u can decieve the trash that live entirely in "people space": many politicians, psycologists, theatre people, generally "social sciences" kind of people... why?
Other people can. You couldn't. A minimum level of literacy is required.
We're not talking about Google maps, we're talking about Google Navigation - that's their Android satnav.
I have a two or three year old garmin Nuvi 1490 (I finally coughed the $85 to get unlimited updates, which I think is now bundled), and the UI sucks (lost in the 1990s)
I also have a Nuvi. And the UI is not flashy, but it's clear. And you're exaggeraing with "90s". It's more Win XP look than Win 95. But the point is it's navigation is 10 times better than Google Navigation. I'm talking about Google Navigation having poor routing around town - inefficient routes. But also being inaccurate about positioning, often placing your car on a different road from the one you are on, and being inconsistent about where you are on a road when it does get the road right. Which means it's often not clear whether the turn it's indicating is the one further down the road, or the one you are right next to. And the design of the UI itself is awful. Garmin Nuvi is way better.
That's all that's required for condescension, communication. Making all my controls look like Fischer Price toy buttons is condescension.
I don't think so. It might be inappropriate design, depending on what the app is. But it's not condescending. The app designer doesn't know whether you are a 3 year old toddler or an adult. It's you that choose to use that app, not the designer. If you feel the app is at an inappropriate level for you, then that's your fault.
You might feel condescended to by the writer of TeleTubbies, but did the writer choose for you to be watching, or did you choose it? The writer was aiming it at toddlers, not adults he wanted to condescend.
Really, you shouldn't be looking for insults from people who don't even know you personally exist. And I suspect you're not. Which is why the word "condescension" is wrong for this use.
Many people expect and require condescension and don't know what to do when their hand isn't held. That doesn't negate the fact that the UI is in fact condescending.
Interesting use of the words "condescending" and "fact" here. Condescension is a quality of human to human communication. It's subjectively judged by the receiver from the speaker/writer.
For sure where there's a text message from the the developer to the user such as "You look like you're trying to write a letter, would you like me to..." that would be recognised as condescending by most. But non language based aspects of UIs? I don't think "condescending" can be used there. My microwave oven is easy to use, but "condescending"? That word just doesn't fit.
But it's a very subjective topic. What the hell is the word "fact" doing in there?
Make a UI customisable and people that like customising will waste far more time customising it than they'll ever save from the customisations they've done.
It also makes documentation, training and support harder, when users have different UIs due to customisation.
(I'm distinguishing here between "options" that change how an app works, and "customisations" that affect the look and feel of an app.)
It amazes me that Apple hasn't moved menus from the top of the screen to the actual window they are attached to yet.
Clearly you're a Windows or Linux user that's got used to the screen wasting and Fit's law conflicting Windows mutation of pull-down menus. Apple don't change it because Mac users overwhelmingly appreciate that this way is better.
With the 10.7 one, it decides to show me that it's like a real calendar by showing a page-flipping animation on every transition.
The problem isn't the page turn transition, the problem is the implementation that means that the animation has to finish before the UI will accept another click. A real diary isn't like that. It'll let you bend up the corner of a few pages and then let you turn them together. So actually it's a failure to implement the metaphor well enough, rather than a problem in using the metaphor.
It came with a 1 year free trial of some crappy voice navigation feature that I never ended up using because the Google Navigation app on my phone is superior
Wow, it must have been bad, because Google Navigation is shit.
Without a doubt you're better off than an Android user. The built in Android navigation is shit.
But still, your iPhone with Tom Tom isn't as good as a dedicated sat-nav.
A dedicated sat-nav is going to have higher spec GPS components: chip and antenna. It's typically going to lock on to satellites quicker and be more accurate.
My Garmin Nuvi has a bigger, brighter, non-reflective screen which is much better than an iPhone screen for this purpose. Additionally it auto-adjusts brightness and colour palette depending on light levels. Cost in dollars is $100-$150.
