Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal Chacham's Journal: Comment annoyance (minor) 40

Journal by Chacham

Just a minor annoyance in comments. Why is the "preview" button on the right side of the "submit" button. Don't most things in English-speaking countries go from left to right, and the assumption is that one should preview *before* submitting. In journal writing, they see to have done it correctly. Eh, oh well.

On another note, I despise hitting "submit". It hurts my ego everyone time I press it.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Comment annoyance (minor) More

Comment annoyance (minor)

Comments Filter:
  • Don't most things in English-speaking countries go from left to right...

    No one that runs this site speaks English. Or at least correctly.
  • Well, according to the Apple HIG, the undisputed authority on such matters, the button that you imagine users will want to press in most cases should be in the bottom right-hand corner of the dialog. Because everybody should preview before submitting, it makes sense that "Preview" should be to the right of "Submit."

    It makes no sense for the buttons to be left-justified, though.

    The dialog for posting comments really ought to look like this:

    [ ] No Score +1 Bonus [ ] Post Anonymously

    [ Plain Old Text | V ]

    [ Submit ] [[ Preview ]]
    • Why? So users would have to adjust their line of site and move their eyes over? Left justified makes more sense, immediately visible instead of requiring the user's eyes to go into "scanning" mode to find them.
      • The best answer to "why" is "because that's how it's been done forever." Where one places ones buttons makes sense only to the extent that they should be where the user expects them to be. "It makes more sense" is not a legitimate argument because the positioning of buttons in a dialog box is completely arbitrary. The only acceptable reason for putting a button here as opposed to there is because that's where the user expects to find it, and Slashdot's current usage runs counter to that expectation.
          • The only acceptable reason for putting a button here as opposed to there is because that's where the user expects to find it, and Slashdot's current usage runs counter to that expectation.


          The little button cluster down there is quite well arranged and placed. Things are all nice and compact and laid out quite efficiently, little hunting around the screen needs to be done.

          This is New for Nerds. The jocks can stick to being conformists.
          • The little button cluster down there is quite well arranged and placed. Things are all nice and compact and laid out quite efficiently, little hunting around the screen needs to be done.

            Hear you nothing that I say?

            The one factor that contributes to (your favorite word here) efficiency more than any other is familiarity. When one sits down to use a new interface, be it a microwave oven or a word processor or a web application, consistency of the interface to others with which one is already familiar will keep the learning curve shallow and reduce the incidence of user errors. Changing things-- button arrangements, for example-- just for the sake of changing them does not make the UI easier to use, or more efficient. It slows people down.

            There's more. You praised the control group for being "compact." Buttons, and controls in general, should not be very close together. If one misses a control slightly, it's far better for there to be no result (because the user clicked on whitespace) than for there to be an unintended result (because the user clicked on another control that was wedged right up against the first one).

            UI design is a pretty ironic discipline. Making things more efficient usually makes them less efficient.

            This is New for Nerds. The jocks can stick to being conformists.

            What's a jock?
              • one misses a control slightly,


              I am using Tab to switch between buttons and checkboxs. No worry of that.


              • What's a jock?


              Where ya from?

              A jock is basicaly one of the "cool" people, in the case of a jock, somebody with a sports emphises. They worry about maintaining apperence more than they worry about how useful what they wear to maintain that apperance is.c
              • I am using Tab to switch between buttons and checkboxs. No worry of that.

                So... because you use keyboard focus-- which no other normally-abled person uses-- it's okay that the control layout is terrible for those of us who use a mouse?

                Stick to bad poetry and leave the UI design to others, okay? ;-)

                A jock is basicaly one of the "cool" people, in the case of a jock, somebody with a sports emphises.

                Hm. You're... you're very, very young, aren't you?
                  • So... because you use keyboard focus-- which no other normally-abled person uses-- it's okay that the control layout is terrible for those of us who use a mouse?


                  Only if you consider Mac folk to be "normally abled" ....

                  The keyboard is far faster than the mouse for a good 65% of operations performed on the computer. Heck even Mac users are raving about OSXs highly improved keyboard controls.
                  • Only if you consider Mac folk to be "normally abled" ....

                    Look, junior, say what you want about our differences of opinion, but try to refrain from being an asshole, okay? I know it's your natural tendency, but as a personal favor to me try to cut back a little. Okay?

                    The keyboard is far faster than the mouse for a good 65% of operations performed on the computer.

                    So? How much time do you really lose to mousing for that "submit" button?

                    Heck even Mac users are raving about OSXs highly improved keyboard controls.

                    News to me. I've been using OS X actively, participating in the community, full-time since the public beta. Never once have I heard anybody say one word about "highly improved keyboard controls."
                      • Look, junior, say what you want about our differences of opinion, but try to refrain from being an asshole, okay?


                      Don't be surprised if your "inferiors" realize your NotSoSubtle humor and reply in kind.

                      • So? How much time do you really lose to mousing for that "submit" button?


                      Why the heck SHOULD I when I can just hit tab, spacebar, tab tab spacebar. (check the No Karma Bonus box and then hit the submit button)

                      Hell for that matter;

                      cntrl-a, cntrl-c, windowkey-e, shift-tab spacebar, shift-tab "www.spellcheck.net" enter, tab tab, cntrl-p, tab tab tab tab, spacebar.

                      (or, about 10 seconds tops.)
                    • Why the heck SHOULD I when I can just hit blah blah blah

                      You go this way. Point go that way.

                      Graphical interfaces are driven with the mouse. They are designed to be used with the mouse. While they sometimes include features to allow keyboard access-- in the Mac OS, keyboard access to UI controls is not enabled by default; it's part of the universal access service, and it's designed for people with disabilities-- they're designed to be used with the mouse. Controls, therefore, are laid out with the mouse in mind.

