A little googling would have helped you here. Both the words champ and chomp mean the same thing in this case just as at and on can both mean the location of something. I could tell you the original phrase but an imitative term dating back as far as 1520 has absolutely no baring on what is proper and acceptable in English in 2012.
Okay, you are saying that one can just use words that have the same or similar meaning. So I can just say "biting hard on the bar" because biting hard is the same as champing and chomping, and bar is the same as bit and is more acceptable in "English in 2012". It's good to know that since we are in "English 2012", we are free to bastardize the language.
"Could care less" is not a sarcastic inversion. "Cheap at half the price" is a sarcastic inversion. It's opposite the expected on purpose to make a comedic point. "Could care less" doesn't make any sense that way (or ANY way). It's just another example of people being too stupid to think about what they're saying.
Both are not correct. One is correct, the other is a total obfuscation of meaning.
But getting back to the topic, I hope Ive lets us have coloured icons again. I realize they're not as elegant looking as a monochromatic window but they really do reduce errors and increase working speed.
There is never going to be a single design language that will please everyone out there, and with the sheer amount of users iOS has, there will always be a huge number of vocal critics, no matter which direction they head into.
As for minimalism, I dont see how much more minimal iOS can get without looking like the sea of white that are google apps, or massive text over solid colors that is Win8 design style. Its pretty minimal as is, and apart from a couple textures in some apps (which I dont mind in the least, gives some personality and some differentiation) theres nothing thats there that doesnt need to be there.
Oh, and Ill be pissed if Ive takes away my woodgrain bookshelf. Dont get the hate about that, its the most gorgeous app on iOS or anywhere. What the **** would people prefer, a text list? Its beautiful and functional.
Yeah, I'm not bothered by the wood shelf. I would, however, enjoy it if Apple allowed developers to create "skin" apps so that I could customize both the shelf and the way I organize it. It surprises me that neither Kindle nor iBooks has created this option. I'm always reading, and to me a book shelf is personal and intimate. I want to arrange books however I see fit..not select between "alphabetical" or "last browsed." How about allowing me to pick and choose at random so that I can make my own categories? Philosophy...over here (including any fiction that I enjoy associating with that category, or comparative religion), popcorn fiction...over here. Open up the app to developers, or allow other developers to create alternate bookshelves in conjunction with the app. This is one of a handful of things I still love about a real bookshelf...it's organized personally, with building materials that I chose. This might sound as though I put a little too much thought into this...but compare it to people who obsess over their decorative phone cases. I'd love to have a beautiful book shelf skin. Maybe a rotating room that I can "stand" in, rotate, pinch to zoom in and out, etc. Call me excessive, but I like objects of the mind to have a mental space of their own. No, I don't need a paper turn animation, but it'd be nice to have a virtual mental space within the app so that I can organize my books in a way that makes me feel that I've entered my own personal reading world.
I hope Jony realizes the new OSX "Autosave" feature is against good design principles, and disables it, or at least makes it configurable.
It is configurable. Check out System Preferences > General > "Ask to save changes when closing" or similar. Clicking a document window's title has a menu which handles the rest. There's also the version browser for those rare exceptions.
I actually prefer the autosave concept, even if Textedit defaults to saving new documents in iCloud. IMO, more design apps should have autosave. Looking right at you, Adobe.
When Final Cut Pro X crashes, I lose nothing but the time it takes to reopen, and maybe my single most recent action.
The future will be owned by products that are often complex, but simple to understand and use. Jobs recognized it as a large number of leading designers, not the least of which is Ives.
What Ives has as a background may give him an edge in coming from the last of the age of simple typewriters and dial phones to the 21st century.
The need for "simple" is apparent to anyone who is forced to drive a rental car where you simply don't know what buttons and knobs do.
Obviousness is needed where possible & I think Ive is up to the task.
Saying that many of OS X's apps are half-finished (by describing Image Capture as an "odd grab bag") the author demonstrates that perhaps he isn't aware of the heritage of the operating system. Image Capture serves a very good purpose, and there's a very important reason it stays within OS X, yet isn't used by most users.
