Slashdot Mirror
Possible Pics Of The New Apple Mouse
The Wookie writes: "Appleinsider have some pictures of the rumoured Apple buttonless, cordless mouse here." That is one weirdass looking little device. No clue if it's legit or not, but if it's for real, it'll be one billion times better than the horrible hockey puck.
1. The original mice concept as envisioned by Xerox had 3 buttons all doing a vairety of tasks. Apple did a bag o' research that showed that mis-hits were common amongst users learning new tasks. The solution? The double click. Imagine life without the double-click...
2. Two button mice were "developed" (note the quotes) to give users contextual menues. Contextual menues were developed to make up for the fact that a particular OS that shall remained unnamed (ok, windows) had such a terrible set of rules for system menues that it was almost impossible to get stuff done. Menues attached to application windows, menues attached document windows, menues attached to folder windows.... where the $@#%! is "copy" or "paste"? Hence, the second button.
3. Contextual menues were also the saviour to the crisis of badly designed hot keys. I want to close a window... is it ctrl-w, alt-w or alt-F4 (nobel prize for counter-intuitive design to whoever came up with that one). Quitting an application? Could be q, could be x. On the mac, quit is always cmd-Q, close is always cmd-W, undo is always Z. Always. With these commands standardized across all apps, contextual menues are unneccessary...
4. In order to get some mindshare off the Winders flock, Apple caved in and offered contextual menues. Just hold down the control key. No second mouse button required.
XWindows has context-based menus/menus on other mouse buttons. Windows has them too. You know the real reason why?
Because you hit the button, and then move your mouse a fraction, and you're done.
So what if menus are in the wrong place on a Windows machine? Clicking a button and then moving the mouse to an immediately relevant option for the task at hand is a lot faster than moving your mouse to the top of the screen, holding down the button, dragging down to the relevant option and releasing. Because you have to find the menu you want, and then remember which item under that menu you need - which you might not until you see it.
So basically, the right-mouse button context menu is an excellent short way to get stuff done. Simply because:
1. It requires no slam n hunt mouse moves to find what are the most likely current menu items.
2. It ties available actions to their counterparts on the screen.
3. It gives you the most likely operations you'll want to perform immediately, with a single click.
4. It's quicker to find the option you want on a context menu that appears 2 pixels to the right and down from your mouse cursor, than it is to do the same when you have to go to the top of the screen and then open menus up to do the same thing.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Oh, yeah? What about on the surface of an exploding volcano?? while your gf shines a highly concentrated particle beam directly at the laser? huh? huh? Gotcha there didn't I? :)
I just tried it. It works. I'll write more when my skin smells less like smoky bacon.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Back in the days of Windows 3.0, I read an article in some magazine (PC World, I'm pretty sure), that said it takes an average of 8 minutes for a newbie to figure out how to start Write with the mouse, without assistance. This was attributed to the double-click -- one of the least intuitive user interface designs ever invented. Offhand, I can't think of any non-computer application that requires one to quickly press a button twice in order to get a response.
The main problem I have with cordless mice is that they are too easy to lose. I lose my Palm Pilot on my desks regularly (at home and at work). Who has time to be organized these days... and with so many gadgets to keep track of it's easy to make a mess of things on any desk.
:)
Most GUIs aren't configured to be *easy* to use without a mouse, so losing your mouse could be a Bad Thing(tm). I wonder if Apple has considered this.
Perhaps the people over at Apple will be clever and include a built-in Clapper(tm) in their new mice. Lost your mouse? Just clap a few times and it will squeek back at you, or better yet it will scurry around a bit till you see some papers on your desk moving around.
Just a thought.
--SONET
"Open bombay doors!"
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. --Benjamin Franklin
That's my problem with Apple: they design for "users learning new tasks", not for experienced users. Making a UI that's easy to learn is a great way of hooking new users on your product, but it doesn't serve them well in the long run. I suppose Apple serves the masses as well as MacDonalds does, but thank goodness not all computers are designed by Apple.
First off I would like to say... has anyone noticed that, well, the mouse ONLY fits right-handed people? The renditions, I mean, look at them, the hand that fits the mouse is only the right hand. And so the 10% of the population gets ripped off, for the mouse doesnt fit them!
.5sec minimum), moving back to the screen and locating what I was doing (1 sec?). That's a wasted 2 seconds every time I stop using the keyboard to use the mouse.