Finally, I have all of Europe on my Garmin. To get the TomTom on iPhone with all of Europe costs $119. So it's not necessarily even saving money to use the app rather then the dedicated device.
I'm sure everyone agrees that it shouldn't have write access to any safety critical component.
But you can't just shrug distraction off. Such a device is designed to be facing the driver. So it shouldn't for example allow recorded video or games whilst the car is in motion. And there's no technical means of preventing that without also crippling the system for other types of apps. It needs human intelligence to interpret safety rules on what is allowed and what isn't.
The developer can't be allowed to decide. There are far too many that would compromise safety for profit.
The driver can't be allowed to decide because there are far too many idiot drivers who would ignore safety in order to relieve the boredom of driving.
On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, the quicker we hand over the actual driving to the computers the better.
Between those two extremes there's room for apps that add safety. That warn of a driver that's likely to jump a red light. That alert the driver to vehicles in blind spots etc.
Heck I think satnav has added to safety. Whilst it has distracted some people, it's also stopped other people trying to read paper maps whilst driving.
Compare and contrast with Voyager 1. Made 35 years ago, and the technology is so reliable it's still sending data back home from outside of the solar system.
For cars I can imagine something similar to car audio. You get something up-to date with a new car, and you put up with the fact that it ages. Eventually someone purchases it as a used car and decides the audio isn't good enough, and fits an updated one.
Between those two points, the actual music (the apps) change with the times, even if the hardware doesn't.
Why on earth would you not want intelligence built in? You scared of Skynet or something?
A purpose built sat-nav device (from Garmin say) is far superior to the sat-nav built in to Android. The same will apply to other aspects. Better to have a specialist computer for automotive needs and a separate smartphone.
Another case where a walled-garden approach to apps is best. Let someone other than the developers and the drivers decide what is reasonably safe and what isn't.
That's very lacking in imagination. Having computers with UIs in cars is well established. Whilst they provide some useful features there are plenty of useful things third party app developers could supply.
e.g. Apps to direct you to car parks with space. And in future to an actual parking space. Or an app that accesses data in fuel prices and how much fuel you have in your tank to intelligently recommend where to refuel.
Well, you are:) But how you can be so sure about things they can do and can not do with your computer? Can you read source code of entire shit that installed on? Do you use crystal ball?
How was the spyware behaviour of Carrier IQ discovered on Android? It certainly wasn't by examining source - that bit of Android phone software wasn't ever released as source.
Well for sure there are limitations on what apps you can do the iOS. Not that I want an app launcher to be a general purpose desktop like a PC. But I can see that's a matter of taste.
On the flip side of the coin, there are a lot of developers who are only developing for iOS, or iOS first. So the app diversity win isn't necessarily the way you think it is.
Problem is, that right your Android just directed you down was the wrong road.
My friend has a Galaxy II with Google Navigation. It's awful. Gives poor routing around town. Sends you down roads that are buses only. Is very inaccurate, such that you're often not sure if it's the turning you're right next to or the next one that's to be taken. It sucks battery like mad, so always needs to be plugged into power in the car, and is of limited use on foot. Sometimes it freezes and the phone needs to be reset (maybe just killing the app would do it but my friend doesn't know about that.) Apparently it has to download tiles on the fly, so it always needs an internet connection, and maybe that explains some of it's crapularity.
Now personally I haven't researched smartphone navigation, because I have a proper Garmin Nuvi GPS. Has the entire continent as built in maps. Has never yet routed me badly. Has a far clearer UI than Google Navigation. Is accurate such that there's a high confidence about exactly which road to take. Always works, never freezes. All in all I can't fault it. Garmin have been in the business for a long time and it shows in the evolution of their product. Cost about £100.
Now the interesting thing about GPS is that it pays for itself. Every time you get to where you are going in a more efficient way, or don't get lost, you save money on fuel. And a better GPS will save more money than a poor GPS.
Now, if my Garmin breaks or is stolen, I'd probably buy another. But if I was forced to use a smartphone, I see that Garmin do "StreetPilot", which appears to be pretty much the same as the standalone GPSs. So I'd be happy with that.
