13 posts • joined Friday 18th September 2009 09:59 GMT
They may mention the contextual menu, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
I believe they go against it in principal because of the fact that they might move to the left or the right of cursor and even above or below. Try hitting the option you want without thinking about it. You may not think you are but I bet a time and motion study would prove otherwise.
You gave me epic fail (bastardised english from a japanese arcade game) without mentioning any of my other points. I assume they are all rendered void because of a debatable point.
Good UI design is NOT subjective
There are good reasons for doing things certain ways and good UI design has been proved to be more productive for users.
I'm not saying Mac OS X is perfect, but windows has some basic flaws that have now become acceptable e.g.
1.Alert boxes with OK/CANCEL
2. wizards that use up enormous space and hide details fifteen layers down.
3. Of course they do the opposite too of crowding too many features onto one page.
4. Isn't the little doggie in XP search cute? What the .... and they accuse the mac of being the toy OS
5. The menu belongs at the top of the screen (look up Fitts law to see why). How many file menus do you need on the screen at once anyway?
6. Wasted screen real estate with buttons I never use, little icons that animate and exist for no reason (I'm looking at you Word with your wasted status bar at the bottom of every window)
7. Inconsistent task. Why is changing the font different in every application, including those written by Microsoft themselves.
8. Why note-pad and word-pad, one of which can open multiple windows and the other not?
9. Contextual menus should be avoid if possible, because they move and require over-precision to select (again Fitts law). I think contextual menus are bad design, simple an area to sling things when the developer couldn't decide where to put it.
And yes before you start, I know that there are technical or historical reason. Still it results in inconsistent, unproductive and unintuitive interfaces. Plus I'm sure you can find things in Mac OS X too, but I promise you that I could find 10 things for every one you find.
P.S. - Notice I didn't event mention the start menu
Why is a software company always talking about hardware?
There he goes again,
As soon as the hardware is ready.......
The hardware is not the problem, it's the software dummy.
I'm sure HP or Acer would love to know out iPad competitors but windows 7 wearing lipstick is what is holding up the situation.
We are not talking apps, but web-sites. So you make no sense when you say Apple will ban it. Why is it people have to be so polarised and closed minded. Apple aren't perfect but don't assume the worst in every announcement.
What about the limitation on user experience, stability, automatic updates, security issues and proprietary software that Microsoft throw at us?
still more open
What ever your argument, HTML5 + H.264 are still more open than flash.
Fed up with everyone talking about Apple's closed environment. It isn't so much that it is closed, more that they use a vertical integration to their advantage. They are much better at implementing standards and respecting them than many other companies.
It is particularly galling when people say they would never buy an apple product because of this but will buy a windows PC etc. Microsoft are renowned for producing products which purposely break compatibility and spurn standard.
Do not confuse ubiquitous with open chaps!
it's the OS silly
it doesn't run the OS and doesn't even have the retro keyboard.
So how is is this a Commodore?
Reminds me of when Rover in the UK decided to stick an MG badge on a mini-metro with fat wheels. What a travesty.
re: Dave 14
My girlfriend loves the iphone and she wouldn't know what multi-tasking was, never needs copy-paste and generally would replace her phone before buying a new battery.
So no, real people don't care about those supposed killer features.
The only people who do care about that, are the 1% of the population who hang around tech sites instead.
who cares how long an OS takes to start up
Why do people always talk about how quick it is to start up as a reference point. A decent OS should never need to be shutdown and restarted unless an update is required and even then perhaps not. I couldn't give a rat's arse how quick it is to start, nor how stable it is or if wifi works or not. Because they should already be in place. It just shows how little we expect from IT when we get excited because the on/off button works and the sodding thing doesn't crash.
What we should be measuring is how does it make what I want to do on it more efficient than before and I mean functionally not technically.
My macbook hasn't been restarted since the last update, which was what? 2-3 weeks ago.