Home > Archive > Software Engineering > December 2007 > What development model (or paradigm) does Apple use?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
What development model (or paradigm) does Apple use?
|
|
| Ramon F Herrera 2007-10-27, 10:11 pm |
|
I started programming the Mac circa 1985, during the Toolbox days, but
have been away from Apple for a while -almost a couple decades, to be
precise.
I stayed away from client/GUI programming, circumscribing myself to
the server and embedded areas. One of the main reason was that GUI
pretty much implied Windows. The situation has changed a lot, however,
with the entrance of Java for instance, one doesn't necessarily have
to become a Microserf anymore.
The one MS technology that caught my attention was the OLE/COM
disciplines, which arguably spearheaded component programming, led by
Microsoft:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compon...are_engineering
On this side of the fence (the side which is for interoperability and
open standards) we haven't been very successful at standardizing
programming methodologies that can rival OLE and [M]COM, I am afraid
to recognize.
We have UNO (introduced by the OOo folks), a contender with great
potential:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Uno
Now the question: since Unix/Linux hasn't led the way (in standards,
interoperable programming methodologies for clients), how about Apple?
They are easily the leaders on GUI programming.
What does the 4th. most valuable technology company use and recommend?
After all, they are not stuck with SmallTalk, are they? They are
probably forced to support MS COM for the Mac-Office suite, I realize
that. How short is Microsoft's leash on Apple?
-Ramon
| |
| Erik Funkenbusch 2007-10-27, 10:11 pm |
| On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 13:07:05 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> What does the 4th. most valuable technology company use and recommend?
> After all, they are not stuck with SmallTalk, are they? They are
> probably forced to support MS COM for the Mac-Office suite, I realize
> that. How short is Microsoft's leash on Apple?
Apple doesn't support COM at all, what COM there is on the Mac, Microsoft
supports.
Apple doesn't really have a component model. They tried many years back
with OpenDoc, but that was a hideous failure for all those involved.
They simply don't provide a standard extension mechanism, though the Carbon
API apparently has many ways to hook into the OS.
| |
| amicus_curious 2007-10-27, 10:11 pm |
|
"Erik Funkenbusch" <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message
news:1wk5k8ydaq9x.dlg@funkenbusch.com...
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 13:07:05 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>
>
> Apple doesn't support COM at all, what COM there is on the Mac, Microsoft
> supports.
>
> Apple doesn't really have a component model. They tried many years back
> with OpenDoc, but that was a hideous failure for all those involved.
>
> They simply don't provide a standard extension mechanism, though the
> Carbon
> API apparently has many ways to hook into the OS.
The presumed intended use for COM, DCOM, CORBA, etc., is for distributed
system implementation. The most likely technology to adopt today is .NET
which allows for interop with COM and CORBA and has sophisticated toos for
using most languages, C++, C#, and Java being the most likely choices. Open
source support is available via Mono as supported by Novell. Anything else
is an anachronism.
| |
| Phlip 2007-10-27, 10:11 pm |
| > Apple doesn't support COM at all, what COM there is on the Mac, Microsoft
> supports.
>
> Apple doesn't really have a component model. They tried many years back
> with OpenDoc, but that was a hideous failure for all those involved.
And that explained a lot of early cruft in COM. MS played every trick they
know to help destroy OpenDoc...
--
Phlip
| |
|
| Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> wrote:
> What does the 4th. most valuable technology company use and recommend?
> After all, they are not stuck with SmallTalk, are they? They are
> probably forced to support MS COM for the Mac-Office suite, I realize
> that. How short is Microsoft's leash on Apple?
apple never used smalltalk for development, and apple doesn't use
anything related to microsoft for development. apple keeps ms on a
pretty short leash nowadays. apple is primarily an opensource shop and
has been for about a decade.
welcome back to the bright side of coding, you can get started here:
http://developer.apple.com/tools/xcode/
| |
|
| On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:00:22 -0600, none wrote:
> Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> wrote:
>
>
> apple never used smalltalk for development, and apple doesn't use
> anything related to microsoft for development. apple keeps ms on a
> pretty short leash nowadays.
Apple keeps Microsoft on a short leash? How?
> apple is primarily an opensource shop and
> has been for about a decade.
While OS X has been certified as Unix, and it is based on OSS, MacOS X
would not be MacOS without the proprietary, closed source layers and
services.