                      I don't care if you, junior, choose to enter your commands into your computer by tapping out morse code with the space bar. That's not the way normal people do it, so frankly your opinion on this matter just doesn't count for much.

                      cntrl-a, cntrl-c, windowkey-e, shift-tab spacebar, shift-tab "www.spellcheck.net" enter, tab tab, cntrl-p, tab tab tab tab, spacebar.

                      You wouldn't even need to waste that much time if you were using Mac OS X. In OS X, every text-entry field in every program gets spell-checked automatically. Not just in English, either; the entire OS is built around unicode, so I can just as easily enter (and spell-check!) Russian or even Japanese text in this text box as English. Or traditional or simplified Chinese, Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, Korean... the full list is too long to relate, but it includes languages like Turkish, Vietnamese (my girlfriend is Vietnamese; when she logs in, the entire system runs with Vietnamese localization), Gujurati, whatever.

                      When are you going to come to your sense and realize that Windows and OS X just aren't in the same league? ;-)
                      • Graphical interfaces are driven with the mouse. They are designed to be used with the mouse.


                      Oh? I recall having used a good number of GUIs that where NOT mouse driven.

                      • While they sometimes include features to allow keyboard access


                      Windows has mandatory (well as mandatory as any suggested UI element can get) requirements for keyboard shortcuts.

                      See it does this thing called SPEED UP working. Thanks to the power of Window's shortcut I can navigate over 50 open applications at a time, or quickly switch between documents. things like cntrl-a, cntrl-c, cntrl-tab, cntrl-p, allow me to copy text from one document window to the next far faster then your pitiful little pointer can manage.

                      Do feel free to be stuck in your ONE train of thought though. We all know that LIMITING yourself is such a great way to improve productivity.

                      • In OS X, every text-entry field in every program gets spell-checked automatically.


                      What a lovely feature to have at the OS level . . . .

                      *sigh*

                      And people accuse Windows of shoving everything into the OS!

                      Linux is the "Separate Tool For Every Task" OS.

                      Windows does that but to a lesser degree. For instance I would use separate programs for capturing and encoding video streams, but a lot of users now days use the same application for playing MP3s and Video files.

                      Actually a separate program is also often used for encoding the audio streams as well. Though that is mostly just because LAME has the best MP3 encoding of any MP3 encoder so the people doing the truly high end encodes prefer to use it.

                      You MacOS people seem to actually LIKE quicktime. Though I cannot figure out why, no control! Ick! There have been points in time where, when it was the best option for the highest quality encodes, slightly different versions of the same codec would actually be used for different parts of a video stream within the same file.

                      Control man, control. Lots of it.

                    • First where to were,

                      and clarification at the end, I meant times when PC encoders making AVI files and aiming for the lowest possible bitrate without degrading quality any.
                    • I can't recall the last time I interacted with an individual who held opinions as backwards and wrongheaded as yours. I really don't see much of a point in continuing this exchange. I know it takes all kinds... but man, I didn't realize that meant all kinds.

                      I would advise you, however, to try to prune your ignorance back a bit. It's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about, for example, when you refer to QuickTime. QuickTime is not a codec. It is a framework. Each atom in a QuickTime track can have its own codec, if that's what you want. You can combine MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, Sorenson, and uncompressed media data not only within the same file, but the same track in the same file. The codec API, of course, has been documented since the beginning, so there's a QuickTime component for virtually every codec that's ever been created.

                      "Control?" Whatever, dude.

                      And one final point on the speed/efficiency issues you keep harping on. You claim that Windows is more efficient than OS X. (You also claim that square buttons are more efficient than rounded buttons, but whatever.) As I've said many times before, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. From my chair, Windows enables you to (1) produce incredibly amateurish 3D models, (2) write terribly poetry, and (3) post comments to Slashdot that at best are absurd and at worst amount to little more than gibberish. So one of two things is true. Either (a) you're a profoundly uneducated and untalented person, in which case your opinion should be taken with a metric assload of salt, or (b) your tools are preventing you from expressing yourself, in which case your endorsement rings a bit false.
                      • QuickTime is not a codec.


                      This grants you a major "no duh".

                      • Each atom in a QuickTime track can have its own codec, if that's what you want. You can combine MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, Sorenson, and uncompressed media data not only within the same file, but the same track in the same file.


                      Indeed in theory Quicktime should kick ass.

                      Unfortunately the tools available to manipulate it are not there.

                      AVI files are simple. A bit too simple at times perhaps, but coding applications for them is dirt simple. I have programs under a 100k for manipulate AVIs.

                      • The codec API, of course, has been documented since the beginning, so there's a QuickTime component for virtually every codec that's ever been created.


                      Quicktime players on the other hand. . . . .

                      Heh.

                      • "Control?" Whatever, dude.


                      Given all things equal, a lump of steel is far more powerful than an equally sized lump of wood.

                      The tools for working with steel are a pain to both acquire and use. Wood on the other hand has tools that are both easy to acquire and easy to use.

                      • (You also claim that square buttons are more efficient than rounded buttons, but whatever.)


                      The underlying routines to DRAW square buttons is more efficent. Or rather, it takes up less resources, which is the same thing. Simple polygon primitives are nearly always easier to draw then fancy anti-aliased alpha-blended circles.

                      • As I've said many times before, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. From my chair, Windows enables you to (1) produce incredibly amateurish 3D models, (2) write terribly poetry, and (3) post comments to Slashdot that at best are absurd and at worst amount to little more than gibberish.


                      Ad Hominem [nizkor.org]

                      Not that I would expect art major Apple customers to actualy ever have taken a logic class.
                    • Unfortunately the tools available to manipulate it are not there.

                      No? [apple.com]

                      Quicktime players on the other hand. . . . .