You're right, but you're missing a bigger point. With a mouse (and, with that damn puck), your handsize is irrelavent. My hands are in the top 5% as regards size, and my palm covers an entire mouse. I don't use the palm--only the fingers. With this device, it looks as if a palmrest is integrated, meaning I'll be resting my palm on the groove in the back, while my thumb will miss the contact on the side, since it's anchored at the base of an 8" long hand (wrist to fingers, roughly, straight fingers). People with small hands will likely be in less trouble, but anyone who's even a bit large will start having problems, I think.
Second off, the Puck. Many people have complained about the puck, and I frankly don't see why. The puck is designed for use in a certain position, where your palm does _not_ rest on the mouse, merely the fingers.
As I said, I do this naturally. Regardless, I can grab a mouse (in this case, a default gateway MSmouse on my mom's computer) and know how it's aligned, and align it correctly. With a puck, I grab it and it just might be twisted 30 degrees or so so my fingers don't bump into the cord on the back. So, when I move right, the mouse moves up at a 30 degree angle. That is my complaint with the mouse--it requires extra steps to use: I have to visually determine its orientation, and then move it awkwardly into the correct position, rather than feeling the angle of the top corner of the mouse and knowing how to turn it without moving my eyes to the mouse (.5sec minimum), looking (another
The only fault I see is that there is only one button, but then again, the Mac OS only needs one.
Third, about the squeezing part... I really don't think it will be a pain to squeeze or push what appears to be five?! "pressure spots"? and a pseudo scroll wheel...
But I thought you just said it only needs 1. So how come Apple suddenly thinks it needs 5 and a wheel?!?
It is cool that Apple is innovating... cordless mouse with an optical sensor, and the most shocking part, _no_ buttons, all *standard* with their new macs (hopefully).
Perhaps I'm being foolish here, but if you push it and it reacts, it's a button. Unless the sensitivity is important (different actions for different whacks), it's a button.
As regards another poster's comment about contextual menus and such: I think we can all agree that just about all UIs currently suck (at least in some significant way or another). That being said, the ability to do lots of stuff is never bad. That I can do tons of things with two buttons and a wheel (which, at least on the MS mice, is a button too), says alot. I can't scroll a window in netscape on a mac without the keyboard or without hitting tiny scroll arrows or the bar. I can't sit back, pull out some mouse cord, cradle the damn thing upside down because it's more comfortable, and scroll while I read. Why is having this feature a drawback? Note: I'm not saying windows doesn't suck. I'm not saying lots of stuff couldn't be better, including the wheel. I'm just saying that in many cases (particularly mine, since I've got the most experience being me), it's better.
Re: ZDNet article: can someone explain "In a way, the entire mouse will act as a button: Pushing down on it rocks the top of the mouse, causing a click."? The top panel of the mouse in hinged? Why? What's wrong with a button? Why does it have to kick up some other part of the mouse when you click? I must be missing something here. Also, as regards the inference of possible side-rocking action, this had better not be true. When you rock a mouse to the side, it moves. Try it. Really. It does. Now pretend that somewhere in that rocking motion, a click occurs, except that your cursor is moving when you click. This is a no. I will lose all faith in Apple as a company that can design mice if they do this. And if my reading on the rocking sentence is correct, they're going to lose major points there too. Anyone got firmer info?
Now, since it's 4 in the morning, I'm going to be unconscious for some time.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
Copy: ctrl+c Cut: ctrl+x Paste: ctrl+v I always liked those :)
Ther's a different take on this topic at ZDNet here. Personally, I think the artist's rendition in the ZDNet article is more likely than the rendering in the article linked above. Apple's never produced a right-hand-only peripheral, and I'd like to think they never would - in fact, they've been very careful in allowing both left- and right-handed use of their mice until now, by providing ADB ports on both sides of their keyboards (same for USB, I guess).
Something else I was just thinking about is how do you do a click, hold and drag? That seems like it would be way to complicated to drag while tilting the mouse.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Oh come now, changing batteries in a remote control takes as much effort. Knowing when to is the same: "Hmmm, not working... I haven't changed batteries in a year... There, it works again."
The battery is not a "geek" concept. If you think you're oh-so-smart for knowing about batteries, then you're friggin' deluded.
Then again, my mom prefers Linux
I've actually taken a day-long "design for ergonomics" class geared for improving ergonomics in the workplace (in this case, on an assembly line) and one of the things that they stressed is that while, say, a hammer with indentations for the user's fingers may look like an ergonomic design, this is probably true for only a small percentage of the population.
:-)
This is because the people with hands/fingers that are larger or smaller than the provided indentations will find that they've got half their fingers in indentations, and the other half on ridges (for example). A handle that's smoothly curved, or perhaps one that conforms to each individual hand, is a much better design.
