A list of what's happening is useless to nearly everyone. And for those people that do need to know, that's what log files are for. Or magic keyboard shortcuts to bring up the console.
Apple refer to it as a launch screen to avoid confusion with splash screens. By launch screen they mean a barebones image that looks like the background of the app, before data and buttons have been overlaid.
Splash screens - (Logos, app name, etc) are against Apple guidelines.
When you have a long load time, a splash screen makes a lot sense. It lets the user know that something is happening.
You have to do something to let the user know that their request to use the app is in progress. That doesn't have to be a splash screen. A bare bones window that looks like the start of the app being rendered can be displayed at least as quick as a splash screen can. Complete the rendering of the window as soon as possible and let the user interact with it. Then lazy load anything that's not absolutely needed up front.
A splash screen is the sign of an ill thought out app.
Yes, I'm talking about the skeleton launch screen that looks like the start of the app itself being rendered. Just as Apple advise. Not a screen shot of the exact screen as it was when the app last quit.
You're on slashdot, so you're a developer, or at least have some interest in that area. You make appreciate that there probably won't be any difference in time between an app with a splash screen and once with a launch image that looks like the skeleton of the app.
But most people aren't developers. Which isn't the same as being as stupid as an eggplant.
And even you, with your brain the size of a planet, respond more subconsciously and emotionally to these things, than logically.
In the general case, a splash-screen is perceived as stop-light. A sign that says WAIT. A launch image gives the feeling that an app is quicker - that it's actually starting faster.
A skeleton launch image will also put your brain in the model of the app sooner than a splash screen will. Such that you're thinking about what your first interaction will be earlier.
On a mobile device it's even more important. Mobile devices have limited memory. They try to keep applications in memory when you switch apps, but if memory runs low, they start closing down background apps. Which means that sometimes when you switch to a different app, it's already running, and sometimes it has to start from scratch. So a good app does it's best to restart in the exact same state as it was when it was quit.
If you have splash screens on start up, the experience will be randomly different. Sometimes you'll get the splash screen, and sometimes you won't. That's bad. And yet a starting app has to display something to give feedback to the user that their request to go to that app has been recognised. A launch screen that simulated the bare bones of the app provides feedback that something is happening, whilst providing the smallest friction to the illusion that the app is already running.
This stuff is all pretty standard stuff in mobile UX design. If you see a mobile app with a splash screen, you can be sure it's a badly designed app, an app that wasn't designed at all, or at least one who's design has been compromised by management that don't understand UX design.
This is a company that's effectively bankrupt - all their factories are closed, and their shares have been suspended in the stock exchange. And they're talking about another subsidiary of the same?
I don't know why you capitalised "OWNS", when it's only "claims to own".
Sounds like a last desperate attempt at double dipping to me.
The word "pad" makes you think of a ladies sanitary product before you think of a pad of paper? That seems a little odd to me.
I think it's fair to say most people are thinking of a mobile computing device when they hear "iPad" and they don't immediately think of sanitary towels.
I remember when Nintendo came out with the "Wii", which sounds exactly like children's slang for urine in the UK. Didn't seem to hurt sales at all. And no one bats an eyelid at eh question "Do you want to play with my Wii?"
* Proview China is lying in a last-ditch effort to save their company
* Apple and/or their front company didn't do their homework
I'm a betting man. I'd apply probabilities of 90% and 10% respectively if I was looking to bet on those options. We already know Proview is fucked. Their factories are closed down and their shares have been suspended from the stock exchange. They admit they're looking for an out of court settlement, whilst trying to push that by shopping around jurisdictions looking for injuctions. Which is the standard tactic of an IP troll.
From the sound of it, your problem is that anyone is allowed to mark an issue as high without restriction.
You say the goal is to have no more than 10% marked as high. So it seems the answer is simple. When you have 10% marked as high, you don't allow another item to be marked as high unless and until something else is removed from high.
That could be manually managed by a project manager, or it could be a business rule in your issue tracking database.
That's interesting. I was going on the "2012 Fundraising Plan" document, which has $200,000 listed as as 2012 forecast. Which I suppose could have already been received, or could just be promised.
Of course there's an explanation for it being different in character from the others. Heartland is an organisation with many employees. Just because it has a different author doesn't mean it's not from Heartland or that it's a fake.
Of course Occam's Razor weighs one way. Two explanations of these documents:
1) Social engineering was used to get a Heartland employee to mail the documents to an outsider, who then sent them to the media.
2) Social engineering was used to get a Heartland employee to mail the documents to an outsider, who then faked an extra document, then sent them to the media.
Number one is the simpler explanation, and is most definitely the Occam's razor solution.