>
> welcome back to the bright side of coding, you can get started here:
>
> http://developer.apple.com/tools/xcode/
--
Rick
| |
| Peter Köhlmann 2007-10-28, 8:06 am |
| Rick wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:00:22 -0600, none wrote:
>
>
> Apple keeps Microsoft on a short leash? How?
You are aware that "none" is OxRetard again nymshifting?
If you need examples of typical Mac users, he is one
It can't get any dumber than that.
--
If you're right 90% of the time, why quibble about the remaining 3%?
| |
|
| >> apple never used smalltalk for development, and apple doesn't use
>
> Apple keeps Microsoft on a short leash? How?
It's a joke.
Thru the 90s, MS expressed dominance over the computer industry via
feudalism. MS would grant territory to subordinate companies, and extend to
them the right to profit from the territory, while withholding the right to
redirect the territory. The only other super-power was Apple, with
leading-edge user interface research, and sterling "fashion" awareness.
Then Apple needed a bailout, and MS rescued them.
These days, MS has only marginal mindshare. The industry's center of gravity
has shifted, and Apple has embraced open source software. So now Apple is
beginning to direct Microsoft.
> While OS X has been certified as Unix, and it is based on OSS, MacOS X
> would not be MacOS without the proprietary, closed source layers and
> services.
I think we're discussing the tools, starting with GNU C.
--
Phlip
| |
| Peter Köhlmann 2007-10-28, 7:13 pm |
| Phlip wrote:
>
> It's a joke.
>
No, it is absolutely *not* a joke
The typical Mac user "OxRetard" actually believes every word of his
bullshit. He is the proverbial Mac fanboi, and he drinks the Kool Aid by
the gallons. All Mac users of CSMA combined would not muster a double-digit
IQ
--
Modern man is the missing link between apes and human beings.
| |
| Steve Hix 2007-10-28, 7:13 pm |
| In article < jt6dnU70Yf9wMrnanZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
"Phlip" <phlipcpp@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It's a joke.
>
> Thru the 90s, MS expressed dominance over the computer industry via
> feudalism. MS would grant territory to subordinate companies, and extend to
> them the right to profit from the territory, while withholding the right to
> redirect the territory. The only other super-power was Apple, with
> leading-edge user interface research, and sterling "fashion" awareness.
>
> Then Apple needed a bailout, and MS rescued them.
Utter, complete, nonsensical bollocks.
MS got about $150M in stock, which they have since sold off (at a slight
profit), and promised that they'd continue to offer applications for
MacOS for some years.
Meanwhile, Apple still had something near $4B in cash and liquid assets.
What MS did was useful, primarily in PR terms; it was nothing close to
"rescue".
| |
| Ramon F Herrera 2007-10-28, 7:13 pm |
| On Oct 28, 2:48 pm, Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID>
wrote:
> In article <jt6dnU70Yf9wMrnanZ2dnUVZ_vyin...@adelphia.com>,
>
>
>
> "Phlip" <phlip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Utter, complete, nonsensical bollocks.
>
> MS got about $150M in stock, which they have since sold off (at a slight
> profit), and promised that they'd continue to offer applications for
> MacOS for some years.
>
> Meanwhile, Apple still had something near $4B in cash and liquid assets.
>
> What MS did was useful, primarily in PR terms; it was nothing close to
> "rescue".
It was a rescue all right. Microsoft rescued itself from the antitrust
regulators. Microsoft has always needed Apple as a sole example to
point when they are accused of having a monopoly on the desktop.
-RFH
| |
| Gene Jones 2007-10-28, 7:13 pm |
| In article < Bc2dnQBuqu6NebnanZ2dnUVZ_qelnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
"Phlip" <phlipcpp@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I only read the cover of Time.
read the real story of why MS had to pay the money, quite interesting:
http://snipurl.com/1stvt
-
| |
|
| > read the real story of why MS had to pay the money, quite interesting:
>
> http://snipurl.com/1stvt
Wasn't that judgement against MS also the pin that popped the Dot Com
Bubble?
Typical of investors and stock market analysts who can't tell the difference
between an old-iron company and all the startups who needed correcting...
--
Phlip
| |
|
| >> read the real story of why MS had to pay the money, quite interesting:
>
> Wasn't that judgement against MS also the pin that popped the Dot Com
> Bubble?