But Garmin don't do StreetPilot for Android, even though they do other non-road navigation apps for Android. The reason is obvious. By including Google's rudimentary navigator on Android phones, they've meant it isn't worth Garmin doing a version for Android.
Google Navigation is a selling point for Android, but it's not a point of quality. It'll sell phones with the promise of navigation, and then be a disappointment to anyone who's experienced a real navigation product. Buying a decent navigation product (hardware or app) from a specialist will be far more pleasant, and will save money in the long run.
The important thing is not what you call it. It's the physical difference between s device with a completely flat front, and one with a raised structure surrounding the screen. It makes all the difference to gestures that might be near the edge.
It's stupid with categories where there are many alternative apps on every OS. It's not stupid when you hit a niche where there is no software except for WIndows. These niches are very small and specialised, but they do exist even now. And there were lots more of them back in 1995.
It's not an issue for the vast majority, but it is for some. And thus Windows is superior, in that way.
Heck, I hate Windows and don't give it credit fr much. But this one's undeniable.
And what do you mean it doesn't have a bezel. What do you call that area around the screen?
A bezel is a component that retains a glass face, such as the raised metal component around the glass of a watch. On the iPad, the inactive glass area surrounding the area which has the screen isn't a bezel. Looking at the iPad2, the glass is ground away at an angle at it's edge, and the aluminium back does look like it might overlap that. But it's not retaining it because it's one piece with the back, and there would be no way of assembling it. In reality, the screen is glued, not retained by a bezel.
Yeah, he linked to what he was referring to, and I answered it. It's ridiculous.
Ah, so, the iPad doesn't have a bezel, it just has something exactly like a bezel?
I'm not sure you understand what a bezel is. It's not the same thing as a border. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezel_setting Maybe if I say raised bezel, then we can communicate with clarity.
And to claim that device is "curved" is ridiculous. Are you talking about the protrusion of the bezel?
At that point I was talking about the curve away from the place of the screen. Though I did also refer to the fact that that picture of a Joojoo had a raised bezel and iPad doesn't have one.
One innovated a product over the course of years with public prototypes culminating in a release.
Well pictures of designs anyway.
The other company demoed a derivative product two months before the first one's launch.
iPad wasn't derivative. Joojoo in it's final incarnation was, as demonstrated by your picture and mine.
Yet you seem to think it's more likely that the first company, after years of development, suddenly completely redid it's supply, production, and assembly in two months
To tool up for mass manufacture of a product with custom components takes a long time. To create a small production with off the shelf components in a plastic case can take as little as 2-3 weeks. And Joojoo was a small production run.
It's not that I seem to think it. The very series of prototypes of the Crunchpad/Joojoo proves it. You just don't want to believe it.
Apple was no doubt 'inspired' by the Crunch Tablet
You're either a fool or you're playing one.
Oh, and regarding Apple's falsification of legal documents: Here, and here.
Right, so out of a 44 page document featuring multiple images of the Samsung Galaxy Tab, one was in the wrong aspect ratio. And the one immediately following it showed the iPad and the Galaxy Tab side by side, with different aspect ratios.
And you think that's a deliberate attempt at deception? You are playing the fool. As it says at the end of your first link: "Patent law blogger Florian Mueller told BBC News that attempting to deliberately mislead the court would have been extremely foolish, given possible criminal penalties.
"I cannot imagine that any sane person would take a risk and intentionally manipulate evidence in this context.
"With different product versions being sold on different continents, and different pictures showing up at different points in time, someone may have been confused, but that's the worst-case scenario I can realistically imagine here," he said.
But thanks, observing the depths of desperation to which you will sink was indeed amusing.
Slashdot Mirror
u can decieve the trash that live entirely in "people space": many politicians, psycologists, theatre people, generally "social sciences" kind of people... why?
Other people can. You couldn't. A minimum level of literacy is required.
the routing in Google Maps on my laptop
We're not talking about Google maps, we're talking about Google Navigation - that's their Android satnav.