So, I have to wonder, looking at this mouse, how many people will find it comfortable, with those pre-ordained little pockets for your fingers.
I wish the DOJ had suggested a 3rd company - Microsoft Hardware. Damn, I do love the ol' MS mouse. And now that they've got the LED/Laser version, mmmm.... nothing better!
---
How did a buttonless mouse ever get out of the "is this gonna fly" meeting?...
A hint to Apple: Change for the sake of change is not "innovation".
What meeting? This isn't a product announcement by Apple. It's a story on a rumor site. The "image" is a 3D rendering that supposedly is based on some prototype of some version of a new mouse that someone saw.
You're criticizing something that 1) you haven't used yet and even worse 2) doesn't even exist yet. And if I was a pessimistic person, I would say that you're doing it just because it's something new and different from Apple. Heaven forbid Apple try to move a 20 year old industrial design into the present.
Is the mouse really so perfect that it could never be improved upon from here on out?
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
Why doesnt apple just fucking use standard mice? (we need to be proprietary) FINE! BE PROPRIETARY, but give me a standard PROPRIETARY fucking mouse.
There's nothing proprietary about it. It's a USB mouse. That's it.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
lol
:)
;)
oh my god
hehehehe
I haven't laughed so hard in weeks
I think I split something
heh
good day
Does it have the microchip in it like other US Hockey pucks?
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
That silly click is the result of the tiny microswitch they use in the mouse. It moves a very short distance and has to both have a long life and provide a solid feel that bounces back. And the little buggers are noisy. Making them silent would be rather expensive, so people haven't really tried for the most part. I recall seeing some that were pretty quiet in "mouse size" (which is smaller than the average microswitch..)
the article says that you can "squeeze" the mouse to get it to click. This seems horrible on the wrists. try squeezing your current mouse. it hurts! RSI would be terrible with this. I think Apple is better than this.
It's not ergonomic, but I am extremely fond of the Logitech FirstMouse+. It's a little smaller than an MS Intellimouse, but it's also a wee bit more slender, and I like the weel and click feedback more. It's nicely shaped and doesnt curve to the side like the MS mouse.
:)
It's damned comfortable and perfectly symmetrical.
And of course the grey with a hint of purple is such a nice color
Blame IBM. Alt+F4 is part of an earlier Common User Access (CUA) standard (circa 1987). OS/2's Presentation Manager was based on CUA and since Windows kinda-sorta evolved from PM (by the time Win3.0 came along anyway), it brought with it a bunch of CUA as well.
Actually, CUA was kinda cool if misguided. It defined on-screen metaphors and a range of standard user interface elements that were designed to work across platforms. Which meant that all the keystrokes defined for e.g. pull-down menus, window manipulation, moving around the screen etc, had to work regardless of whether the application was hosted on a green-screen terminal attached to a mainframe, or a pixel-addressed graphical device like PM. The idea being that Mr Big IBM Customer didn't have to retrain his/her IT staff to use a new application when it got moved onto a newer, flashier (more expensive?) platform - everything would work juuust the same way.
CUA was last seen in OS/2 v2.x's object-oriented desktop (which ran on top of PM anyway), and had a bunch of new interface elements like pop-up menus, right-clicking action and things added to the existing definitions. If you ignored the fact that it only really applied to OS/2 by then, it was still kinda cool because it applied consistently across the entire platform, regardless of application. Right-click would always ALWAYS bring up a context-menu for whatever object you were working with, ALT-F4 would always close a window, and CTRL-ESC would always bring up a window list (which you could right-click within to manipulate windows), etc etc. It took me an *age* to adjust to that keystroke being mapped to "Start" on Win9x...
--
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
As a Macintosh Tech, I am more than happy t use anything that isn't the fucking yo (Half yo-yo). I have long dreamed of taking the ball out of two of them, attaching a dowel between them, and making a real yo-yo out of them. The it might have a use. I love Macs, but I hate that fucking thing.
While I generally avoid all things microsoft, I've found gamers (who absolutely love the idea of a nearly frictionless mouse that works on any surface and requires so little cleaning and maintenance) report frequently that the cheap cords on the things tend to exhibit "walkman headphones" type problems after awhile. They have a lifetime warranty, but twitch-type games are going to wear out mouse cord after mouse cord like that. Apparently there's no cordless version yet? It'd be kinda popular I think.
there was some of the discussion a couple of days ago over here. Different article, though
CAD, kicked, good
Is why Apple seems to have eliminated user testing in its product design.
