ok guys - I was put off buying a Mac until I read the responses on this thread.
Sounds like maybe it is something I should look into - as I also want to release my next app on AppStore as well. Thanks for the responses. On Apr 8, 9:11 am, Alexander <[email protected]> wrote: > ================================================================== > On Apr 6, 7:56 am, lbcoder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I looked at apple once. OS version 10.5 ish, I think. It seemed to > > function, but had such a goofy UI that it was essentially useless. I > > never gave them one thin dime and don't intend to. See, I think the > > way that OS's lie is as follows; > > > Apple: its all about image at the complete expense of functionality. > > Think Italian sports car. > > MS: kind of like a russian car. It gets you there sortof, but it might > > explode along the way. > > Linux/other UNIX: like a Japanese pickup. Practical, reliable, > > functional, and you can beat the crap out of it and it keeps on going. > > That is hilarious! Made me laugh for a good minute or two, especially > the Russian car bit. Anyways, this got me thinking about my experience > while working for an ISP and troubleshooting all types of OSes... Bear > in mind, I have a lot to say here, especially as I am on my way to be > a teacher regarding interface and other subjects in the HCI field. The > amount of thought and work that is required to make something easy-to- > use facinates me, and is something I have always aspired to be a part > of. Hopefully I can pass some of my enthusiasm to those I teach. I > really just want to create a way, through creative thinking, for > programmers/software engineers to be able to more fully bridge the gap > between the science of what they make and the way people use what they > create. > > <begin rant> > > I think an easy way to see the absence of that bridge is in most > operating sytems. You have OSX, which is very pretty and inviting, and > tries to do as much as possible without user interaction in any > complicated way. So modifying or using anything not expected is > difficult to access, since it isn't part of what was specifically > designed into the interface. Almost patronizing to me, as if it were > assumed I am incapable of doing anything but the least amount of > configuring possible - or I should not be trusted with that access. > The cost is likely attributed what lbcoder mentioned - it is > _supposed_ to be something different than most computers; something > like Starbuck's is meant to be vs. regular coffee. > > On the other side is Windows, that leaves a lot exposed to anyone > changing or setting things up, or tries (like magic) to use a "Wizard" > to do it for you. Any problems that occur end in crypic messages that > alienate the user and rarely offer any guides to resolution, or, -- > even better -- prevention. > > Others, specifically Linux (largely BSD and UNIX as well), have a > Developed Subculture that tends to be overwhelming to anyone simply > seeking an alternative (though this is steadily improving), so new > users do not know where to start. If they don't see computers as an > enjoyable technical learning experience, then this option quickly > becomes less accessible to the cautiously venturesome user. > > The bottom line is that there is a thin line between form and > function, obviously, but more importantly, there are a lot of > different ideas about what "usability" really means. Using a computer > as a tool is different than using a computer for the experience. I > think that these views can come together if there is a different > focus, something that really should be where the whole idea with which > any technical engineering design needs to begin. (This is likely what > I would teach to the aspiring students coming into this type of > field.) Every step of the way, the user's interactions shouldn't start > with ease of use or aesthetics, because those are only _after_ the end- > design is in the final process. > > As a general thought that seems to make sense here, though isn't > really in line with the topic discussion, are some things that > developers might take note of: The question to keep in mind is "Does > it make sense?" Power users are not focused on how easy it is to tweak > things, and casual users should get where they need to logically, with > a minimal learning curve. This is where the best designs I have seen > shine the greatest - there are cool looking interfaces, power-horse > functions - but in the end, fun and complex function need to be > accessible through natural interaction. I believe that the less > someone has to think about how to accomplish something using > technology, regardless of how complicated the use, the greater chance > it has of being usable, and enduring a long life-span. > > </end rant> > > That's just my viewpoint currently, let me know if anyone has any > insight, as it would be greatly appreciated. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