                      What about them?

                      Given all things equal, a lump of steel is far more powerful than an equally sized lump of wood.

                      You've lost me. What does this have to do with button placement?

                      Simple polygon primitives are nearly always easier to draw then fancy anti-aliased alpha-blended circles.

                      So? I don't have to draw them; the computer does it for me.

                      Not that I would expect art major Apple customers to actualy ever have taken a logic class.

                      "Apes don't read philosophy!"

                      "Yes, they do, Otto. They just don't understand it."

                      Like many other extraordinarily young Slashdotters, you've probably taken debate or public speaking or something like that, so you think the old cry of "Ad hominem!" is a valid refutation of a personal attack. Here's a hint, junior: it's not.

                      Let me give you a for-instance. What if you heard someone make a very convincing (prima facie) argument that JFK was assassinated by Tibetan rebels. How would you respond?

                      Now what if you later learned that the person who delivered that argument was a paranoid schizophrenic who suffered from auditory and visual hallucinations and had been off his thorazine for six months? Would that change your opinion of his argument?

                      Here's some wisdom: consider the source. If you see an argument from someone who clearly has no idea what he's talking about, don't waste your time.

                      In this case, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You keep arguing about how Windows lets you be more efficient than OS X, but you can't back that up with any concrete examples. The work you, yourself, have produced is hammered shit, junior, so I don't think that speaks very well for your choice of tools. As I said, either your tools are getting in your way and preventing you from producing good work, so you're wrong; or you're simply not capable of either creating or recognizing good work, so your opinion doesn't count.
                    • Woohoo! Thanx!

                      A silly argument that I'm *not* involved in. :-)
                    • An API does not a tool make. An API is a set of instructions by which if implemented properly a tool may be made from.

                      Or do you not understand the difference between an API and a selection of complete and complex tool sets to work with?

                      • You've lost me. What does this have to do with button placement?


                      *sigh* Quicktime. It is powerful but complex to create tools for. AVI is a simple (very simple, heh) format that is insanly easy to code for.

                      • So? I don't have to draw them; the computer does it for me.


                      I was talking about how complex it IS for the computer. Or has nobody told you that there are these things called "See Pee Yous" that are inside of computers and that do all the number crunching work.

                      • "Apes don't read philosophy!"


                      • "Yes, they do, Otto. They just don't understand it."


                      Indeed, apparently you did not.

                      • Like many other extraordinarily young Slashdotters, you've probably taken debate or public speaking or something like that, so you think the old cry of "Ad hominem!" is a valid refutation of a personal attack. Here's a hint, junior: it's not.


                      First off, there is another personal attack in that paragraph. This is the Internet, age/race/sex/religion doesn't matter. Deal.

                      • Now what if you later learned that the person who delivered that argument was a paranoid schizophrenic who suffered from auditory and visual hallucinations and had been off his thorazine for six months? Would that change your opinion of his argument?


                      Hey look! A hyperbole big enough to drive a truck through.

                      Have you honestly been so damn confused and misled by Apple literature as to believe a person's choice of OS effects their ability to think? Here is a hint for ya bub, get out of in front of the CRT, now.

                      For starters, you are comparing a person with a neurochemical imbalance to, err, well, heh, 90%+ of the computer using populous. If Windows has the same (or even a remotely similar!) effect on users as Schizophrenia does, then the FDA would have shut down Microsoft long ago.

                      In the bare least, somebody would have noticed the masses under the supposed "mind altering effects" that you attribute to Windows.

                      • In this case, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You keep arguing about how Windows lets you be more efficient than OS X, but you can't back that up with any concrete examples.


                      I believe I have provided plenty of concrete examples, but your brain damaged "help I can't move my hand off of the mouse" self cannot take note of them.

                      • Quick Access to ALL files and folders on my hard drive. Under 4 seconds.

                      • Ability to open up a browser window in under 3 seconds to a webpage of my choice, without my hands leaving the keyboard. From anyplace within Windows.

                      • Consistent keyboard shortcuts enable fast multiple execution routes of all tasks.

                      • An Interface which does not need 3D acceleration to run at a decent pace.


                      • As I said, either your tools are getting in your way and preventing you from producing good work,


                      Tis a piss poor artist who can only work with a jewel encrusted brush.

                      Not to mention an artist with a high as hell overhead.

                      • you're simply not capable of either creating or recognizing good work, so your opinion doesn't count.


                      You dismiss all which you do not like or which is not in your favor as being irrelevant. That is foolish. It is people like you who get into roles as managers and ruin companies by having hissy fits.

                      They also hold back new ideas and innovations if there is anything that does not agree with the party line. I swear, if Apple gave you monitors designed around the Golden Ratio you Mac users would go running off proclaiming to the world how the new beauty of your Interface enhanced your productivity and how brain dead the rest of us 4:3'ers where.

                      sheesh.

                      Learn to differentiate between the crap the apple PR department shoves down your throat and what actual reality is.
                    • An API does not a tool make. An API is a set of instructions by which if implemented properly a tool may be made from.

                      So... what? You're saying that QuickTime sucks because there are no good QuickTime applications? I mean, apart from being just fundamentally wrong-- After Effects, Cinestream, Commotion, Combustion, Final Cut Pro, for chrissakes-- that's quite a leap.

                      Quicktime. It is powerful but complex to create tools for. AVI is a simple (very simple, heh) format that is insanly easy to code for.

                      Well, again, this has nothing to do with button placement in dialogs, but have you ever written a program that uses QuickTime? You could, you know. The libraries are available, and thoroughly documented. It's actually incredibly easy to write a QuickTime-savvy application, if you're a programmer.

                      Or has nobody told you that there are these things called "See Pee Yous" that are inside of computers and that do all the number crunching work.