Not that it matters. All the interesting stuff is contained in the documents that Heartland isn't disputing.
The year after?... The Koch foundation only has one recorded donation, of $25,000. And it's for healthcare. Heartland rightly or wrongly were expecting $200,000 in 2012. And the Koch foundation have said they're not going to give it. So how can it be the year after?
I misremembered the bit about the Koch foundation being the biggest donor. But if you're going to jump in and correct it, at least get it right.
Now who is that "Anonymous Donor", who's giving large amounts of money? Generally over a million each year, and up to $3,000,000. The documents (including the authenticated ones) refer to the donor as "he", so probably an individual rather than an organisation.
We're looking for an individual, who opposes the consensus in global warming, tends to back his political opinions with cash, and can afford to donate millions per year. There's actually not that many people that describes.
He also funds "Operation Angry Badger" which is anti collective bargaining.
OK, I can think of 2 possibles. The surnames of both coincidentally begin with K. And end with CH. Also the major funders of the Tea Party.
Hey if you want to believe it's a fake, that's fine. It could be. There's no solid evidence wither way.
It doesn't really matter because all the damaging facts about the lobbyist nature of their business, who funds them, and which deniers they are paying, is contained in the other documents.
If the fonts are included in the Powerpoint file, I'm sure it'll render them perfectly. If they're not included, you're at the mercy of whether the fonts originally used are available on the iOS device. Mobile Powerpoint would have exactly the same issue.
Moreover, it is not just that things are visualized incorrectly, they are also corrupted in the original file.
To do that you'd have to import edit and export again over the same file name.
Of all the people in the world who could have provided an analysis that it's a fake, it's the wife of a fellow in the Koch Foundation. The Heartland Institute's biggest donor.
And then all the evidence she gives isn't that it's a fake, but only that the author is different from the other documents. And that the person that wrote it did so later than the other documents and referring back to them. But Heartland is a lobbyist organisation with multiple employees spread out over America, so none of that is evidence of a fake.
It's basically someone with the objective of showing it's a fake throwing everything at it. All of it sounds plausible, but none of it actually logically stands up as evidence of a fake.
Well, fully functional and implemented HTML5 standard, combined with good HTML5 tools, will make dedicated web service apps less useful, to the point of them becoming irrelevant. Why develop and maintain an app for 3+ mobile platforms, if you can make a single touch-optimized web interface which will work equally well on any mobile device with minimal platfrom-dependent tweaking?
They won't ever work as well as native apps. They don't have all the API hooks into the OS and therefore don't have access to all device resources. And they aren't as efficient as native apps, neither CPU wise or memory wise.
If Apple were so scared of free web apps not providing them with 30%, then they wouldn't let developers put free native apps on the App Store. They don't make money out of them either.
Apple are fully behind HTML5. They want the best mobile app experience to be on iOS. They make the vast majority of their money on selling hardware. The App Store only does a little better than break even.
Their target audience might just see the leaks as the work of the conspiracy of freedom haters and lap up the message.
Of course they will. The very same people that were so pleased that the CRU email server was hacked into in the so called "Climategate" affair. That said how great it was that this information was now in the public domain.
Of course they claim one is faked. It's so damaging to them they don't have any other means of defence other than to claim fake. We can expect them to say it's faked either way.
Whether it actually is faked or not is another matter. There's no evidence one way or the other. But it being in a bundle with genuine documents does put the balance of probabilities on it also being genuine.
Ack! Talking of unreliable formats. That post went crappy in the middle because I used a less-than sign! Here it is again in full.
I only use Andriod so I did not know that bit. Apple does want MS to write Office because many executives will not use anything but Office.
And yet lots of executives are using iPhones. For sure executives want MS Office for creating and editing files. But that's not typically what you're doing on a phone. You just want to be able to open them and read them.
Steve Jobs made sure of this when he came back as much as he wished people would use iWorks.
Ah, but that's when Apple were struggling. They had less than 2% market share of Macs, and shrinking. Apple is now a far bigger company than Microsoft. And they are the market leader in tablets and one of the big two in phones. Apple doesn't need Microsoft like they did back in 1997.
Consumers are more open to iWorks than proefessionals.
That's almost true. iWorks is long since dead, it's iWork now, which is a completely different group of products. But yes, Consumers and professionals are more likely to be open to it than executives. But that's OK because consumers and professionals are Apple's big markets. Executives are a minority that can come on board in time.
I am not as I can not guarantee that my resume or other files will look the same in Office, but I guess some people do not care.
