www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)

reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:jfira8$2ti9$1 digitalmars.com...
 But you know, the really bizarre thing is, *all* MS has to do to win over
 all the XP people (or at least the majority of them) is two simple things:

 1. *Allow* people to use the XP UI (and no, I don't mean Luna). It's that
 simple: Just *quit* making UI changes mandatory (a lesson Mozilla could
 stand to learn, too, especially since they allegedly care so much about
 configurability).

Hah! I just found the *perfect* article about this and other similar matters: The highlights: "I have a kneejerk reaction to most modern computer user interfaces (also, all microwave user interfaces). I've used plenty of excuses over the years: my "eye for design," my love of minimalism, a sense of utility. Today, I finally put my finger on it, and it's not just a desire for the-computer-as-pure-machine, or a spartan aesthetic. It's quite simple, really: I don't like the condescending tone." ... "My problem with many modern UIs is that they never get past the telling phase. They're always dressing up their various functions with glows and bevels and curves, and in the process they somehow become overbearing to my senses. "Did you know you can click this? Don't forget there's a save button over here! Let me walk you to your control panel." Imagine a car that verbally explains all of its various knobs and levers the first time you get into the car. Wonderful, right? Now imagine that car explaining all of these various functions every single time you get in the car for the next five years, until you finally snap and drive it off a cliff." ... "An example of this is the dramatic, quasi-utilitarian animated transition. The first few times, it's conveying important information: click that button? That launches this action! Swoosh. The next 10,000 times, it's mainly just slowing me down." ... "Perhaps without the limitations of a finite number of colors and pixels to force simplicity, UI designers just don't know what to do with themselves. I'd argue they do too much." ... "...the appeal of "retro" indie games, which deal in our native, shared gaming language and metaphors, not something borrowed from action movies or an overblown sense of virtual reality." The full thing: http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/9/2616204/the-condescending-ui That's why I hated Metroid Fusion and loved Metroid Zero Mission: Are you going to treat me like an adult or like a toddler with "special needs"? It's also why I hated the iPad's photo viewer *after* trying it: The swipe is nice for complete novices like my mom (which is why she loved it), but for me it's nothing more than carpal tunnel waiting to happen: Ever try to quickly browse through a normal-sized photo album on that damn thing? I have. It just doesn't work out. If it had added swiping *in addition* to real buttons, *that* would have been "brilliant design". But as it is, it's nothing more than impractical, patronizing, self-absorbed design. One thing I do disagree with that author on: I see the Office "ribbon" as nothing more than a toolbar that supports more types of controls than just buttons and has better organization and layout. (It shouldn't be a *replacement* for a full menu, though). But I'm probably in the minority on that. There was a really good comment, too: "...These aren't communal products...If the company's response is that "we only cater to non-techies now", then they've just lost a customer. What their response should be is "we thought you would like this but since you don't, here's your old UI.""
Jan 22 2012
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 1/22/2012 10:30 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Hah! I just found the *perfect* article about this and other similar
 matters:

Hilarious! It reminds me of back in 1984 or 85 or so, a Mac evangelist came by the company I worked for then (Data I/O) to evangelize the Mac. None of us in the group had ever used or seen a Mac before, so we were GUI virgins. One of the first things he did was hand out a sheet of paper with a bunch of icons on it. He proudly asked us what each of those icons signified. We got about 10% of them right. He was crestfallen. One I remember looked like a box of kleenex. We all had rather creative explanations for what that kleenex box did. Turns out that was the icon for "Print". So we naively asked him, wazza matter with the word "Print" to mean "Print"? And, you know, if we don't know what the word "Print" means, we can look it up in a dictionary (or these days, google it). How do you google a box of kleenex? A phonetic language is a fantastic invention. Icons are a step backwards to ideographic written languages, which require memorization of vast amounts of trivia (made even worse by companies that copyright their icons, preventing standardization). But what, he says, about foreigners who may not know English? Well, again, you can look up "Print" in a dictionary. How do you look up kleenex box? He finally mumbled something about us just not "getting it" and left. To this day, the only thing that makes icons usable is hovering the mouse over it so you see the tooltip in, ahem, ENGLISH, saying "Print". Heck, as I write this in Thunderbird email, the icons on the top row all have English words next to them - Send, Spell, Attach, Security, Save. And the print icons still look like a box of kleenex to me.
Jan 22 2012
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:jfj38h$8n8$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 1/22/2012 10:30 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Hah! I just found the *perfect* article about this and other similar
 matters:

Hilarious! It reminds me of back in 1984 or 85 or so, a Mac evangelist came by the company I worked for then (Data I/O) to evangelize the Mac. None of us in the group had ever used or seen a Mac before, so we were GUI virgins. One of the first things he did was hand out a sheet of paper with a bunch of icons on it. He proudly asked us what each of those icons signified. We got about 10% of them right. He was crestfallen. One I remember looked like a box of kleenex. We all had rather creative explanations for what that kleenex box did. Turns out that was the icon for "Print". So we naively asked him, wazza matter with the word "Print" to mean "Print"? And, you know, if we don't know what the word "Print" means, we can look it up in a dictionary (or these days, google it). How do you google a box of kleenex? A phonetic language is a fantastic invention. Icons are a step backwards to ideographic written languages, which require memorization of vast amounts of trivia (made even worse by companies that copyright their icons, preventing standardization). But what, he says, about foreigners who may not know English? Well, again, you can look up "Print" in a dictionary. How do you look up kleenex box? He finally mumbled something about us just not "getting it" and left. To this day, the only thing that makes icons usable is hovering the mouse over it so you see the tooltip in, ahem, ENGLISH, saying "Print". Heck, as I write this in Thunderbird email, the icons on the top row all have English words next to them - Send, Spell, Attach, Security, Save. And the print icons still look like a box of kleenex to me.

Heh, I like that story a lot. Although I disagree with phonetic being *necessarily* better than ideographic. I do agree with the benefits of phonetic you describe - essentially "easier to learn". But the benefit of ideographic is that they can be quicker and easier to use *after* you've learned them. This is something I've picked up on from learning Japanese (or at least trying to, I never gained fluency...or even came remotely close). Japanese is a very interesting language in this context because it's one of the few languages (actually the only one to my knowledge) that uses both phonetic and ideographic characters. Children and non-native speakers are taught the phonetic alphabets first (hiragana and katakana), because they're easier to learn and can handle any word with a small number of simple symbols. Then learners move on to the ideographic ones (the Chinese kanji). I only ever learned a few kanji, but you notice pretty quickly that once you've learned a kanji you can read it much more quickly than the phonetic equivalent. (It also helps your brain divide a sentence into words, since Japanese doesn't use spaces, but that's not really relevent here). I think a big part of the reason kanji is easier to read (once you've learned it) is that your eyes don't have to move nearly as much, and there's much more visual distinction between words (since there's so many more basic patterns). The fact that they originate from images is irrelevant since they don't really retain much of the resemblance they once did (a few of them do, like "mountain" or "gate", but only if you already know how to "see" it - like being told the "box of kleenex" is a printer). It really is exactly the same as reading "42" instead of "fourty-two". Or the standard VCR-control icons instead of "fast-forward", "next chapter", etc. Totally obscure if you don't already know them, but much quicker and easier to read then the english words if you do. As far as ability to look things up: Other ideographic languages may be different than this (and this certainly doesn't apply to computer icons either), but most of the Japanese kanji (ie, Chinese characters) are constructed from a smaller number of common building blocks, the "radicals" (around 100ish-or-so, IIRC?). As such, there actually is such thing as kanji dictionaries where you can look up an unknown symbol. (I almost bought one once...) Getting back to software, I like the words when I'm learning a program (whether they're tooltips or labels) since the icons are initially meaningless. But once I learn what the icon means, I often prefer to not have the words because, compared to the icons, they're just indistinct visual clutter (and they take up that much more screen real estate). The color in icons also adds yet another dimension for your eyes to lock onto which text labels just don't offer, at least not as naturally. Another thing to note: While the connection between an icon and it's meaning may not (ever) be close enough to initially teach you what it does, the metaphor (even for non-physical things) is usually close enough, or logical enough in its own way, to help you *remember* what it does after you've initially learned it.
Jan 23 2012
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 1/23/2012 2:22 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Although I disagree with phonetic being *necessarily* better than
 ideographic. I do agree with the benefits of phonetic you describe -
 essentially "easier to learn". But the benefit of ideographic is that they
 can be quicker and easier to use *after* you've learned them.

I find that very difficult to believe. But I don't know Kanji.
 Children and non-native speakers are taught the phonetic alphabets first
 (hiragana and katakana), because they're easier to learn and can handle any
 word with a small number of simple symbols. Then learners move on to the
 ideographic ones (the Chinese kanji). I only ever learned a few kanji, but
 you notice pretty quickly that once you've learned a kanji you can read it
 much more quickly than the phonetic equivalent. (It also helps your brain
 divide a sentence into words, since Japanese doesn't use spaces, but that's
 not really relevent here).

I've seen the same books written in both Kanji and English. The English ones were smaller, significantly so. I suspect the problem was the Kanji font had to be considerably larger in order to be legible, which negated any compression advantage it might have.
 I think a big part of the reason kanji is easier to read (once you've
 learned it) is that your eyes don't have to move nearly as much, and there's
 much more visual distinction between words (since there's so many more basic
 patterns). The fact that they originate from images is irrelevant since they
 don't really retain much of the resemblance they once did (a few of them do,
 like "mountain" or "gate", but only if you already know how to "see" it -
 like being told the "box of kleenex" is a printer). It really is exactly the
 same as reading "42" instead of "fourty-two". Or the standard VCR-control
 icons instead of "fast-forward", "next chapter", etc. Totally obscure if you
 don't already know them, but much quicker and easier to read then the
 english words if you do.

 As far as ability to look things up: Other ideographic languages may be
 different than this (and this certainly doesn't apply to computer icons
 either), but most of the Japanese kanji (ie, Chinese characters) are
 constructed from a smaller number of common building blocks, the "radicals"
 (around 100ish-or-so, IIRC?). As such, there actually is such thing as kanji
 dictionaries where you can look up an unknown symbol. (I almost bought one
 once...)

 Getting back to software, I like the words when I'm learning a program
 (whether they're tooltips or labels) since the icons are initially
 meaningless. But once I learn what the icon means, I often prefer to not
 have the words because, compared to the icons, they're just indistinct
 visual clutter (and they take up that much more screen real estate). The
 color in icons also adds yet another dimension for your eyes to lock onto
 which text labels just don't offer, at least not as naturally.

I agree that color can help, but it helps just as well with text. That's why we have color syntax highlighting editors.
 Another thing to note: While the connection between an icon and it's meaning
 may not (ever) be close enough to initially teach you what it does, the
 metaphor (even for non-physical things) is usually close enough, or logical
 enough in its own way, to help you *remember* what it does after you've
 initially learned it.

I still can't remember which of | and O means "on" and "off". Ever since the industry helpfully stopped labeling switches with "on" and "off" my usual technique is to flip it back and forth until it goes on. Is it really progress to change from a system where 99% of the world knows what it means to one where 2% know? I suspect it is driven by some people who feel guilty about knowing english, or something like that. I remember in the 1970's when the europeans decided to standardize on a traffic "stop" sign. They bikeshedded so much over this, the compromise selected was the american octagonal STOP sign. Nationalistic egos prevented selecting one from a european country. Bring up Adobe's pdf viewer. It has a whole row of icons across the top. I defy you to tell me what they do without hovering over each. Nobody has ever figured out a picture that intuitively means "save", "send" or "print". Some icons do have meaningful pictures, like scroll arrows. But the rest is an awful stretch that is driven by some ideology <shatner>must --- make --- icon</shatner> rather than practicality. Back to Thunderbird email. The icon for "Spell" is ABC over a check mark. That is not smaller or more intuitive than "Spell".
Jan 23 2012
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:jfje8n$vka$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 1/23/2012 2:22 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Although I disagree with phonetic being *necessarily* better than
 ideographic. I do agree with the benefits of phonetic you describe -
 essentially "easier to learn". But the benefit of ideographic is that 
 they
 can be quicker and easier to use *after* you've learned them.

I find that very difficult to believe. But I don't know Kanji.

It's pretty much accepted as standard fact among those who know or have learned Japanese (well, at least from what I can tell. Like I said, I'm not fluent, and hell I've haven't even been over there.)
 Children and non-native speakers are taught the phonetic alphabets first
 (hiragana and katakana), because they're easier to learn and can handle 
 any
 word with a small number of simple symbols. Then learners move on to the
 ideographic ones (the Chinese kanji). I only ever learned a few kanji, 
 but
 you notice pretty quickly that once you've learned a kanji you can read 
 it
 much more quickly than the phonetic equivalent. (It also helps your brain
 divide a sentence into words, since Japanese doesn't use spaces, but 
 that's
 not really relevent here).

I've seen the same books written in both Kanji and English. The English ones were smaller, significantly so. I suspect the problem was the Kanji font had to be considerably larger in order to be legible, which negated any compression advantage it might have.