No, that was Netscape.
However, please note I never said MS "bailed Apple out in an altruistic act
of compassion"...
--
Phlip
| |
| Mr. Workflow 2007-10-28, 7:13 pm |
| On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:45:23 -0700, Phlip wrote:
>
> Wasn't that judgement against MS also the pin that popped the Dot Com
> Bubble?
>
> Typical of investors and stock market analysts who can't tell the difference
> between an old-iron company and all the startups who needed correcting...
>
> --
> Phlip
Which you expertise extends to? What is the name of that company you
own?
--
´Users donÿt know what they want. So XXXX 'em"
| |
| Timberwoof 2007-10-28, 10:10 pm |
| In article <1bqsexbojecug.thlzrgthybcq.dlg@40tude.net>,
"Mr. Workflow" <mrworkflow@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:45:23 -0700, Phlip wrote:
>
Haha! That's funny.
[color=darkred]
>
> Which you expertise extends to? What is the name of that company you
> own?
He has no expertise that I respect. If he knew anything about the Dot
Bomb, he'd realize that it happened because investors finally realized
that buzzword-compliance and computational trendiness are not guarantees
of financial success.
The judgement against MS was issued in November, 1999
(http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm). The Dot Com bubble
peaked in early 2000. Far more things contributed to the Dot Bomb than
just Microsoft. Anyone who thinks that MS alome coul;d have caused it is
deluded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble).,
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
| |
| Timberwoof 2007-10-28, 10:10 pm |
| In article < mIKdnUgCdIuvm7janZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
"Phlip" <phlipcpp@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> No, that was Netscape.
Only Netscape? You're living in a bubble of your own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot- c...nificant
_to_the_bubble
> However, please note I never said MS "bailed Apple out in an altruistic act
> of compassion"...
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
| |
| Phlip 2007-10-28, 10:10 pm |
| Timberwoof wrote:
> The judgement against MS was issued in November, 1999
> (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm). The Dot Com bubble
> peaked in early 2000. Far more things contributed to the Dot Bomb than
> just Microsoft. Anyone who thinks that MS alome coul;d have caused it is
> deluded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble).,
Thanks for the timeline. This is why I got out of websites in 1999, at a
guess what was coming.
If I recall correctly!
(Oh, and I'm back in websites now. I'l keep you posted;)
--
Phlip
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/9780596510657/
"Test Driven Ajax (on Rails)"
assert_xpath, assert_javascript, & assert_ajax
| |
|
| In article < jt6dnU70Yf9wMrnanZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d@adelphi
a.com>, Phlip
<phlipcpp@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It's a joke.
>
> Thru the 90s, MS expressed dominance over the computer industry via
> feudalism. MS would grant territory to subordinate companies, and extend to
> them the right to profit from the territory, while withholding the right to
> redirect the territory. The only other super-power was Apple, with
> leading-edge user interface research, and sterling "fashion" awareness.
>
> Then Apple needed a bailout, and MS rescued them.
Ah-ha! Now, that's a joke.
If I gather the timing, you might be talking about one of the times
Microsoft had to negotiate with Apple to keep from being charged for
stealing tech. They paid in promises.
>
> These days, MS has only marginal mindshare.
Huh?
You mean Microsoft isn't really considered much by regular computer
users, or is largely ignored?
That's nonsense. Most people are victims of Microsoft, and half of them
know it.
Most people have no idea what 'Open Source' even means, let alone
considers it an influence on the industry.
Hey, maybe you're thinking only in terms of people inside the industry?
| |
|
| >> These days, MS has only marginal mindshare.
> Huh?
> Hey, maybe you're thinking only in terms of people inside the industry?
No, I'm thinking that the iPhone sales rate has exceeded the iPod sales rate
when it came out. IIRC. Little things like that.
--
Phlip
| |
| S Perryman 2007-10-29, 8:07 am |
| Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <1bqsexbojecug.thlzrgthybcq.dlg@40tude.net>,
> "Mr. Workflow" <mrworkflow@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Far more things contributed to the Dot Bomb than
> just Microsoft. Anyone who thinks that MS alome coul;d have caused it is
> deluded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble).,
From the telecoms side, not particularly accurate (Wikipedia is a most
useful tool - but not a Gospel truth) .