Resume's should be PDFs as they are not intended to be edited by the recipient, and need to be guaranteed to be the same format for the reciever as the sender. Back in the late 90s I made the mistake of sending a Resume in.Doc format. There were a couple of URLs in there, on my copy they were colored and underlined as clickable. In my interview I was horrified to see the printout of the CV the interviewer had. The URLs had been replaced with error messages. We'd both used Word on a PC, but his version of Word must have been a different one than mine.
In recent years most of the CVs I see are in PDF format. I now tend to think of people with CVs in.doc format as amateurs.
I only use Andriod so I did not know that bit. Apple does want MS to write Office because many executives will not use anything but Office.
And yet lots of executives are using iPhones. For sure executives want MS Office for creating and editing files. But that's not typically what you're doing on a phone. You just want to be able to open them and read them.
Steve Jobs made sure of this when he came back as much as he wished people would use iWorks.
Ah, but that's when Apple were struggling. They had Consumers are more open to iWorks than proefessionals.
That's almost true. iWorks is long since dead, it's iWork now, which is a completely different group of products. But yes, Consumers and professionals are more likely to be open to it than executives. But that's OK because consumers and professionals are Apple's big markets. Executives are a minority that can come on board in time.
I am not as I can not guarantee that my resume or other files will look the same in Office, but I guess some people do not care.
Resume's should be PDFs as they are not intended to be edited by the recipient, and need to be guaranteed to be the same format for the reciever as the sender. Back in the late 90s I made the mistake of sending a Resume in.Doc format. There were a couple of URLs in there, on my copy they were colored and underlined as clickable. In my interview I was horrified to see the printout of the CV the interviewer had. The URLs had been replaced with error messages. We'd both used Word on a PC, but his version of Word must have been a different one than mine.
In recent years most of the CVs I see are in PDF format. I now tend to think of people with CVs in.doc format as amateurs.
Slashdot Mirror
A list of what's happening is useless to nearly everyone. And for those people that do need to know, that's what log files are for. Or magic keyboard shortcuts to bring up the console.
Apple refer to it as a launch screen to avoid confusion with splash screens. By launch screen they mean a barebones image that looks like the background of the app, before data and buttons have been overlaid.
Splash screens - (Logos, app name, etc) are against Apple guidelines.
When you have a long load time, a splash screen makes a lot sense. It lets the user know that something is happening.
You have to do something to let the user know that their request to use the app is in progress. That doesn't have to be a splash screen. A bare bones window that looks like the start of the app being rendered can be displayed at least as quick as a splash screen can. Complete the rendering of the window as soon as possible and let the user interact with it. Then lazy load anything that's not absolutely needed up front.
A splash screen is the sign of an ill thought out app.
Actually it is worse, WAY worse.
No it's not. This stuff isn't even in question. I've already written some of it up here, so I won't repeat it, just link you to it.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2682303&cid=39105601
Yes, I'm talking about the skeleton launch screen that looks like the start of the app itself being rendered. Just as Apple advise. Not a screen shot of the exact screen as it was when the app last quit.
You're on slashdot, so you're a developer, or at least have some interest in that area. You make appreciate that there probably won't be any difference in time between an app with a splash screen and once with a launch image that looks like the skeleton of the app.
But most people aren't developers. Which isn't the same as being as stupid as an eggplant.
And even you, with your brain the size of a planet, respond more subconsciously and emotionally to these things, than logically.
In the general case, a splash-screen is perceived as stop-light. A sign that says WAIT. A launch image gives the feeling that an app is quicker - that it's actually starting faster.
A skeleton launch image will also put your brain in the model of the app sooner than a splash screen will. Such that you're thinking about what your first interaction will be earlier.
On a mobile device it's even more important. Mobile devices have limited memory. They try to keep applications in memory when you switch apps, but if memory runs low, they start closing down background apps. Which means that sometimes when you switch to a different app, it's already running, and sometimes it has to start from scratch. So a good app does it's best to restart in the exact same state as it was when it was quit.
If you have splash screens on start up, the experience will be randomly different. Sometimes you'll get the splash screen, and sometimes you won't. That's bad. And yet a starting app has to display something to give feedback to the user that their request to go to that app has been recognised. A launch screen that simulated the bare bones of the app provides feedback that something is happening, whilst providing the smallest friction to the illusion that the app is already running.
This stuff is all pretty standard stuff in mobile UX design. If you see a mobile app with a splash screen, you can be sure it's a badly designed app, an app that wasn't designed at all, or at least one who's design has been compromised by management that don't understand UX design.
That's right, that's exactly how it's supposed to be.
Not only do a lot of devs do that, that's what you're supposed to do, it's in the HIG (or perhaps somewhere else in Apple's dev docs).
And I've seen it done on other mobile platforms too.
