4 ms·

I don't agree. I think this app is really cool and demonstrates a good understanding of common use cases. I'd certainly like to tweet within an app without havi

by novum 17y ago

I don't agree. I think this app is really cool and demonstrates a good understanding of common use cases. I'd certainly like to tweet within an app without having to quit it and relaunch my twitter client. My iPhone's not been jailbroken since pre-app store, though. Not sure I want to bother with all the jailbreaking hassle anymore.

jemmons 17y ago
"Demonstrates a good understanding of common use cases" is another way of saying it "gives the people what they want". I understand giving people what they want is in fashion right now in user interface design (mostly with people who refer to it as "user experience" instead and like to a/b 500 options instead of studying to learn the right one), but here's a tip. People want everything and your UI cannot be a rave. A successful interface has to do much more not giving than giving. As to your specific example, if "quitting" your current application to tweet something causes you to lose any state, said application is broken. The end.
- serhei 17y ago
  As such, you may find examples of "brokenness" in the YouTube app (doesn't remember your position in a video), in the Calendar app (if you quit while typing a note for a calendar event the note gets obliterated) and, to give an example of a third-party app, in the Apple Design Award-winning OmniFocus (same thing as the Calendar app). I personally balk at saying "the end" to YouTube, iCal and OmniFocus.
  - jemmons 17y ago
    So rather than fixing broken behavior of existing apps, we should instead bloat the platform with new features ripe for abuse? That seems... unwise.
    - serhei 17y ago
      > So rather than fixing broken behavior of existing apps, we should instead bloat the platform with new features ripe for abuse? That seems... unwise. Who, exactly, in that sentence is 'we'? Such sloppy wording does not give credit to your argument. The first clause is talking about Apple. Apple does not have fixing this behaviour as its priority, and is consequently not fixing this behaviour. Neither is it bloating the platform with new features ripe for abuse. The second clause is talking about the people who are annoyed by broken behaviour. It is infeasible for them to fix it, because they are not Apple; however, it is feasible for them to jailbreak their phone and tack on new features to work around this behaviour. There is no 'we' here, capable of simultaneously shutting down the jailbreak developers and getting Apple to make the improvements that make the jailbreak developers' annoyances go away. If the above comment reflects your beliefs, then your beliefs appear to be poorly worded, and if it does not, then you are trolling. I am sorry for trotting out the T word, but your mode of discourse annoys me that much.

by novum 17y ago

jemmons 17y ago

"Demonstrates a good understanding of common use cases" is another way of saying it "gives the people what they want". I understand giving people what they want is in fashion right now in user interface design (mostly with people who refer to it as "user experience" instead and like to a/b 500 options instead of studying to learn the right one), but here's a tip. People want everything and your UI cannot be a rave. A successful interface has to do much more not giving than giving. As to your specific example, if "quitting" your current application to tweet something causes you to lose any state, said application is broken. The end.

serhei 17y ago
As such, you may find examples of "brokenness" in the YouTube app (doesn't remember your position in a video), in the Calendar app (if you quit while typing a note for a calendar event the note gets obliterated) and, to give an example of a third-party app, in the Apple Design Award-winning OmniFocus (same thing as the Calendar app). I personally balk at saying "the end" to YouTube, iCal and OmniFocus.
- jemmons 17y ago
  So rather than fixing broken behavior of existing apps, we should instead bloat the platform with new features ripe for abuse? That seems... unwise.
  - serhei 17y ago
    > So rather than fixing broken behavior of existing apps, we should instead bloat the platform with new features ripe for abuse? That seems... unwise. Who, exactly, in that sentence is 'we'? Such sloppy wording does not give credit to your argument. The first clause is talking about Apple. Apple does not have fixing this behaviour as its priority, and is consequently not fixing this behaviour. Neither is it bloating the platform with new features ripe for abuse. The second clause is talking about the people who are annoyed by broken behaviour. It is infeasible for them to fix it, because they are not Apple; however, it is feasible for them to jailbreak their phone and tack on new features to work around this behaviour. There is no 'we' here, capable of simultaneously shutting down the jailbreak developers and getting Apple to make the improvements that make the jailbreak developers' annoyances go away. If the above comment reflects your beliefs, then your beliefs appear to be poorly worded, and if it does not, then you are trolling. I am sorry for trotting out the T word, but your mode of discourse annoys me that much.