Yea, I think there's a lot different factors that could be involved in the different respective lengths. Anything from font size to translation and who knows what else. Although, if the book was 100% kanji, than it wouldn't have been japanese at all, it would have been chinese. Some things in japanese are always written phonetically, like basic parts of grammar, most (all?) suffixes (for conjugated words).
 I agree that color can help, but it helps just as well with text. That's 
 why we have color syntax highlighting editors.

That's working on a *completely* different level. It's not relevent. What we're talking about here, unlike syntax highlighting, is colors *within* what is more or less individual words. A blotch of red in an upper-right corner, a thin bit of blue near the middle, whatever, etc., all part of a cohesive image. You *could* colorize separate parts of an english word, but it's not a natural fit and wouldn't work as well (unless it was already part of the language - but it isn't).
 Another thing to note: While the connection between an icon and it's 
 meaning
 may not (ever) be close enough to initially teach you what it does, the
 metaphor (even for non-physical things) is usually close enough, or 
 logical
 enough in its own way, to help you *remember* what it does after you've
 initially learned it.

I still can't remember which of | and O means "on" and "off".

I think you're fairly alone in that ;) *Especially* among programmers.
 Ever since the industry helpfully stopped labeling switches with "on" and 
 "off" my usual technique is to flip it back and forth until it goes on. Is 
 it really progress to change from a system where 99% of the world knows 
 what it means to one where 2% know?

I'd say more like "from 99% to 90%". And those who do know can read it more easily, at a further distance, with worse eyesight, in worse lighting conditions, at a breifer glance, etc.
 Bring up Adobe's pdf viewer. It has a whole row of icons across the top. I 
 defy you to tell me what they do without hovering over each. Nobody has 
 ever figured out a picture that intuitively means "save", "send" or 
 "print". Some icons do have meaningful pictures, like scroll arrows. But 
 the rest is an awful stretch that is driven by some ideology 
 <shatner>must --- make --- icon</shatner> rather than practicality.

Yes, I already agreed that phonetic words are easier to *learn*. But then once you *do* learn the pictures, your eye doesn't have to catch as much detail or be as accurate in order to recognize what is what. When was the last time you looked at a button with a picture of a floppy on it and *didn't* instantly know it was "save"? Sure, you might not have known the first time, but it's not hard to learn, and once you do it's instantly recognizable. 'Course I haven't let Adobe's pdf viewer anywhere near my computer in what much be close to ten years. Get FoxIt reader: it's not bloatware.
 Back to Thunderbird email. The icon for "Spell" is ABC over a check mark. 
 That is not smaller or more intuitive than "Spell".

No, not initially, but once you do know it, it's much easier to identify at a glance. It's like keyboard shortcuts: Totally unintuitive to learn, but they damn sure aid usability and productivity if you do bother to learn them. Or option screens vs wizards: Wizards are *far* better for beginners. But if you already understand the options, having them all on a single page ends up being far more effective.
Jan 23 2012
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 1/23/2012 3:59 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Back to Thunderbird email. The icon for "Spell" is ABC over a check mark.
 That is not smaller or more intuitive than "Spell".

No, not initially, but once you do know it, it's much easier to identify at a glance.

I picked that deliberately because the "icon" is 3 *letters*!
Jan 23 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:jfk81o$2l8v$3 digitalmars.com...
 On 1/23/2012 3:59 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Back to Thunderbird email. The icon for "Spell" is ABC over a check 
 mark.
 That is not smaller or more intuitive than "Spell".

No, not initially, but once you do know it, it's much easier to identify at a glance.

I picked that deliberately because the "icon" is 3 *letters*!

It's an ironic example, yes, but a rare one as far as icons go.
Jan 23 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v8l0jzrdeav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:59:46 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message

 Ever since the industry helpfully stopped labeling switches with "on" 
 and
 "off" my usual technique is to flip it back and forth until it goes on. 
 Is
 it really progress to change from a system where 99% of the world knows
 what it means to one where 2% know?

I'd say more like "from 99% to 90%". And those who do know can read it more easily, at a further distance, with worse eyesight, in worse lighting conditions, at a breifer glance, etc.

This has nothing to do with it. They could have come up with a *million* better choices. Couple that with the fact that: a) you usually want something on or off. If it's already in the desired state, you can usually tell without looking at the switch. b) It's far more mentally taxing to read/understand the symbols, remember how they apply to circuits, then determine whether it's on or off, than it is to simply start flipping switches until you get the desired result.

So symbols are bad because they chose the wrong symbol?
 I think you'd be better off without *any* symbols, or with only a single 
 symbol indicating 'on'.

I think we'll have to disagree on it...
 For my money, the *best* on off switch is the lighted pushbutton, which 
 has the two symbols combined.  I know that it's a power button, and if I 
 see no light, I know it's off.

Until the light burns out (granted, less of an issue with LEDs). Also, I *hate* how thanks to modern electronics *everything* in the goddamn room has to be lit up like a fucking tree. And they keep making the damn things brighter, and brighter, and BRIGHTER...Shit, the light on the USB HDD enclosue I just got is so bright it genuinely *hurts* my eyes just to look at it. I had to tape tiny pieces of paper over it just to make it tolerable. And it's still brighter than I'd like. But I don't want to totally obscure it because then I can't see when it's active. I want *less* lights. Much, much *much* less. Not more.
 And the WORST on/off design ever (mandated by regulation, I believe) is to 
 have a light turn *ON* when something is off.  For example, my TV 
 helpfully has an LED that turns on when it's off, presumably to let me 
 know that it's connected to power.

I *HATE* those "off" lights. I've started to just tape over the fucking things with black electrical tape.
Jan 24 2012
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:jfnf2r$913$1 digitalmars.com...
 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
 news:op.v8l0jzrdeav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:59:46 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 This has nothing to do with it.  They could have come up with a *million* 
 better choices.

 Couple that with the fact that:

 a) you usually want something on or off.  If it's already in the desired 
 state, you can usually tell without looking at the switch.
 b) It's far more mentally taxing to read/understand the symbols, remember 
 how they apply to circuits, then determine whether it's on or off, than 
 it is to simply start flipping switches until you get the desired result.

So symbols are bad because they chose the wrong symbol?

I put "So symbols are bad because they chose the wrong symbol?" after the wrong quote. I meant it in response to "This has nothing to do with it. They could have come up with a *million* better choices."
Jan 24 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 1/24/2012 3:30 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 I *HATE* those "off" lights. I've started to just tape over the fucking
 things with black electrical tape.

Back in 1971 or so, a book came out that was the complete idiot's guide to repairing a Volkswagon. The best advice in there was to someone that had the battery fault light glowing faintly. He had the charging system checked out, and all was fine. But the glowing light kept bugging the guy. The "solution" was to paint a thin layer of fingernail polish over the light, so you couldn't see the glow but could see it if it came on fully.
Jan 24 2012
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v8l5cqtfeav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 I just stayed in a hotel this past weekend, where the bedside lamp had 
 those same O and | symbols.  When I wanted to turn the light on or off, do 
 you really think I spent a single microsecond contemplating or 
 interpreting what those symbols mean?  Fuck no!  I just flipped the 
 switch!  If the switches had no symbols I would get the same result.  The 
 symbols added 0 benefit to the switch.

Yea. I misunderstood. Naturally, the symbols don't hinder usage. It's just that they just don't add much (at least when it's something where it's obvious whether it's off or on). Another good example to back up what you're saying is how typical household lightswitches never have a prinited indication - even on setups where multiple switches control the same light (and therefore it's not a simple "up vs down"). And that works out fine.
 I find a large lack of common sense in most designs today.

I feel the same way :)
 You may hate  to hear it, but the company that usually gets this right is 
 Apple :)  My  palm phone had an LED that flashed telling me "hey I have a 
 signal  still!"  My iPhone which is on and working gives me no indication 
 until I  try to use it that it is still on and connected.  Which is 
 exactly the  time I need to know.  Who fucking cares if it lost a signal 
 while sitting  on the table not being used?

There are certain *elements* of some apple designs that I think are good (although I think saying apple "usually" gets it right is WAAAAY off the mark). For example, like I said somewhere else recently, the swiping would have been a great idea to aid novices if it had been an optional *addition* to an interface that was actually practical. It's not that I think *all* elements of *all* their designs are bad: I just think they have an outright addiction to taking minimalism and "treat the user like an idiot" waaaay too far. They treat those things like Java treats OO, and to similarly disasterous results. (At least, that's the problem I have with apple's *designs*. As far as the way they run their business, I think they're evil to the point of making MS look like the EFF.) But then sometimes Apple's design people are just *completely* off their fucking rockers: Turn off an iPod? Hold "up" for five seconds! Jesus shit, that came from *apple*?!? The alleged king of good "intuitive" design? Just how much acid *had* Jobs been dropping?
 I want *less* lights. Much, much *much* less. Not more.

But you have to admit, it is universal that when a light is on, you know something is "on." It's hard to misinterpret (except for those cursed off lights).

Yea. A little too universal though, unfortunately... :/
Jan 24 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v8melay5eav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 I read that post.  I don't think you used it enough.  The swiping *is not* 
 the only interface to the photos.  You can scroll rapidly through a list 
 of "albums" (using swiping, but it has a "throw and catch" feel to it, 
 unlike swiping individual photos),

Yea, I didn't like the "throw and catch" feel. Too timing-sensitive.
 or the thumbnails of an album (or all  photos), and while in the 
 single-photo view, tapping once on the screen  brings up left and right 
 buttons so you can quickly advance or go back  through photos (including 
 holding down the button to have it go through  extremely fast).

Shit, now that you mention it, I do seem to have a vague memory of breifly noticing that and then completely forgetting...My official excuse is "It's been awhile" ;)
 The only issue I have with it is that iTunes' interface is completely 
 useless when it comes to selecting photos to load.  On my PC, I have all 
 my photos organized into folders named after the date they were taken.  So 
 in iTunes, in order to let's say, load photos from the last 2 years on my 
 iPad, I have to go through and check every *single* folder that I want to 
 copy.  And better yet, there's no way to select a *range* of folders.  I 
 don't know how it is on mac, maybe it has better integration with iPhoto. 
 But it's utterly useless on the PC unless your entire photo catalog fits 
 on your device (not the case for me).

That bring up one of the things I hate about Apple's (and everyone's really) mobile devices: There's no reason the data shouldn't be accessible like any other USB drive. But everyone would rather try to force lock-in.
 FWIW, I have not always been an apple fan.  My first real apple product 
 was my iPhone, purchased in 2010.  Now I have a macbook, and I have to say 
 I'm very impressed with it (it does have a quad-core i7, so that may be a 
 good reason).  So maybe it's just post-iPhone apple I'm more impressed 
 with :)

Heh, I haven't always been an Apple hater. My very first computer was an Apple IIc, and I still think the world of it. I guess I'm just more a Woz fan than a Jobs one. Then I got a 486 and forgot about Apple (just like most of the world did) until OSX came along. I was very intrigued by OSX at the time and got an eMac (10.1) to play around with. It was fully my intention to switch to it as my primary system, and that's how I used it for about a year or so. Aside from the Dock being a sub-par version of the Taskbar, I was genuinely impressed with it at first. But then I slowly started having problems with it: Technical problems, irritating restrictions, some things that I just couldn't get used to even though I had been convinced I would get used to, etc. But Windows has never been perfect either, so I was still more or less happy with it and intended to stick with it. Then 10.2 came out and everyone I talked to raved that it "fixes all of 10.1's problems!" So I got it. And learned that people are filthy liars ;) It barely fixed a damn thing. A small handful of partial-fixes here and there, but that was it. The problems kept up and somewhere in the second year I found myself using it less and less (just to get things done), and using my "secondary" XP system more and more. And then OSX's issues and Apple's arrogance just started to annoy me more and more, and my eMac basically died (and would have been quickly abandoned by Apple even if it hadn't died), and that was the end of me and Apple. By the time 10.3 came out, and people made the same claims about it that they had made about 10.2...Well, "fool me twice"... Then Apple went on to make a bunch of other stuff that I would keep an open mind about at first, but then made me scratch my head and think "How the hell do people like this?". Now I just simply trust Apple to be totally nuts in whatever they pull out of their ass^H^H^Hhat.
 It's not that I think *all* elements of *all* their designs are bad: I 
 just
 think they have an outright addiction to taking minimalism and "treat the
 user like an idiot" waaaay too far. They treat those things like Java 
 treats
 OO, and to similarly disasterous results. (At least, that's the problem I
 have with apple's *designs*. As far as the way they run their business, I
 think they're evil to the point of making MS look like the EFF.)

I'm not so much impressed by the minimalistic interface as I am to the attention to details. For example, on my iPhone, it comes with a set of headphones with a remote + mic inline on the earbuds. This has a 4-contact plug. A standard headphone jack has 3 contacts. What impressed me about iPhone is that it remembers the volume level I set when it's plugged into a 3 contact jack (which I use at work w/ speakers) vs. a 4 contact jack (which I use exclusively with my headphones). That's also separate from the volume level of the phone when not plugged into anything. Things like that are not "main features", but they are why apple stuff just seems to "work" without you noticing how helpful it's being.