There's no way they could have released the round mouse if they'd done some usability tests.
At this point, it seems that Microsoft, of all companies, has a better usability/design team than Apple. Microsoft hardware is actually pretty sweet stuff, especially when compared to Apple's latest translucent marketdroid crap.
Must be one of the signs of the apocalypse.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
- The iThighMouser - control the position of the cursor on the screen by squeezing your knees together.
- The iHeadMouse - attached to a little beenie, this pointing device uses mercury switches to track movements as you look around the screen (as long as you keep your eyes fixed forwards and move your head to point). Not to be confused with the very popular iNosePen.
- The iGrapefruitRoller - sensors track a grapefruit's position on your desk as you roll it around. Cover the grapefruit with both hands to 'click'
- The iEtch-A-Sketch (tm) - use the two wheels to move horizontally, vertically, and (psuedo) diagonally. Shake upside down to click.
- The iChopsticks - hold the chopsticks in your hand (instructions included) and click
- The iLightSaber - no description necessary
I should actually put up a web site with these parodies (on HavenCo of course, since I don't want the Apple iCops and iLawyers pounding on my door)._______
2B1ASK1
Then you'll love the Microsoft Optical Intellimouse. I do. And I use Linux.
No special pads. In fact, no pad needed at all.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Double-clicking has to be the dumbest thing ever invented. Every time I try to teach someone who is new to computers (as in, has never used one before), the one thing that they find impossible to do is double-click.
Once people have acquired the ability to double-click, the next big problem is that they have no idea when to double-click and when to single-click! I can't tell you the number of times they've opened two windows, or started two copies of some application, because they double-clicked when they only had to click once. This is a problem that would not happen if two mouse buttons were used instead.I didn't realize that double-click was invented for Macs. I guess if you only have one button, its a way to keep the user from having to use the keyboard, but it's not as easy as simply having a second button on the mouse.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
That's not the real Bruce Perens. Note the "." after the user name.
Bruce Perens.
This all sounds well thought out, except that timing is all wrong.
Microsoft was selling mice by the early to mid '80s, before the release of windows. (Multiplan and Word were both MS-DOS applications with mouse support) but the first couple of releases of windows had no contextual menus. (I'm talking about Windows 2.1, 3.0, and 3.1) It wasn't until Windows 95 that Microsoft used contextual menus (maybe there were some applications that were released soon before 95 with contextual menus. But those were done with full knowledge of the direction of Windows 95)
So are you trying to say that Microsoft started selling two button mice because 10 years later that were going to start introducing contextual menus?
And I'm not sure I buy your argument that contextual menu were developed to make up for badly designed hotkeys. I alsways thought that the Windows 95 developers lifted from the OS/2. Whoever put them into OS/2 probably was very familiar with the Smalltalk environment, since it seems to be a reimplmentation of the "yellow button."
The trick is to get the keyboard upside down as soon as possible, so that the liquid drips off of the circuitboard and into the 'cup' created by each upside down key. If it's pop, it will dry in there.
As another poster said, many people have popped them into dishwashers after taking out the electronics. I haven't done that though...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
---
Why doesnt apple just fucking use standard mice? (we need to be proprietary) FINE! BE PROPRIETARY, but give me a standard PROPRIETARY fucking mouse
---
Who is talking proprietary? Apple's current mice are all USB based.
And ADB was never really proprietary - you could make 3rd party ADB mice without any special licensing or anything. Just because something is a bit less common doesn't make it proprietary.
---
I'm really pissed off about the mouse though, because my employer just offered me a new company PowerMac.
---
Easy. Get a 3rd party mouse. Yeah, the stock one sucks, but there are tons of choices. Kensington makes some pretty good one, and if you can get around the dirty feeling you get supposedly the Microsoft mice are pretty decent.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
i'm sitting here at a rather nice G4.
It came with the nasty mouse and keyboard.
Anyway, i could take the mouse, although my hands are big enough that i was holding it literally with no more than the one joint nearest the end of my three middle fingers.. which got a bit annoying. But it was the keyboard that threw me. The letters were tiny and scrunched, and there was just.. something about it that my WPM went down by at least like a third, my mistakes kind of tripled and my wrists hurt every time i used it. And i don't know about you people, but i am _literally_ UNABLE TO FUNCTION without a forward-del key. Maybe i'm just wierd, but i feel like i have a whole finger missing or something without that one little key. And i'm wondering, _why_ would apple do this on a _professional_ model? With the imac it was clearly to preserve desk space, but this isn't an imac. i have a big 'ol tower sitting here, a 17-inch monitor, and no need aesthetic or otherwise to insure my keyboard is the same width as my computer.