1. The boom in comms companies was based on the notion that with all the
mass of Internet businesses there would be, a corresponding increase in
*core/transport* network infrastructure would occur. Specifically, optical.
[ Historically Internet traffic has appeared to double every year -
increase enough for business to be done but nowhere near the speculated
growth. ]
And when the crash came, all that fibre in the ground/oceans, and no
traffic to carry.
2. Companies like cisco "profitted" ??
Given that I have publications that state the telecoms industry had a
global purge of over *250,000* jobs due to the crash, and watched the
giants slash head-counts/sites left/right/centre, I would love to see
the effective balance sheets for all these companies after the purges.
3. The 3G radio licence debacle was mainly driven by political greed.
A greed based on the knowledge that the operators had to have the
spectrum regardless of the future. The UK govt used the opportunity to
ponce money to fund their unfundable electoral lies. Germany got envious
and had a similarly inflated auction. Other nations were smarter in the
allocation process ( "beauty contests" etc) and the operators had lesser
burdens accordingly.
Feel free to contest/correct the above where necessary.
Regards,
Steven Perryman
| |
| Doug Mentohl 2007-10-29, 8:07 am |
| Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in
news:1wk5k8ydaq9x.dlg@funkenbusch.com:
> Apple doesn't really have a component model. They tried many years
back with OpenDoc, but that was a hideous failure for all those involved.
"the thing I want to certify is that an APP is compatible with OLE. I
hope OpenDoc does not achieve interop or does a terrible job. We *want*
them to fail"
"We have a design review coming up on interoperability across network
(cross-process) for new interfaces (and links and automation for OLE 2).
This is important and we should promote this. This will highlight the
fact that it's Apples's problem"
"- We are willing to "certify" those that interoperate and will offer
test guidelines or something (pt being that OpenDoc would flunk tests by
being arbitrarily different)"
"What would we have to lose?"
"Now that I've had some time to catch my breath from the apple think, I
realize that their most important issue for opendoc moving forward is
interop with ole. They would REALLY like to position tthis issue against
us (i.e it is our responcibility to interop with opendoc), rather than
just state they will figure out how to make opendoc work with ole"
"Since they weren't able to corner us on the isue in the spec
negotiation, im concerned that they'll try some other tactic in the near
future"
http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowacon...000/PX02026.pdf
-------
translation: how do me make OLE non-interoperable with OpenDoc .. :)
The malevelonce .. the paranoia .. it's classic MICROS~1 ... :)
before you say it fuddie, it was you that invoked history .. :)
| |
| Roedy Green 2007-11-05, 4:23 am |
| On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 08:51:03 -0700, "Phlip" <phlipcpp@yahoo.com>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>These days, MS has only marginal mindshare. The industry's center of gravity
>has shifted, and Apple has embraced open source software. So now Apple is
>beginning to direct Microsoft.
I suspect the next version of Vista will copy Apple and provide a
scheme for quick views without loading the entire processing app, like
DOS Lotus Magellan of old. I'm surprised it is taking so long to
recreate that wonderfully powerful technology. On the other hand MS is
preposterously reluctant to introduce standards for apps. They don't
even have a recommended use for function keys and control key
shortcuts.
Unless Apple's patent attorneys have totally sewed it up, we should
also see cover-flow animations for browsing for files.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com
| |
|
| Roedy Green wrote:
> On the other hand MS is
> preposterously reluctant to introduce standards for apps. They don't
> even have a recommended use for function keys and control key
> shortcuts.
Besides "the End key moves the text caret to the end of the line"...
(-;
--
Phlip
| |
| Greg Cox 2007-11-05, 4:23 am |
| In article <jucsi31m5odo25u1h76dsg5s7hahj3o4oi@4ax.com>,
see_website@mindprod.com.invalid says...
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 08:51:03 -0700, "Phlip" <phlipcpp@yahoo.com>
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>
> I suspect the next version of Vista will copy Apple and provide a
> scheme for quick views without loading the entire processing app, like
> DOS Lotus Magellan of old. I'm surprised it is taking so long to
> recreate that wonderfully powerful technology. On the other hand MS is
> preposterously reluctant to introduce standards for apps. They don't
> even have a recommended use for function keys and control key
> shortcuts.
You mean like this
<http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb545461.aspx>?