Understanding that an operating system must satisfy not only the superficial users who aren't interested in stuff they "don't get", but also those users who rely and trust these unheard of features for their work is fundamental to getting any overhaul correct. Ive is the right man for the job, because he has demonstrated he is capable of doing this with hardware, which in my mind must be even harder than with software.
Remember when Jobs stood up and announced NTLMv2 authentication in Kerberos by saying "whatever that is"? This perfectly describes how different people come to need different things from the same product - you can't just remove it because it's obscure and very few people use it, but you can rethink it and make it easier and better for those that do need, and transparent for those that don't. And this is where Apple win and Microsoft fail. Big time.
If Forstall was the reason for the abomination known as skeumorphism then I'm glad he's gone.
Maybe miracle of miracles we'll have a consistent interface which we last had in OS 9!
My understanding is Steve was the one who pushed for it, thinking it would make the technology more approachable. All it does really is patronize people. Until we get to the point of haptic feedback, where something that looks like leather also feels like it then this skeumorphic stuff needs to go away, and fast.
I have a title suggestion. Scott Forstall is a bit bland. How about:
Crazy Eyes!
(iCrazy is too much and would be in poor taste.)
Actually have a soft spot for him. I hope he deals with his shortcomings and moves ahead boldly. He is very capable, and I look forward to seeing what he'll do next.
(in fact, I hope the same for myself.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Guess we'll have to wait for the biography to almost tell us half of what sort of happened.
[...] Spellings, phrases, and rules change pretty much every couple of generations. Deal with it!
True, but definitions and simple rules of logic do NOT change (with rare exceptions, like "gay"). Sentences that didn't make any sense 50, 100 or 200 years ago still don't. Saying the opposite of what you mean has always been and still is just, well, stupid.
Back to our regularly scheduled programming.......
That particular link, referring to that particular phrase, is wrong. I understand what a sarcastic inversion is, but I don't think the author of that piece does. Either that or (s)he is just grasping at straws to defend a common phrase for which there is no reasonable argument.
"I could care less" simply is NOT a sarcastic inversion, it's just a corruption that proliferated because it sounded "different."
You may choose to accept it because you know what was meant by its use and challenging it distracts from the purpose of the discussion (like is happening here), but that doesn't make it correct, even if some grad student DID happen to write a weak argument for it on a web site when he was tired.
I have a hard time with the complaints about stitched leather. It's just not that big a deal. It doesn't add much, but it doesn't detract. How is the calendar an less usable because of the leather?
People make too big a deal out of silly things.
I'll admit, I hate the leather etc. But you're incorrect in saying that the leather and stitching don't add much. In fact, they add nothing, which is to say, they are a detriment.
In design, and particularly in interface design, if it *adds nothing,* then it *takes away something.* And generally, that *something* is clarity, cleanliness, harmony, and the like. On any application, but especially utilities like Calendar, Contacts, or Dictionary, which are used often, this absence may seem insignificant, but it has an erosional effect. (It's kind of like some of the crappy features in AI forums-- the annoying spell check "feature"-- it sucks and it prevents me from using my own spell check, F&#$%s!)
When I see that leather and stitching, it reminds me that they prioritized ridiculously polishing the meaningless and superficial looks of utility applications, over filling in long standing voids and fixing long standing annoyances in their basic usability.
The only problem I have with it is that it has encouraged the tedious use of the word 'skeuomorphism' all over the blogosphere.
Yeah. I never heard that phrase while studying product design. We just called that kind of crap "anachronistic," "overly literal," "precious," or "just plain bad!"
"I could care less." is not. It's more of a very annoying, adopted error.
In any case, I couldn't care less (I really wish I could! But it's such an annoying misuse of language that I can't!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
That particular link, referring to that particular phrase, is wrong. I understand what a sarcastic inversion is, but I don't think the author of that piece does. Either that or (s)he is just grasping at straws to defend a common phrase for which there is no reasonable argument.
"I could care less" simply is NOT a sarcastic inversion, it's just a corruption that proliferated because it sounded "different."
