On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:46:00 -0400
"Steven Schveighoffer" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:05:35 -0400, Nick Sabalausky
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:11:50 -0400
> "Steven Schveighoffer" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I cannot argue that Apple's audio volume isn't too
>> simplistic for
>> its own good. AIUI, they have two "volumes", one for the
>> ringer,
>> and one for playing audio, games, videos, etc.
>>
>
> There's also a separate one for alarms/alerts:
>
http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/12/01/13/user.unaware.that.alarm.going.off.was.his/
This makes sense. Why would you ever want your alarm clock to
"alarm silently"
I don't carry around my alarm clock everywhere I go.
Aside from that, if it happens to be set wrong, I damn sure
don't want
it going off in a library, in a meeting, at the front row of a
show,
etc.
How would you wake up?
By using a real alarm clock?
Besides, we can trivially both have our own ways thanks to the
simple
invention of "options". Unfortunately, Apple apparently seems
to think
somebody's got that patented or something.
This is another case of
someone using the wrong tool for the job
Apparently so ;)
I don't know any examples of sounds that disobey the silent
switch
There is no silent switch. The switch only affects *some*
sounds, and
I'm not interested in memorizing which ones just so I can try
to avoid
the others.
The only "silent switch" is the one I use: Just leave the
fucking thing
in the car.
except for the "find my iPhone" alert,
That's about the only one that actually does make any sense at
all.
> It's just unbelievably convoluted, over-engineered, and as
> far from
> "simple" as could possibly be imagined. Basically, you have
> "volume
> up" and "volume down", but there's so much damn modality
> (something
> Apple *loves*, but it almost universally bad for UI design)
> that
> they work pretty much randomly.
I think you exaggerate. Just a bit.
Not really (and note I said "pretty much randomly" not "truly
randomly").
Try listing out all the different volume rules (that you're
*aware* of -
who knows what other hidden quirks there might be), all
together, and I
think you may be surprised just how much complexity there is.
Then compare that to, for example, a walkman or other portable
music
player (iTouch doesn't count, it's a PDA) which is 100%
predictable and
trivially simple right from day one. You never even have to
think about
it, the volume **just works**, period. The fact that the ijunk
has
various other uses besides music is immaterial: It could have
been
simple and easy and worked well, and they instead chose to make
it
complex.
Not only that, but it would have been trivial to just offer an
*option*
to turn that "smart" junk off. But then allowing a user to
configure
their own property to their own liking just wouldn't be very
"Apple",
now would it?
>> BTW, a cool feature I didn't know for a long time is if you
>> double
>> tap the home button, your audio controls appear on the lock
>> screen
>> (play/pause, next previous song, and audio volume). But I
>> think
>> you have to unlock to access ringer volume.
>>
>
> That's good to know (I didn't know).
>
> Unfortunately, it still only eliminates one, maybe two,
> swipes from
> an already-complex procedure, that on any sensible device
> would
> have been one step: Reach down into the pocket to adjust the
> volume.
Well, for music/video, the volume buttons *do* work in locked
mode.
More complexity and modality! Great.
>
> How often has anyone ever had a volume POT go bad? I don't
> think
> I've *ever* even had it happen. It's a solid,
> well-established
> technology.
I have had several sound systems where the volume knob started
misbehaving, due to corrosion, dust, whatever. You can hear
it
mostly when you turn the knob, and it has a scratchy sound
coming
from the speakers.
Was that before or after the "three year old" mark?
>
> I don't use a mac, and I never will again. I spent about a
> year or
> two with OSX last decade and I'll never go back for *any*
> reason.
> Liked it at first, but the more I used it the more I hated
> it.
It's a required thing for iOS development :)
Uhh, like I said, it *isn't*. I've *already* built an iOS
package on my
Win machine (again, using Marmalade, although I'd guess Corona
and
Unity are likely the same story), which a co-worker has
*already*
successfully run on his jailbroken iTouches and iPhone.
And the *only* reason they needed to be jailbroken is because we
haven't yet paid Apple's ransom for a signing certificate. Once
we have
that, I can sign the .ipa right here on Win with Marmalade's
deployment
tool.
The *only* thing unfortunately missing without a mac is
submission to
the Big Brother store.
I have recently
experienced the exact opposite. I love my mac, and I would
never go
back to Windows.
Not trying to "convert" you, just FWIW:
You might like Win7. It's very Mac-like out-of-the-box which is
exactly
why I hate it ;)
Mac + VMWare fusion for running XP and Linux is
fucking awesome.
Virtualization is indeed awesome :) Personally I prefer
VirtualBox
though. (Although I worry about it now being under the roof of
Oracle.)
I recently learned objective C, and I'd hate to use it without
xcode, which is a fantastic IDE. Obj-C is extremely verbose,
so
without auto-complete, it would be torturous.
Hmm, I'm glad I don't have to deal with Obj-C then. Sounds like
the Java
development philosophy. Not that C++ is all that great either,
but at
least I already know it :/