I have a two or three year old garmin Nuvi 1490 (I finally coughed the $85 to get unlimited updates, which I think is now bundled), and the UI sucks (lost in the 1990s)
I also have a Nuvi. And the UI is not flashy, but it's clear. And you're exaggeraing with "90s". It's more Win XP look than Win 95. But the point is it's navigation is 10 times better than Google Navigation. I'm talking about Google Navigation having poor routing around town - inefficient routes. But also being inaccurate about positioning, often placing your car on a different road from the one you are on, and being inconsistent about where you are on a road when it does get the road right. Which means it's often not clear whether the turn it's indicating is the one further down the road, or the one you are right next to. And the design of the UI itself is awful. Garmin Nuvi is way better.
That's all that's required for condescension, communication. Making all my controls look like Fischer Price toy buttons is condescension.
I don't think so. It might be inappropriate design, depending on what the app is. But it's not condescending. The app designer doesn't know whether you are a 3 year old toddler or an adult. It's you that choose to use that app, not the designer. If you feel the app is at an inappropriate level for you, then that's your fault.
You might feel condescended to by the writer of TeleTubbies, but did the writer choose for you to be watching, or did you choose it? The writer was aiming it at toddlers, not adults he wanted to condescend.
Really, you shouldn't be looking for insults from people who don't even know you personally exist. And I suspect you're not. Which is why the word "condescension" is wrong for this use.
Many people expect and require condescension and don't know what to do when their hand isn't held. That doesn't negate the fact that the UI is in fact condescending.
Interesting use of the words "condescending" and "fact" here. Condescension is a quality of human to human communication. It's subjectively judged by the receiver from the speaker/writer.
For sure where there's a text message from the the developer to the user such as "You look like you're trying to write a letter, would you like me to..." that would be recognised as condescending by most. But non language based aspects of UIs? I don't think "condescending" can be used there. My microwave oven is easy to use, but "condescending"? That word just doesn't fit.
But it's a very subjective topic. What the hell is the word "fact" doing in there?
Make a UI customisable and people that like customising will waste far more time customising it than they'll ever save from the customisations they've done.
It also makes documentation, training and support harder, when users have different UIs due to customisation.
(I'm distinguishing here between "options" that change how an app works, and "customisations" that affect the look and feel of an app.)
It amazes me that Apple hasn't moved menus from the top of the screen to the actual window they are attached to yet.
Clearly you're a Windows or Linux user that's got used to the screen wasting and Fit's law conflicting Windows mutation of pull-down menus. Apple don't change it because Mac users overwhelmingly appreciate that this way is better.
With the 10.7 one, it decides to show me that it's like a real calendar by showing a page-flipping animation on every transition.
The problem isn't the page turn transition, the problem is the implementation that means that the animation has to finish before the UI will accept another click. A real diary isn't like that. It'll let you bend up the corner of a few pages and then let you turn them together. So actually it's a failure to implement the metaphor well enough, rather than a problem in using the metaphor.
It came with a 1 year free trial of some crappy voice navigation feature that I never ended up using because the Google Navigation app on my phone is superior
Wow, it must have been bad, because Google Navigation is shit.
Without a doubt you're better off than an Android user. The built in Android navigation is shit.
But still, your iPhone with Tom Tom isn't as good as a dedicated sat-nav.
A dedicated sat-nav is going to have higher spec GPS components: chip and antenna. It's typically going to lock on to satellites quicker and be more accurate.
My Garmin Nuvi has a bigger, brighter, non-reflective screen which is much better than an iPhone screen for this purpose. Additionally it auto-adjusts brightness and colour palette depending on light levels. Cost in dollars is $100-$150.
Finally, I have all of Europe on my Garmin. To get the TomTom on iPhone with all of Europe costs $119. So it's not necessarily even saving money to use the app rather then the dedicated device.
I'm sure everyone agrees that it shouldn't have write access to any safety critical component.