I think part of my experience was that, yea, there's often some details that are nice here or there, but they always seem to screw up on fundamentals.
 Yeah, I think it's generally considered bad form to give one button 
 multiple uses.

"Modal interface". Yea, that's the problem with interface minimization: It tends to increase modality which is often worse. For example: I'll take a good side-mounted potentiometer knob for my volume control over the iPod-Classic/Zune (or worse - iPad/iPod-Touch) volume mechanism anyday: It's always *right there*, it always works, it always remembers what you set it at, you never even need to look at it, and when you're not looking at it's *still* it's far more accurate and precise. "It just works."
 A symbolic label would have helped here :)

Heh :)
Jan 25 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v8nbixzyeav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 I must rave about the trackpad on the macbook pro.  The interface is so 
 damned good, I hate going back to my linux laptop (which I must do for 
 work).

A good trackpad?!? That seems difficult to believe. Whenever I use a laptop, I just grab/carry-around a trackball (or at least a mouse). I can barely use those touchpad things, and IBM's "clitmouse" is only a little bit better.
Jan 25 2012
next sibling parent David Gileadi <gileadis NSPMgmail.com> writes:
On 1/25/12 2:31 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Steven Schveighoffer"<schveiguy yahoo.com>  wrote in message
 news:op.v8nbixzyeav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 I must rave about the trackpad on the macbook pro.  The interface is so
 damned good, I hate going back to my linux laptop (which I must do for
 work).

A good trackpad?!? That seems difficult to believe. Whenever I use a laptop, I just grab/carry-around a trackball (or at least a mouse). I can barely use those touchpad things, and IBM's "clitmouse" is only a little bit better.

It's the first one I've ever used that I liked. I like it so well, I even got an external "Magic Trackpad" for desktop use.
Jan 25 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v8nti0dheav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:31:14 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.v8nbixzyeav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 I must rave about the trackpad on the macbook pro.  The interface is so
 damned good, I hate going back to my linux laptop (which I must do for
 work).

A good trackpad?!? That seems difficult to believe. Whenever I use a laptop, I just grab/carry-around a trackball (or at least a mouse). I can barely use those touchpad things, and IBM's "clitmouse" is only a little bit better.

It's freaking cool. The best part is the scrolling. On my dell laptop, I have to use the right side of the touchpad to scroll. With the track pad, I just use 2 fingers, and it scrolls, no matter where I am on the pad. Click with 2-fingers, and it's a right-click. There are a bunch of multi touch gestures. Like 5-finger pinch brings up the app launcher (kind of like iPad home screen), 5-finger "explode" shows desktop, 4 finger swipe up brings up the window chooser (kind of like alt-tab). It's completely accurate, I haven't yet had it misinterpret how many fingers I'm using. I find that kind of amazing given how shitty touch screens used to be. It is a little unnerving at first, I was thinking "where the fuck are the buttons?!" The only complaint I have is that at the top of the pad, it's very hard to click.

But how is just the basic "moving the pointer" compared to other touchpads? That's the only problem I ever had with them (Well, that and accidentally "clicking" with my palm while trying to type). The physical buttons always worked fine for me, I've never been much a fan of gestures anyway.
Jan 25 2012
next sibling parent reply David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> writes:
On 1/26/12 4:06 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 […]And the
 backspace key is labeled delete, and I still don't know how to do what a
 normal delete key would do (delete the character that follows the
 cursor) can someone tell me?

Fn + Backspace, on my Macbook Pro. David
Jan 26 2012
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 1/26/12 10:41 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:20:38 -0500, David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at>
 wrote:

 On 1/26/12 4:06 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 […]And the
 backspace key is labeled delete, and I still don't know how to do what a
 normal delete key would do (delete the character that follows the
 cursor) can someone tell me?

Fn + Backspace, on my Macbook Pro.

Thank you :) I will try it next time I use my macbook pro. And I forgot about that Fn key! Though that's pretty much standard on most laptops these days. -Steve

Awesome tip, had no idea. Thanks David! Andrei
Jan 26 2012
parent David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> writes:
On 1/26/12 5:29 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 1/26/12 10:41 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:20:38 -0500, David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at>
 wrote:
 Fn + Backspace, on my Macbook Pro.

Thank you :) I will try it next time I use my macbook pro. And I forgot about that Fn key! Though that's pretty much standard on most laptops these days. -Steve

Awesome tip, had no idea. Thanks David!

On a lighter note, I didn't bother to look this up either until … guess what … I was tired of using the Explorer context menu for deleting files in my Windows testing VM. ;) David
Jan 27 2012
prev sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
On 26/01/2012 15:41, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:20:38 -0500, David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> wrote:

 On 1/26/12 4:06 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 […]And the
 backspace key is labeled delete, and I still don't know how to do what a
 normal delete key would do (delete the character that follows the
 cursor) can someone tell me?



Who decides what constitutes a "normal delete key"? Back in the days of 8-bit home computers (Spectrum, BBC, C64 et al), delete tended to mean delete to the left. Then there was the Amstrad PCW line, with "DEL→" and "←DEL" next to each other. Since then it's become more or less standard that delete means delete to the right, delete to the left being called backspace. (Though even on systems with both these keys, it's taken time to standardise their meanings. I grew up partly with a primitive text editor called RPED, in which delete deleted to the left, and backspace (IIRC) just moved the cursor left.)
 Fn + Backspace, on my Macbook Pro.

Thank you :) I will try it next time I use my macbook pro. And I forgot about that Fn key! Though that's pretty much standard on most laptops these days.

I've been reminded of the iMac G3 that I was made to use for some of my time as a PhD student. Just the backspace key, no delete key. And no Fn key to make some of the keys double as different keys - those keys they felt people could live without they just left off. Stewart.
Jan 26 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:jfsuc5$12pl$1 digitalmars.com...
 Who decides what constitutes a "normal delete key"?

That's "normal" as in "95% of the PCs in the past 20 years." ;) (And macs *are* "personal computers", contrary to the ads.) FWIW though, any mention of "8-bit" does get me excited.
 Back in the days of 8-bit home computers (Spectrum, BBC, C64 et al), 
 delete tended to mean delete to the left.  Then there was the Amstrad PCW 
 line, with "DEL?" and "?DEL" next to each other.  Since then it's become 
 more or less standard that delete means delete to the right, delete to the 
 left being called backspace.

 (Though even on systems with both these keys, it's taken time to 
 standardise their meanings.  I grew up partly with a primitive text editor 
 called RPED, in which delete deleted to the left, and backspace (IIRC) 
 just moved the cursor left.)

 Fn + Backspace, on my Macbook Pro.

Thank you :) I will try it next time I use my macbook pro. And I forgot about that Fn key! Though that's pretty much standard on most laptops these days.

I've been reminded of the iMac G3 that I was made to use for some of my time as a PhD student. Just the backspace key, no delete key. And no Fn key to make some of the keys double as different keys - those keys they felt people could live without they just left off.

That's really one of the main reasons I don't consider Apple to be good at design: Anytime they notice that something isn't *needed* by *all* users, they just throw out instead of leaving it as an option. They seem to feel that personal customization and preferences are an "evil" that infringes on the uniformity of their brand image (Which also explains their love for DRM and gatekeeping).
Jan 26 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:jft09p$160q$1 digitalmars.com...
 "Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
 news:jfsuc5$12pl$1 digitalmars.com...
 I've been reminded of the iMac G3 that I was made to use for some of my 
 time as a PhD student.  Just the backspace key, no delete key.  And no Fn 
 key to make some of the keys double as different keys - those keys they 
 felt people could live without they just left off.

That's really one of the main reasons I don't consider Apple to be good at design: Anytime they notice that something isn't *needed* by *all* users, they just throw out instead of leaving it as an option. They seem to feel that personal customization and preferences are an "evil" that infringes on the uniformity of their brand image (Which also explains their love for DRM and gatekeeping).

To clarify, I don't mean "DRM" in the sense of music/videos or game-industry-rootkits. I mean in terms of using it to artificially limit what users are able/allowed to do with their own devices.
Jan 26 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v8o5k6h4eav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 If you can bring yourself to stomach the apple store atmosphere,

Heh :)
 I  encourage you to visit one and try it out.  It's definitely different 
 than  any other interface I've ever used.

Maybe I will. (Although, there's a MicroCenter right around here and they have a nice atmosphere and an Apple section...Although then I'll have to keep shooing the vulture know-nothing salesmen away...) Last time I gave something a try at the apple store it was apple's version of a scroll mouse (the thing that "improves" on their infamous "one-button mouse" by having *no* buttons). By far worst mouse I've ever used. I know a guy that says he loves it, though I can't imagine why.
 I do have a gripe about the mac system, however: the whole special key 
 shit.  Control, Shift and Alt should be enough.  Why do we have option, 
 and that funky clover key?

Unless things have changed, it works like this (I'm actually looking at my Mac keyboard right here): "Option" *is* the "Alt" key (although the OS might treat it differently, can't remember). And the weird squiggly key is the "Apple" key (which is kind of a holdover from Apple 2 days when there was "Open Apple" and "Closed Apple", but no Control or Alt.) The Apple key is treated like the control key - You just have to remember that when you'd normally go for Control, on the Mac you'd do Apple instead. I don't remember what the hell the Mac's "Control" key is for. My Option key actually says "Alt" in addition to "Option" (no function key involved b/c this isn't a laptop), so...I think it behaves the same IIRC...? Of course, FWIW, Windows does have the "Windows" key and the "Menu" key.
 Not to mention that on every other system in  the world, ctrl-c is copy 
 ctrl-v is paste.

Except for damn near every text-mode editor I've ever seen on Linux :/ (Note, that's "text-MODE editor", not just "text editor").
 As a bonus, they've left off the home, end, page up, and page down keys.

Ouch. That would absolutely kill me. That's definitely got to be a laptop-ism though. My Mac keyboard has all of those, and in the right places. Hmm, although it has a "Help" where "Insert" should be. Weird. Guess I never noticed because the only time I ever use overwrite mode is on accident. It does have F13-F15 where PrintScrn, Scroll Lock, and Pause/Break normally are. The last two make sense to change, as I never use them. I do use Print Screen though. I do remember that OSX's keyboard combo to take a screenshot is rather unintuitive as a result.
 Instead you use (yep, you guessed it) flower-key + arrow keys.  And the 
 backspace key is labeled delete, and I still don't know how to do what a 
 normal delete key would do (delete the character that follows the cursor) 
 can someone tell me?

My Mac keyboard has the normal "Del" delete button (which also has a right-pointing arrow that has an 'x' inside it)...Although it *also* has a backspace button labeled "Delete"...So there's two "Delete" keys that each behave different. That's strange. Even more strange that I don't remember noticing it, but then it *has* been awhile. Guess I just forgot. I do agree though, keyboards on a Mac take some getting used to if you've been a Windows or Unix guy. And laptop keyboards can be a real pain in general.
Jan 26 2012
prev sibling parent "Daniel Murphy" <yebblies nospamgmail.com> writes:
 I do Win-R all the time. Win-D is nice, too, although I tend to forget 
 about
 it.

Win-L is lock screen or "return to welcome screen" if you have that enabled. That's a useful one.

Don't forget Win-E for my computer, Win-F for find and Win-Pause to open system properties. Although since I've instaled Desktops they only work on the primary desktop which is a pain.
Jan 26 2012
prev sibling parent Mirko Pilger <mirko.pilger gmail.com> writes:
 YES, I'm not the only person alive using a trackball! Thumb-ball,
 marble, or one of those giant pool-ball things?

you both are not alone. i'm also a trackball user for 11 years now. atm i have a logitech trackman on my desk but owned one of those billiard balls in the past, too.
Jan 26 2012
prev sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v8l0jzrdeav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 a) you usually want something on or off.  If it's already in the desired 
 state, you can usually tell without looking at the switch.
 b) It's far more mentally taxing to read/understand the symbols, remember 
 how they apply to circuits, then determine whether it's on or off, than it 
 is to simply start flipping switches until you get the desired result.

How in the world does the presence of symbols on the switch prevent you from doing it that way?
Jan 24 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Don Clugston <dac nospam.com> writes:
On 23/01/12 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:
 Bring up Adobe's pdf viewer. It has a whole row of icons across the top.
 I defy you to tell me what they do without hovering over each. Nobody
 has ever figured out a picture that intuitively means "save", "send" or
 "print". Some icons do have meaningful pictures, like scroll arrows. But
 the rest is an awful stretch that is driven by some ideology
 <shatner>must --- make --- icon</shatner> rather than practicality.

And all those apps made with some Borland toolkit, where 'exit' is an icon of a door, with an arrow in it. Makes me feel like I'm playing Pictionary. At a previous job, we got new desk telephones. They had 8 function keys, each with an icon which was completely incomprehensible. We gave the icons names: "two heads are better than one", "fall asleep on book", "hand holding an arrow", etc. We never worked out what any of them were for. The brand of phone was called "Easy". We wondered if they had a more advanced model with more difficult icons: "Mastered Alcatel Easy? Try Alcaltel Fiendishly Difficult!"
Jan 23 2012
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 1/23/2012 6:42 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
 And all those apps made with some Borland toolkit, where 'exit' is an icon of a
 door, with an arrow in it.