So i was thinking about this, and i came to a very paranoid, very unrealistic, and probably correct conclusion: apple did it on purpose.
Why?
Well, think about it from their perspective. They're about to fully embrace a semiobscure and not-too-widely supported standard [USB] for peripherals. There is almost no market, and the form factor of the product they're selling means that the people buying it will be happier if their peripherals can be *gag* color-coordinated. How the hell are they going to get people to agree to make peripherals specifically for this thing if there's zero user base so far, apple's halfway to dead and they haven't even announced the thing?
Well, i'll tell you one thing, it's certainly not going to help sales of USB keyboards if the biggest group of USB consumers in the world [imac users] already _have_ a good keyboard.
So here's my theory: Apple purposefully designed the keyboard and mouse for the imac to be [let's be nice here] inadequate, in order to stimulate growth in the USB market, to ensure that everyone who buys an imac will at some point want to go get themselves a nice new Kensington iOrbitBox or whatever, thus giving Kensington a reason to release whatever the hell it was they released. Bam! Instant market. Happy peripheral companies. USB expertise spreads throughout the industry, making new products faster to get to market; USB flowers; Apple gets away with not putting any more standard ports on the imac.
Bullshit? Of course it is. But it's something to think about.
Anyway, i'm currently typing on a very nice MacAlly iKey and using a rather ghetto-bootleg [but cheap, and most of all TWO-BUTTON] thing i found at MicroCenter called an "iMouse"-- featuring no drivers in the box [meaning until i downloaded a shareware usb driver, both of the mouse buttons did the same thing..], some very odd features on the back of the clearly badly translated box ["inconvenient powering down", "support for up to 256 devices"] and no brandname or any other hint who manufactured the thing anywhere on or inside the box. Did i mention it was cheap?
So i'm happy and the [both psychological and literal] pain of the imac mouse/keyboard are far behind me. So i don't really care anymore.
But my conspiracy theory still applies: apple now has a big 'ol user base, they know the USB market will survive on whether they're competing with it or not, and non-apple corporations have started paying lots of attention to USB. So now that they no longer need to force not-cruddy imac peripherals into existence, they're reentering the market. Although if they release a mouse but not a real extended keyboard.. well, they're on crack.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
You were wrong.
Apart from that last bit, of course.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Here's a mirror for just the pictures.
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
On a lighter note, anyone know of a good modern "battleship" style keyboard for those of us that like a huge sturdy clicking keyboard IBM steelo?
IBM is the keyboard king, no doubt about it. You can't get steel ones anymore, but the plastic ones are pretty damn solid (I could still kill you with a sharp blow -- that's the acid test. :) ). And they still have that great IBM feel. To tell you the truth, I stole^H^H^H^H^H borrowed a pile of them from my last company about 4 years ago, so I haven't ordered one lately. But I'm typing on one right now and they still rock.
You can order them directly off IBM's web site. It's amazing that no one else makes a decent keyboard.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Like what? I use a mac, a sparc10(solaris) and a winders machine (for solitaire... no, really) and I've come to the conclusion that extra buttons are only there to make up for bad UI design. Let's "do the numbers":
1. The original mice concept as envisioned by Xerox had 3 buttons all doing a vairety of tasks. Apple did a bag o' research that showed that mis-hits were common amongst users learning new tasks. The solution? The double click. Imagine life without the double-click...
2. Two button mice were "developed" (note the quotes) to give users contextual menues. Contextual menues were developed to make up for the fact that a particular OS that shall remained unnamed (ok, windows) had such a terrible set of rules for system menues that it was almost impossible to get stuff done. Menues attached to application windows, menues attached document windows, menues attached to folder windows.... where the $@#%! is "copy" or "paste"? Hence, the second button.
3. Contextual menues were also the saviour to the crisis of badly designed hot keys. I want to close a window... is it ctrl-w, alt-w or alt-F4 (nobel prize for counter-intuitive design to whoever came up with that one). Quitting an application? Could be q, could be x. On the mac, quit is always cmd-Q, close is always cmd-W, undo is always Z. Always. With these commands standardized across all apps, contextual menues are unneccessary...
4. In order to get some mindshare off the Winders flock, Apple caved in and offered contextual menues. Just hold down the control key. No second mouse button required.
The current state of the multi-button-mouse is alarming. First it was two buttons, then three, then a lever, later a wheel. What's next? A second keyboard on wheels? Foot pedals?
End Rant.
"Why should we limit computers to the lies we tell them with that second mouse button?"