But you can't just shrug distraction off. Such a device is designed to be facing the driver. So it shouldn't for example allow recorded video or games whilst the car is in motion. And there's no technical means of preventing that without also crippling the system for other types of apps. It needs human intelligence to interpret safety rules on what is allowed and what isn't.
The developer can't be allowed to decide. There are far too many that would compromise safety for profit.
The driver can't be allowed to decide because there are far too many idiot drivers who would ignore safety in order to relieve the boredom of driving.
A walled-garden is the solution.
iPhone has a walled-garden store. Multiple map providers. Choice of networks.
On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, the quicker we hand over the actual driving to the computers the better.
Between those two extremes there's room for apps that add safety. That warn of a driver that's likely to jump a red light. That alert the driver to vehicles in blind spots etc.
Heck I think satnav has added to safety. Whilst it has distracted some people, it's also stopped other people trying to read paper maps whilst driving.
Compare and contrast with Voyager 1. Made 35 years ago, and the technology is so reliable it's still sending data back home from outside of the solar system.
For cars I can imagine something similar to car audio. You get something up-to date with a new car, and you put up with the fact that it ages. Eventually someone purchases it as a used car and decides the audio isn't good enough, and fits an updated one.
Between those two points, the actual music (the apps) change with the times, even if the hardware doesn't.
Why on earth would you not want intelligence built in? You scared of Skynet or something?
A purpose built sat-nav device (from Garmin say) is far superior to the sat-nav built in to Android. The same will apply to other aspects. Better to have a specialist computer for automotive needs and a separate smartphone.
Another case where a walled-garden approach to apps is best. Let someone other than the developers and the drivers decide what is reasonably safe and what isn't.
That's very lacking in imagination. Having computers with UIs in cars is well established. Whilst they provide some useful features there are plenty of useful things third party app developers could supply.
e.g. Apps to direct you to car parks with space. And in future to an actual parking space. Or an app that accesses data in fuel prices and how much fuel you have in your tank to intelligently recommend where to refuel.
Well, you are :) But how you can be so sure about things they can do and can not do with your computer? Can you read source code of entire shit that installed on? Do you use crystal ball?
How was the spyware behaviour of Carrier IQ discovered on Android? It certainly wasn't by examining source - that bit of Android phone software wasn't ever released as source.
Well for sure there are limitations on what apps you can do the iOS. Not that I want an app launcher to be a general purpose desktop like a PC. But I can see that's a matter of taste.
On the flip side of the coin, there are a lot of developers who are only developing for iOS, or iOS first. So the app diversity win isn't necessarily the way you think it is.
Problem is, that right your Android just directed you down was the wrong road.
My friend has a Galaxy II with Google Navigation. It's awful. Gives poor routing around town. Sends you down roads that are buses only. Is very inaccurate, such that you're often not sure if it's the turning you're right next to or the next one that's to be taken. It sucks battery like mad, so always needs to be plugged into power in the car, and is of limited use on foot. Sometimes it freezes and the phone needs to be reset (maybe just killing the app would do it but my friend doesn't know about that.) Apparently it has to download tiles on the fly, so it always needs an internet connection, and maybe that explains some of it's crapularity.
Now personally I haven't researched smartphone navigation, because I have a proper Garmin Nuvi GPS. Has the entire continent as built in maps. Has never yet routed me badly. Has a far clearer UI than Google Navigation. Is accurate such that there's a high confidence about exactly which road to take. Always works, never freezes. All in all I can't fault it. Garmin have been in the business for a long time and it shows in the evolution of their product. Cost about £100.
Now the interesting thing about GPS is that it pays for itself. Every time you get to where you are going in a more efficient way, or don't get lost, you save money on fuel. And a better GPS will save more money than a poor GPS.
Now, if my Garmin breaks or is stolen, I'd probably buy another. But if I was forced to use a smartphone, I see that Garmin do "StreetPilot", which appears to be pretty much the same as the standalone GPSs. So I'd be happy with that.