                      Again, so? Last time I checked, the computer was there to do my bidding, not the other way around. Inconveniencing myself to make life easier on my computer is the most absurd idea I've ever heard.

                      First off, there is another personal attack in that paragraph. This is the Internet, age/race/sex/religion doesn't matter. Deal.

                      How very 1993 of you. "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog." It wasn't true then, and it's not true now. Age/race/sex/religion matter just as much on the Internet as they do in any other medium of communication. The fact that your opinions are apparently informed by a dearth of age and experience puts you at a serious disadvantage. The fact that said opinions are also absurd doesn't help much, either.

                      Have you honestly been so damn confused and misled by Apple literature as to believe a person's choice of OS effects their ability to think?

                      You have that backwards. A person's ability to think affects their choice of operating system.

                      I believe I have provided plenty of concrete examples, but your brain damaged "help I can't move my hand off of the mouse" self cannot take note of them.

                      You misunderstood what I meant by examples. You keep saying that your computer is faster/more efficient/has pointier buttons/whatever. I say let's see what kind of a difference that makes. You produce ugly and amateurish 3D models and poetry so bad it ought to be classified as a weapon of mass destruction. So either you're an intelligent and talented person and your tools are letting you down, or you are neither intelligent nor talented, and your opinion of your tools should not be taken at face value.

                      Show me something wonderful that you have created with your computer, and I will shut up.

                      And as to all this "faster, faster, faster" stuff, all I have to say is this: you're in too much of a hurry. The fastest way is rarely the best way.

                      That said, the only time I have to wait on my computer is when I'm compiling something. So since I had the choice of a computer that I don't have to wait on with a butt-ugly, counter-intuitive, overly complex, inconsistent, and just downright unpleasant user interface (either Windows or Linux fits in this category), or a computer that I don't have to wait on with an attractive, intuitive, simple, consistent, and pleasing interface, I chose the one that is fast and that doesn't suck. The result? I produce better work and have more fun doing it, which is the only metric that matters.

                      You dismiss all which you do not like or which is not in your favor as being irrelevant.

                      Let's keep this specific: I am dismissing you as being irrelevant. To put it bluntly, you wouldn't recognize a good user experience if it bit you on the ass. Your criticisms, therefore, are baseless.

                      I swear, if Apple gave you monitors designed around the Golden Ratio you Mac users would go running off proclaiming to the world how the new beauty of your Interface enhanced your productivity and how brain dead the rest of us 4:3'ers where.

                      Apple does sell monitors that are very close approximations of the golden ratio: 1.6:1. And they are, indeed, much more aesthetically pleasing than those ugly, old-fashioned 1.33:1 screens.

                      Does using a 1:33:1 screen make you brain-dead? No. Being brain-dead makes you brain-dead.
                    • Since I have nothing better to do than stick my nose in other peoples arguments allow me to add my $0.01302592( two cents canadian converted to USD).

                      Now if we wanted to make a consistent interface for windows users (98% of the market right?). Then the buttons should be centered as thats where MS likes to put them last time I checked. Of course MS GUI users are used to inconsistent design by now. So why not put them on the right for those of us blessed with GUIs that don't suck.

                      Now on to a few of the points made along the way:
                      Spell checking:
                      Yes all Carbon Apps text entries have spellchecking built in. It's not at the OS level so much as the GUI API level. This is an important distinction to make because otherwise it would be bloatfull.

                      Round colourful buttons:
                      I really don't see what Com2kid's problem is with round shapes. He keeps bring up how this slows things down. It doesn't The GUI is (now) quite fast. I guess PCs needs all the help it can get.

                      I think the little things are what makes the mac better. Such as: Conversions in the calculator (Standard to metric, Currency, hell even BTUs to calories.), Rounded colourful buttons (these are quite helpful as it's easy to tell which on is the default. In windows all you get is a little gray outline), Anti-Aliased everything (it's quite easy on the eye. which is very helpful when you've been coding for 12 hours straight)

                      Windows has mandatory (well as mandatory as any suggested UI element can get) requirements for keyboard shortcuts.

                      Wow, sucks to be you Com2kid. You see my computer belongs to me, it does what I tell it to do, and not the other way around.

                      So in closing Keyboard shortcuts are nice. Having a GUI that works is better. Next time try using a mac before you go off on a tangent about how crapy they are. It helps to have some idea what the hell you're talking about.
                    • Yes all Carbon Apps text entries have spellchecking built in. It's not at the OS level so much as the GUI API level. This is an important distinction to make because otherwise it would be bloatfull.

                      I'm sorry, but you're wrong two ways. First, spell-checking is a function of the Cocoa API; Carbon applications don't get it automatically. It is possible for Carbon apps to "borrow" the Cocoa spell-checker, but it's not trivial.

                      Second, the spell-checking functionality is part of the Application Kit framework, which is just as much a part of the OS as libc is. Application Kit is responsible for providing the GUI, but it's just as much a part of the OS as any other framework.

                      As for bloat, I consider "bloat" to mean features that are unnecessary or not useful. Systemwide spell-checking is one of the most useful new operating system features I've ever seen. Another example of a feature that some people have called bloat is the NSImage class cluster in AppKit. Some people say abstract classes for dealing with image data belong in another framework, like QuickTime or SGI's Image Format Library. The net result for me is that the Cocoa-based GUI front-end for a database project I just finished writing lets the user drag an image in any format from the Finder to an image well in the UI, encodes that image data, and inserts it into the back-end DBMS. That process takes about five lines of code. Bloat? Heck, no. Cocoa is what a modern operating system toolbox should be.

                      I really don't see what Com2kid's problem is with round shapes. He keeps bring up how this slows things down.

