It has been 2 years now and the only thing he has done was get rid of graphics to aplease the anti-skuemorphism crowd with a METRO clone of flat, colorless, no shininess, tile like icons for IOS 7
iOS 7 isn't flat. It's just got rid of 3D effects hardcoded into bitmaps. (Shadows and highlights). It's 3D is truer now, making greater and more logical use of layered OpenGL textures.
cheap plastic phones knockoffs of their original.
Presumably you are just as convinced that the sweater in that photo is made by Nike.
The majority of UX (sic.) people don't understand BOTH the pros & cons to GUI compared to the Command Line. They both have DIFFERENT strengths and weaknesses that _complement_ one another.
Why is that comment in a thread about mobile phone interfaces? CLI is not a reasonable interface on a phone with no hardware qwerty keyboard. Not even as a complement. As a niche legacy app for people that want to telnet onto some nix machine, UI. But it doesn't and shouldn't have any relevance to the UI of the phone itself.
It does though tip me off that the nature of your UI taste is classic unix. And makes your opinion on phone UIs not particularly worthwhile.
Desaturating the icons it makes it harder for someone to focus on the signal -- everything is one big noise. FAIL.
Is about as useful as someone saying "3x3 pixel font? FAIL". As you showed yourself recently, it all depends on context. And "FAIL" is the mark of an ill-thought out comment.
Where's the Peter Davison and his orange-lined tan suit with broccoli on the lapel? Where's the Sylvester McCoy with his suit-of-question-marks? Or Colin Baker and his patchwork multi-colored coat with question-marks on his shirt collar and giant colored neck-scarves?
Hopefully a very long way away. The Doctor just needs to look like an eccentric, not a twat.
When someone is always "acting" the same character in every role, I don't view it as acting, I view it as it being their real personality and they merely recite lines that are written.
There's the difference between a good actor and a star. The good actor brings a different performance to every role. The star has a particular way of being that people like to see, and he'll do that virtually every time. And the stars get orders of magnitude more money for what they do.
Typing is what you do with your fingers. WYSIWYG is what is displayed on the screen. The typing can be the same in both cases. But to say one prefer output that ISN'T what will be printed to output that IS what will be printed is irrational.
Your grudging acceptance of the number of years of knowledge of mobile development is noted.
Developing for multiple different screen sizes is not that big of a deal, unless your brain is trapped in the printed-page analogy. Its been done this way for 20 years. In this day and age Its. just. not. a. problem.
We've already established you don't know what you're talking about. In your earlier message you were unaware that mobile development was more than 6 years old. Now you're attempting to tell me how things have been done for 20 years.
I work in app development now. You don't. I know exactly where it's a problem and where it isn't. And you don't.
There are four basic resolutions/screen sizes to deal with: 480x320, 960x640, 1136x640, 1024x768 and 2048x1536. Double that because you need to support both portrait and landscape modes. So, were you planning to do 8 different UI layouts to make maximum use of every device in every orientation?
Not quite. The pixel doubling is largely irrelevant to app UI design. (Though decent apps will have different icons and other bitmaps for both.) And for portrait the portrait designs for apps of content scrolling nature, the difference between 1136, and 960 pixels is not usually significant.
So most of the time there's two UI designs times 2 orientations. Though there's twice as many graphic assets as that.
The simple fact is that you don't need different UIs for a 3.5" 800x600 and a 4.8" 1920x1200 screen.
That's not a simple fact at all. It's the opinion of someone who either doesn't do this for a living, or has a low standard of work.
You just need to scale what you have.
There's no such thing as "just" scaling. If you scale icons, they'll look bad in all variations except one. If you auto-layout there are many cases where the content will either look too cramped, or too sparse, or be inappropriately truncated.
They probably bought that huge thing to make seeing and tapping stuff easier, so they last thing they want is for you to make it all smaller again.
Wrong. You can't make an assumption that the owner of a larger device is myopic or indelicate. There are all sorts of reasons for people's choice of device sizes.