--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those that understand binary and those that don't." - Unknown
| |
| Roedy Green 2007-11-05, 10:09 pm |
| On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:57:26 GMT, Greg Cox
<gregc@REMOVE_THIS_magivark.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
>You mean like this
><http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb545461.aspx>?
Will wonders never cease. Now all we have to do is get the word out
to developers to bring their code into conformance.
Unfortunately they still only cover the OS, not applications.
"The following shortcuts are standard for Windows controls. Custom
controls should use shortcuts consistently."
I believe you should be able to GLOBALLY in one place configure these
for all apps.
You might to this to make all your apps work like your non-conforming
text editor you have been using for decades.
You might do it because your pattern of use is different from average.
You might use a different keyboard layout which means keys are not in
the same physical places on the keyboard, so contractions like Ctrl-C
Ctrl-V are not necessarily easy to type with one hand.
Physical disability - e.g. missing or weak finger.
see http://mindprod.com/project/menuconfigurator.html
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com
| |
| Phlip 2007-11-05, 10:09 pm |
| Roedy Green wrote:
>
> Will wonders never cease.
I learned that chart in 1989; it's from the "Common User Access" guidelines.
Our colleague asked to see it (to quote irrelevant chapter and verse on why
we should use the Dlg methods to create what was conceptually a Form.)
We told him we already read it, then we went and found it.
Then we told him, "we read it, then we put the shrinkwrap back on it."
> Now all we have to do is get the word out
> to developers to bring their code into conformance.
Between Macs and PCs, and between neophytic and proficient users...
How long can you type on the keyboard without grabbing the mouse?
--
Phlip
| |
| The Ghost In The Machine 2007-11-05, 10:09 pm |
| In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roedy Green
<see_website@mindprod.com.invalid>
wrote
on Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:30:07 GMT
<sonui3l6ndag0v1tp3vuseld1010p7cg7j@4ax.com>:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:57:26 GMT, Greg Cox
> <gregc@REMOVE_THIS_magivark.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
> someone who said :
>
>
> Will wonders never cease. Now all we have to do is get the word out
> to developers to bring their code into conformance.
>
> Unfortunately they still only cover the OS, not applications.
> "The following shortcuts are standard for Windows controls. Custom
> controls should use shortcuts consistently."
>
> I believe you should be able to GLOBALLY in one place configure these
> for all apps.
>
> You might to this to make all your apps work like your non-conforming
> text editor you have been using for decades.
Pedant Point: these two requirements are slightly
incompatible. Ideally, the user should have a file he
can edit to change the look and feel (the change could be
done by a text editor or -- more likely -- by a provided
GUI configuration tool; this isn't global, but per-user.
However, it should take effect for all of his applications
-- and immediately, if possible/desired.
A global system-administered file is also possible,
allowing the sy min to establish a reasonable base
behavior and/or look to the widgets as well.
I'm assuming this is what you meant, and it is not
unreasonable, though it does require the application be
written to allow for a more abstract notion (e.g., Xt
Intrinsics actions, controlled by a configurable resource)
than raw keypresses and mouseclicks.
By contrast, the Microsoft approach is apparently to
simply document the various shortcut keys, and hope that
the apps follow suit. This is fine as long as a base set
of assumptions exist, but what happens with Chinese users
who don't have Romanji keyboards, for example? Most phones
don't have an F1 button (though some might have a Compose
key that, pressed with the digit '1', emulates same).
A touchscreen system would need a keyboard event injector
of some sort; while possible it detracts from the beauty
of the system (assuming that aesthetics are valuable in
that particular touchscreen application) and complicates
design slightly.
>
> You might do it because your pattern of use is different from average.
>
> You might use a different keyboard layout which means keys are not in
> the same physical places on the keyboard, so contractions like Ctrl-C
> Ctrl-V are not necessarily easy to type with one hand.
>
> Physical disability - e.g. missing or weak finger.
>
> see http://mindprod.com/project/menuconfigurator.html
You might look into Gnome/Glade for a partial solution to
this problem, and it is very partial (and not Java-specific
by any means, but what does Joe User care about Java
anyway? It's a means to an end). There will also be some
issues regarding standardizing the "standard functions"
or "common functions". I'd have to look to see what
kdevelop does in this area; I don't use either that much
but I've used glade more than kdevelop.
The key associations problem was solved in X long
ago, but the solution has fallen out of favor.