You may choose to accept it because you know what was meant by its use and challenging it distracts from the purpose of the discussion (like is happening here), but that doesn't make it correct, even if some grad student DID happen to write a weak argument for it on a web site when he was tired.
Anyone else notice Bertrand Serlet in the audience at the most recent Apple event? That was pretty cool. Maybe he's a "consultant" like Bob. Or, hey, maybe he'll come back altogether now.
Comments
Okay, you are saying that one can just use words that have the same or similar meaning. So I can just say "biting hard on the bar" because biting hard is the same as champing and chomping, and bar is the same as bit and is more acceptable in "English in 2012". It's good to know that since we are in "English 2012", we are free to bastardize the language.
You know, Google can be your friend: http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/g09.html
Back to our regularly scheduled programming.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
There is never going to be a single design language that will please everyone out there, and with the sheer amount of users iOS has, there will always be a huge number of vocal critics, no matter which direction they head into.
As for minimalism, I dont see how much more minimal iOS can get without looking like the sea of white that are google apps, or massive text over solid colors that is Win8 design style. Its pretty minimal as is, and apart from a couple textures in some apps (which I dont mind in the least, gives some personality and some differentiation) theres nothing thats there that doesnt need to be there.
Oh, and Ill be pissed if Ive takes away my woodgrain bookshelf. Dont get the hate about that, its the most gorgeous app on iOS or anywhere. What the **** would people prefer, a text list? Its beautiful and functional.
Yeah, I'm not bothered by the wood shelf. I would, however, enjoy it if Apple allowed developers to create "skin" apps so that I could customize both the shelf and the way I organize it. It surprises me that neither Kindle nor iBooks has created this option. I'm always reading, and to me a book shelf is personal and intimate. I want to arrange books however I see fit..not select between "alphabetical" or "last browsed." How about allowing me to pick and choose at random so that I can make my own categories? Philosophy...over here (including any fiction that I enjoy associating with that category, or comparative religion), popcorn fiction...over here. Open up the app to developers, or allow other developers to create alternate bookshelves in conjunction with the app. This is one of a handful of things I still love about a real bookshelf...it's organized personally, with building materials that I chose. This might sound as though I put a little too much thought into this...but compare it to people who obsess over their decorative phone cases. I'd love to have a beautiful book shelf skin. Maybe a rotating room that I can "stand" in, rotate, pinch to zoom in and out, etc. Call me excessive, but I like objects of the mind to have a mental space of their own. No, I don't need a paper turn animation, but it'd be nice to have a virtual mental space within the app so that I can organize my books in a way that makes me feel that I've entered my own personal reading world.
I hope Jony realizes the new OSX "Autosave" feature is against good design principles, and disables it, or at least makes it configurable.
ecs
I hope Jony realizes the new OSX "Autosave" feature is against good design principles, and disables it, or at least makes it configurable.
It is configurable. Check out System Preferences > General > "Ask to save changes when closing" or similar. Clicking a document window's title has a menu which handles the rest. There's also the version browser for those rare exceptions.
I actually prefer the autosave concept, even if Textedit defaults to saving new documents in iCloud. IMO, more design apps should have autosave. Looking right at you, Adobe.
When Final Cut Pro X crashes, I lose nothing but the time it takes to reopen, and maybe my single most recent action.
What Ives has as a background may give him an edge in coming from the last of the age of simple typewriters and dial phones to the 21st century.
The need for "simple" is apparent to anyone who is forced to drive a rental car where you simply don't know what buttons and knobs do.
Obviousness is needed where possible & I think Ive is up to the task.
Maybe miracle of miracles we'll have a consistent interface which we last had in OS 9!
Understanding that an operating system must satisfy not only the superficial users who aren't interested in stuff they "don't get", but also those users who rely and trust these unheard of features for their work is fundamental to getting any overhaul correct. Ive is the right man for the job, because he has demonstrated he is capable of doing this with hardware, which in my mind must be even harder than with software.
Remember when Jobs stood up and announced NTLMv2 authentication in Kerberos by saying "whatever that is"? This perfectly describes how different people come to need different things from the same product - you can't just remove it because it's obscure and very few people use it, but you can rethink it and make it easier and better for those that do need, and transparent for those that don't. And this is where Apple win and Microsoft fail. Big time.