But Garmin don't do StreetPilot for Android, even though they do other non-road navigation apps for Android. The reason is obvious. By including Google's rudimentary navigator on Android phones, they've meant it isn't worth Garmin doing a version for Android.
Google Navigation is a selling point for Android, but it's not a point of quality. It'll sell phones with the promise of navigation, and then be a disappointment to anyone who's experienced a real navigation product. Buying a decent navigation product (hardware or app) from a specialist will be far more pleasant, and will save money in the long run.
I'll go with that. "Superior" was inherited from the post I originally replied to.
Think specialist business and technical apps. e.g. Optometry. Rechargable battery management. Tiny niches, but theres an awful lot of tiny niches.
Yes, it's rare, and for most people it's not an issue - now more than in 1995. But yet it was and is one of the few points of superiority for Windows.
The important thing is not what you call it. It's the physical difference between s device with a completely flat front, and one with a raised structure surrounding the screen. It makes all the difference to gestures that might be near the edge.
It's stupid with categories where there are many alternative apps on every OS. It's not stupid when you hit a niche where there is no software except for WIndows. These niches are very small and specialised, but they do exist even now. And there were lots more of them back in 1995.
It's not an issue for the vast majority, but it is for some. And thus Windows is superior, in that way.
Heck, I hate Windows and don't give it credit fr much. But this one's undeniable.
And what do you mean it doesn't have a bezel. What do you call that area around the screen?
A bezel is a component that retains a glass face, such as the raised metal component around the glass of a watch. On the iPad, the inactive glass area surrounding the area which has the screen isn't a bezel. Looking at the iPad2, the glass is ground away at an angle at it's edge, and the aluminium back does look like it might overlap that. But it's not retaining it because it's one piece with the back, and there would be no way of assembling it. In reality, the screen is glued, not retained by a bezel.
Yeah, he linked to what he was referring to, and I answered it. It's ridiculous.
Ah, so, the iPad doesn't have a bezel, it just has something exactly like a bezel?
I'm not sure you understand what a bezel is. It's not the same thing as a border.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezel_setting
Maybe if I say raised bezel, then we can communicate with clarity.
And to claim that device is "curved" is ridiculous. Are you talking about the protrusion of the bezel?
At that point I was talking about the curve away from the place of the screen. Though I did also refer to the fact that that picture of a Joojoo had a raised bezel and iPad doesn't have one.
One innovated a product over the course of years with public prototypes culminating in a release.
Well pictures of designs anyway.
The other company demoed a derivative product two months before the first one's launch.
iPad wasn't derivative. Joojoo in it's final incarnation was, as demonstrated by your picture and mine.
Yet you seem to think it's more likely that the first company, after years of development, suddenly completely redid it's supply, production, and assembly in two months
To tool up for mass manufacture of a product with custom components takes a long time. To create a small production with off the shelf components in a plastic case can take as little as 2-3 weeks. And Joojoo was a small production run.
It's not that I seem to think it. The very series of prototypes of the Crunchpad/Joojoo proves it. You just don't want to believe it.
Apple was no doubt 'inspired' by the Crunch Tablet
You're either a fool or you're playing one.
Oh, and regarding Apple's falsification of legal documents:
Here, and here.
Right, so out of a 44 page document featuring multiple images of the Samsung Galaxy Tab, one was in the wrong aspect ratio. And the one immediately following it showed the iPad and the Galaxy Tab side by side, with different aspect ratios.
And you think that's a deliberate attempt at deception? You are playing the fool. As it says at the end of your first link:
"Patent law blogger Florian Mueller told BBC News that attempting to deliberately mislead the court would have been extremely foolish, given possible criminal penalties.
"I cannot imagine that any sane person would take a risk and intentionally manipulate evidence in this context.
"With different product versions being sold on different continents, and different pictures showing up at different points in time, someone may have been confused, but that's the worst-case scenario I can realistically imagine here," he said.
But thanks, observing the depths of desperation to which you will sink was indeed amusing.