Frymaster, 2000, my basement
2 1337 4 u!
why folks complain so much about the mouse. It's not that bad. When I'm forced to use one, I generally rest my palm on the mousepad and move the mouse with my fingers, I don't grab the whole thing in my hand with a white-knuckle grip and move my entire arm around (which I what I belive most folks think it's like). I actually find it a bit more ergonomic than some of cheap ergonomic-wanna-be mice. Besides, just go out and buy any USB mouse, I know dozens of folks (myself included) that have replaced their stock PC mice with the new Microsoft Intellimouse. What's the big deal? And if there aren't custom MacOS drivers for your new third-party mouse, use USB Overdive, it's better anyway.
Now the keyboard... that's a whole new story, I personally can't stand it. It's too small and has that "mush" feeling (much like OEM "QuietKey" keyboards on cheap PC bundles). Never understood why Apple's desktop keyboards are now worse than their PowerBook keyboards!! I'm currently using a Sun Microsystems Type 6 USB keyboard (from a SunRay1 terminal spare) on my G3. A buddy of mine uses the $49 iKey full-size keyboard. A bit more expensive than a $5 junk PS/2 keyboard, but certainly built and feels better.
Bottom line, most folks replace the keyboards and mice on their PCs anyway.
I just bought one for myself. They're great in many ways (all except for two ridiculous side buttons, and the dodgy cord) But there are quite a few surfaces that they simply dont work at all on. For example, it doesn't work on _my_ current desktop, which is a piece of glass over white whicker. Instead, I have to use a nice flat textured mouse pad. Nonetheless, it is still a significant improvement because the tracking is more accurate and more reliable. This is a particularly important feature for those, like me, who prefer high sensitivity, where that skittish jumping isn't just a few hairs, but half the screen.
well, if extra buttons are there to make up for bad ui design, the Mac sure could use a few extra buttons.
Specific examples:
bad/inconsistent keyboard dialog navigation (use of tab or arrows to allow button clickage without having to take your hands off the keyboard). I love my Mac, it's the best there is, but I do HATE the fact that there's no way to use it without a mouse. At least on a Winders machine, if you don't feel like moving your hand off the keyboard to close out an annoying dialog, you can do it. With the Mac, if the button you want isn't the highlighted one, you can't dismiss it without using the mouse.
If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Uh? Drivers? Cord not plugged in? Cord plugged into the wrong port? Cord forced into the wrong port? Broken pins on cord? Bad connection? Corrosion? User keeps on pulling mouse loose? Broken cord? I've seen all of these, they're not as rare as you might believe. A wireless mouse may add some unavoidable complication, but it's mostly nominal. I see no reason why a properly designed mouse with decent software (i.e., show battery and signal levels, I know my wireless logitech mouse does) should be drastically harder to resolve the vast majority of issues on. Yes, you may occasionally get interference, but (on a well designed mouse) there aren't what 99.99% of the calls are going to be about, and you know it.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
[from: I love the round mouse... by the MacCommunist ]
The fervor with which the round-mouse-hating crowd despises Jonathan Ive's gorgeous input device approaches the hate-fueled fervor of Southern fundamentalists toward evolution or Nazis towards books. It's the same closed-minded, retarded group mentality that kept DOS users hating the graphic user interface. Jesus Christ, shut the fuck up already!
The round mouse is far superior to the old, constipated, turd-shaped mouse. But you suckers just don't get it.
For example, at Macworld SF2000 last week, "popular" Mac columnist Geek Levitus said, "I replace mine with good mice and play roller hockey with the old ones. They absolutely have got to go.'' What an asshole. I.D. magazine proclaimed the round mouse one of the big design blunders of the millennium or some shit (in their recent millennium issue with an unusually excellent profile of UCLA's virtual reality program).
What is a "good" mouse, anyway? A big, cushy, shit-shaped piece of plastic? "Ergonomic" mouses have been introduced, one after another, for the past decade or more -- MouseMan, WheelMan, Orbit, SmartMouse, TurboMouse, TrackBall, QBall, SuckmyBalls -- each one with its own shape, curves, weird button placement. Has any of them improved upon the next? Do they need leather cushions built into them? Or perhaps seven buttons? Is Microsoft's insipid "Intellimouse Explorer", with its arbitrary industrial design, some sort of universal ergonomic godsend that'll cure its user of any hand or wrist pain while using it?