However, if one has Xedit installed, one can look at
/usr/lib/X11/app-defaults/Xedit for an example of how
one specifies translations in an Xaw-era application; the
actual internals of the routines are in the source code.
(Xterm has a similar internal list of translations but
for some reason the /usr/lib/X11/app-defaults/XTerm file
does not export them.) Motif applications leveraged this
functionality but have fallen out of favor as well.
Internationalization is also possible, since the properties
for a label can be read from this resource file -- and
the database built from this file (the XrmResource/Quark
database) actually reads from a sequence of files during
app initialization; this sequence includes a file that
has 'en' somewhere in its path. The details are presumably
in places such as XtAppInitialize(3). Colors and fonts
are also specifiable; one can even specify widget placement
in an XmForm (Motif Form) widget.
A more modern widget set such as KDE or Gnome tends
to prefer to specify the concept of signals, and these
signals are associated with various events. (These are
not to be  with the Unix concept of signal(2).)
I'd have to look up the details but Glade in particular
allows signals to be attached to routines during program
development; regrettably, the signals cannot be changed
by the user later, AFAIK.
All of this annoys the hell out of me; the Quark database
is old but serviceable, for X-based applications
anyway. (Of course Windows has its own ideas about
internationalization, most of them shoved into that
registry of theirs.)
--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
/dev/signature: Not a text file
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Greg Cox 2007-11-06, 4:22 am |
| In article <sonui3l6ndag0v1tp3vuseld1010p7cg7j@4ax.com>,
see_website@mindprod.com.invalid says...
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:57:26 GMT, Greg Cox
> <gregc@REMOVE_THIS_magivark.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
> someone who said :
>
>
> Will wonders never cease. Now all we have to do is get the word out
> to developers to bring their code into conformance.
Microsoft has published UI guidelines to developers since Windows 1.
You must have been hiding not to know about this.
>
> Unfortunately they still only cover the OS, not applications.
> "The following shortcuts are standard for Windows controls. Custom
> controls should use shortcuts consistently."
>
> I believe you should be able to GLOBALLY in one place configure these
> for all apps.
Totally unreasonable. The app developer is solely responsible for
deciding how his app interacts with the user. Only he understands the
intricacies of his product. Having the OS interfere with those
decisions is just asking for trouble.
>
> You might to this to make all your apps work like your non-conforming
> text editor you have been using for decades.
Why don't you fix your non-conforming text editor to use the same
keycodes as the rest of the world rather than the other way around?
>
> You might do it because your pattern of use is different from average.
>
> You might use a different keyboard layout which means keys are not in
> the same physical places on the keyboard, so contractions like Ctrl-C
> Ctrl-V are not necessarily easy to type with one hand.
This usually happens when you're using a keyboard designed for another
language. However, the keycodes in the localized OS and apps are likely
adjusted for any issues created by that localized keyboard layout.
>
> Physical disability - e.g. missing or weak finger.
>
> see http://mindprod.com/project/menuconfigurator.html
>
I once went my own way on key assignments when I was using CodeWright as
my editor way back when. Even though it was extremely efficient for me,
it was a major mistake. No one else could use CodeWright on my computer
and I couldn't use CodeWright on their computer. Worse yet, the
keycodes I choose didn't come close to the standards of the day so I
really could only use my customized version of CodeWright. I got in
trouble every time I tried to use an app that followed the standard way
of behaving. Maybe the standard keycodes are not optimal for you but
the gain you get when you can walk up to any computer and get the same
interface with the same apps more than makes up for it being non-
optimal.
--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those that understand binary and those that don't." - Unknown
| |
| Jim Richardson 2007-11-06, 10:10 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:28:37 GMT,
Greg Cox <gregc@REMOVE_THIS_magivark.com> wrote:
> In article <sonui3l6ndag0v1tp3vuseld1010p7cg7j@4ax.com>,
> see_website@mindprod.com.invalid says...
>
> Microsoft has published UI guidelines to developers since Windows 1.
> You must have been hiding not to know about this.
>
Does Microsoft set a good example by following them for all it's
products?
>
> Totally unreasonable. The app developer is solely responsible for
> deciding how his app interacts with the user. Only he understands the
> intricacies of his product. Having the OS interfere with those
> decisions is just asking for trouble.
>
>
> Why don't you fix your non-conforming text editor to use the same
> keycodes as the rest of the world rather than the other way around?