                      Yeah, I don't get it either. He keep hopping up and down about speed and efficiency, but he never explains just what a faster, more efficient computer or OS buys him. I'm sure a car without padded seats, air conditioning, or a radio is more efficient than one with those things, but I wouldn't want to drive one.

                      The only thing I can figure is that his problem with rounded buttons comes from some kind of an elitist streak. I know, I know, this sounds like psychobabble, but I honestly can't figure out a better explanation for it! As long as computers have ugly, ugly interfaces that are difficult to use, a person who knows how to use computers can feel superior to people who don't. A computer that's easy to use, therefore, threatens that particular type of person on a pretty fundamental level. Is com2kid that type of person? I'm not sure. I think maybe.

                      You see my computer belongs to me, it does what I tell it to do, and not the other way around.

                      I actually thought that point was kinda funny. See, because Mac OS has had consistent keyboard shortcuts for major functions since 1984: command-X, command-C, command-V, which on Windows became control-X, control-C, control-V. Apple invented the idea of a consistent user interface, and here's com2kid praising consistent keyboard shortcuts in Windows without realizing where they came from. That just cracked me up.

                      Next time try using a mac before you go off on a tangent about how crapy they are. It helps to have some idea what the hell you're talking about.

                      I actually kind of appreciate people like com2kid. See, most of the time I sort of take my Mac for granted, you know. Then I hear from somebody who thinks that Macs suck and Windows is where it's at, and everything that person says makes me appreciate my Mac a little more. Kind of puts it in perspective. I like that.
                      • So... what? You're saying that QuickTime sucks because there are no good QuickTime applications? I mean, apart from being just fundamentally wrong--
                      • After Effects, Cinestream, Commotion, Combustion, Final Cut Pro, for chrissakes-- that's quite a leap.


                      Wow, are you ever in a nice corporate crud hole. I am referring more in the terms of at least 4 or 5 tools to do each task.

                      I could find within minutes at least half a dozen tools to just split AVI files up.

                      Freeware quicktime tools to do the same. . . . well, a bit lacking in choice.

                      • It's actually incredibly easy to write a QuickTime-savvy application,


                      What about a dedicated utility for changing the frame rate within a Quicktime file? Or injecting a new audio stream? Without loading up some huge (not to mention likely costly) program?

                      • How very 1993 of you. "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog." It wasn't true then, and it's not true now. Age/race/sex/religion matter just as much on the Internet as they do in any other medium of communication.


                      Only if you are a fool who believes in such crud. Topics such as those only matter when the discussion is centered about those various topics.

                      • You have that backwards. A person's ability to think affects their choice of operating system.


                      You do realize a computer is a tool right? Or are you honestly such a fool as to believe that the choice of a brand of hammer makes all that much of an ass end of difference in the quality of a carpenters work?

                      After the diamond tipped saw, nobody in their right mind gives a care if it has an ivory handle.

                      • You misunderstood what I meant by examples. You keep saying that your computer is faster/more efficient/has pointier buttons/whatever. I say let's see what kind of a difference that makes. You produce ugly and amateurish 3D models and poetry so bad it ought to be classified as a weapon of mass destruction. So either you're an intelligent and talented person and your tools are letting you down, or you are neither intelligent nor talented, and your opinion of your tools should not be taken at face value.


                      Which has, oh, about zero technical merit.

                      Unless you are a mac head of course.

                      The underlying quality of a product is independent of the consumers who use that product.

                      Which is quite thankful, because if the end quality of a product DID depend on its users, with users like you, MacOS would get it's 0s and 1s confused.

                      • Let's keep this specific: I am dismissing you as being irrelevant. To put it bluntly, you wouldn't recognize a good user experience if it bit you on the ass. Your criticisms, therefore, are baseless.


                      You are unable to recognize how utterly stupid the idea of a "user experience" is.

                      Hint: Only petty immature puerile fools let themselves get caught up in the flashiness of their OS. If you can't work without pretty little lights going off, then may I suggest you emotionally graduate from the second grade?

                      • Apple does sell monitors that are very close approximations of the golden ratio: 1.6:1. And they are, indeed, much more aesthetically pleasing than those ugly, old-fashioned 1.33:1 screens.


                      I do pray that you are not talking of The Cinema display, which while good for entertainment work, being based on LCD technology, is completely unsuitable for any work that requires accurate depiction of colors.

                      In closing, I would like to state that some of the most lovely 3D artwork I have ever seen has been rendered in POVRAY, and originally created in a text editor in a Console environment.

                      People who can do that have far more talent then you silly self-deceiving uppity mac heads ever will have.

                      Artwork, is independent of the tools used to create it. Art comes through the artist and a true artist shall be able to express themselves through whatever medium they have available. Those need external aids to help them are not artists but rather mere figments of what a true artist is.

                      Broaden your horizons, wake the heck up, and put down the Photoshop/AfterEffects filters.

                    • I could find within minutes at least half a dozen tools to just split AVI files up.

                      You only need one, though. What's the point in having four tools that just plain suck, and maybe one that's okay, when all you need is one that works?

                      What about a dedicated utility for changing the frame rate within a Quicktime file? Or injecting a new audio stream? Without loading up some huge (not to mention likely costly) program?

                      QuickTime Pro. Bundled with the OS as a utility, license costs $30. Does everything to a QuickTime that is possible to be done.

                      You do realize a computer is a tool right?

                      Yes, indeedy. Do you? Tools are judged by the quality of the work their users do with them. Judging by the quality of your work, your tools must suck.

                      I have been saying this all along, if you'll notice.

                      The underlying quality of a product is independent of the consumers who use that product.

