4 ms·
But why did try to copy it at all? Why not go in another direction completely?
by jonhohle 16y ago
But why did try to copy it at all? Why not go in another direction completely?
- ars 16y agoJust how many different ways can you make a light blink?
- albertzeyer 16y agoThere are infinite many ways of doing so. :) For example, somewhat like the Fibonacci sequence like it is incorporated in the Lateralus song by Tool. That would be awesome.
- bouncingsoul 16y agoSee, you're already limiting yourself. The object isn't to indicate sleep with a blinking light, it's to indicate sleep. A sleeping computer could softly snore. Or the logo text on the lid could blur like tired vision. Neither of those is a blinking light.
- wtallis 16y agoIt's not hard to imagine a PC laptop manufacturer designing a light that moves side to side like a Cylon. In fact, this might even be a good fit for an Alienware laptop.
- philwelch 16y agoThat's not an indicator that your computer is sleeping. That's an indicator that your computer is going to try and annihilate the human race. (I think Mozilla has an oscillating status bar they use, which is called a "Cylon".)
- roc 16y agoCould've used two lights to recreate the effect of eyes sleepily almost-opening, blinking and closing.
- igorgue 16y agothey didn't invet the blink sir... sigh
- jonhohle 16y agoNo, they didn't, but they tied it to something unique: human breathing at a resting pace. They anthropomorphised it. Ok, that's done, Apple took it. What's next? What's even more intuitive or revolutionary? We'll never know if major companies with insanely great designers constantly regurgitate what Apple did years before. I don't think its unreasonable to hold companies other than Apple to the same design standards. Certainly most large consumer electronics companies have similar resources (human, industrial, capital, etc.) to use.
- nlogn 16y agoOther companies prioritize features over usability. Apple does not create as feature rich programs, focusing instead on making them simple, easy to use, and aesthetically pleasing. Google, Microsoft, Linux devs, etc. build more feature-packed, customizable products. It is difficult to make software both feature rich and yet uncomplicated and easy to approach. I like the Firefox way of doing things: put commonly needed preferences in menubar->preferences and hide everything else away in a strange place like about:config that the user can find if they need. Personally, I am satisfied with Android 2.2's, Ubuntu's, and even Windows 7's UIs and prefer the richer sets of features (not that I dislike iOS or Apple products; I actually use them at work on a daily basis). I think there are benefits to doing software both ways and I think the range of program complexity and power in the consumer software market reflects that.
- awad 16y agoEasy and simple to use IS a feature, though. All the customizability goes unused by 99% of the population. Apple knows this.
- nlogn 16y agoI made the distinction between features and usability deliberately. In the context of my comment, a feature could be defined as "something the program can do," rather than "something the marketers will list as a feature," so in that context, easy and simple to use is certainly _not_ a feature. Like I said, there is a market for all levels of complexity and flexibility in software stemming from varying preferences and needs.