No, goddamnit. No amount of cushions and buttons and wheels and trackballs and whatnot will fix the problem with mice: that you have to rest your hand on them for long periods of time. In fact, making them bigger or more "comfortable" or more bizarrely shaped only makes matters worse: they're designed to keep your hand on them longer, increasing the likelihood of carpal tunnel syndrome or, even worse, dorkus stayathomeitis.
The mouse "Man" wants you to have wrist pain, sucka! That way he can sell you more "ergonomic" contraptions -- gel pads, palm-heel-rests with ball bearings, electromagnetically-charged wristbands, translucent finger struts. It's a deadly cycle that will kill you, brother. Or, at the very least, empty your wallet faster than you can empty your backside cache.
Johnny Ive realized this when he designed a mouse that one CAN'T rest one's hand on. It's so small and light that the CORRECT way to use it, motherfucker, is to lightly and gently guide it with only the tips of three fingers. A subtle yet significant benefit of such think-different mouseholding is that it's more like holding a pencil. I can draw in Photoshop or Illustrator more naturally -- guiding the cursor not with my palm-heel but with my index finger. Manipulating the mouse with one's palm-heel now seems incredibly primitive -- like trying to eat soup with one's ass.
The scary thing is that Steve Jobs might actually cave in to the pressure of these vocal shitforbrains round-mouse-haters, and replace it with a more retrograde design. I say to you mouse Nazis: for shame.
[more]
RM101 laughs picturing Zoyd stewing in his seat, seething with rage while little clicks surround him in his nice, quiet environment, making a "hellish clatter".
Time to cut down on the coffee, dude.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I presume you're talking about keyboards for PCs, rather than Macs. If that's the case, I get my keyboards from here. They're nice and heavy, with the clattery keys you either love or hate. (And they're reliable - my wife dumped a cup of water into one of these, so I took it apart, dried it on top of my monitor for a couple of days, and it's been working fine ever since.)
That stupid number pad, it's exactly where the mouse should be. If I want the keyboard square in front of me, with the mouse in a comfortable reaching position, I either have to use the mouse with my left or buy a special keyboard.
Given that a standard keyboard costs next to nothing (and that I had one already), and a special keyboard costs about $100, I went lefty.
I don't really like it. When I do any drawing or play games using the mouse, I switch to my right hand.
<sarcasm>But at least my right hand is free to use that conveniently located number pad.</sarcasm>
True to previous rumors, the mouse does not sport a traditional mouse button. Instead, sources said, the user simply applies pressure to to front of the unit, at which time resistance will give way allowing the mouse, as a whole, to tilt closer to the underlying surface, producing what is currently known as a mouse click.
Will Apple finally understand that a second button can be really useful for a whole range of tasks, and send a different signal to the computer whether the right and the left 'non-button' is pressed ?
And, even better... A 'non-wheel' support sure would be could too.
Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Instant Karma's gonna get you, Gonna knock you right on the head (John Lennon, 1970)
Your's so right. Three cheers for Hewlett-Packard, the inventors of the darn thing! Hip Hip Hooray!
Personally, I enjoy my iPuck mouse. It's comfortable. I have big hands and it fits right under my palm. What do we need frickin' mouse wars for? Mouse, Monitor and Keyboard; use whatever floats your boat. These are the three chief i/o systems you'll use with your computer. They should chosen by each person for personal comfort. This is why I'm still using a six year old monitor and a nine year old keyboard with my iPuck.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Second off, the Puck. Many people have complained about the puck, and I frankly don't see why. The puck is designed for use in a certain position, where your palm does _not_ rest on the mouse, merely the fingers. This position is somewhat comfortable, so I really don't know why their mice (mouses?) are uncomfortable, for they are. The only fault I see is that there is only one button, but then again, the Mac OS only needs one.
Third, about the squeezing part... I really don't think it will be a pain to squeeze or push what appears to be five?! "pressure spots"? and a pseudo scroll wheel... I mean, think about it, everyone exerts some kind of force on your pointing device, and well, it requires force! The sensitivity of these mice would probably be adjustable to what a user needs, from a mere touch to a powerful blow.
It is cool that Apple is innovating... cordless mouse with an optical sensor, and the most shocking part, _no_ buttons, all *standard* with their new macs (hopefully). Well, this is certainly a good start for Apple to pump great hardware that we desire...
Amazing, since all you have to do is hold the button down for a second, and the menu pops up. You don't NEED a second button.
The Happy Blues Man
The Happy Blues Man
I accept on blind faith that Cincinatti exists.
OK, a strange thing is that after sitting at an iMac for a couple of months at work, I don't mind the little hockey puck. It is actually surprisingly comfortable once you swallow the automatic distaste. I bought a tangerine iMac for my girlfriend (who is not a geek, see previous article...) and she actually likes is better than a full sized one.