                      That's completely wrong. A tool's worth is a complex interaction of factors: ease of use, consistency, power, flexibility, and so on. None of these is quantifiable. The only objective (well, somewhat objective... objectivesque, if you will) way to judge a tool is by looking at the work its user creates with it. Of course, one sample is not enough. I've seen your work, and I've decided that either you wouldn't know a good tool if it bit you on the nose, or your tools are really letting you down. In either case, your arguments against OS X just don't carry any weight.

                      You are unable to recognize how utterly stupid the idea of a "user experience" is. Hint: Only petty immature puerile fools let themselves get caught up in the flashiness of their OS.

                      Great comeback. Are you at all interested in making substantive points, or are you left with nothing but invective? Piss poor invective at that.

                      I do pray that you are not talking of The Cinema display, which while good for entertainment work, being based on LCD technology, is completely unsuitable for any work that requires accurate depiction of colors.

                      Every monitor is unsuitable for any work that requires accurate depiction of colors, unless all you care about is how the color looks on your own monitor. If you're doing video work, you must have a Sony BVM next to you, and a waveform monitor if you're even remotely serious. Both NTSC and HD have radically different color gamuts than any computer monitor-- CRT or LCD-- can reproduce. And for print work, of course... well, you might as well work in greyscale channel mode, and keep your colorimeter handy. Neither a CRT nor an RGB is capable of reproducing the CMYK color space. That's why we have things like Matchprints. Your Matchprint gets you close enough that the final color can (hopefully!) be bumped on press to get the client to sign off on a press proof. The only color meter that matters a damn, ultimately, is the client's eyeball.

                      So while Apple's LCD displays are really exceptional in terms of color frequency response, any inaccuracies in them are (1) not significantly different from even a "calibrated" CRT, and (2) irrelevant anyway, because nobody looks at color on his screen.

                      Except... you, perhaps? I'm just guessing here.

                      The real point is that you were either unaware of Apple's widescreen displays-- the 22" and 23" displays, the 15" and 17" PowerBooks, and the 17" iMac-- or you didn't know what "the golden ratio" means. Which was it? I ask only for information.

                      In closing, I would like to state that some of the most lovely 3D artwork I have ever seen has been rendered in POVRAY, and originally created in a text editor in a Console environment.

                      Post a link. On the other side of that coin, some of the best CGI [aliaswavefront.com] I've ever seen [aliaswavefront.com] was done on Mac OS X, with Maya. Sure, Maya runs on Windows, Linux, and IRIX, too, but the best work comes from people who use Mac OS X. How do your examples compare to mine?

                      Of course, if you want to broaden the topic a bit, some pretty [imdb.com] familiar [imdb.com] movies [imdb.com] and TV projects [imdb.com] either have been or are being edited with Final Cut Pro on OS X.

                      Art comes through the artist and a true artist shall be able to express themselves through whatever medium they have available.

                      Did you hear that from a high school art teacher or something? An "true artist" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) is able to choose the tools that will give him the best results.

                      Let's see your results, dude. How many times now have I asked? Show me something beautiful that you've created using any computer other than a Mac, and I'll shut up.
                    • Yes, I know it Cocoa not Carbon (which is why IE doesn't have it). I meant to say Cocoa.

                      Application Kit is responsible for providing the GUI, but it's just as much a part of the OS as any other framework.

                      This is all second hand knowledge to me. I haven't coded any GUI apps for either Mac or Windows. Anyhow what I was trying to point out was the difference between this and the MS way(TM). MS has one big bloated API called win32 that includes everything except the kitchen sink (The original spec included a kitchen sink but they never got that correctly implemented).

                      Apple invented the idea of a consistent user interface, and here's com2kid praising consistent keyboard shortcuts in Windows without realizing where they came from. That just cracked me up.

                      Lets not give ol steve free BJs all night. They stole it from Xerox and we all know that. Granted they did steal it first.
                    • They stole it from Xerox and we all know that.

                      I think there's a typo there. I think you typed "stole" when you meant to type "licensed."
                    • POV-Ray screenshots [povray.org]

                      • You only need one, though. What's the point in having four tools that just plain suck, and maybe one that's okay, when all you need is one that works?


                      Because it allows ME to choose the one that works right FOR me. If I do not like the interface on program X I can use program Y. Or I can choose program Z that does everything programs A B and C do but with a consistent interface. Or for that matter I can choose just to work with tools that are open to being easily scripted and just use those.

                      Choice.

                      • Yes, indeedy. Do you? Tools are judged by the quality of the work their users do with them.


                      No, a tool is judged by how well it is made and by how well it CAN be used in expert hands.

                      Do you see a masters of arts title next to my name or in my resume?

                      • That's completely wrong. A tool's worth is a complex interaction of factors: ease of use, consistency, power, flexibility, and so on.


                      None of which are effected by the END user.

                      Listen, if I give a brain damaged deaf blind mute a camel hair brush and some high quality paints of whatever type, does that suddenly make all camel hair brushes and fancy paints by that manufactuer lower in quality?

                      No!

                      • QuickTime Pro. Bundled with the OS as a utility, license costs $30. Does everything to a QuickTime that is possible to be done.


                      The Quicktime Pro interface, err, sucks. There is an alternative market for Quicktime manipulation products for a reason.

                      • Of course, one sample is not enough.


                      followed by

                      • seen your work, and I've decided that either you wouldn't know a good tool if it bit you on the nose, or your tools are really letting you down. In either case, your arguments against OS X just don't carry any weight.


                      First off, my 3D artwork is eliquent for its mathmatical efficency, something you wuold know if you bothered to read the accompying text rather than just looking for pretty flashy pictures.

                      Actualy the gallery is way out of date, times change and exact efficency no longer matters quite so much, but the pieces are still relivent in that they are perfectly mathmaticay minimized

                      If you cannot appreciate mathmatical efficency then NO amount of proof I can show you will convince you otherwise.