A "lie" that the UI is starting to work earlier than it really does is better than a splash screen, and the article makes that point.
This is a company that's effectively bankrupt - all their factories are closed, and their shares have been suspended in the stock exchange. And they're talking about another subsidiary of the same?
I don't know why you capitalised "OWNS", when it's only "claims to own".
Sounds like a last desperate attempt at double dipping to me.
The word "pad" makes you think of a ladies sanitary product before you think of a pad of paper? That seems a little odd to me.
I think it's fair to say most people are thinking of a mobile computing device when they hear "iPad" and they don't immediately think of sanitary towels.
I remember when Nintendo came out with the "Wii", which sounds exactly like children's slang for urine in the UK. Didn't seem to hurt sales at all. And no one bats an eyelid at eh question "Do you want to play with my Wii?"
It seems there are two options here:
* Proview China is lying in a last-ditch effort to save their company
* Apple and/or their front company didn't do their homework
I'm a betting man. I'd apply probabilities of 90% and 10% respectively if I was looking to bet on those options. We already know Proview is fucked. Their factories are closed down and their shares have been suspended from the stock exchange. They admit they're looking for an out of court settlement, whilst trying to push that by shopping around jurisdictions looking for injuctions. Which is the standard tactic of an IP troll.
From the sound of it, your problem is that anyone is allowed to mark an issue as high without restriction.
You say the goal is to have no more than 10% marked as high. So it seems the answer is simple. When you have 10% marked as high, you don't allow another item to be marked as high unless and until something else is removed from high.
That could be manually managed by a project manager, or it could be a business rule in your issue tracking database.
That's interesting. I was going on the "2012 Fundraising Plan" document, which has $200,000 listed as as 2012 forecast. Which I suppose could have already been received, or could just be promised.
The Koch Foundation themselves appear to deny that they gave the $200K.
http://www.charleskochfoundationfacts.org/
Although it does have a feel of doublespeak.
So who knows? To be honest I don't think that particular line means much as it does seem to be for healthcare.
I think the "Is the Anonymous Donor one of the Koch brothers?" question is more interesting.
Was 1984 itself being in England not enough of a clue?
Of course there's an explanation for it being different in character from the others. Heartland is an organisation with many employees. Just because it has a different author doesn't mean it's not from Heartland or that it's a fake.
Of course Occam's Razor weighs one way. Two explanations of these documents:
1) Social engineering was used to get a Heartland employee to mail the documents to an outsider, who then sent them to the media.
2) Social engineering was used to get a Heartland employee to mail the documents to an outsider, who then faked an extra document, then sent them to the media.
Number one is the simpler explanation, and is most definitely the Occam's razor solution.
Not that it matters. All the interesting stuff is contained in the documents that Heartland isn't disputing.
The year after?... The Koch foundation only has one recorded donation, of $25,000. And it's for healthcare. Heartland rightly or wrongly were expecting $200,000 in 2012. And the Koch foundation have said they're not going to give it.
So how can it be the year after?
I misremembered the bit about the Koch foundation being the biggest donor. But if you're going to jump in and correct it, at least get it right.
Now who is that "Anonymous Donor", who's giving large amounts of money? Generally over a million each year, and up to $3,000,000. The documents (including the authenticated ones) refer to the donor as "he", so probably an individual rather than an organisation.
We're looking for an individual, who opposes the consensus in global warming, tends to back his political opinions with cash, and can afford to donate millions per year. There's actually not that many people that describes.
He also funds "Operation Angry Badger" which is anti collective bargaining.
OK, I can think of 2 possibles. The surnames of both coincidentally begin with K. And end with CH. Also the major funders of the Tea Party.
"Quite plausible" is a long, long way from probable. As I say the balance of probabilities is on it not being a fake. Think Occam's razor.
It might be a fake. But it's probably not.
Hey if you want to believe it's a fake, that's fine. It could be. There's no solid evidence wither way.
It doesn't really matter because all the damaging facts about the lobbyist nature of their business, who funds them, and which deniers they are paying, is contained in the other documents.
Screws-up the fonts
If the fonts are included in the Powerpoint file, I'm sure it'll render them perfectly. If they're not included, you're at the mercy of whether the fonts originally used are available on the iOS device. Mobile Powerpoint would have exactly the same issue.
Moreover, it is not just that things are visualized incorrectly, they are also corrupted in the original file.
To do that you'd have to import edit and export again over the same file name.
Of all the people in the world who could have provided an analysis that it's a fake, it's the wife of a fellow in the Koch Foundation. The Heartland Institute's biggest donor.