 Makes me feel like I'm playing Pictionary.

 At a previous job, we got new desk telephones. They had 8 function keys, each
 with an icon which was completely incomprehensible. We gave the icons names:
 "two heads are better than one", "fall asleep on book", "hand holding an
arrow",
 etc. We never worked out what any of them were for.

 The brand of phone was called "Easy". We wondered if they had a more advanced
 model with more difficult icons: "Mastered Alcatel Easy? Try Alcaltel
Fiendishly
 Difficult!"

I've succumbed on occasion to iconitis, too. Take a look at the D web site! I even bought a CD of 50,000 icons. I still could not find an icon that clearly means "download". I suspect that one does not exist. I made my own "icon" of a beetle, and clicking on that takes you to the bugzilla page.
Jan 23 2012
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 1/25/2012 2:27 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 How about these?

 http://images.google.com/search?q=download&tbm=isch&tbs=isz:i

You're in a maze of twisty passages, all different.
Jan 25 2012
parent Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
On 26.01.2012 00:36, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 1/25/2012 2:27 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 How about these?

 http://images.google.com/search?q=download&tbm=isch&tbs=isz:i

You're in a maze of twisty passages, all different.

The first ones look as though they're showing you where the secret button on the hard disk is.
 download

Jan 26 2012
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 1/23/2012 3:51 AM, foobar wrote:
 A few additional points:
 # Microsoft allegedly does a lot of usability research and they came up with
the
 upcoming Metro design which relies on text instead of icons. # Regarding the
 English language - Icons are supposed to be universal so it saves money for
 companies to localize their software. Localized UIs do present a trade off in
 usability: It depends which terminology is more common, the local or the
foreign
 (English). E.g. "print" is easy to translate and would be intuitive for non
 techies but "bittorent" probably isn't.

One huge issue with "universal" icons is that each company copyrights theirs. So every user interface uses deliberately different icons.
Jan 23 2012
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:jfk7t3$2l8v$2 digitalmars.com...
 On 1/23/2012 3:51 AM, foobar wrote:
 A few additional points:
 # Microsoft allegedly does a lot of usability research and they came up 
 with the
 upcoming Metro design which relies on text instead of icons. # Regarding 
 the
 English language - Icons are supposed to be universal so it saves money 
 for
 companies to localize their software. Localized UIs do present a trade 
 off in
 usability: It depends which terminology is more common, the local or the 
 foreign
 (English). E.g. "print" is easy to translate and would be intuitive for 
 non
 techies but "bittorent" probably isn't.

One huge issue with "universal" icons is that each company copyrights theirs. So every user interface uses deliberately different icons.

IP is evil. That's what I love about China: Not much respect for IP. Thanks to China's disregard for such things, I have an adaptor that lets me use the fantastic DualShock2 on Xbox1, GC or PC. That would *never* happen in the US or any heavily-US-influenced country. The corporations and lawyers just wouldn't allow it.
Jan 23 2012
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 1/23/2012 2:49 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 The basic concept isn't necessarily bad, but how it's been applied has gone
 way too far.

My position is simple: Copyrights expire after 20 years. Renewable for another 20 years for a fee of $1000/year per registered copyright. No software patents.
Jan 23 2012
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:jfkt32$rjc$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 1/23/2012 2:49 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 The basic concept isn't necessarily bad, but how it's been applied has 
 gone
 way too far.

My position is simple: Copyrights expire after 20 years. Renewable for another 20 years for a fee of $1000/year per registered copyright. No software patents.

Sensible enough. I'd add two things though: - No using IP to prevent interoperability or user-modification (This would also cover things like abusing IP to require all DVD players to obey PUO's - Another thing I love about markets that have little regard for US IP law). - Anyone in the USPTO found to be involved in the voilation of the USPTO's *own* "obviousness" rule (software or otherwise) is fired, fined and jailed.
Jan 23 2012
prev sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
On 24/01/2012 00:13, Walter Bright wrote:
<snip>
 Copyrights expire after 20 years. Renewable for another 20 years for a fee of
$1000/year
 per registered copyright.

So your idea is to make it harder for people to keep their works copyrighted? Under your plan, what will happen to copyrighted works that have existed for years? Will they expire right away if they're 20 or more years old, or remain under copyright for 20 years from now? And will existing rules (literature expires 70 years after the author's death, music recordings expire 50 years after creation, etc.) still apply in addition to this? Stewart.
Jan 24 2012
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:jfnoph$p5c$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 24/01/2012 00:13, Walter Bright wrote:
 <snip>
 Copyrights expire after 20 years. Renewable for another 20 years for a 
 fee of $1000/year
 per registered copyright.


I can't answer for Walter. But, for me:
 So your idea is to make it harder for people to keep their works 
 copyrighted?

God yes.
 Under your plan, what will happen to copyrighted works that have existed 
 for years?  Will they expire right away if they're 20 or more years old,

Hopefully.
 or remain under copyright for 20 years from now?

 And will existing rules (literature expires 70 years after the author's 
 death, music recordings expire 50 years after creation, etc.) still apply 
 in addition to this?

All of those copyright extension acts, such as Sunny Bozo's, should be retroactively nullified.
Jan 24 2012
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 1/24/2012 6:18 PM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
 On 24/01/2012 00:13, Walter Bright wrote:
 <snip>
 Copyrights expire after 20 years. Renewable for another 20 years for a fee of
 $1000/year
 per registered copyright.

So your idea is to make it harder for people to keep their works copyrighted?

After 20 years, yes. And I speak as someone who makes a living selling copyrighted material.
 Under your plan, what will happen to copyrighted works that have existed for
 years? Will they expire right away if they're 20 or more years old, or remain
 under copyright for 20 years from now?

They'd follow the same rules. If they're more than 20 years old, but less than 40, the owner can pay $1000/yr to continue the copyright. Older than 40 years, then public domain.
 And will existing rules (literature expires 70 years after the author's death,
 music recordings expire 50 years after creation, etc.) still apply in addition
 to this?

No.
Jan 24 2012
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"foobar" <foo bar.com> wrote in message 
news:gaeafbliswzwkmitpghj dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
 IP can't be evil, it's the basic protocol of the internet ;)
 seriously though, the term IP is highly misleading and doesn't have a hold 
 in (legal) reality. It's a collection of unrelated laws with separate 
 agendas and purposes: copyright, patent, trademarks. Each individual law 
 *supposed to* make sense, but at a whole they really don't. Yes, it is 
 perfectly legitimate for an author/artist/musician/font creator/etc to 
 want to be paid and they really should be. it is not hover at all 
 legitimate that a book publisher/record company/etc be paid if that 
 business model isn't justified anymore in the market place. Forcing those 
 on the market when they aren't necessary is the true meaning of evil. I 
 also disagree that it's the companies' fault. They simply want to make 
 money. That their purpose. The government is the responsible party to set 
 the rules for corporations and not vice versa and the US government is 
 completely at fault for this huge mess. It's like children setting the 
 rule for their parents.

I'm not entirely convinced that the US gov isn't effectively a corporate puppet.
Jan 23 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"foobar" <foo bar.com> wrote in message 
news:teutlxbmxkyzvyrqgyiy dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
 There is this phenomena in the US where some people feel that they have 
 the right to be ignorant but they ought to realize that this isn't a core 
 human right and it slowly degrades society in such a way that they lose 
 all other rights and freedoms. People should educate themselves and be 
 responsible for their votes and actually do vote. In my country (Israel) 
 an elections with ~67% of people voting was the lowest percentage ever and 
 usually it's closer to 80%. in the USA it's closer to 50%. That isn't even 
 a majority of the population!

I agree that if someobody's *going* to vote, they have a moral responsibility to be informed about what it is they're voting on (and the biased handwavy-propaganda-with-no-real-information we get bombarded with from each side doesn't count). And it's *absolutely* best to be informed and then vote. But real legitimate information (as opposed to non-informational emotional, and frankly patronizing, propaganda: And I mean propaganda quite literally) is surprisingly difficult to find in this supposedly free country. The real information is essentially hidden by those who prefer us to vote emotionally - that way we're more easily swayed. And the US is such a goddamn rat race, many people just simply can't afford the time to dig through the mountains of bullshit: they're too busy trying to keep the bills paid. And if for that reason, or any other legitimate *or* illigitimate reason, when somebody *isn't* informed, it's downright socially irresponsible for them to vote (but many do anyway, and that's part of why american elections have degenerated into little more than popularity contests).
 The current situation is directly connected to the ignorance and lack of 
 caring by the people. After all, a democratic government comes from the 
 people and represents the people. Clearly, the citizens of the USA didn't 
 care enough.

It's not so much apathy. Mostly, we've just lost faith in politicians (and not without reason). Besides, to borrow from South Park, we're usually faced with a choice between a giant doucebag and a shit sandwich: We all lose no matter how the vote turns out. At the very least, that 50% turnout is a big vote for "We need a candidate who doesn't have their head up their ass."
Jan 24 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Monday, January 23, 2012 17:37:59 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 IP is evil. That's what I love about China: Not much respect for IP. Thanks
 to China's disregard for such things, I have an adaptor that lets me use the
 fantastic DualShock2 on Xbox1, GC or PC. That would *never* happen in the
 US or any heavily-US-influenced country. The corporations and lawyers just
 wouldn't allow it.

IP is not entirely evil. For instance, I think that it's perfectly legitimate for an author to want to be paid for the book that they wrote. The same goes for a song or a movie. And if I write code, and I don't release it under an open source license, then no one has any business using it without my permission as long as the copyright holds. The problem is that companies take it way too far. Too much is protected - the prime example of this being software patents (it's ludicrous to patent an idea IMHO) - and companies go too far in protecting it (e.g. MPAA or RIAA). The end result is that instead of legitimately protecting innovation and inventions, IP is now frequently used to stifle innovation and prevent competition. The basic concept isn't necessarily bad, but how it's been applied has gone way too far. - Jonathan M Davis
Jan 23 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.754.1327359014.16222.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On Monday, January 23, 2012 17:37:59 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 IP is evil. That's what I love about China: Not much respect for IP. 
 Thanks
 to China's disregard for such things, I have an adaptor that lets me use 
 the
 fantastic DualShock2 on Xbox1, GC or PC. That would *never* happen in the
 US or any heavily-US-influenced country. The corporations and lawyers 
 just
 wouldn't allow it.

IP is not entirely evil. For instance, I think that it's perfectly legitimate for an author to want to be paid for the book that they wrote. The same goes for a song or a movie. And if I write code, and I don't release it under an open source license, then no one has any business using it without my permission as long as the copyright holds. The problem is that companies take it way too far. Too much is protected - the prime example of this being software patents (it's ludicrous to patent an idea IMHO) - and companies go too far in protecting it (e.g. MPAA or RIAA). The end result is that instead of legitimately protecting innovation and inventions, IP is now frequently used to stifle innovation and prevent competition. The basic concept isn't necessarily bad, but how it's been applied has gone way too far.

Right. I guess I meant more "Modern IP" ;)
Jan 23 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "foobar" <foo bar.com> writes:
On Monday, 23 January 2012 at 22:50:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
 On Monday, January 23, 2012 17:37:59 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 IP is evil. That's what I love about China: Not much respect 
 for IP. Thanks
 to China's disregard for such things, I have an adaptor that 
 lets me use the
 fantastic DualShock2 on Xbox1, GC or PC. That would *never* 
 happen in the
 US or any heavily-US-influenced country. The corporations and 
 lawyers just
 wouldn't allow it.

IP is not entirely evil. For instance, I think that it's perfectly legitimate for an author to want to be paid for the book that they wrote. The same goes for a song or a movie. And if I write code, and I don't release it under an open source license, then no one has any business using it without my permission as long as the copyright holds. The problem is that companies take it way too far. Too much is protected - the prime example of this being software patents (it's ludicrous to patent an idea IMHO) - and companies go too far in protecting it (e.g. MPAA or RIAA). The end result is that instead of legitimately protecting innovation and inventions, IP is now frequently used to stifle innovation and prevent competition. The basic concept isn't necessarily bad, but how it's been applied has gone way too far. - Jonathan M Davis

IP can't be evil, it's the basic protocol of the internet ;) seriously though, the term IP is highly misleading and doesn't have a hold in (legal) reality. It's a collection of unrelated laws with separate agendas and purposes: copyright, patent, trademarks. Each individual law *supposed to* make sense, but at a whole they really don't. Yes, it is perfectly legitimate for an author/artist/musician/font creator/etc to want to be paid and they really should be. it is not hover at all legitimate that a book publisher/record company/etc be paid if that business model isn't justified anymore in the market place. Forcing those on the market when they aren't necessary is the true meaning of evil. I also disagree that it's the companies' fault. They simply want to make money. That their purpose. The government is the responsible party to set the rules for corporations and not vice versa and the US government is completely at fault for this huge mess. It's like children setting the rule for their parents.
Jan 23 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "foobar" <foo bar.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 07:09:47 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
 "foobar" <foo bar.com> wrote in message 
 news:gaeafbliswzwkmitpghj dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
 IP can't be evil, it's the basic protocol of the internet ;)
 seriously though, the term IP is highly misleading and doesn't 
 have a hold in (legal) reality. It's a collection of unrelated 
 laws with separate agendas and purposes: copyright, patent, 
 trademarks. Each individual law *supposed to* make sense, but 
 at a whole they really don't. Yes, it is perfectly legitimate 
 for an author/artist/musician/font creator/etc to want to be 
 paid and they really should be. it is not hover at all 
 legitimate that a book publisher/record company/etc be paid if 
 that business model isn't justified anymore in the market 
 place. Forcing those on the market when they aren't necessary 
 is the true meaning of evil. I also disagree that it's the 
 companies' fault. They simply want to make money. That their 
 purpose. The government is the responsible party to set the 
 rules for corporations and not vice versa and the US 
 government is completely at fault for this huge mess. It's 
 like children setting the rule for their parents.