>
Because vim's way is better :)
>
> This usually happens when you're using a keyboard designed for another
> language. However, the keycodes in the localized OS and apps are likely
> adjusted for any issues created by that localized keyboard layout.
>
Or using Dvorak, or a keybd without a 10key pad, or a "media" keyboard.
Or most PC keyboards which have the control and CAPSLOCK keys in the
wrong places.
>
> I once went my own way on key assignments when I was using CodeWright as
> my editor way back when. Even though it was extremely efficient for me,
> it was a major mistake. No one else could use CodeWright on my computer
> and I couldn't use CodeWright on their computer. Worse yet, the
> keycodes I choose didn't come close to the standards of the day so I
> really could only use my customized version of CodeWright. I got in
> trouble every time I tried to use an app that followed the standard way
> of behaving. Maybe the standard keycodes are not optimal for you but
> the gain you get when you can walk up to any computer and get the same
> interface with the same apps more than makes up for it being non-
> optimal.
>
dotfiles in homedir, homedir mounted over nfs, works for me. :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHMMqJd90bcYOAWPYRApP3AKDue/0jaItt3tpXcUG1Ov3jEHYJUwCgwUiz
EOwJv0FBHw1T8Mot2tFgO+8=
=Yh8X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
The race isn't always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong,
But it's the safest way to bet.
| |
| Greg Cox 2007-11-06, 10:10 pm |
| In article <9du605-0ja.ln1@dragon.myth>, warlock@eskimo.com says...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:28:37 GMT,
> Greg Cox <gregc@REMOVE_THIS_magivark.com> wrote:
>
>
> Does Microsoft set a good example by following them for all it's
> products?
No, it doesn't follow its own guidelines an all of its products all of
the time. However, that doesn't invalidate the fact that Microsoft has
published recommended UI guidelines for many years now and, for the most
part, follows them.
>
>
> Because vim's way is better :)
No, WordStar is and was the best for all time. ;^)
>
>
> Or using Dvorak, or a keybd without a 10key pad, or a "media" keyboard.
> Or most PC keyboards which have the control and CAPSLOCK keys in the
> wrong places.
Keyboard layout has become pretty standardized over the years (within
the local language or region). The standard keyboard UI for that
language or region should reflect that. If you want something different
then you'll have to convince the app developers to add functionality to
accommodate you or use open source and roll your own. However, if you
do this, you won't be able to easily use the same app on the next guy's
computer.
>
>
> dotfiles in homedir, homedir mounted over nfs, works for me. :)
Until you're in an office that doesn't have easy network access to your
computer...
--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those that understand binary and those that don't." - Unknown
| |
| Jim Richardson 2007-11-06, 10:10 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:31:54 GMT,
Greg Cox <gregc@REMOVE_THIS_magivark.com> wrote:
> In article <9du605-0ja.ln1@dragon.myth>, warlock@eskimo.com says...
>
> No, it doesn't follow its own guidelines an all of its products all of
> the time. However, that doesn't invalidate the fact that Microsoft has
> published recommended UI guidelines for many years now and, for the most
> part, follows them.
>
No it doesn't invalidate it. It does bring up the question of *why* they
don't. Is it because they are hard to follow, have issues that make them
awkward? is it a matter of left hand not knowing what the right is
doing? Just poorly run projects that don't follow the guidlines?
>
> No, WordStar is and was the best for all time. ;^)
:)
>
>
> Keyboard layout has become pretty standardized over the years (within
> the local language or region). The standard keyboard UI for that
> language or region should reflect that. If you want something different
> then you'll have to convince the app developers to add functionality to
> accommodate you or use open source and roll your own. However, if you
> do this, you won't be able to easily use the same app on the next guy's
> computer.
Not sure I follow. Although the GNOME HIG is pretty strict, I can change
the defaults to something more sane (for me) quite easily. As a side
effect of i18n I suspect.
>
>
> Until you're in an office that doesn't have easy network access to your
> computer...
USBKey, and a LiveCD if needed. :)
I don't expect every computer in the world to work the way I want it
to, after all, there's a lot of MS-Windows machines out there, and that
removes them from the "works right for me" list right off the bat.