A friend of mine (no name, no pack drill) works in the industrial design department at Apple. He tells me they did a lot of user testing on the iMac "hockey puck" mouse. The interesting thing is they tested mainly on women and children. That's why the mouse is so small - its not designed to be a good fit for large, male hands.
Is this smart? Depends on your point of view. But think about Apple's primary markets for iMacs: home users and schools. What percentage of those markets do you think are women or children? I think its a brilliant piece of design.
Of course, not having 3 buttons for quake3 is the real crime there. But then again, I don't play quake3 on her imac.
And for a very small amount you can buy a larger third party mouse with scroll wheels, multiple buttons. Ideal if you are a male professional user or games geek. Gotta love that USB :-)
Sailing over the event horizon
I actually liked the Apple hockey puck mouse. The reason I replaced it was that gunk would collect on the internal rollers and prevent the mouse from moving smoothly.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Perhaps, in place of a wheel, you must stroke the mouse with your finger...
May be usefull for some kind of simulation software.
Of course, not having 3 buttons for quake3 is the real crime there. But then again, I don't play quake3 on her imac.
Be ot or bot ne ot, taht is the nestquoi.
How did a buttonless mouse ever get out of the "is this gonna fly" meeting? First of all, what does Apple have against tactile feedback? A click is good so you know when the button was really pressed.
Hey Apple: Compare the number of muscles and effort required to push your index finger. Now compare how many muscles are involved in tilting the whole mouse.
Not to mention that when I do some fine marking on a photoshop doc or something, I'm supposed to jiggle the mouse to make a click?
Then there's the training issue. Can you imagine a newbie user just sitting there looking at the mouse, wondering what the heck you're supposed to do with it? "OK, grandma, now tilt the mouse. No, tilt it the other way." Good god.
A hint to Apple: Change for the sake of change is not "innovation". Eliminating the mouse ball (e.g. MS's optical mouse) was a great thing -- because it dramatically improved it while still keeping it simple. This removes tactile feedback and makes it more complicated.
Just license MS's intellimouse and be done with it. As far as I'm concerned, that's the perfect mouse.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
While we're on the topic of redesigning computer mice: The insanely loud mouse click noise should be engineered out. One person browsing is bad enough. Several web terminals in the same room being used at once makes a hellish clatter.
Why? What is this feature for?
Is this the same cordless mouse? If so, then how the heck are you supposed to play games that require mouse buttons? I can't picture myself using one in Quake 3 Arena game :).
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
The "StupidaMouse" from Dumbentia in 1998. (Warning - it's a pdf file.)
For the love of god, get a Newton. Keyboard/Mouse based UIs _can_ work with a pen, but never very well. I seriously suggest to you that if you're interested in pen-based interfaces, that you get a late-model (e.g. MessagePad 2100) Newton. The UI was designed from the ground up for this sort of thing. It's absolutely great. My favorite was erasing things. You scratched them out. Then they 'poofed' away in a cloud of smoke ;)
It was nearly as good as the Grouch....
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
The comment I was responding to was about Sun's optical mouse of 1991 vintage. It had a funky pad.
Secondly, it would work on a glass table (i dont know why, but i just tested it and it does)
uh, I was being sarcastic... I'll try again.
Oh, yeah? What about on the surface of an exploding volcano?? while your gf shines a highly concentrated particle beam directly at the laser? huh? huh? Gotcha there didn't I? :)
2 1337 4 u!
The article seems to think that a corded mouse would be inferior to a cordless one. I myself prefer a corded one - it helps me keep the mouse oriented correctly, and I don't need to change batteries, ever. Remember who the target audience is here: complete non-geeks. Knowing when to change batteries, or even HOW to change batteries is often well outside their abilities.
About this whole buttonless thing: how does it work? Did Apple simply take an optical mouse and turn it inside out?
--Jeff
By the way, can I head off an inevitable discussion? Whenever the subject of mice comes up, people (rightly) point out that the MS optical mouse rocks. After that, people feel the need to post that optical mice are nothing new, Sun had them ten years ago, etc, etc.
Just for the record: The old optical mice required a special pad with alternating mirror/dark squares. The mouse picked up light bouncing off the squares.
The MS mouse is much more sophisticated. It actually takes an image of the surface, and digitally compares frames to determine the mouse movement. That's why you can use it on any surface, including your leg (nice for those legs-on-the-desk surfing sessions).
The Intellimouse really is pretty cool technology.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.