I'm not entirely convinced that the US gov isn't effectively a corporate puppet.

If it is it just proves my point and stuff needs to be done to change the current circumstances. AFAIK the current situation is against the spirit if not the letter of the US constitution which forbids any group from oppressing another (in this case Corporate America vs. the little guy). There is this phenomena in the US where some people feel that they have the right to be ignorant but they ought to realize that this isn't a core human right and it slowly degrades society in such a way that they lose all other rights and freedoms. People should educate themselves and be responsible for their votes and actually do vote. In my country (Israel) an elections with ~67% of people voting was the lowest percentage ever and usually it's closer to 80%. in the USA it's closer to 50%. That isn't even a majority of the population! The current situation is directly connected to the ignorance and lack of caring by the people. After all, a democratic government comes from the people and represents the people. Clearly, the citizens of the USA didn't care enough.
Jan 24 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Marco Leise" <Marco.Leise gmx.de> writes:
Am 24.01.2012, 13:26 Uhr, schrieb foobar <foo bar.com>:

 On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 07:09:47 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "foobar" <foo bar.com> wrote in message  
 news:gaeafbliswzwkmitpghj dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
 IP can't be evil, it's the basic protocol of the internet ;)
 seriously though, the term IP is highly misleading and doesn't have a  
 hold in (legal) reality. It's a collection of unrelated laws with  
 separate agendas and purposes: copyright, patent, trademarks. Each  
 individual law *supposed to* make sense, but at a whole they really  
 don't. Yes, it is perfectly legitimate for an  
 author/artist/musician/font creator/etc to want to be paid and they  
 really should be. it is not hover at all legitimate that a book  
 publisher/record company/etc be paid if that business model isn't  
 justified anymore in the market place. Forcing those on the market  
 when they aren't necessary is the true meaning of evil. I also  
 disagree that it's the companies' fault. They simply want to make  
 money. That their purpose. The government is the responsible party to  
 set the rules for corporations and not vice versa and the US  
 government is completely at fault for this huge mess. It's like  
 children setting the rule for their parents.

I'm not entirely convinced that the US gov isn't effectively a corporate puppet.

If it is it just proves my point and stuff needs to be done to change the current circumstances. AFAIK the current situation is against the spirit if not the letter of the US constitution which forbids any group from oppressing another (in this case Corporate America vs. the little guy). There is this phenomena in the US where some people feel that they have the right to be ignorant but they ought to realize that this isn't a core human right and it slowly degrades society in such a way that they lose all other rights and freedoms. People should educate themselves and be responsible for their votes and actually do vote. In my country (Israel) an elections with ~67% of people voting was the lowest percentage ever and usually it's closer to 80%. in the USA it's closer to 50%. That isn't even a majority of the population! The current situation is directly connected to the ignorance and lack of caring by the people. After all, a democratic government comes from the people and represents the people. Clearly, the citizens of the USA didn't care enough.

You compare a country with two parties with a country with over one hundred parties, this can become a long philosophical debate. :D I'm voting for Moria. It reminds me of Lord of the Rings.
Jan 24 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "foobar" <foo bar.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 13:00:13 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
 Am 24.01.2012, 13:26 Uhr, schrieb foobar <foo bar.com>:

 On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 07:09:47 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
 wrote:
 "foobar" <foo bar.com> wrote in message 
 news:gaeafbliswzwkmitpghj dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
 IP can't be evil, it's the basic protocol of the internet ;)
 seriously though, the term IP is highly misleading and 
 doesn't have a hold in (legal) reality. It's a collection of 
 unrelated laws with separate agendas and purposes: 
 copyright, patent, trademarks. Each individual law *supposed 
 to* make sense, but at a whole they really don't. Yes, it is 
 perfectly legitimate for an author/artist/musician/font 
 creator/etc to want to be paid and they really should be. it 
 is not hover at all legitimate that a book publisher/record 
 company/etc be paid if that business model isn't justified 
 anymore in the market place. Forcing those on the market 
 when they aren't necessary is the true meaning of evil. I 
 also disagree that it's the companies' fault. They simply 
 want to make money. That their purpose. The government is 
 the responsible party to set the rules for corporations and 
 not vice versa and the US government is completely at fault 
 for this huge mess. It's like children setting the rule for 
 their parents.

I'm not entirely convinced that the US gov isn't effectively a corporate puppet.

If it is it just proves my point and stuff needs to be done to change the current circumstances. AFAIK the current situation is against the spirit if not the letter of the US constitution which forbids any group from oppressing another (in this case Corporate America vs. the little guy). There is this phenomena in the US where some people feel that they have the right to be ignorant but they ought to realize that this isn't a core human right and it slowly degrades society in such a way that they lose all other rights and freedoms. People should educate themselves and be responsible for their votes and actually do vote. In my country (Israel) an elections with ~67% of people voting was the lowest percentage ever and usually it's closer to 80%. in the USA it's closer to 50%. That isn't even a majority of the population! The current situation is directly connected to the ignorance and lack of caring by the people. After all, a democratic government comes from the people and represents the people. Clearly, the citizens of the USA didn't care enough.

You compare a country with two parties with a country with over one hundred parties, this can become a long philosophical debate. :D I'm voting for Moria. It reminds me of Lord of the Rings.

I never claimed our system is perfect and for sure we have too many parties. OTOH it does show we take active role and we do care! :) Another example would be the social protests that happened this summer where 300,000 people physically came to demonstrate in Tel-Aviv. No small fit for a country of 7 million.
Jan 24 2012
prev sibling parent "foobar" <foo bar.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 23:17:15 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
 "foobar" <foo bar.com> wrote in message 
 news:teutlxbmxkyzvyrqgyiy dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
 There is this phenomena in the US where some people feel that 
 they have the right to be ignorant but they ought to realize 
 that this isn't a core human right and it slowly degrades 
 society in such a way that they lose all other rights and 
 freedoms. People should educate themselves and be responsible 
 for their votes and actually do vote. In my country (Israel) 
 an elections with ~67% of people voting was the lowest 
 percentage ever and usually it's closer to 80%. in the USA 
 it's closer to 50%. That isn't even a majority of the 
 population!

I agree that if someobody's *going* to vote, they have a moral responsibility to be informed about what it is they're voting on (and the biased handwavy-propaganda-with-no-real-information we get bombarded with from each side doesn't count). And it's *absolutely* best to be informed and then vote. But real legitimate information (as opposed to non-informational emotional, and frankly patronizing, propaganda: And I mean propaganda quite literally) is surprisingly difficult to find in this supposedly free country. The real information is essentially hidden by those who prefer us to vote emotionally - that way we're more easily swayed. And the US is such a goddamn rat race, many people just simply can't afford the time to dig through the mountains of bullshit: they're too busy trying to keep the bills paid. And if for that reason, or any other legitimate *or* illigitimate reason, when somebody *isn't* informed, it's downright socially irresponsible for them to vote (but many do anyway, and that's part of why american elections have degenerated into little more than popularity contests).
 The current situation is directly connected to the ignorance 
 and lack of caring by the people. After all, a democratic 
 government comes from the people and represents the people. 
 Clearly, the citizens of the USA didn't care enough.

It's not so much apathy. Mostly, we've just lost faith in politicians (and not without reason). Besides, to borrow from South Park, we're usually faced with a choice between a giant doucebag and a shit sandwich: We all lose no matter how the vote turns out. At the very least, that 50% turnout is a big vote for "We need a candidate who doesn't have their head up their ass."

All I can offer is my local experience and the common sense that if you ain't gonna fix your problem yourself no one else would do it for you (and yes, I do realize that's hard, takes time, money, effort, determination, etc while you still have to pay those bills) In our local political system when people aren't pleased with current parties they just start new ones. Granted that this isn't perfect and has many problems and we have way too many parties *but* on the other side, it also means that some parties lose relevance and disappear while new ones emerge. Hence it's more dynamic and can adapt better to change. I think this general pattern can be applied in various degrees to many EU countries. A good example would be the pirate party in Sweden. This is like Kirk's solution for the Kobayashi Maru scenario :) In that sense, I don't subscribe to the notion that the only option is to select between two kinds of smelly shit cause you are left with shit in your hands no matter what and that is clearly not the definition of democracy.
Jan 24 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "foobar" <foo bar.com> writes:
On Monday, 23 January 2012 at 10:54:15 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 1/23/2012 2:22 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Although I disagree with phonetic being *necessarily* better 
 than
 ideographic. I do agree with the benefits of phonetic you 
 describe -
 essentially "easier to learn". But the benefit of ideographic 
 is that they
 can be quicker and easier to use *after* you've learned them.

I find that very difficult to believe. But I don't know Kanji.
 Children and non-native speakers are taught the phonetic 
 alphabets first
 (hiragana and katakana), because they're easier to learn and 
 can handle any
 word with a small number of simple symbols. Then learners move 
 on to the
 ideographic ones (the Chinese kanji). I only ever learned a 
 few kanji, but
 you notice pretty quickly that once you've learned a kanji you 
 can read it
 much more quickly than the phonetic equivalent. (It also helps 
 your brain
 divide a sentence into words, since Japanese doesn't use 
 spaces, but that's
 not really relevent here).

I've seen the same books written in both Kanji and English. The English ones were smaller, significantly so. I suspect the problem was the Kanji font had to be considerably larger in order to be legible, which negated any compression advantage it might have.
 I think a big part of the reason kanji is easier to read (once 
 you've
 learned it) is that your eyes don't have to move nearly as 
 much, and there's
 much more visual distinction between words (since there's so 
 many more basic
 patterns). The fact that they originate from images is 
 irrelevant since they
 don't really retain much of the resemblance they once did (a 
 few of them do,
 like "mountain" or "gate", but only if you already know how to 
 "see" it -
 like being told the "box of kleenex" is a printer). It really 
 is exactly the
 same as reading "42" instead of "fourty-two". Or the standard 
 VCR-control
 icons instead of "fast-forward", "next chapter", etc. Totally 
 obscure if you
 don't already know them, but much quicker and easier to read 
 then the
 english words if you do.

 As far as ability to look things up: Other ideographic 
 languages may be
 different than this (and this certainly doesn't apply to 
 computer icons
 either), but most of the Japanese kanji (ie, Chinese 
 characters) are
 constructed from a smaller number of common building blocks, 
 the "radicals"
 (around 100ish-or-so, IIRC?). As such, there actually is such 
 thing as kanji
 dictionaries where you can look up an unknown symbol. (I 
 almost bought one
 once...)

 Getting back to software, I like the words when I'm learning a 
 program
 (whether they're tooltips or labels) since the icons are 
 initially
 meaningless. But once I learn what the icon means, I often 
 prefer to not
 have the words because, compared to the icons, they're just 
 indistinct
 visual clutter (and they take up that much more screen real 
 estate). The
 color in icons also adds yet another dimension for your eyes 
 to lock onto
 which text labels just don't offer, at least not as naturally.

I agree that color can help, but it helps just as well with text. That's why we have color syntax highlighting editors.
 Another thing to note: While the connection between an icon 
 and it's meaning
 may not (ever) be close enough to initially teach you what it 
 does, the
 metaphor (even for non-physical things) is usually close 
 enough, or logical
 enough in its own way, to help you *remember* what it does 
 after you've
 initially learned it.

I still can't remember which of | and O means "on" and "off". Ever since the industry helpfully stopped labeling switches with "on" and "off" my usual technique is to flip it back and forth until it goes on. Is it really progress to change from a system where 99% of the world knows what it means to one where 2% know? I suspect it is driven by some people who feel guilty about knowing english, or something like that. I remember in the 1970's when the europeans decided to standardize on a traffic "stop" sign. They bikeshedded so much over this, the compromise selected was the american octagonal STOP sign. Nationalistic egos prevented selecting one from a european country. Bring up Adobe's pdf viewer. It has a whole row of icons across the top. I defy you to tell me what they do without hovering over each. Nobody has ever figured out a picture that intuitively means "save", "send" or "print". Some icons do have meaningful pictures, like scroll arrows. But the rest is an awful stretch that is driven by some ideology <shatner>must --- make --- icon</shatner> rather than practicality. Back to Thunderbird email. The icon for "Spell" is ABC over a check mark. That is not smaller or more intuitive than "Spell".

