4 ms·

They do, it's called vitsoe.com. The thing is, the feature isn't dead simple. Implementing it would completely break a solid rule of the HIG of the iPhone. The

by msy 16y ago

They do, it's called vitsoe.com. The thing is, the feature isn't dead simple. Implementing it would completely break a solid rule of the HIG of the iPhone. The quality of the UX on the iPhone exists because of those rules, just because something may seem like a good idea doesn't mean it is. Allow this and they're not volume buttons anymore, they're just general purpose buttons whose action is context specific. I'd like to reduce the volume of my music but I'm in the NYTimes app so that will favorite the article instead.

Super_Jambo 16y ago
I'd have thought though that apple would be cool with it, so long as the user has to explicitly enable the functionality. So the default is that they are volume buttons, but if you explicitly say that in this app you want them to behave differently they will.
- msy 16y ago
  It doesn't matter if it's something you enable explicitly, you're thinking about this the wrong way. Even if you enable it explicitly you have now compromised the uniformity of the utility of those buttons. There is now a cognitive cost of working out what that button is going to do every time you press it that didn't exist before, your quality of experience suffers. It's saving you from yourself. Now you probably think that sounds anal retentive and patronising in equal measure but that's how you make good UX across a platform - by understanding the power of consistency to reduce the cognitive load of an interface. Don't like it? You're welcome to go buy some random Android device with a random amount of buttons and widgets and d-pads and track balls that take a photos in this app and ring your grandmother when shaken to the left in the other app. Personally however I'm glad this stuff is enforced. Sure, if it wasn't I could avoid apps that broke HIG, market forces and all that crap but that gets hard. I then have to try and find alternatives or put up with not having access to some functionality.
  - enjo 16y ago
    why does that only apply to physical buttons? The thing about the iPhone (and Android for the record) is that there are rather few interface commonalities between apps. It seems that everyone is designing their own widgets, styles, and creating vastly different affordances. The apps are all very flashy, but user interaction can vary pretty significantly from app-to-app. I don't think that's necessarily a terrible thing. But why is that ok for the software (which is the bulk of the interface) and not the hardware?
pyre 16y ago
> The thing is, the feature isn't dead simple. Implementing it would > completely break a solid rule of the HIG of the iPhone. The > quality of the UX on the iPhone exists because of those rules I'm sorry, but if the HIG is Apple's 'ten commandments,' then they are guilty of multiple mortal sins. I can't comment much on the iPhone, but Apple has consistently (since the inception of OSX at least) broken their own HIG in their own applications. If Apple can't even play by their own rules, then why should everyone else?
- jokermatt999 16y ago
  Could you point out some examples? I'm not disagreeing with you, I just don't know of any because I'm generally not a Mac user.
  - oasisbob 16y ago
    If memory serves, Apple's OS X guidelines stated that the brushed-steel app chrome was only to be used for apps that mimiced physical objects. ... Then iTunes and Quicktime started using it.

by msy 16y ago

Super_Jambo 16y ago

I'd have thought though that apple would be cool with it, so long as the user has to explicitly enable the functionality. So the default is that they are volume buttons, but if you explicitly say that in this app you want them to behave differently they will.

msy 16y ago
It doesn't matter if it's something you enable explicitly, you're thinking about this the wrong way. Even if you enable it explicitly you have now compromised the uniformity of the utility of those buttons. There is now a cognitive cost of working out what that button is going to do every time you press it that didn't exist before, your quality of experience suffers. It's saving you from yourself. Now you probably think that sounds anal retentive and patronising in equal measure but that's how you make good UX across a platform - by understanding the power of consistency to reduce the cognitive load of an interface. Don't like it? You're welcome to go buy some random Android device with a random amount of buttons and widgets and d-pads and track balls that take a photos in this app and ring your grandmother when shaken to the left in the other app. Personally however I'm glad this stuff is enforced. Sure, if it wasn't I could avoid apps that broke HIG, market forces and all that crap but that gets hard. I then have to try and find alternatives or put up with not having access to some functionality.
- enjo 16y ago
  why does that only apply to physical buttons? The thing about the iPhone (and Android for the record) is that there are rather few interface commonalities between apps. It seems that everyone is designing their own widgets, styles, and creating vastly different affordances. The apps are all very flashy, but user interaction can vary pretty significantly from app-to-app. I don't think that's necessarily a terrible thing. But why is that ok for the software (which is the bulk of the interface) and not the hardware?

pyre 16y ago

> The thing is, the feature isn't dead simple. Implementing it would > completely break a solid rule of the HIG of the iPhone. The > quality of the UX on the iPhone exists because of those rules I'm sorry, but if the HIG is Apple's 'ten commandments,' then they are guilty of multiple mortal sins. I can't comment much on the iPhone, but Apple has consistently (since the inception of OSX at least) broken their own HIG in their own applications. If Apple can't even play by their own rules, then why should everyone else?

jokermatt999 16y ago
Could you point out some examples? I'm not disagreeing with you, I just don't know of any because I'm generally not a Mac user.
- oasisbob 16y ago
  If memory serves, Apple's OS X guidelines stated that the brushed-steel app chrome was only to be used for apps that mimiced physical objects. ... Then iTunes and Quicktime started using it.