The best way to ensure that this is the way the apps get designed is to not ship two-button mice.
Apple is enforcing good UI design, and ((since they've got the best track record in the business) I'm inclined to let them.
Of course, I've been using multi-button mice on my Macs for upwards of ten years, so I'm really confused as to what the problem is in the first place...
Why do you like a high dpi? I'm really not trolling here, I'm wondering if you've ever actually used a 1024x768 Powerbook. OSX resizes graphics very, very gracefully, so there's not the usability hit that you'd see on other OSes.
You go ahead and buy what makes you happy, but this 12" Powerbook is the best computer I've ever seen for my purposes. YMMV.
The difference is, Apple "enforces" this user interface guideline by making it impossible for developers to rely on the existence of the right mouse button.
Yes, the user interface guidelines you cite all suggest that contextual menus shouldn't be the only way to do things. Apple is the only designer to force the issue.
And, as somebody who gets to explain left mouse button vs. right mouse button all day, I think they're absolutely right.
If you were logged in, I'd discuss this with you. Since you're not, I'll just say that Fitt's Law is not the end of UI design, it's only the beginning.
:visual controls should not replace the functionality of context menus:
Not at all. Apple's point, their key design idea, is that contextual menus should always be optional. There should, ideally, never be a feature that's in the right-click menu that's not accessible other places.
At work, I use Novell's ZenWorks remote desktop utility to troubleshoot users' computers. I am continually hamstrung by the fact that there are features of common Windows apps (McAfee AV is my big complaint) that are difficult to access without using the right mouse button on the icon in the systray. The problem is, ZenWorks tries to scroll the window and steals the focus when I right click, so it's really hard to get it to do what I need.
Yes, these are two poorly designed applications whose design flaws exacerbate each other, but with Apple's de facto requirement that the developer not assume that there's a right mouse button, it would never happen.
Re:Offline games require online reporting = BOGUS
on
Steam Users Steamed
·
· Score: 1
"ID software on the other hand... they released a game with amazing graphics, created a linux port and doesn't require you to go online and authenticate to play"
Yeah, and if the game were any good, I'd have bought it. But it isn't, so I didn't.
Re:Offline games require online reporting = BOGUS
on
Steam Users Steamed
·
· Score: 1
"reminiscent of id software's classic game Abuse - is unplayable"
id had absolutely nothing to do with Abuse. I playtested the game for Origin Systems' release. I think you might have your game companies confused.
They don't have the same technical meaning. According to the poster, owning an iPod was sufficient to be "cool". Now, owning an iPod is necessary to be "cool".
"All iPod owners are cool" and "You must have an iPod in order to be cool" are not congruent statements.
"macs have their share of installation and management problems,"
Really? Care to elaborate?
"the hardware is pokey,"
More than fast enough for anything I want to do...
"and battery life of the laptops is not competitive anymore either"
If by that you mean "No longer lasts five times as long as Windows laptops", you're right. Centrino does a very good job of managing power better. They've caught up...almost.
Buy what works for you. You'll never get my Powerbook away from me.
When I get home from work, supporting 500 Windows 90/2000/XP workstations, the last last last thing I want to do is "need to know what I'm doing" to keep my home computers from going all wonky.
That's why I have a Powerbook...because I know what I'm doing, and I know better. Good technicians are lazy technicians, and I'm a very lazy technician.
Yeah, it'd be nice to have a higher res screen on my tinylittlepowerbook, but I've been impressed with how gracefully OSX handles the relatively modest resolution. I mean, I can ALWAYS use more screen real estate, but I've been very pleased with how nicely everything scales and renders. With Windows at such a low resolution, I feel like somebody's holding my elbows.
"Still, I don't think it is in their best interest to buy up an app and re-package it"
I think Apple getting rid of (or, at least, reducing the severity of) their "Not-Invented-Here" complex is the reason they're so successful now. Now, they seem to take good ideas, polish them 'till they gleam, and sell them at reasonable prices.
It's not a function of the display being too small, it's a function of "there's not transistors where I need to put dots that make up text".
LCDs can run at lower-than-maximum resolution by running an anti-aliasing hack that's really ugly. LCDs running at higher-than-maximum resolution would be totally unreadable, regardless of the size of the display.
CRTs can change resolution gracefully, but LCDs simply cannot. Different technologies.
Slashdot Mirror
The best way to ensure that this is the way the apps get designed is to not ship two-button mice.
Apple is enforcing good UI design, and ((since they've got the best track record in the business) I'm inclined to let them.
Of course, I've been using multi-button mice on my Macs for upwards of ten years, so I'm really confused as to what the problem is in the first place...
"A well designed context menu will have maybe five entries,"
I'd love to know where you found one of those. And how did you get the yeti to hold still while you right clicked on his asshole?
(it's a joke, see? Well designed contextual menus are as hard to find as yeti assholes)
Why do you like a high dpi? I'm really not trolling here, I'm wondering if you've ever actually used a 1024x768 Powerbook. OSX resizes graphics very, very gracefully, so there's not the usability hit that you'd see on other OSes.