A few additional points: # Microsoft allegedly does a lot of usability research and they came up with the upcoming Metro design which relies on text instead of icons. # Regarding the English language - Icons are supposed to be universal so it saves money for companies to localize their software. Localized UIs do present a trade off in usability: It depends which terminology is more common, the local or the foreign (English). E.g. "print" is easy to translate and would be intuitive for non techies but "bittorent" probably isn't.
Jan 23 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "foobar" <foo bar.com> writes:
On Monday, 23 January 2012 at 18:11:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 1/23/2012 3:51 AM, foobar wrote:
 A few additional points:
 # Microsoft allegedly does a lot of usability research and 
 they came up with the
 upcoming Metro design which relies on text instead of icons. # 
 Regarding the
 English language - Icons are supposed to be universal so it 
 saves money for
 companies to localize their software. Localized UIs do present 
 a trade off in
 usability: It depends which terminology is more common, the 
 local or the foreign
 (English). E.g. "print" is easy to translate and would be 
 intuitive for non
 techies but "bittorent" probably isn't.

One huge issue with "universal" icons is that each company copyrights theirs. So every user interface uses deliberately different icons.

Oh, I totally agree with you. That's why I said "supposed to". :) I had the same issue at my last work as Don, could never figure out the phone icons.
Jan 23 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:59:46 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message

 Ever since the industry helpfully stopped labeling switches with "on"  
 and
 "off" my usual technique is to flip it back and forth until it goes on.  
 Is
 it really progress to change from a system where 99% of the world knows
 what it means to one where 2% know?

I'd say more like "from 99% to 90%". And those who do know can read it more easily, at a further distance, with worse eyesight, in worse lighting conditions, at a breifer glance, etc.

This has nothing to do with it. They could have come up with a *million* better choices. Couple that with the fact that: a) you usually want something on or off. If it's already in the desired state, you can usually tell without looking at the switch. b) It's far more mentally taxing to read/understand the symbols, remember how they apply to circuits, then determine whether it's on or off, than it is to simply start flipping switches until you get the desired result. I think you'd be better off without *any* symbols, or with only a single symbol indicating 'on'. For my money, the *best* on off switch is the lighted pushbutton, which has the two symbols combined. I know that it's a power button, and if I see no light, I know it's off. And the WORST on/off design ever (mandated by regulation, I believe) is to have a light turn *ON* when something is off. For example, my TV helpfully has an LED that turns on when it's off, presumably to let me know that it's connected to power. -Steve
Jan 24 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:30:45 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.v8l0jzrdeav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:59:46 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message

 Ever since the industry helpfully stopped labeling switches with "on"
 and
 "off" my usual technique is to flip it back and forth until it goes  
 on.
 Is
 it really progress to change from a system where 99% of the world  
 knows
 what it means to one where 2% know?

I'd say more like "from 99% to 90%". And those who do know can read it more easily, at a further distance, with worse eyesight, in worse lighting conditions, at a breifer glance, etc.

This has nothing to do with it. They could have come up with a *million* better choices.

So symbols are bad because they chose the wrong symbol?

No, in a weird way I was saying the opposite -- the symbols they chose were a bad choice, not the fact that they chose symbols. I've seen much better on/off symbols than O and |. If you have no idea what that means in EE terms, then you are just associating on/off with what seems like random symbols. Even a single dot on the "on" side is 10 times better.
 I think you'd be better off without *any* symbols, or with only a single
 symbol indicating 'on'.

I think we'll have to disagree on it...

I just stayed in a hotel this past weekend, where the bedside lamp had those same O and | symbols. When I wanted to turn the light on or off, do you really think I spent a single microsecond contemplating or interpreting what those symbols mean? Fuck no! I just flipped the switch! If the switches had no symbols I would get the same result. The symbols added 0 benefit to the switch.
 For my money, the *best* on off switch is the lighted pushbutton, which
 has the two symbols combined.  I know that it's a power button, and if I
 see no light, I know it's off.

Until the light burns out (granted, less of an issue with LEDs).

I'm thinking in terms of my PC, I have a pushbutton to turn it on. When it's off, the button is dim, when it's on the button is lit. How much more obvious/simple can you get?
 Also, I *hate* how thanks to modern electronics *everything* in the  
 goddamn
 room has to be lit up like a fucking tree. And they keep making the damn
 things brighter, and brighter, and BRIGHTER...Shit, the light on the USB  
 HDD
 enclosue I just got is so bright it genuinely *hurts* my eyes just to  
 look
 at it.

Such things should be tucked away, but it does not need to be extra bright, I agree there. Some simple common sense would work here. If it's something that's normally not needed for diagnostics, put it internal, but visible through a vent or something. Make it possible to see, but not intrusive. I find a large lack of common sense in most designs today. You may hate to hear it, but the company that usually gets this right is Apple :) My palm phone had an LED that flashed telling me "hey I have a signal still!" My iPhone which is on and working gives me no indication until I try to use it that it is still on and connected. Which is exactly the time I need to know. Who fucking cares if it lost a signal while sitting on the table not being used?
 I had to tape tiny pieces of paper over it just to make it tolerable.
 And it's still brighter than I'd like. But I don't want to totally  
 obscure
 it because then I can't see when it's active.

 I want *less* lights. Much, much *much* less. Not more.

But you have to admit, it is universal that when a light is on, you know something is "on." It's hard to misinterpret (except for those cursed off lights).
 And the WORST on/off design ever (mandated by regulation, I believe) is  
 to
 have a light turn *ON* when something is off.  For example, my TV
 helpfully has an LED that turns on when it's off, presumably to let me
 know that it's connected to power.

I *HATE* those "off" lights. I've started to just tape over the fucking things with black electrical tape.

Me too :) We have a TV in the bedroom where the light was so bright, my wife couldn't sleep. So I taped over it. My new TV has a much dimmer light, but it's still there. You can configure the light to turn off when it's on, but you can't configure it to be off all the time. Again, I think genius politicians who know much better than me how to keep my family safe have decided this for me... -Steve
Jan 24 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:46:05 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.v8l5cqtfeav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 You may hate  to hear it, but the company that usually gets this right  
 is
 Apple :)  My  palm phone had an LED that flashed telling me "hey I have  
 a
 signal  still!"  My iPhone which is on and working gives me no  
 indication
 until I  try to use it that it is still on and connected.  Which is
 exactly the  time I need to know.  Who fucking cares if it lost a signal
 while sitting  on the table not being used?

There are certain *elements* of some apple designs that I think are good (although I think saying apple "usually" gets it right is WAAAAY off the mark). For example, like I said somewhere else recently, the swiping would have been a great idea to aid novices if it had been an optional *addition* to an interface that was actually practical.

I read that post. I don't think you used it enough. The swiping *is not* the only interface to the photos. You can scroll rapidly through a list of "albums" (using swiping, but it has a "throw and catch" feel to it, unlike swiping individual photos), or the thumbnails of an album (or all photos), and while in the single-photo view, tapping once on the screen brings up left and right buttons so you can quickly advance or go back through photos (including holding down the button to have it go through extremely fast). I think there are plenty of practical ways to look at photos, you just didn't see them all. (BTW, tapping the screen to bring up "more interface" is a very common iOS idiom) On the iPad, it the albums view has a gimmicky feature where you can "explode" the album to quickly see the thumbnails for it with a pinch-zoom move. The only issue I have with it is that iTunes' interface is completely useless when it comes to selecting photos to load. On my PC, I have all my photos organized into folders named after the date they were taken. So in iTunes, in order to let's say, load photos from the last 2 years on my iPad, I have to go through and check every *single* folder that I want to copy. And better yet, there's no way to select a *range* of folders. I don't know how it is on mac, maybe it has better integration with iPhoto. But it's utterly useless on the PC unless your entire photo catalog fits on your device (not the case for me). For that reason, I haven't done much with the photo app on my iPad. FWIW, I have not always been an apple fan. My first real apple product was my iPhone, purchased in 2010. Now I have a macbook, and I have to say I'm very impressed with it (it does have a quad-core i7, so that may be a good reason). So maybe it's just post-iPhone apple I'm more impressed with :)
 It's not that I think *all* elements of *all* their designs are bad: I  
 just
 think they have an outright addiction to taking minimalism and "treat the
 user like an idiot" waaaay too far. They treat those things like Java  
 treats
 OO, and to similarly disasterous results. (At least, that's the problem I
 have with apple's *designs*. As far as the way they run their business, I
 think they're evil to the point of making MS look like the EFF.)

I'm not so much impressed by the minimalistic interface as I am to the attention to details. For example, on my iPhone, it comes with a set of headphones with a remote + mic inline on the earbuds. This has a 4-contact plug. A standard headphone jack has 3 contacts. What impressed me about iPhone is that it remembers the volume level I set when it's plugged into a 3 contact jack (which I use at work w/ speakers) vs. a 4 contact jack (which I use exclusively with my headphones). That's also separate from the volume level of the phone when not plugged into anything. Things like that are not "main features", but they are why apple stuff just seems to "work" without you noticing how helpful it's being. And yeah, there are some details that I wish weren't minimalized (editing remembered wifi settings would be nice).
 But then sometimes Apple's design people are just *completely* off their
 fucking rockers: Turn off an iPod? Hold "up" for five seconds! Jesus  
 shit,
 that came from *apple*?!? The alleged king of good "intuitive" design?  
 Just
 how much acid *had* Jobs been dropping?

Yeah, I think it's generally considered bad form to give one button multiple uses. A symbolic label would have helped here :) -Steve
Jan 24 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Derek <ddparnell bigpond.com> writes:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:08:40 +1100, Steven Schveighoffer  
<schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote:

 Me too :)  We have a TV in the bedroom where the light was so bright, my  
 wife couldn't sleep.  So I taped over it.

 My new TV has a much dimmer light, but it's still there.  You can  
 configure the light to turn off when it's on, but you can't configure it  
 to be off all the time.  Again, I think genius politicians who know much  
 better than me how to keep my family safe have decided this for me...

Turn it off at the wall switch. You save some energy costs and get a tiny bit more exercise too. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia
Jan 24 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 03:43:15 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.v8melay5eav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 I read that post.  I don't think you used it enough.  The swiping *is  
 not*
 the only interface to the photos.  You can scroll rapidly through a list
 of "albums" (using swiping, but it has a "throw and catch" feel to it,
 unlike swiping individual photos),

Yea, I didn't like the "throw and catch" feel. Too timing-sensitive.

It's an acquired skill.
 or the thumbnails of an album (or all  photos), and while in the
 single-photo view, tapping once on the screen  brings up left and right
 buttons so you can quickly advance or go back  through photos (including
 holding down the button to have it go through  extremely fast).

Shit, now that you mention it, I do seem to have a vague memory of breifly noticing that and then completely forgetting...My official excuse is "It's been awhile" ;)

hehe :)
 The only issue I have with it is that iTunes' interface is completely
 useless when it comes to selecting photos to load.  On my PC, I have all
 my photos organized into folders named after the date they were taken.   
 So
 in iTunes, in order to let's say, load photos from the last 2 years on  
 my
 iPad, I have to go through and check every *single* folder that I want  
 to
 copy.  And better yet, there's no way to select a *range* of folders.  I
 don't know how it is on mac, maybe it has better integration with  
 iPhoto.
 But it's utterly useless on the PC unless your entire photo catalog fits
 on your device (not the case for me).

That bring up one of the things I hate about Apple's (and everyone's really) mobile devices: There's no reason the data shouldn't be accessible like any other USB drive. But everyone would rather try to force lock-in.

I can plug in my iPhone to my linux laptop, and see all the photos as a USB drive. However, I don't think it's writable. I think even Linux has the ability to play music from it.
 FWIW, I have not always been an apple fan.  My first real apple product
 was my iPhone, purchased in 2010.  Now I have a macbook, and I have to  
 say
 I'm very impressed with it (it does have a quad-core i7, so that may be  
 a
 good reason).  So maybe it's just post-iPhone apple I'm more impressed
 with :)

Heh, I haven't always been an Apple hater. My very first computer was an Apple IIc, and I still think the world of it. I guess I'm just more a Woz fan than a Jobs one. Then I got a 486 and forgot about Apple (just like most of the world did) until OSX came along. I was very intrigued by OSX at the time and got an eMac (10.1) to play around with. It was fully my intention to switch to it as my primary system, and that's how I used it for about a year or so. Aside from the Dock being a sub-par version of the Taskbar, I was genuinely impressed with it at first. But then I slowly started having problems with it: Technical problems, irritating restrictions, some things that I just couldn't get used to even though I had been convinced I would get used to, etc. But Windows has never been perfect either, so I was still more or less happy with it and intended to stick with it. Then 10.2 came out and everyone I talked to raved that it "fixes all of 10.1's problems!" So I got it. And learned that people are filthy liars ;) It barely fixed a damn thing. A small handful of partial-fixes here and there, but that was it. The problems kept up and somewhere in the second year I found myself using it less and less (just to get things done), and using my "secondary" XP system more and more. And then OSX's issues and Apple's arrogance just started to annoy me more and more, and my eMac basically died (and would have been quickly abandoned by Apple even if it hadn't died), and that was the end of me and Apple. By the time 10.3 came out, and people made the same claims about it that they had made about 10.2...Well, "fool me twice"...