                      Going by your own method of twisted logic, that Windows lends itself to creating minimalist pieces is MY proof that Windows is a superior OS. Some of us detest flashy effects and perfer mathmatical eliquence.

                      Oh, and as for some more examples of what Rhino3D can generate;

                      http://rhino3d.com/gallery/jewelry/lovecage.htm [rhino3d.com]

                      http://rhino3d.com/gallery/jewelry/bluandgold.htm [rhino3d.com]

                      Not that Rhino does not have more real world [rhino3d.com] uses.

                    • Licensed

                      Not exactly true. Xerox exectutives never thought that the "home computer" would be as popular as the business main frame; and as such never saw the value in the 1) mouse or 2) GUI.

                      Apple engineers were given free access to ALL of Xerox's code for the mouse and GUI (expressly against the advice of Xerox engineers) and turned it into... TADA! The MAC.

                      Basically, Jobs and Woz saw the tremendous value of Xerox's GUI and Mouse (and they both knew that the home computer would be as popular as the TV) and well... pulled a Gates: they "made them thier own."
                    • >Oh? I recall having used a good number of GUIs that where NOT mouse driven.

                      Please specify. You use it in the plural, "a good number", and yet I can't really think of any that aren't some grad student's XWindow project. For example...

                      I used Ion (http://modeemi.cs.tut.fi/~tuomov/ion/ [cs.tut.fi]) and found it pleasant, but then again I'm a rather advanced user. It frightened my girlfriend.

                      But beyond that... Can't think of a single window manager, or user GUI for that matter, that wasn't built with a mouse in mind.
                      • But beyond that... Can't think of a single window manager, or user GUI for that matter, that wasn't built with a mouse in mind.


                      DOS programs. :) A ton of them, heh.

                      Some particular Fractal program comes to mind now, but there are others. X-Tree was not mouse driven (though I think a mouse could be used /with/ it, I did not have a mouse at the time so I honestly cannot say)
                    • Perhaps our definition of GUI varies slightly.

                      I am specifically referring to applications that run full-screen using some kind of bitmapped (and in recent years, vector) graphics display, and specifically NOT character-mode programs that occupy the full screen, even if they are mouse enabled.

                      Windows is a GUI.
                      Emacs is not.

                      If you want to alter the definition, that's OK, but let's make sure we're not arguing from a different POV.
                    • Because it allows ME to choose the one that works right FOR me.

                      So you're happier with four tools that suck rather than one tool that works because with four tools you get to choose your form of suffering. That sounds like fairly typical Windows-user mentality to me. Also sounds like fairly typical Linux-user mentality; that's a funny coincidence. "Blah blah choice blah blah freedom." The people who say that rarely stop to think that there might actually be a right way and a bunch of wrong ways for a tool to work.

                      Do you see a masters of arts title next to my name or in my resume?

                      Now you're starting to understand why I say that your opinion on this issue doesn't matter. You simply aren't qualified to have an educated one.

                      The Quicktime Pro interface, err, sucks. There is an alternative market for Quicktime manipulation products for a reason.

                      1. "Err, sucks" is not an argument. If that's the best you've got, shut up, okay?

                      2. There is basically no market for "QuickTime manipulation products." You've got the real tools, editors and compositors and such, and then you've got the little meta-tools, encoders and transcoders. But for doing things like adding and removing tracks? Everybody just uses QuickTime Pro. It works very well.

                      First off, my 3D artwork is eliquent for its mathmatical efficency

                      Do you mean "eloquent," "mathematical," and "efficiency?" In that case... no. Sorry. If your goal is to keep the poly count low, you could do a much better job than the crap I saw on your web page. Ugh.

                      but the pieces are still relivent in that they are perfectly mathmaticay minimized

                      Does "perfectly mathmaticay minimized" mean that the model doesn't look like what it's intended to resemble? Your frying pan looks like a goddamn stop sign. That's nuts, junior. That's coloring outside the lines.

                      Going by your own method of twisted logic, that Windows lends itself to creating minimalist pieces is MY proof that Windows is a superior OS. Some of us detest flashy effects and perfer mathmatical eliquence.

                      Sure, like I said umpteen posts back, some people think models of frying pans ought to look like stop signs. That does not mean that those people are right. It just means that those people are confused.

                      I tell you what. You go on thinking that Windows is "a superior OS" because it lets you create things that are "perfectly mathmaticay minimized." Meanwhile, the rest of us will go on using tools that allow us to create work that, while it certainly couldn't be called "eliquent for its mathmatical efficency," we consider to be beautiful.

                      Oh, as for the links you posted, POV is a ray-tracer. Give it a scene file, and it renders it. The link you provided is to a list of sample renderings with no information at all about where the models and shaders in the scenes came from. I'm sure this goes to explain why some of the samples are almost acceptable [povray.org] while the rest are horrible [povray.org] beyond [povray.org] words [povray.org]. Only one of them could be called good [povray.org]. Using a raytracer as an example of the quality of your platform is kind of like saying that Lexmark printers rock because somebody printed a Hemmingway novel on one once. How you render a scene is almost completely irrelevant; the important question is how you create the models and shaders for the scene, and how you compose the scene.

                      I couldn't even tell you what "Rhino 3D" is, because the web site appears to be down.

                      All in all, a very disappointing first attempt. Maybe we need to be more clear on this. In order to demonstrate that you are qualified to make critical remarks about rounded buttons and other purely aesthetic features, it's going to be necessary for you to present evidence of your own qualifications. Linking to somebody else's (bad!) renderings isn't going to get it done. Show me what you have done that demonstrates you to be a person of artistic talent or insight, or at least taste. If you want to criticize, you've got to be prepared to show your qualifications. You can shut me up right now, permanently, by posting a link to something beautiful that you created using Windows.

