Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Two Macs from a few years ago for specific reasons (Score 1) 558

Quad core i7 MacBook Pro 17" and Thunderbolt display with 16 GB of RAM, a 1TB HD and a 480 GB SSD running Mac OS 10.6.8

Why? I like the 17 inch screen and 1920 x 1200 resolution on the 17" screen and I HATE the UI of all the Mac OSes after 10.6.8.

Quad core i5 iMac 27" with 16 GB of RAM, internal 1TB HD and 16 TB external storage on Firewire 800

Why? I like the 27 inch screen and 2560 x 1440 resolution on the 27" screen and I HATE the UI of all the Mac OSes after 10.6.8.

I develop iOS applications professionally, and I can switch into a VM if needed or use my work laptop.

This minimalist & heavily animated OS approach thanks to Jony Ive needs to die in a fire.

Submission + - Colosseum killing machine reconstructed after more than 1,500 years (telegraph.co.uk)

An anonymous reader writes: They hoisted up tens of thousands of terrified wild animals to the blood-soaked sands of the Colosseum.

Now, more than 1,500 years after the last fights between lions, leopards and bears, one of the ingenious wooden machines that carried the beasts to certain death has been reconstructed in the middle of the ancient Roman arena.

Comment Re:The guy is full of himself (Score 5, Insightful) 147

I agree. His fascination on cramming everything into the smallest space has left us with Macs that are not worth upgrading. It blows.

His touches on the UI are like cancer since he applies principles from designing hardware shapes (Industrial Design) to UI design and THEY DO NOT FUCKING APPLY THERE. Minimalist UI is bullshit. Context matters. You wan to eyebell the UI and understand what each part can do without having to interact with it.

If text looks just like a button, then you can't tell the difference between an item you can interact with and a static design element that you can't click or tap on. This confuses the user. This creates crappy and confusing UI.

I remember looking in Xcode for the longest time for an option in the far right panel. It just wasn't there. Well, his dumbass design principles replaced the arrow that shows the items can expand next to the text with NOTHING. I had no idea that the item was expandable because the visual cue that it was expandable was removed. I wasted 1/2 a hour on this and I'm not the only one who has.

I could go on, but there are so many cases of this now in the UI. It sucks.

And all the motion in the UI? We are wired to divert our attention to things that move or dart. It happens before we think. Every time an item darts or jumps or bumps, it's a distraction that pulls out attention to that item and away from the task we wanted to accomplish. The UI becomes an ADD machine. It's terrible.

All this thanks to Jony Ive. I say no thanks. When not in the office, I use Snow Leopard (10.6.8) because it's simply so much more usable a UI.

Comment Jesus Christ. (Score 3, Insightful) 147

Ever since he's gotten his "design direction" on the Mac OS and iOS, their design have gone to shit.

Everything's animated whether it needs to be or not and you can't turn it off. Everything is ultra skinny and harsh blue on glaring white. Common standards of "don't make the user guess what's functional in the UI and what's not" have been thrown away and the UI of the Mac OS has become a distraction machine that gets in the way of the user. Too much darty motion is ADD fodder as it innately draws your attention to the little darty thing as opposed to keeping your attention on the task at hand that you are trying to accomplish.

I don't want animations that get in the way of me doing my task, or ones that pull for my attention. I want a goo d looking, non distracting UI that lets me do my job, not one with crap sliding all over the place and with hideous colors.

Ugh. This is crappy crappy news for the Mac. But then, we already have too much animated crap in the UI.

Submission + - Gravitational anomalies beneath mountains point to isostasy of Earth's crust

StartsWithABang writes: Imagine you wanted to know what your acceleration was anywhere on Earth; imagine that simply saying “9.81 m/s^2" wasn’t good enough. What would you need to account for? Sure, there are the obvious things: the Earth’s rotation and its various altitudes and different points. Surely, the farther away you are from Earth’s center, the less your acceleration’s going to be. But what might come as a surprise is that if you went up to the peak of the highest mountains, not only would the acceleration due to gravity be its lowest, but there’d also be less mass beneath your feet than at any other location.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra

Working...