Originally Posted by ecs
I hope Jony realizes the new OSX "Autosave" feature is against good design principles…
Sounds more like it's the way computer files should have been since the beginning.
I have a title suggestion. Scott Forstall is a bit bland. How about:
Crazy Eyes!
(iCrazy is too much and would be in poor taste.)
Actually have a soft spot for him. I hope he deals with his shortcomings and moves ahead boldly. He is very capable, and I look forward to seeing what he'll do next.
(in fact, I hope the same for myself.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Guess we'll have to wait for the biography to almost tell us half of what sort of happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by acslater017
[...] Spellings, phrases, and rules change pretty much every couple of generations. Deal with it!
True, but definitions and simple rules of logic do NOT change (with rare exceptions, like "gay"). Sentences that didn't make any sense 50, 100 or 200 years ago still don't. Saying the opposite of what you mean has always been and still is just, well, stupid.
Deal with THAT! So there!
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
You know, Google can be your friend: http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/g09.html
Back to our regularly scheduled programming.......
That particular link, referring to that particular phrase, is wrong. I understand what a sarcastic inversion is, but I don't think the author of that piece does. Either that or (s)he is just grasping at straws to defend a common phrase for which there is no reasonable argument.
"I could care less" simply is NOT a sarcastic inversion, it's just a corruption that proliferated because it sounded "different."
You may choose to accept it because you know what was meant by its use and challenging it distracts from the purpose of the discussion (like is happening here), but that doesn't make it correct, even if some grad student DID happen to write a weak argument for it on a web site when he was tired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I have a hard time with the complaints about stitched leather. It's just not that big a deal. It doesn't add much, but it doesn't detract. How is the calendar an less usable because of the leather?
People make too big a deal out of silly things.
I'll admit, I hate the leather etc. But you're incorrect in saying that the leather and stitching don't add much. In fact, they add nothing, which is to say, they are a detriment.
In design, and particularly in interface design, if it *adds nothing,* then it *takes away something.* And generally, that *something* is clarity, cleanliness, harmony, and the like. On any application, but especially utilities like Calendar, Contacts, or Dictionary, which are used often, this absence may seem insignificant, but it has an erosional effect. (It's kind of like some of the crappy features in AI forums-- the annoying spell check "feature"-- it sucks and it prevents me from using my own spell check, F&#$%s!)
When I see that leather and stitching, it reminds me that they prioritized ridiculously polishing the meaningless and superficial looks of utility applications, over filling in long standing voids and fixing long standing annoyances in their basic usability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You know, I don't mind it either. Calendar on OS X doesn't even have the stitching, which makes it subtle like Notes. Nice and simple.
No, it has the, oh so cute "torn paper." (It adds so much!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz
The only problem I have with it is that it has encouraged the tedious use of the word 'skeuomorphism' all over the blogosphere.
Yeah. I never heard that phrase while studying product design. We just called that kind of crap "anachronistic," "overly literal," "precious," or "just plain bad!"
I still think its really sad that Forstall is leaving though.
"I couldn't care less." is a sarcastic inversion.
"I could care less." is not. It's more of a very annoying, adopted error.
In any case, I couldn't care less (I really wish I could! But it's such an annoying misuse of language that I can't!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
That particular link, referring to that particular phrase, is wrong. I understand what a sarcastic inversion is, but I don't think the author of that piece does. Either that or (s)he is just grasping at straws to defend a common phrase for which there is no reasonable argument.
"I could care less" simply is NOT a sarcastic inversion, it's just a corruption that proliferated because it sounded "different."
You may choose to accept it because you know what was meant by its use and challenging it distracts from the purpose of the discussion (like is happening here), but that doesn't make it correct, even if some grad student DID happen to write a weak argument for it on a web site when he was tired.
Anyone else notice Bertrand Serlet in the audience at the most recent Apple event? That was pretty cool. Maybe he's a "consultant" like Bob. Or, hey, maybe he'll come back altogether now.