                      What I'm basically saying here is "put up or shut up." Shouldn't really be that hard to get your head around that idea, I wouldn't think. What's the hold-up?
                  • >The keyboard is far faster than the mouse for a good 65% of operations performed on the computer.

                    I'd be interested to read your source for this statistic, as I have read numerous things that have a slightly different take (namely the opposite).
                    • I don't know about statistics, but I do know personal use.

                      I used to do technical support. One of my responsibilities was email. Most questions were lack of knowledge, so I wrote down standard detailed answer to various topics. So, I had notepad open with IIRC something like 80k text. Then I had an email client to read and respond to emails.

                      At first, I used the mouse quite a bit, but I learned to used the keyboard. Especially with hotkeys. Before the keyboard, it took probably a minute or more to respond to an email. With the keybaord I was able to do most emails within twenty seconds.

                      The actions required were, opening the email, (reading the email), switching to notepad, finding the section in notepad, hilighting the section, copying the section, switching back to the email client, activating the "reply" feature, pasting the answer, and sending the email. Most of those actions when done with the mouse take seconds each. Maybe even five seconds. Though highlighting in notepad with the mouse can take even longer if the end cannot be seen on the current view. I count nine actions (besides reading) which could easily take fourty-five seconds. With the keyboard, most of those actions take less than one second, for a total of about ten seconds. Most emails were short, so looking for the keywords and knowing what to reply with could take anywhere between ten seconds.

                      Just a quick example.

                    • Here's the rub:

                      For experienced users, the keyboard is ALWAYS faster. Apple's HCI testing proved this decades ago and most recent research shows the same thing, over and over.

                      BUT

                      For the new user, and for basically everyone except the so-called "power user", mousing is easier. This is why you're seeing the same UI trends out of Microsoft and Apple, things like larger GUI widgets. As more and more and more people get computers, the research shows they're more comfortable with the mouse, and UI designers are working to assist that.

                      One of the great tasks of HCI (a subject I enjoy so much, I'm probably going to get a degree in it) is thinking as everyone BUT yourself. You have to separate having a decade of experience on multiple platforms and 95+wpm typing from the mythical Aunt Tillie who wonders if her new eMachine has enough RAM to use the Interweb.

                      I mean, on the surface, I totally agree with c2k. Keyboard fast. However, his statistics are bullshit and every bit of HCI research proves him wrong, under the usual set of circumstances.
                    • For the new user, and for basically everyone except the so-called "power user", mousing is easier.

                      Good point. However, I'd like to modify it. For the new user, ... mousing is more intuitive.

                      I don't know about you, but when Windows 3.1 came out how many people had a mouse? Using a mouse was cool, but one or two things at the keyboard showed it wasn't needed. Even those who use the mouse ask me about using the keyboard. The person trying to be more proficient, takes a little here and a little there (shortcut keys for icons, winkey+e explorer) until they become proficient at it.

                      I dare say, that the reason the keyboard is more intuitive, is because GUI's haven't yet shown how to interface easily. That is, GUIs are tied to people's ideas of the "real" world. Why do we have buttons? There is no reason for a button on a computer. A button in real life activates something. On the computer it registers an event. A multitude of methods to register events are possible. But, a "button" was chosen. It seems to help people transition to the computer more easily. Thus, the GUI is intuitively made for the mouse. However, I don't think it any easier. With proper teaching, the keyboard can be much easier to use.

                      Maybe we can say, learning the mouse is faster. But not easier.

                      This is why you're seeing the same UI trends out of Microsoft and Apple, things like larger GUI widgets.

                      Actually, Microsoft is very good about keyboarding. The Microsoft Logo requirement, require keyboard access to everything. Though I didn't see the same for GUIs. Remember, Windows beame famous before mice did.
                    • For the new user, ... mousing is more intuitive.

                      Now, now, Chacham. We all know that none of the stuff we're talking about here is intuitive. As has been said, like, a billion times before, intuition stops with the nipple.

                      The only thing we can say for certain is that a certain class of user prefers to use the mouse to indicate and actuate UI controls. This class seems to include the young and old segments of the bell curve, people who are new to computers, people who use computers occasionally rather than constantly, people who use computers constantly but in a non-technical capacity, people with repetitive stress injuries, people who are concerned about developing repetitive stress injuries... and some folks who just happen to fall in there for no reason we can identify, except that they just seem to prefer clicking to typing.

                      That is, GUIs are tied to people's ideas of the "real" world.

                      Because GUI's have been around for nearly two decades now, and an entire generation of kids in the western world has grown up with them, GUI's have ceased to reflect the real world, and have begun to be an integral part of it for, oh, let's say a third of the world's population. There are a few bank ATM's that still use the old-style MFD's, for example, but most now are comprised of a touch-sensitive screen with a traditional, colorful, rounded (heh heh) GUI.

                      In general, though, all this talk about whether the keyboard is faster than the mouse (or whether square buttons are faster than round ones, for that matter) kinda cracks me up. I have a friend that has his laptop customized to the point where he can be very fast; he has full keyboard access turned on, memorizes all the keyboard shortcuts, and uses lots of little third-party utilities to do things like launch programs from keystrokes instead of from the Finder. In theory, he should be really fast, right? He's not. He tries to be, but as a result he rushes, and ends up making mistakes. He has to do things two or three times to get them right. Watching him type is a nightmare. He probably hits the keys at a rate equivalent to 180 words per minute... but every fourth or fifth keystroke is a backspace. And, of course, after a few years of this he's starting to complain of pain in his wrists.

                      Life's not a game. You don't get bonus points for being faster.
  • In journal writing, they see to have done it correctly. Eh, oh well.

    The preview button seems, for you, to function better where it is located in comments.pl :)

    ~GoRK

Slashdot Top Deals

If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.

Close