Right, that clarifies your misunderstanding. I said: "When was the last time you saw a native app scroll it's primary menu off the top of the screen for example." The settings screen has a scrolling menu, bigger than the screen. It doesn't scroll it's primary menu off the screen. Fucking big difference. The first is perfectly fine native app behaviour. The second is a web-app thing that's a pretty big no-no for native apps.
So was the propaganda of the time. And exaggerated in later years.
The "not close to surrendering" is just plain false. They would have surrendered months earlier on condition that they could keep their emperor. It only continued on the American insistence that it must be an unconditional surrender. And then they let them keep their emperor anyway. A pointless waste of many thousands of lives.
Which would matter if math journals were anything more than a microscopic niche.
And the fact that Microsoft Word isn't good in that area says nothing about GUIs necessarily being bad at it. Complex equations and charts are something where you do constantly want to see what you're going to get whilst you are editing.
CSS still doesn't make it simple to do something as straight forward as to do vertical centering. There are ways, but they all suck.
In fact CSS is generally lousy when it comes to vertical layout. It's designed to make design decisions horizontally, and then let the vertical resize arbitrarily. Which is fine for the "Web Page" paradigm of web pages that have UI elements taht scroll off the screen or window along with the content. But it sucks for creating apps that are like native apps.
It's not impossible, but it's a poor system for doing it.
WTF? Screen layout is not dependant on IDEs. Not even slightly. Whether fixed layout or auto-layout.
Modern IDEs generally offer built in layout editors. But they are just a convenience. They don't allow you to do what you can't do with code. Indeed they inevitably allow less than you can do with code.
All you are doing is underlining your lack of knowledge of mobile app development. Before those you mention, there was WinCE, Symbian, EPOC, GeOS.
Heck before I got involved in mobile development myself, the first contractor that I had dealings with that was doing mobile development was back in 1986. The device was about the size of one of today's phablets, though nearly an inch thick. I don't recall the OS now. So that's, what, 26 years ago.
Re:So, rolling their own, with no experience then.
on
Why PBS Won't Do Android
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
My god, people, go out and hire an app developer
I'm a mobile app developer of 16 years standing, and programmer for more than 30 years. And I'm with him and not you. You don't know what you are talking about.
Sure it's easy to make a good desktop app with a arbitrarily resizable interface. And it's easy to make a poor mobile app with a arbitrarily resizable interface.
But the best mobile apps ARE designed for fixed size screens. That's because the screen size is small compared to the size of the minimum UI element (dictated by the size of a fingertip. Quite simply screen space is at a premium. Not only does the optimum specific arrangement of UI elements vary, the optimum UI hierarchy varies. Screen designs are best when a designer considers the specific sizes. Auto layout is a always a compromise, and one that gets worse the smaller the screens in question,
They can be cookie cutter-ed from existing apps in less than a couple weeks by people who do this for a living. Apps like these aren't that hard.
The answer here is that your standards are low. That's why you think auto-layout is good enough. His opinion differs not because he knows less than you, but because his standards are higher.
Because user expectations of native apps are higher than those of web apps.
Users accept when top level UI elements of a web app scroll. They don't accept that with a native app. When was the last time you saw a native app scroll it's primary menu off the top of the screen for example. Most web apps do.
Slashdot Mirror
It has been 2 years now and the only thing he has done was get rid of graphics to aplease the anti-skuemorphism crowd with a METRO clone of flat, colorless, no shininess, tile like icons for IOS 7
iOS 7 isn't flat. It's just got rid of 3D effects hardcoded into bitmaps. (Shadows and highlights). It's 3D is truer now, making greater and more logical use of layered OpenGL textures.
cheap plastic phones knockoffs of their original.
Presumably you are just as convinced that the sweater in that photo is made by Nike.
The majority of UX (sic.) people don't understand BOTH the pros & cons to GUI compared to the Command Line. They both have DIFFERENT strengths and weaknesses that _complement_ one another.