I hope I *don't* have that same experience... I do like the idea that any time I can pop up a terminal and use my favorite unix commands :) I know you can do that on Windows with cygwin or something similar, but the fact that it's built-in and expected is much nicer. I haven't yet come across things that I miss. The way apps stay "active" even when you close takes some getting used to. But the thing fires up and shuts down in less than a minute. I must rave about the trackpad on the macbook pro. The interface is so damned good, I hate going back to my linux laptop (which I must do for work). -Steve
Jan 25 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:31:14 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.v8nbixzyeav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 I must rave about the trackpad on the macbook pro.  The interface is so
 damned good, I hate going back to my linux laptop (which I must do for
 work).

A good trackpad?!? That seems difficult to believe. Whenever I use a laptop, I just grab/carry-around a trackball (or at least a mouse). I can barely use those touchpad things, and IBM's "clitmouse" is only a little bit better.

It's freaking cool. The best part is the scrolling. On my dell laptop, I have to use the right side of the touchpad to scroll. With the track pad, I just use 2 fingers, and it scrolls, no matter where I am on the pad. Click with 2-fingers, and it's a right-click. There are a bunch of multi touch gestures. Like 5-finger pinch brings up the app launcher (kind of like iPad home screen), 5-finger "explode" shows desktop, 4 finger swipe up brings up the window chooser (kind of like alt-tab). It's completely accurate, I haven't yet had it misinterpret how many fingers I'm using. I find that kind of amazing given how shitty touch screens used to be. It is a little unnerving at first, I was thinking "where the fuck are the buttons?!" The only complaint I have is that at the top of the pad, it's very hard to click. -Steve
Jan 25 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Monday, 23 January 2012 at 18:17:45 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 1/23/2012 6:42 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
 And all those apps made with some Borland toolkit, where 
 'exit' is an icon of a
 door, with an arrow in it.

 Makes me feel like I'm playing Pictionary.

 At a previous job, we got new desk telephones. They had 8 
 function keys, each
 with an icon which was completely incomprehensible. We gave 
 the icons names:
 "two heads are better than one", "fall asleep on book", "hand 
 holding an arrow",
 etc. We never worked out what any of them were for.

 The brand of phone was called "Easy". We wondered if they had 
 a more advanced
 model with more difficult icons: "Mastered Alcatel Easy? Try 
 Alcaltel Fiendishly
 Difficult!"

I've succumbed on occasion to iconitis, too. Take a look at the D web site! I even bought a CD of 50,000 icons. I still could not find an icon that clearly means "download". I suspect that one does not exist.

How about these? http://images.google.com/search?q=download&tbm=isch&tbs=isz:i
Jan 25 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrew Wiley <wiley.andrew.j gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.v8nbixzyeav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 I must rave about the trackpad on the macbook pro. =A0The interface is s=


 damned good, I hate going back to my linux laptop (which I must do for
 work).

A good trackpad?!? That seems difficult to believe. Whenever I use a lapt=

 I just grab/carry-around a trackball (or at least a mouse). I can barely =

 those touchpad things, and IBM's "clitmouse" is only a little bit better.

YES, I'm not the only person alive using a trackball! Thumb-ball, marble, or one of those giant pool-ball things?
Jan 25 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrew Wiley" <wiley.andrew.j gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.40.1327562674.25230.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.v8nbixzyeav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 I must rave about the trackpad on the macbook pro. The interface is so
 damned good, I hate going back to my linux laptop (which I must do for
 work).

A good trackpad?!? That seems difficult to believe. Whenever I use a laptop, I just grab/carry-around a trackball (or at least a mouse). I can barely use those touchpad things, and IBM's "clitmouse" is only a little bit better.

YES, I'm not the only person alive using a trackball! Thumb-ball, marble, or one of those giant pool-ball things?

http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Trackman-Wheel-Optical-Silver/dp/B00005NIMJ (I don't know why the price there is so high, though. They're only around $35-ish in stores.) I absolutely love it. It's my primary pointing device on *any* of my computers. Around 5-10 years ago I started getting wrist pain. I heard that trackballs were better for the wrist than mice, so I got one (this logitech one). It was really awkward the first, but I got used to it after a couple days. After two weeks it felt 100% as natural as a mouse, even for games. (Touchpads, by contrast, I was never able to get past the "really awkward" stage, even after several years with the laptop I used to have). And I haven't been having any more wrist pain since. I don't even like actual mice all that much anymore (They need so much more surface area! And so much more movement. The trackball is just - ZIP! Awesome :) ).
Jan 26 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:16:19 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 But how is just the basic "moving the pointer" compared to other  
 touchpads?

It's similar. The only thing is, the click is actually a physical button (the whole pad is a button). On a normal touchpad, you can click by tapping. It doesn't work that way on the macbook (although you can enable it). It has the right feel IMO, so it doesn't require too much strength to drag and drop for instance (push pad down, then drag finger, then release).
 That's the only problem I ever had with them (Well, that and accidentally
 "clicking" with my palm while trying to type).

This can't happen unless you push the pad down with your palm. And yes, that annoys me too on normal touchpads, you just get used to not touching the pad.
 The physical buttons always
 worked fine for me, I've never been much a fan of gestures anyway.

These aren't your standard gestures. All the gestures use multiple fingers, so the activation of gestures depends on how many fingers you put down. One finger *always* signifies moving the pointer. There are no "hot zones" or accidental clicking. It feels quite natural, and even though it's not quite intuitive (there is no intuitive way to map number of fingers to something), you get used to it pretty quick. The scrolling is awesome. Just lay your next finger down, and instantly you are scrolling. I frequently find myself trying to do it on my other laptop only to be disappointed :) To me, that is proof to myself that I like it... If you can bring yourself to stomach the apple store atmosphere, I encourage you to visit one and try it out. It's definitely different than any other interface I've ever used. I do have a gripe about the mac system, however: the whole special key shit. Control, Shift and Alt should be enough. Why do we have option, and that funky clover key? Not to mention that on every other system in the world, ctrl-c is copy ctrl-v is paste. On apple it's that key formerly known as prince that does everything (and it's not in the same spot as normal control is either). I have to look at the keyboard every time I want to do something like that. As a bonus, they've left off the home, end, page up, and page down keys. Instead you use (yep, you guessed it) flower-key + arrow keys. And the backspace key is labeled delete, and I still don't know how to do what a normal delete key would do (delete the character that follows the cursor) can someone tell me? -Steve
Jan 26 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:20:38 -0500, David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at>=
  =

wrote:

 On 1/26/12 4:06 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 [=E2=80=A6]And the
 backspace key is labeled delete, and I still don't know how to do wha=


 normal delete key would do (delete the character that follows the
 cursor) can someone tell me?

Fn + Backspace, on my Macbook Pro.

Thank you :) I will try it next time I use my macbook pro. And I forgo= t = about that Fn key! Though that's pretty much standard on most laptops = these days. -Steve
Jan 26 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
My only gripe about the trackpad is that it's impossible to drag with the ri=
ght button down. Beyond that, I actually like the control key setup on OSX, e=
ven if it isn't as comprehensive as Windows. The command key has a long hist=
ory in the Unix world anyway. It's much better than the Windows key that jus=
t does one thing, and something I've never actually wanted to do.=20

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 26, 2012, at 7:06 AM, "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wr=
ote:

 On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:16:19 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
=20
=20
 But how is just the basic "moving the pointer" compared to other touchpad=


=20
 It's similar.  The only thing is, the click is actually a physical button (=

It doesn't work that way on the macbook (although you can enable it). It h= as the right feel IMO, so it doesn't require too much strength to drag and d= rop for instance (push pad down, then drag finger, then release).
=20
 That's the only problem I ever had with them (Well, that and accidentally=


 "clicking" with my palm while trying to type).

This can't happen unless you push the pad down with your palm. And yes, t=

pad.
=20
 The physical buttons always
 worked fine for me, I've never been much a fan of gestures anyway.

These aren't your standard gestures. All the gestures use multiple finger=

ne finger *always* signifies moving the pointer. There are no "hot zones" o= r accidental clicking. It feels quite natural, and even though it's not qui= te intuitive (there is no intuitive way to map number of fingers to somethin= g), you get used to it pretty quick. The scrolling is awesome. Just lay yo= ur next finger down, and instantly you are scrolling. I frequently find mys= elf trying to do it on my other laptop only to be disappointed :) To me, th= at is proof to myself that I like it...
=20
 If you can bring yourself to stomach the apple store atmosphere, I encoura=

r interface I've ever used.
=20
 I do have a gripe about the mac system, however: the whole special key shi=

t funky clover key? Not to mention that on every other system in the world,= ctrl-c is copy ctrl-v is paste. On apple it's that key formerly known as p= rince that does everything (and it's not in the same spot as normal control i= s either). I have to look at the keyboard every time I want to do something= like that.
=20
 As a bonus, they've left off the home, end, page up, and page down keys.  I=

pace key is labeled delete, and I still don't know how to do what a normal d= elete key would do (delete the character that follows the cursor) can someon= e tell me?
=20
 -Steve

Jan 26 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Sean Kelly" <sean invisibleduck.org> wrote in message 
news:mailman.49.1327595627.25230.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
The command key has a long
history in the Unix world anyway. It's much better than
the Windows key that just does one thing, and something
I've never actually wanted to do.

Sent from my iPhone

I do Win-R all the time. Win-D is nice, too, although I tend to forget about it. ------------------------------- Not sent from an iPhone.
Jan 26 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:31:34 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Sean Kelly" <sean invisibleduck.org> wrote in message
 news:mailman.49.1327595627.25230.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 The command key has a long
 history in the Unix world anyway. It's much better than
 the Windows key that just does one thing, and something
 I've never actually wanted to do.

 Sent from my iPhone

I do Win-R all the time. Win-D is nice, too, although I tend to forget about it.

Win-L is lock screen or "return to welcome screen" if you have that enabled. That's a useful one. -Steve
Jan 26 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
On Jan 26, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
=20
 The Apple key is treated like the control key - You just have to =

 that when you'd normally go for Control, on the Mac you'd do Apple =

 I don't remember what the hell the Mac's "Control" key is for. My =

 actually says "Alt" in addition to "Option" (no function key involved =

 this isn't a laptop), so...I think it behaves the same IIRC=85?

"control" click on OSX is effectively right-click. Outside of the = console, that's about the only use for it, as far as I know.=
Jan 26 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Sean Kelly" <sean invisibleduck.org> wrote in message 
news:mailman.70.1327626159.25230.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
On Jan 26, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 The Apple key is treated like the control key - You just have to remember
 that when you'd normally go for Control, on the Mac you'd do Apple 
 instead.
 I don't remember what the hell the Mac's "Control" key is for. My Option 
 key
 actually says "Alt" in addition to "Option" (no function key involved b/c
 this isn't a laptop), so...I think it behaves the same IIRC?

"control" click on OSX is effectively right-click. Outside of the console, that's about the only use for it, as far as I know.=

Heh, yea. That's something thing I always found funny: Apple always used to prepackage one-button mice with their right-click-capable OSX machines because "one-button mice are simpler and easier". But I never understood how "control-click" qualified as simpler or easier than "right-click". Even *my mom* isn't confused by existence of the right-button of her mouse, and she's the type of user who doesn't even know what a "web browser" is, *and* she doesn't even comprehend "double-click" (She calls it "two clicks" and doesn't know when to use "one click or two" - hell, she usually just double-clicks on almost everything). Even *she* isn't confused by second mouse button or the scroll wheel. And neither is my dad, and he's even *worse* than she is (as just one small example, he couldn't understand that he could use his *laptop* without it being plugged in. "It's a portable, dad, it has a battery. That's the whole point." Explaining it still didn't seem to help.)
Jan 26 2012
parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
On 27/01/2012 01:36, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
<snip>
 Heh, yea. That's something thing I always found funny: Apple always used to
 prepackage one-button mice with their right-click-capable OSX machines
 because "one-button mice are simpler and easier". But I never understood how
 "control-click" qualified as simpler or easier than "right-click".

A one-button mouse _is_ simpler than a mouse with three buttons and a scroll wheel. OTOH, _using_ a one-button mouse is neither simpler nor easier.... (The IT manager of my uni department back in the day told me (probably speculatively) that the reason for fewer buttons is "less to go wrong".) Stewart.
Jan 26 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:jfsvfh$14ek$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 27/01/2012 01:36, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 <snip>
 Heh, yea. That's something thing I always found funny: Apple always used 
 to
 prepackage one-button mice with their right-click-capable OSX machines
 because "one-button mice are simpler and easier". But I never understood 
 how
 "control-click" qualified as simpler or easier than "right-click".

A one-button mouse _is_ simpler than a mouse with three buttons and a scroll wheel. OTOH, _using_ a one-button mouse is neither simpler nor easier....

Well, yea, but Apple's stated excuse for the one-button wasn't because they *are* simpler, but because they're allegedly "simpler *to use*". I guess I mistakenly left off the "to use" part up there. Whenever Apple says "simpler", they generally mean "simpler to use", even if it's flat-out false.
 (The IT manager of my uni department back in the day told me (probably 
 speculatively) that the reason for fewer buttons is "less to go wrong".)