You go ahead and buy what makes you happy, but this 12" Powerbook is the best computer I've ever seen for my purposes. YMMV.
It's called Bluetooth. Most powerbooks have it, and it works great.
Gosh, I wonder if the guys who port the game bothered to remember that the keyboard map probably needs to be looked at as well?
Whew...guess that's why they get the big bucks.
The difference is, Apple "enforces" this user interface guideline by making it impossible for developers to rely on the existence of the right mouse button.
Yes, the user interface guidelines you cite all suggest that contextual menus shouldn't be the only way to do things. Apple is the only designer to force the issue.
And, as somebody who gets to explain left mouse button vs. right mouse button all day, I think they're absolutely right.
If you were logged in, I'd discuss this with you. Since you're not, I'll just say that Fitt's Law is not the end of UI design, it's only the beginning.
:visual controls should not replace the functionality of context menus:
Not at all. Apple's point, their key design idea, is that contextual menus should always be optional. There should, ideally, never be a feature that's in the right-click menu that's not accessible other places.
At work, I use Novell's ZenWorks remote desktop utility to troubleshoot users' computers. I am continually hamstrung by the fact that there are features of common Windows apps (McAfee AV is my big complaint) that are difficult to access without using the right mouse button on the icon in the systray. The problem is, ZenWorks tries to scroll the window and steals the focus when I right click, so it's really hard to get it to do what I need.
Yes, these are two poorly designed applications whose design flaws exacerbate each other, but with Apple's de facto requirement that the developer not assume that there's a right mouse button, it would never happen.
"ID software on the other hand... they released a game with amazing graphics, created a linux port and doesn't require you to go online and authenticate to play"
Yeah, and if the game were any good, I'd have bought it. But it isn't, so I didn't.
"reminiscent of id software's classic game Abuse - is unplayable"
id had absolutely nothing to do with Abuse. I playtested the game for Origin Systems' release. I think you might have your game companies confused.
Your understanding of history is flawed.
Apple tried to develop an OS that had nothing to do with *nix, other than being "posix compliant" (you know, like NT allegedly is).
(e.g. late eighties mac and laser printer markets)
Compared to the hardware that Macs and laser printers replaced, they were basically free.
Well, this is the first digital camera I ever saw.
I wonder how much money Apple has made from their booming "iPod battery replacement" business.
I'm betting it's about a buck and a half. This is an issue that was WAY overblown.
They don't have the same technical meaning. According to the poster, owning an iPod was sufficient to be "cool". Now, owning an iPod is necessary to be "cool".
"All iPod owners are cool" and "You must have an iPod in order to be cool" are not congruent statements.
here is Apple's open-source code.
Why would they try to develop their own *nix if there's one sitting there at Berkeley saying "Hey hey hey! Use me use me use me!"
(if you can afford it)
Is the $999 iBook that expensive?
"macs have their share of installation and management problems,"
Really? Care to elaborate?
"the hardware is pokey,"
More than fast enough for anything I want to do...
"and battery life of the laptops is not competitive anymore either"
If by that you mean "No longer lasts five times as long as Windows laptops", you're right. Centrino does a very good job of managing power better. They've caught up...almost.
Buy what works for you. You'll never get my Powerbook away from me.
When I get home from work, supporting 500 Windows 90/2000/XP workstations, the last last last thing I want to do is "need to know what I'm doing" to keep my home computers from going all wonky.
That's why I have a Powerbook...because I know what I'm doing, and I know better. Good technicians are lazy technicians, and I'm a very lazy technician.
"What do you think you are? A Rocket Scientist?"
Why, yes! Yes, I am! (I totally fish for that.)
Yeah, it'd be nice to have a higher res screen on my tinylittlepowerbook, but I've been impressed with how gracefully OSX handles the relatively modest resolution. I mean, I can ALWAYS use more screen real estate, but I've been very pleased with how nicely everything scales and renders. With Windows at such a low resolution, I feel like somebody's holding my elbows.
"Still, I don't think it is in their best interest to buy up an app and re-package it"
I think Apple getting rid of (or, at least, reducing the severity of) their "Not-Invented-Here" complex is the reason they're so successful now. Now, they seem to take good ideas, polish them 'till they gleam, and sell them at reasonable prices.
All I got to say is, I'm a very happy customer.
I'd have a little more sympathy for Arlo Rose and Konfabulator if he'd go ahead and fix the grievous memory leaks in his program that I paid for.
Until then, I'm eagerly awaiting Dashboard.
It's not a function of the display being too small, it's a function of "there's not transistors where I need to put dots that make up text".
LCDs can run at lower-than-maximum resolution by running an anti-aliasing hack that's really ugly. LCDs running at higher-than-maximum resolution would be totally unreadable, regardless of the size of the display.
CRTs can change resolution gracefully, but LCDs simply cannot. Different technologies.
Unless I'm having my crazy-time, your parent poster was talking about increasing the resolution on EXTERNAL displays.
Running a flat panel at higher than its native resolution would render (huh huh) the display completely illegible.
Now I just want them to fix the Sherlock viewer for eBay. That was handy!