Why is that comment in a thread about mobile phone interfaces? CLI is not a reasonable interface on a phone with no hardware qwerty keyboard. Not even as a complement. As a niche legacy app for people that want to telnet onto some nix machine, UI. But it doesn't and shouldn't have any relevance to the UI of the phone itself.
It does though tip me off that the nature of your UI taste is classic unix. And makes your opinion on phone UIs not particularly worthwhile.
Desaturating the icons it makes it harder for someone to focus on the signal -- everything is one big noise. FAIL.
Is about as useful as someone saying "3x3 pixel font? FAIL". As you showed yourself recently, it all depends on context. And "FAIL" is the mark of an ill-thought out comment.
"The typing can be the same in both cases."
Really? So Microsoft Word accepts LaTeX input? That would be nice.
Deliberate misinterpreting of the words of your correspondent is a poor debate technique. Especially when it requires you to have misread a word.
It's not so much the screen appearance as the method of input that I prefer
Right. Which is of zero relevance to the "designed layout" vs "auto-layout" topic of discussion.
I'm too busy taking the piss out of the argument "wanna bet?
Where's the Peter Davison and his orange-lined tan suit with broccoli on the lapel? Where's the Sylvester McCoy with his suit-of-question-marks? Or Colin Baker and his patchwork multi-colored coat with question-marks on his shirt collar and giant colored neck-scarves?
Hopefully a very long way away. The Doctor just needs to look like an eccentric, not a twat.
When someone is always "acting" the same character in every role, I don't view it as acting, I view it as it being their real personality and they merely recite lines that are written.
There's the difference between a good actor and a star. The good actor brings a different performance to every role. The star has a particular way of being that people like to see, and he'll do that virtually every time. And the stars get orders of magnitude more money for what they do.
Ah, the heady mix of an ageing actor and live to air broadcasting.
Some of the episodes, he says a line wrong, then corrects himself.
You don't say.
Typing is what you do with your fingers. WYSIWYG is what is displayed on the screen. The typing can be the same in both cases. But to say one prefer output that ISN'T what will be printed to output that IS what will be printed is irrational.
And for sure, some people are irrational.
Start your re-education here old man
Your grudging acceptance of the number of years of knowledge of mobile development is noted.
Developing for multiple different screen sizes is not that big of a deal, unless your brain is trapped in the printed-page analogy. Its been done this way for 20 years. In this day and age Its. just. not. a. problem.
We've already established you don't know what you're talking about. In your earlier message you were unaware that mobile development was more than 6 years old. Now you're attempting to tell me how things have been done for 20 years.
I work in app development now. You don't.
I know exactly where it's a problem and where it isn't. And you don't.
There are four basic resolutions/screen sizes to deal with: 480x320, 960x640, 1136x640, 1024x768 and 2048x1536. Double that because you need to support both portrait and landscape modes. So, were you planning to do 8 different UI layouts to make maximum use of every device in every orientation?
Not quite. The pixel doubling is largely irrelevant to app UI design. (Though decent apps will have different icons and other bitmaps for both.) And for portrait the portrait designs for apps of content scrolling nature, the difference between 1136, and 960 pixels is not usually significant.
So most of the time there's two UI designs times 2 orientations. Though there's twice as many graphic assets as that.
The simple fact is that you don't need different UIs for a 3.5" 800x600 and a 4.8" 1920x1200 screen.
That's not a simple fact at all. It's the opinion of someone who either doesn't do this for a living, or has a low standard of work.
You just need to scale what you have.
There's no such thing as "just" scaling. If you scale icons, they'll look bad in all variations except one. If you auto-layout there are many cases where the content will either look too cramped, or too sparse, or be inappropriately truncated.
They probably bought that huge thing to make seeing and tapping stuff easier, so they last thing they want is for you to make it all smaller again.
Wrong. You can't make an assumption that the owner of a larger device is myopic or indelicate. There are all sorts of reasons for people's choice of device sizes.
The Play app scrolls the primary menu.
As I haven't seen it personally, there's two possibilities here.
a) It's a bad app.
b) You're misinterpreting my point.
