5 ms·

I wish he had commented on the remark that Apple is going to make "bars 1, 2 and 3 a bit taller so they will be easier to see". Right, so they're easier to see.

I wish he had commented on the remark that Apple is going to make "bars 1, 2 and 3 a bit taller so they will be easier to see". Right, so they're easier to see. Not intending at all to play any Jedi mind tricks on you. How stupid is it that Apple is going to increase the height of the first three bars? This sounds like the kind of design by committee that happens elsewhere. Not naming names, because it happens all over the place. It's as if someone in engineering stood up and said: "Hey, we knew our 'bar' algorithm was shit when we implemented it, and we in engineering said something about it, but no one listened. So fuck those guys in marketing, we need to implement a realistic algorithm, pronto." Then the marketing team responds: "Well, it might be good engineering, but users certainly aren't going to get the warm and fuzzies. Isn't there something else we can do?" UX reluctantly speaks up: "Well, we could make bars 1-3 taller, so they appear more like the old 4-5 bars." Marketing and UX: <HIGH FIVE> Engineering: <cries in a corner>

ttol 16y ago
I made this comment/question in the other thread about iPhone 4 letter, but I'll paste here: "i'm wondering why bars are not equally the same height across. the quantity alone should be enough (1 vs 5) to convey strength. with the height being variable, it seems to make things seem worst in the worst possible way -- 5 will still be 5, but when its a 1, because the height is so much shorter, it seems worst than 1. what is the upside to variable height when you already have variable width in terms of number of bars? it's not as if there's an algorithm that determines the correct height for that particular signal, as there is a (faulty?) algorithm to determine the correct width (bars)."
- jerf 16y ago
  My cheap POC phone does that, and I do prefer it. I think it is because the "varying heights" icon has become part of brand identity. Woe betide the putatively-informational display that becomes part of the "brand identity".
  - parallax7d 16y ago
    How about a number 0% - 100%. I think we as humans could grasp this system without having to interpret or count bars. Also, less room for apple to graphically misrepresent signal strength.
    - pstuart 16y ago
      Good idea. Make it a user selectable option.
      - hadley 16y ago
        Yup, that's the apple design philosophy right there.
        spicyj 16y ago
        In fact, the battery percentage option on the 3GS and the 4 allows for such a choice, but you're right that it's uncommon.
        adbge 16y ago
        Googling around, you can toggle this feature on a 3G (or earlier) by jailbreaking the device and grabbing a third party utility called SBSettings.
    - dustingetz 16y ago
      signal strength is measured in logarithmic units, not linear.
      - glhaynes 16y ago
        And, even then, I hear that the relative metric is signal-to-noise, not raw signal strength.
    - a-priori 16y ago
judofyr 16y ago
Actually, I think they didn't think the bar algorithm was shit when they implemented it. They just changed what "5 bars" meant: "~100% reception" vs "good enough reception for all uses".
jfager 16y ago
Engineers cry over how many pixels are used in an already simplistic arbitrary visualization of a set of complex analog values? Really?
- Legion 16y ago
  No. The engineer is crying because fudging the arbitrary visualization is considered the solution instead of "implementing a realistic algorithm, pronto".
  - jfager 16y ago
    Except that they are implementing the realistic algorithm...
    - billswift 16y ago
      And then hiding it with the "tricky" interface.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      Since the code is secret, you have to trust them that, despite having misrepresented signal quality in order to show their phones in favorable light before, this time, they will show a precise measurement.
huhtenberg 16y ago
A friend of mine said that Apple should just switch to showing either 4 bars or no bars (and patent this of course). With proper customer education everyone will soon be able to see the wisdom of this decision. It either works really well (with a some room for improvement) or it doesn't, and it's AT&T fault.
jsz0 16y ago
Measuring RF and presenting it in a way a normal person can understand is difficult. I've had first hand experience trying to explain to customers that a 0dB signal is not a problem -- in fact it's ideal in our system, or that there's such thing as too much signal, or that signal quality alone isn't a very good indication of reliability/speed without taking into account other important factors such as SNR or real bit error rates, or that a ~4dB signal range swing due to thermal conditions alone is completely normal. In the wireless world you have to represent all this in a little 20 or 30 pixel wide meter. A better method than the traditional 5 bar icon meter would be a status icon that could show signal strength, signal quality, and also take into account other experience factors like latency and speed. To you could have 5 orange bars showing strong signal while also acknowledging there was some other factor causing less reliability such as SNR problems or channel congestion. You could have 3 green bars showing good RF and network conditions. More accurate but we'd have to ween people off the old system. Ideally you could the choice in your settings for a basic or advanced meter icon.