And then all the evidence she gives isn't that it's a fake, but only that the author is different from the other documents. And that the person that wrote it did so later than the other documents and referring back to them. But Heartland is a lobbyist organisation with multiple employees spread out over America, so none of that is evidence of a fake.
It's basically someone with the objective of showing it's a fake throwing everything at it. All of it sounds plausible, but none of it actually logically stands up as evidence of a fake.
Well, fully functional and implemented HTML5 standard, combined with good HTML5 tools, will make dedicated web service apps less useful, to the point of them becoming irrelevant. Why develop and maintain an app for 3+ mobile platforms, if you can make a single touch-optimized web interface which will work equally well on any mobile device with minimal platfrom-dependent tweaking?
They won't ever work as well as native apps. They don't have all the API hooks into the OS and therefore don't have access to all device resources. And they aren't as efficient as native apps, neither CPU wise or memory wise.
If Apple were so scared of free web apps not providing them with 30%, then they wouldn't let developers put free native apps on the App Store. They don't make money out of them either.
Apple are fully behind HTML5. They want the best mobile app experience to be on iOS. They make the vast majority of their money on selling hardware. The App Store only does a little better than break even.
Their target audience might just see the leaks as the work of the conspiracy of freedom haters and lap up the message.
Of course they will. The very same people that were so pleased that the CRU email server was hacked into in the so called "Climategate" affair. That said how great it was that this information was now in the public domain.
Cretins.
Of course they claim one is faked. It's so damaging to them they don't have any other means of defence other than to claim fake. We can expect them to say it's faked either way.
Whether it actually is faked or not is another matter. There's no evidence one way or the other. But it being in a bundle with genuine documents does put the balance of probabilities on it also being genuine.
Ack! Talking of unreliable formats. That post went crappy in the middle because I used a less-than sign! Here it is again in full.
I only use Andriod so I did not know that bit. Apple does want MS to write Office because many executives will not use anything but Office.
And yet lots of executives are using iPhones. For sure executives want MS Office for creating and editing files. But that's not typically what you're doing on a phone. You just want to be able to open them and read them.
Steve Jobs made sure of this when he came back as much as he wished people would use iWorks.
Ah, but that's when Apple were struggling. They had less than 2% market share of Macs, and shrinking. Apple is now a far bigger company than Microsoft. And they are the market leader in tablets and one of the big two in phones. Apple doesn't need Microsoft like they did back in 1997.
Consumers are more open to iWorks than proefessionals.
That's almost true. iWorks is long since dead, it's iWork now, which is a completely different group of products. But yes, Consumers and professionals are more likely to be open to it than executives. But that's OK because consumers and professionals are Apple's big markets. Executives are a minority that can come on board in time.
I am not as I can not guarantee that my resume or other files will look the same in Office, but I guess some people do not care.
Resume's should be PDFs as they are not intended to be edited by the recipient, and need to be guaranteed to be the same format for the reciever as the sender. Back in the late 90s I made the mistake of sending a Resume in .Doc format. There were a couple of URLs in there, on my copy they were colored and underlined as clickable. In my interview I was horrified to see the printout of the CV the interviewer had. The URLs had been replaced with error messages. We'd both used Word on a PC, but his version of Word must have been a different one than mine.
In recent years most of the CVs I see are in PDF format. I now tend to think of people with CVs in .doc format as amateurs.
I only use Andriod so I did not know that bit. Apple does want MS to write Office because many executives will not use anything but Office.
And yet lots of executives are using iPhones. For sure executives want MS Office for creating and editing files. But that's not typically what you're doing on a phone. You just want to be able to open them and read them.
Steve Jobs made sure of this when he came back as much as he wished people would use iWorks.
Ah, but that's when Apple were struggling. They had Consumers are more open to iWorks than proefessionals.
That's almost true. iWorks is long since dead, it's iWork now, which is a completely different group of products. But yes, Consumers and professionals are more likely to be open to it than executives. But that's OK because consumers and professionals are Apple's big markets. Executives are a minority that can come on board in time.
I am not as I can not guarantee that my resume or other files will look the same in Office, but I guess some people do not care.
Resume's should be PDFs as they are not intended to be edited by the recipient, and need to be guaranteed to be the same format for the reciever as the sender. Back in the late 90s I made the mistake of sending a Resume in .Doc format. There were a couple of URLs in there, on my copy they were colored and underlined as clickable. In my interview I was horrified to see the printout of the CV the interviewer had. The URLs had been replaced with error messages. We'd both used Word on a PC, but his version of Word must have been a different one than mine.
In recent years most of the CVs I see are in PDF format. I now tend to think of people with CVs in .doc format as amateurs.
Apple has never intended there to be a walled garden for web apps. Only for native apps.