accessible (that's the biggie for me).
The lack of "degrading" over time is a biggie as well.
>>>> Weird talking about MS solving some UI issues... just weird!
>>
>>> eh, you may not like ms's ui decisions, but they do a LOT of research.
>>
>> Can you give examples where they have done things significantly different -
>> and better - than others before them (even relatively common "others"). Two
>> levels of tabs does not count. :)
>
> well, since you couch it as different, and BETTER, but i initially
> stated that 'you may not like ms's ui decisions...', this discussion
> is likely to go around in circles, eh? but a couple come to mind- one
> is the old argument about font rendering- apple made the decision to
> go w/ font / print true rendering, but ms made the decision to modify
> the fonts to make it clearer on the screen. obviously if you're in
> print / media, you're going to prefer apple's choice, many others
> prefer ms's.
Did MS innovate this approach?
> office 12 ribbon is another one. then they have wacky stuff they're playing
> with like step ui. in vista, there's little things, like the sidebar title
> bar going to black on maximize- the first time i noticed it, i was like, what
> the heck- but after using vista for a while, it really IS a good decision.
> they've obviously been doing a lot of work on 3d user interfaces. their
> direct object interaction with surface. lots of stuff- you may not like it
> all, but they do a lot of work in the area.
I was thinking in terms of non-recent events. I agree that surface adds to
the UI of similar devices.
>>>> I am not convinced Apple's methods in Pages and Keynote is really
>>>> working...
>>
>>> which is a bit ironic given that they have a lot less functions...
>>
>> Agreed: while I think Keynote is pretty good its UI is only mediocre... and
>> Pages is pretty darn bad, though more tolerable on a wide screen.
>>
>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>> Isn't this true only for web browser? I really don't know.
>>
>>>> No, this is true for most - though not all - applications.
>>
>>> i don't know about most- it was back in the day, but it seems pretty evenly
>>> split now...
>>
>> It is true for many applications... not sure if it matters if it is most or
>> not. The fact it is inconsistent is not really a good thing. :)
>
> i actually disagree- differnt programs w/ different functions, i want
> to behave differently. for example, if i don't have my handy-dandy
> hp-48g, and i need to do multi step calculations where i want to keep
> track of interim results, i'll pop up multiple copies of calculator.
> it would suck if i had to jump through hoops to do it. and frankly, i
> don't care if dumb people get confused if they end up with two
> calculators on their desktop and get 'stuck'. :D
What makes you think those that get "stuck" are "dumb"?
>>>> So things like this happen - say a user is working in Word and wants to
>>>> copy an image from some website to it. The open IE and navigate to the
>>>> image and, assuming they know how, right click and select copy. They then
>>>> click the Word icon in the quicklaunch bar and open a new document in Word.
>>>>
>>> i personally like that behavior- it's handy for opening a new doc, w/out
>>> having to switch to your old one. :D
>>>
>> It has that small benefit for experienced users - but for far too many users
>> it is simply a pain.
>
> but everyone that keeps using computers becomes an experienced user,
> eh? why should they get shortchanged? :D
OK, "experienced" might be the wrong word - the techy user. Many people who
are very experienced with computers never "get it".
>>>> They get confused. They try to go back to the image in IE... and open a
>>>> new instance of IE. Now if they look at their task bar they have (at leas)
>>>> four options... and are stuck.
>>>>
>>> why would they be 'stuck'?
>>>
>> They do not know what to do... they intended to work on two "tasks" and now
>> they have four or more... and they freeze up. I see it often.
>
> as in they literally can't figure it out?
Yes. This is quite common.
>>>>> It's harder to switch between open windows in OSX, however.
>>
>>>> Sometimes... an assuming the task bar on Windows does not get overcrowded
>>
>>> make it bigger, eh? ;D
>>
>> That would help to reduce the grouping of buttons... but it might not be the
>> best way. :)
>
> it'd still be better than that monster sized default dock that morphs
> and gets in the way! :D
Not sure I would say it is better, but the large size of the dock and the
magnify feature of the dock are things that generally are of little value,
at least as far as I can tell. At least with Apple their settings screens
are far less cluttered - but that does not take away that weakness.
ZnU
These sorts of gestures should definitely be included in a fully-fledged
multi-touch interface, and they'd feel fairly natural once you learned
them. But they're not particularly discoverable, so you'd need alternate
methods as well, I think.
> I've head that some "deletes" on the iPhone are accomplished by
> sliding your finger across the length of the item (as if you were
> going to cross out something) which will bring up a "delete" icon. Has
> anyone tried the copy and paste finger chords on the iPhone?
They don't. Anyway, the iPhone is using pinching for zooming in a lot of
places. It couldn't really use them for copying and paste.
ZnU
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> More as I think of it.
One more item I noticed. When you view info about a call from a number
that's not in your address book, the phone tells you what city/state
it's from. Either this is coming through caller ID and being recorded
(although I haven't seen other cell phones do that) or the iPhone has a
little database mapping area codes to locations.
ed
> In article <znu-0361B7.03072302072...@individual.net>,
>
> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > More as I think of it.
>
> One more item I noticed. When you view info about a call from a number
> that's not in your address book, the phone tells you what city/state
> it's from. Either this is coming through caller ID and being recorded
> (although I haven't seen other cell phones do that) or the iPhone has a
> little database mapping area codes to locations.
that's a nifty little feature (it's the phone doing a lookup, not
caller id). with number portability and the proliferation of cell
phones, it's quite likely to give misleading results these days
though. :D
Elizabot v2.0.3
>
> iPhone is the first cell phone I have ever owned that I didn't have to
> RTFM to use 100% of its functions. An amazing GUI!!
That's really not saying much for the iPhone.
John
"Elizabot v2.0.3" <Eliz...@NOspySPAMmac.com> wrote in message
news:138luu0...@news.supernews.com...
Obviously you have not used many different cell phones!!!!
Elizabot v2.0.3
We already knew idiots could work the iPhone. Your report was superfluous.
Mitch
<Eliz...@NOspySPAMmac.com> wrote:
No, because most phones have really really horrible UIs.
Having a way to get to it's functions (menu, up, right, middle to get
to some command or list of functions?) is nothing like having a
well-designed UI that lets you get through functions easily, quickly,
with a minimum of errors.
Most current ones hardly constitute much more than a heirarchical list
of functions. That's not much of a UI to compete against in the first
place. It's hard not to see the iPhone as a major step forward (even
though it obviously gave up several features to get there, like real
buttons or keys).