But that doesn't mean I don't want to be able to tweak the config of the
ones *I* uses.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHMQkXd90bcYOAWPYRAraIAJ9/1TbI/FFxtcvhOS/gxbTB/lahCACgzKIH
gLLZJKXWDsOYvfZ4cSd0I1o=
=ltjI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls
and looks like work."
-- Thomas A. Edison
| |
| Tim Smith 2007-11-07, 4:23 am |
| On 2007-11-07, Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
> No it doesn't invalidate it. It does bring up the question of *why* they
> don't. Is it because they are hard to follow, have issues that make them
> awkward? is it a matter of left hand not knowing what the right is
> doing? Just poorly run projects that don't follow the guidlines?
Well, one reason is that they use their own applications to try out new
UI stuff. I think that two or three times now they've introduced UI
changes in Office, and then later put those changes into Windows and
their other applications.
Apple does a similar thing. They've used iTunes and Safari to introduce
changes that became standard in later OS versions.
| |
|
| In article <13j2jp45qd3c51e@news.supernews.com>, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Apple does a similar thing. They've used iTunes and Safari to introduce
> changes that became standard in later OS versions.
The reason was a little different, though -- Apple did it because those
apps are high-demand, high-use apps that need more updating than
others. Since their new appearance is built into the newest versions,
people see the new appearances before more-complex packages are
available.
On the other hand, Microsoft works in changes for the sake of making
changes, and tries them out in major packages that, from a UI view,
should be improving as they are changed, not just made harder to learn.
| |
|
| "Mitch" <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote in message
news:181120072352310198%mitch@hawaii.rr...
> In article <13j2jp45qd3c51e@news.supernews.com>, Tim Smith
> <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>
> The reason was a little different, though -- Apple did it because those
> apps are high-demand, high-use apps that need more updating than
> others. Since their new appearance is built into the newest versions,
> people see the new appearances before more-complex packages are
> available.
>
> On the other hand, Microsoft works in changes for the sake of making
> changes, and tries them out in major packages that, from a UI view,
> should be improving as they are changed, not just made harder to learn.
uhhh, some interesting points of view there... a couple questions-
1- why would apps like itunes and safari 'need more updating than others,'
from an ui stand point?
2- what makes you think ms makes changes for the sake of changes (in this
context)- all accounts are they do a whole lot of ui testing?
| |
|
| In article <MPG.2199d3a2149dda2498974c@news.easynews.com>, Greg Cox
<gregc@REMOVE_THIS_magivark.com> wrote:
>
> Totally unreasonable. The app developer is solely responsible for
> deciding how his app interacts with the user. Only he understands the
> intricacies of his product. Having the OS interfere with those
> decisions is just asking for trouble.
I think you're assuming the keyboard commands would be a large list;
they don't need to be. (what if the system maintains consistency for
only eight keyboard equivalents? Is that too many to allow developers
to leave those alone and develop with everything else?)
In a good system, the app should be able to override the system changes.
Nevertheless, there is obviously a benefit to having the OS maker use a
consistent set of standards and rules -- are you suggesting they should
not, because they need to leave all options open to developers, just in
case they are needed?
I think that is an arrogant and shallow understanding of the purpose of
developing software. It is to make a product for the user, not a
product that gives the developer many options.
I think you've nicely defined why Microsoft's products work better for
developers than for users.
| |
|
| In article <Ykd0j.11374$yV6.2104@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, ed
<news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
> uhhh, some interesting points of view there... a couple questions-
> 1- why would apps like itunes and safari 'need more updating than others,'
> from an ui stand point?
Not from a UI standpoint; from the standpoint of keeping up with
changing standards.
The UI doesn't change each time those are updated, but _because_ they
are updated more often, any changes to the UI that Apple makes will
likely be seen there first.
> 2- what makes you think ms makes changes for the sake of changes (in this
> context)-
From where they make changes, and how those changes are implemented.
The location of commands, the way buttons look, the layout of menus and
documents and toolbars, the wording of messages to the user.
Anybody watch someone who got the new office with VinVista? Watch them
try to find the Save As menu -- which most would agree should be with
the Save function, and everyone would agree needs to be easy to find.
> all accounts are they do a whole lot of ui testing?
Really? I haven't heard of _any_, but I have seen that they violate
must of what UI experts think is necessary.
Not that Apple has it all correct, either, but I know they are a lot
more concerned with UI logic.
|
|
|
|
|