Looking here, it seems a bit of both.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ersoPfhTXE
The settings screen is all scrolling.
Right, that clarifies your misunderstanding. I said:
"When was the last time you saw a native app scroll it's primary menu off the top of the screen for example." The settings screen has a scrolling menu, bigger than the screen. It doesn't scroll it's primary menu off the screen. Fucking big difference. The first is perfectly fine native app behaviour. The second is a web-app thing that's a pretty big no-no for native apps.
So was the propaganda of the time. And exaggerated in later years.
The "not close to surrendering" is just plain false. They would have surrendered months earlier on condition that they could keep their emperor. It only continued on the American insistence that it must be an unconditional surrender. And then they let them keep their emperor anyway. A pointless waste of many thousands of lives.
Only $1500? What about $1,000,000?
Which would matter if math journals were anything more than a microscopic niche.
And the fact that Microsoft Word isn't good in that area says nothing about GUIs necessarily being bad at it. Complex equations and charts are something where you do constantly want to see what you're going to get whilst you are editing.
CSS still doesn't make it simple to do something as straight forward as to do vertical centering. There are ways, but they all suck.
In fact CSS is generally lousy when it comes to vertical layout. It's designed to make design decisions horizontally, and then let the vertical resize arbitrarily. Which is fine for the "Web Page" paradigm of web pages that have UI elements taht scroll off the screen or window along with the content. But it sucks for creating apps that are like native apps.
It's not impossible, but it's a poor system for doing it.
Nonsense. The idea works brilliantly.
TeX is far superior to any sort of Word Processor...
Making an app to do something that is already handled just fine in my browser sounds like a waste of time and effort anyhow.
Oh dear... A classic example of the duff opinions that make Linux desktop the failure it is.
It's FUD if it's bullshit. Android can report its screen size and features rather easily
Reporting the screen size is not the issue.
WTF? Screen layout is not dependant on IDEs. Not even slightly. Whether fixed layout or auto-layout.
Modern IDEs generally offer built in layout editors. But they are just a convenience. They don't allow you to do what you can't do with code. Indeed they inevitably allow less than you can do with code.
You haven't a clue.
All you are doing is underlining your lack of knowledge of mobile app development. Before those you mention, there was WinCE, Symbian, EPOC, GeOS.
Heck before I got involved in mobile development myself, the first contractor that I had dealings with that was doing mobile development was back in 1986. The device was about the size of one of today's phablets, though nearly an inch thick. I don't recall the OS now. So that's, what, 26 years ago.
Someone's bullshitting here, and it ain't me.
I'd love to.
My god, people, go out and hire an app developer
I'm a mobile app developer of 16 years standing, and programmer for more than 30 years. And I'm with him and not you. You don't know what you are talking about.
Sure it's easy to make a good desktop app with a arbitrarily resizable interface. And it's easy to make a poor mobile app with a arbitrarily resizable interface.
But the best mobile apps ARE designed for fixed size screens. That's because the screen size is small compared to the size of the minimum UI element (dictated by the size of a fingertip. Quite simply screen space is at a premium. Not only does the optimum specific arrangement of UI elements vary, the optimum UI hierarchy varies. Screen designs are best when a designer considers the specific sizes. Auto layout is a always a compromise, and one that gets worse the smaller the screens in question,
They can be cookie cutter-ed from existing apps in less than a couple weeks by people who do this for a living. Apps like these aren't that hard.
The answer here is that your standards are low. That's why you think auto-layout is good enough. His opinion differs not because he knows less than you, but because his standards are higher.
Because user expectations of native apps are higher than those of web apps.
Users accept when top level UI elements of a web app scroll. They don't accept that with a native app. When was the last time you saw a native app scroll it's primary menu off the top of the screen for example. Most web apps do.
they are also repeating their FUD too.
Information isn't "FUD" just because you don't want to hear it.
It doesn't have to be perfect. It needs to be useful.
Truly Android has taken the position in the phone market that Windows took in the personal computer market. Feature count rather than quality.