 Stewart. 

Jan 26 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
I think if you design an interface where the input device has only one butto=
n as opposed to multiple buttons, etc, one could argue that the result will b=
e easier to learn. I know I always had trouble explaining the use of the rig=
ht mouse button in Windows to my parents.=20

On Jan 26, 2012, at 5:55 PM, "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote:

 "Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message=20
 news:jfsvfh$14ek$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 27/01/2012 01:36, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 <snip>
 Heh, yea. That's something thing I always found funny: Apple always used=



 to
 prepackage one-button mice with their right-click-capable OSX machines
 because "one-button mice are simpler and easier". But I never understood=



 how
 "control-click" qualified as simpler or easier than "right-click".

=20 A one-button mouse _is_ simpler than a mouse with three buttons and a=20 scroll wheel. =20 OTOH, _using_ a one-button mouse is neither simpler nor easier.... =20

Well, yea, but Apple's stated excuse for the one-button wasn't because the=

 *are* simpler, but because they're allegedly "simpler *to use*".  I guess I=

 mistakenly left off the "to use" part up there. Whenever Apple says=20
 "simpler", they generally mean "simpler to use", even if it's flat-out=20
 false.
=20
 (The IT manager of my uni department back in the day told me (probably=20=


 speculatively) that the reason for fewer buttons is "less to go wrong".)
=20
 Stewart.=20

=20

Jan 26 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrew Wiley <wiley.andrew.j gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 "Sean Kelly" <sean invisibleduck.org> wrote in message
 news:mailman.49.1327595627.25230.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
The command key has a long
history in the Unix world anyway. It's much better than
the Windows key that just does one thing, and something
I've never actually wanted to do.

Sent from my iPhone

I do Win-R all the time. Win-D is nice, too, although I tend to forget about it.

Since I upgraded to Windows 7, I've barely ever clicked the start menu. Windows key, type application name, enter. Probably my favorite UI change.
Jan 26 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrew Wiley <wiley.andrew.j gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 "Andrew Wiley" <wiley.andrew.j gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:mailman.40.1327562674.25230.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.v8nbixzyeav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 I must rave about the trackpad on the macbook pro. The interface is so
 damned good, I hate going back to my linux laptop (which I must do for
 work).

A good trackpad?!? That seems difficult to believe. Whenever I use a laptop, I just grab/carry-around a trackball (or at least a mouse). I can barely use those touchpad things, and IBM's "clitmouse" is only a little bit better.

YES, I'm not the only person alive using a trackball! Thumb-ball, marble, or one of those giant pool-ball things?

http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Trackman-Wheel-Optical-Silver/dp/B00005NIMJ (I don't know why the price there is so high, though. They're only around $35-ish in stores.)

It's that high because Logitech has stopped selling them. They've been replaced by this: http://www.logitech.com/en-us/mice-pointers/trackballs/devices/wireless-trackball-m570 I use the Trackman Wheel as well, and when I saw what they replaced it with, I thought it would be terrible (dunno if you ever tried the Wireless Trackman, but I own one and I think it's vastly inferior to the wired version). Fortunately, the company I interned at last summer was kind enough to buy me one of the new ones when I mentioned I was a hardcore trackball user, and I think it's probably better than my Trackman Silver. The wireless works flawlessly (unlike its predecessor) and there's a lot less slop in the ball. On the other hand, it's $60.
 I absolutely love it. It's my primary pointing device on *any* of my
 computers.

 Around 5-10 years ago I started getting wrist pain. I heard that trackballs
 were better for the wrist than mice, so I got one (this logitech one). It
 was really awkward the first, but I got used to it after a couple days.
 After two weeks it felt 100% as natural as a mouse, even for games.
 (Touchpads, by contrast, I was never able to get past the "really awkward"
 stage, even after several years with the laptop I used to have). And I
 haven't been having any more wrist pain since.

I never got to wrist pain, but I noticed my wrist tingling at one point and the local electronics gigantostore was trying to get rid of their stock of the Silvers. My experience pretty much matched yours.
 I don't even like actual mice all that much anymore (They need so much more
 surface area! And so much more movement. The trackball is just - ZIP!
 Awesome :) ).

The only downside I've found is that when I'm showing someone something on my computer, there's always an awkward moment when they try to move the trackball on the desk and notice that nothing happens. :D
Jan 26 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrew Wiley" <wiley.andrew.j gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.76.1327644483.25230.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 "Andrew Wiley" <wiley.andrew.j gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:mailman.40.1327562674.25230.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
YES, I'm not the only person alive using a trackball! Thumb-ball,
marble, or one of those giant pool-ball things?

http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Trackman-Wheel-Optical-Silver/dp/B00005NIMJ (I don't know why the price there is so high, though. They're only around $35-ish in stores.)

It's that high because Logitech has stopped selling them.

WTF? That blows! Those are the best trackballs in existence!
 They've been
 replaced by this:
 http://www.logitech.com/en-us/mice-pointers/trackballs/devices/wireless-trackball-m570

Ewww. Bad move on their part. I got one of the wireless ones one time and returned it the next day. It was terrible. Physically it was the same, but it was painfully less smooth and less responsive (and inconsistently so) than every other mouse I've ever used.
 The only downside I've found is that when I'm showing someone
 something on my computer, there's always an awkward moment when they
 try to move the trackball on the desk and notice that nothing happens.
 :D

Heh. At the last job I had before going self-employed, I can't tell you how many weird/deer-in-the-headlights reactions I got every time someone would be about to do someting on my computer. Then they'd try to use it and complain they didn't understand how I could use it. Here's the real funny thing though: They would do that *every* time, without fail, despite the face that I also has a regular mouse plugged in and sitting in plain view. 'Course, this particular group wasn't exactly the brightest bunch to begin with...(I even got posted on TheDailyWTF's Code SOD thanks to that group. My name was anonymized as "Nate" and it was some VB stuff.)
Jan 27 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:41:31 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer  =

<schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote:

 On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:20:38 -0500, David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.a=

 wrote:

 On 1/26/12 4:06 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 [=E2=80=A6]And the
 backspace key is labeled delete, and I still don't know how to do wh=



 a
 normal delete key would do (delete the character that follows the
 cursor) can someone tell me?

Fn + Backspace, on my Macbook Pro.

Thank you :) I will try it next time I use my macbook pro. And I =

 forgot about that Fn key!  Though that's pretty much standard on most =

 laptops these days.

Tried it last night, works great! Thanks -Steve
Jan 27 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:
On 27 January 2012 05:53, Andrew Wiley <wiley.andrew.j gmail.com> wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 "Sean Kelly" <sean invisibleduck.org> wrote in message
 news:mailman.49.1327595627.25230.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
The command key has a long
history in the Unix world anyway. It's much better than
the Windows key that just does one thing, and something
I've never actually wanted to do.

Sent from my iPhone

I do Win-R all the time. Win-D is nice, too, although I tend to forget about it.

Since I upgraded to Windows 7, I've barely ever clicked the start menu. Windows key, type application name, enter. Probably my favorite UI change.

Since I've upgraded to Linux, I've barely ever used a mouse. Super key, type a vague description of the application I want, enter. -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Jan 27 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrew Wiley <wiley.andrew.j gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote:
 On 27 January 2012 05:53, Andrew Wiley <wiley.andrew.j gmail.com> wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 "Sean Kelly" <sean invisibleduck.org> wrote in message
 news:mailman.49.1327595627.25230.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
The command key has a long
history in the Unix world anyway. It's much better than
the Windows key that just does one thing, and something
I've never actually wanted to do.

Sent from my iPhone

I do Win-R all the time. Win-D is nice, too, although I tend to forget about it.

Since I upgraded to Windows 7, I've barely ever clicked the start menu. Windows key, type application name, enter. Probably my favorite UI change.

Since I've upgraded to Linux, I've barely ever used a mouse. Super key, type a vague description of the application I want, enter.

Yes, I'm not sure whether I got this habit from Windows or Gnome 3, but I'm primarily running Windows these days, so that didn't immediately come to mind. I believe KDE4 does it too, although much more sluggishly than the other two. Haven't tried Unity at all.
Jan 27 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrew Wiley <wiley.andrew.j gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 "Andrew Wiley" <wiley.andrew.j gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:mailman.76.1327644483.25230.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 "Andrew Wiley" <wiley.andrew.j gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:mailman.40.1327562674.25230.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
YES, I'm not the only person alive using a trackball! Thumb-ball,
marble, or one of those giant pool-ball things?

http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Trackman-Wheel-Optical-Silver/dp/B00005NIMJ (I don't know why the price there is so high, though. They're only around $35-ish in stores.)

It's that high because Logitech has stopped selling them.

WTF? That blows! Those are the best trackballs in existence!
 They've been
 replaced by this:
 http://www.logitech.com/en-us/mice-pointers/trackballs/devices/wireless-trackball-m570

Ewww. Bad move on their part. I got one of the wireless ones one time and returned it the next day. It was terrible. Physically it was the same, but it was painfully less smooth and less responsive (and inconsistently so) than every other mouse I've ever used.

I had the same experience with the original wireless Trackman, but they seem to have genuinely fixed the new one. I'm using it now, and I think it's better than my TrackMan Silver.
Jan 27 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrew Wiley" <wiley.andrew.j gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.92.1327720688.25230.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 "Andrew Wiley" <wiley.andrew.j gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:mailman.76.1327644483.25230.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 "Andrew Wiley" <wiley.andrew.j gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:mailman.40.1327562674.25230.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
YES, I'm not the only person alive using a trackball! Thumb-ball,
marble, or one of those giant pool-ball things?

http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Trackman-Wheel-Optical-Silver/dp/B00005NIMJ (I don't know why the price there is so high, though. They're only around $35-ish in stores.)

It's that high because Logitech has stopped selling them.

WTF? That blows! Those are the best trackballs in existence!
 They've been
 replaced by this:
 http://www.logitech.com/en-us/mice-pointers/trackballs/devices/wireless-trackball-m570

Ewww. Bad move on their part. I got one of the wireless ones one time and returned it the next day. It was terrible. Physically it was the same, but it was painfully less smooth and less responsive (and inconsistently so) than every other mouse I've ever used.

I had the same experience with the original wireless Trackman, but they seem to have genuinely fixed the new one. I'm using it now, and I think it's better than my TrackMan Silver.

Hmm, maybe I'll give it a try then next time I need a new one. Leeme see if I have the names of these wireless ones right: 1. First there was "Wireless Trackman" and it sucked. 2. Then there was "TrackMan Silver" (which was a little better but not great?). 3. Now there's something new that's called "Wireless Trackman" just like the first one, but it's good. ?
Jan 28 2012
prev sibling parent Andrew Wiley <wiley.andrew.j gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 Hmm, maybe I'll give it a try then next time I need a new one.

 Leeme see if I have the names of these wireless ones right:

 1. First there was "Wireless Trackman" and it sucked.
 2. Then there was "TrackMan Silver" (which was a little better but not
 great?).
 3. Now there's something new that's called "Wireless Trackman" just like the
 first one, but it's good.

 ?

Well, first there was the TrackMan Silver (which was excellent): http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Trackman-Wheel-Optical-Silver/dp/B00005NIMJ/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1327773586&sr=8-4 Then the Cordless TrackMan (which was terrible): http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-904346-0403-Cordless-TrackMan-Wheel/dp/B00004VUGJ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1327773607&sr=8-2 Then the Wireless Trackball M570 (which I think has surpassed the Silver): http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-910-001799-M570-Wireless-Trackball/dp/B0043T7FXE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327773614&sr=8-1 I do love how Logitech's naming has very little continuity.
Jan 28 2012
prev sibling parent "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Friday, January 27, 2012 18:08:43 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Ewww. Bad move on their part. I got one of the wireless ones one time and
 returned it the next day. It was terrible. Physically it was the same, but
 it was painfully less smooth and less responsive (and inconsistently so)
 than every other mouse I've ever used.

You want bad. They replaced one of the best video game controllers ever created ( http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-WingMan-Cordless- Rumblepad-2-4/dp/B00005USQA/ref=sr_1_10?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qi =1327706659&sr=1-10 ) with these: http://www.logitech.com/en-us/gaming/controllers It's a sheer travesty.
 Heh. At the last job I had before going self-employed, I can't tell you how
 many weird/deer-in-the-headlights reactions I got every time someone would
 be about to do someting on my computer. Then they'd try to use it and
 complain they didn't understand how I could use it.

What was funny for me was when I used to use a normal keyboard with dvorak turned on in the OS, someone would come and type something on my computer to show me something, and not only would it come out as gibberish, but we would _both_ be confused as to why. I was so used to using dvorak that I forgot that I was doing anything different, and it took a minute or two for us to figure out what was wrong. Now, I use a Kinesis Advantage keyboard, so the keyboard alone scares people off, and I have a normal keyboard to the side which is still using qwerty. But it was funny for a while when I used a normal keyboard. - Jonathan M Davis
Jan 27 2012