ttol 16y ago

I made this comment/question in the other thread about iPhone 4 letter, but I'll paste here: "i'm wondering why bars are not equally the same height across. the quantity alone should be enough (1 vs 5) to convey strength. with the height being variable, it seems to make things seem worst in the worst possible way -- 5 will still be 5, but when its a 1, because the height is so much shorter, it seems worst than 1. what is the upside to variable height when you already have variable width in terms of number of bars? it's not as if there's an algorithm that determines the correct height for that particular signal, as there is a (faulty?) algorithm to determine the correct width (bars)."

jerf 16y ago
My cheap POC phone does that, and I do prefer it. I think it is because the "varying heights" icon has become part of brand identity. Woe betide the putatively-informational display that becomes part of the "brand identity".
- parallax7d 16y ago
  How about a number 0% - 100%. I think we as humans could grasp this system without having to interpret or count bars. Also, less room for apple to graphically misrepresent signal strength.
  - pstuart 16y ago
    Good idea. Make it a user selectable option.
    - hadley 16y ago
      Yup, that's the apple design philosophy right there.
      - spicyj 16y ago
        In fact, the battery percentage option on the 3GS and the 4 allows for such a choice, but you're right that it's uncommon.
        adbge 16y ago
        Googling around, you can toggle this feature on a 3G (or earlier) by jailbreaking the device and grabbing a third party utility called SBSettings.
  - dustingetz 16y ago
    signal strength is measured in logarithmic units, not linear.
    - glhaynes 16y ago
      And, even then, I hear that the relative metric is signal-to-noise, not raw signal strength.
  - a-priori 16y ago

judofyr 16y ago

Actually, I think they didn't think the bar algorithm was shit when they implemented it. They just changed what "5 bars" meant: "~100% reception" vs "good enough reception for all uses".

jfager 16y ago

Engineers cry over how many pixels are used in an already simplistic arbitrary visualization of a set of complex analog values? Really?

Legion 16y ago
No. The engineer is crying because fudging the arbitrary visualization is considered the solution instead of "implementing a realistic algorithm, pronto".
- jfager 16y ago
  Except that they are implementing the realistic algorithm...
  - billswift 16y ago
    And then hiding it with the "tricky" interface.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Since the code is secret, you have to trust them that, despite having misrepresented signal quality in order to show their phones in favorable light before, this time, they will show a precise measurement.

huhtenberg 16y ago

A friend of mine said that Apple should just switch to showing either 4 bars or no bars (and patent this of course). With proper customer education everyone will soon be able to see the wisdom of this decision. It either works really well (with a some room for improvement) or it doesn't, and it's AT&T fault.

jsz0 16y ago

Measuring RF and presenting it in a way a normal person can understand is difficult. I've had first hand experience trying to explain to customers that a 0dB signal is not a problem -- in fact it's ideal in our system, or that there's such thing as too much signal, or that signal quality alone isn't a very good indication of reliability/speed without taking into account other important factors such as SNR or real bit error rates, or that a ~4dB signal range swing due to thermal conditions alone is completely normal. In the wireless world you have to represent all this in a little 20 or 30 pixel wide meter. A better method than the traditional 5 bar icon meter would be a status icon that could show signal strength, signal quality, and also take into account other experience factors like latency and speed. To you could have 5 orange bars showing strong signal while also acknowledging there was some other factor causing less reliability such as SNR problems or channel congestion. You could have 3 green bars showing good RF and network conditions. More accurate but we'd have to ween people off the old system. Ideally you could the choice in your settings for a basic or advanced meter icon.