[OT] Was: totally satisfied :D

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:59:55 -0400, Nick Sabalausky  
<SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:


>> I don't think the photos are meant to be browsed that way.  See this
>> thread here https://discussions.apple.com/message/16514340#16514340
>>
>> I think explorer must not be using the rotation field (seems odd),
>> but the camera import rotates the picture on import.
>>
>
> Ugh, yea, exactly. I can't do a normal file copy? I can't email them?
> The way apple handled photo orientation is just terrible. Like the one
> guy said in there, at the very *least*, they should have allowed an
> option to actually store them rotated since there's obviously so damn
> much that doesn't support that metadata flag.

I think you can do a normal file copy.  But it seems like many photo  
viewing applications (Including explorer apparently, which surprises me)  
does not support the rotation data that your file copy won't look right on  
those.

There are probably some applications that support the rotation flag.

It kind of makes sense to me.  You are getting a raster image from the  
camera, and obviously the hardware doesn't do the rotation, so to be as  
efficient as possible, instead of doing a transformation in software,  
which might also require moving the data to places it doesn't have to go,  
it simply stores a few bits different in the image.

 From that thread, I could see that Apple is not the first nor only one to  
do that -- cameras which have accelerometers also do it.

>> The "back button" is the rotate.  I agree it's not very well drawn,
>> it should be more like a quarter-turn and less snazzy (just a quarter
>> circle arrow would be better).
>>
>
> Ugh, geez...
>
> I miss words. I didn't mind non-word toolbar buttons on the desktop,
> because then you have the concept of "hover" which will trigger the
> words until you learn the icons (and then get annoyed because you
> usually can't turn off the tooltips once you no longer need them...).

 From my software design class in college, I learned that pictures are  
actually better *if* they are obviously intuitive.

For example, take a large room with 10 light switches.  What is easier to  
understand, a bank of 10 light switches with each one having a label of  
what it is, or a layout of the room with a light switch placed at the  
location on the map that it controls in the room?

If it can't be obviously intuitive, then use words.

This feature can be obviously intuitive.  A rectangle on its side, with a  
rounded arrow rotating to a rectangle on it's bottom would be obvious and  
require no words, for anyone in any language.  It's just a failure on  
whoever designed that icon, and I think it should be fixed.

> Plus toolbar buttons on the desktop aren't so damn abstract. Android's
> guilty of that too, their wordless icons are just getting more and more
> abstract (and thus, obscure) with each new version. Yea, they're
> prettier now, but who cares about pretty when it's not usable?

Abstract/obscure is the *wrong* way to go with icons.  Not all operations  
are easy to make into an icon.  But then you will probably have the  
asthetics dept screaming at you if you made a toolbar with half icons and  
half words :)

>> My brother has an android with dedicated buttons, but they are part
>> of the touch screen (they aren't displayed, they are inlays, but are
>> part of the whole touch sensitive screen).
>
> Yea, that's how mine is, too (Nexus S 4G). I prefer the older ones with
> physical buttons, but at least this is better than the latest ones which
> merely draw it on the screen (which means they can decide to make
> the "standard" buttons disappear on a whim...gee, great...)
>
> I think they're just trying to "be like apple" and minimize the amount
> of anything tactile. I can't think of any other sane reason for it.

I can't understand the lack of love for physical buttons these days.   
There are some things that need real buttons.

> I do wish tilting scroll wheels were more common though.

I had one of those.  the issue is, the software has to support it.  Not  
all do.

>> > Yea, "Show hidden files" is one of the first things I do when I
>> > install a new OS. And "Show my f*** extensions" on windows.
>>
>> Hells yeah!  It always strikes me as comical that MS created that
>> "feature" and it created a whole class of openme.txt.exe viruses.
>> Yet instead of just removing that misfeature, they built legions of
>> extra CPU-consuming mail filtering and anti-virus software to prevent
>> people from having any files with multiple extensions, only to piss
>> off people who tried to use .tar.gz files :)
>>
>
> Yup :)
>
> They seem to think their "Type" field solves the issue, and maybe that
> works fine for average Joes, but I'm not an average Joe and I don't
> want to be playing guessing games about "Ok, what's the Microsoft term
> for a .XXXXX file?" Or "What the hell file type is a 'Configuration
> settings' again?" And then there's different file types that will have
> the *same* Microsoft "Type".

No, it's not that!  Just *SHOW THE EXTENSION*.  I don't understand how  
they think people's brains are so fragile that they wouldn't be able to  
handle seeing the extensions.

It's like Microsoft thought that was an ugly wart and fought to cover it  
up at all costs -- including spawning viruses.

> And I'm not entirely joking. I mean think about, say, the 80's. Who
> were the most common people using computers? There were plenty of
> exceptions, but mostly it was people who knew what they were doing.
> That's because the people who *didn't* know what they were doing would
> either not buy one, or just let it collect dust. Now everyone uses them,
> including the "dummies" who previously avoided them.

I actually don't think that is the case.  There seems to be this common  
view that people who aren't computer savvy need icons and GUIs and  
whatever to be able to use them.  If you want to see proof that this is  
false, go to any Sears store, and buy something, then watch the  
salesperson (whom I don't consider a tech guru) breeze through the  
terminal-powered curses interface to enter your order -- using F keys and  
everything else.

I think tech-unsavvy people just take more training, but they certainly  
can use any interface you give them.

>> What I like about the 2-finger scroll is that it goes all 4
>> directions, it's like panning.  And I don't have to move my finger to
>> a certain spot.
>>
>
> I'm not sure this one does that (although in some apps I can do
> that by middle-dragging on my trackball - I wish it was all though).
>
> But, and maybe I'm being paranoid, I have a very strong suspicion
> that limitation is due to an apple patent. They *have* been
> very patent-litigious in recent years, and it doesn't seem like the
> kind of feature anyone would actually have any trouble getting right.

Meh, if Apple wants to sue someone like HP over PC features, I'm sure HP  
can shoot back.  I don't think that's the issue.  Remember, most companies  
hold patents so that they don't get sued, not so that they sue others.

It's probably more of the case that Windows apps just aren't built to  
handle it.

> Yea, sounds like the one I tried years ago at some apple store. IIRC,
> you couldn't even rest your fingers on the mouse because that would be a
> "click". You had to hover *over* the "button".

Hm... I don't think it has to be configured that way.  The whole mouse  
"clicks" when you push it.  But you could configure just a tap on the  
surface to be a click.

In any case, not worth having IMO.

>> There is a general
>> assumption by many applications/websites that *everyone* uses
>> facebook.
>
> I know! And it's not just software, it's all business in general. They
> noticed that it's popular so they think that means "nearly everyone uses
> it" when the reality is that even as popular as it is, it's still only a
> *minority* of internet users. Same with twitter.

I begrudgingly signed up for twitter, so I could send a message to a radio  
host (who is a twitter fanatic, so I knew he would read it).

Since then, I've tweeted a few things, but I'm not crazy about it.  At  
least you aren't expected to "follow" everyone you met for 5 minutes.

-Steve