Finally got to try an iPhone

[oalvarez]

I think you're right and I'm wrong. I assumed that the auto lock setting had to do with the slide to unlock mechanism. After further review it does not have any effect that i can point to.

What is the purpose of this setting? If i set the function to "never" i still see a lock icon at the top of the screen. So it seems to keep the device on until you decide to turn it off using the button on the top of the device. Then when you turn the device back on (using the on/off button) it leads you back to the slider screen. I would think that if you had it set to never unlock you could power the device back on bypassing the slider.

Regards

 

[bcaslis#IM]

The auto locking setting is if you have the screen on, how long does it take for it to time out and sleep I believe. If you set it to never I think it will not sleep and lock, but pressing the button at the top always sleeps and locks it. I don't think there is any way to sleep it and not lock it.

I think you're right and I'm wrong. I assumed that the auto lock setting had to do with the slide to unlock mechanism. After further review it does not have any effect that i can point to.

What is the purpose of this setting? If i set the function to "never" i still see a lock icon at the top of the screen. So it seems to keep the device on until you decide to turn it off using the button on the top of the device. Then when you turn the device back on (using the on/off button) it leads you back to the slider screen. I would think that if you had it set to never unlock you could power the device back on bypassing the slider.

Regards

 

[mikec#IM]

I have to disagree with some of your points. Here's an example, the phone app. The Apple one is both more elegent and more functional than Microsoft. Example when you call the locked iPhone, you answer the call and when you finish the call it immediately locks and turns off the phone (since it was locked to being with). For windows mobile, it just acts like the phone was unlocked and sits there until it reaches the sleep timeout or you turn it off.

Most Microsoft stuff is what I would call semi-functional. It works for a task but it's clear nobody really thinks it out fully. I don't consider this marketing versus engineering. I'm an engineer and I would consider most Apple solutions to be better engineering than competing solutions. Just because they are not open to third parties doesn't mean it's a marketing decision.

By functional, I was referring to overall functionality, not elegance, and not just one application.

To call WM5/6 devices "semi-functional" is a just not true. It if is true, then the iPhone is "sub-functional" at best (which I do not think it is).

"Nobody thinks it out fully" (in reference to MS). Again, some spin. Does this apply to the iPhone's recessed jack, lack of stereo BT, lack of file system access, lack of note syncing, lacking email functions, non-removabel battery? You could say that about Apple as well.

I'm not sure what type of engineer you are, but this is absolutely engineering (function) vs marketing (user design/spin).

Non 3rd party was absolutely done from the marketing side - for control and dollars, as well as to avoid apps that crash, which they perceived (wrongly) would reflect poorly on Apple.

 

[cmaier]

The only problem I have with microsoft from an engineering perspective is they tend to have a bolt-on philosophy. It's understandable, given their experience with office and windows that requires perpetual backwards compatibility, but it permeates the microsoft culture. They add features willy-nilly with little thought to the overall architecture, often undermining the architecture in the process. By that I mean both from a software engineering perspective (resulting in instability, crashes, weird behavior, unexpected results, etc.) and from a user interface perspective (requiring many clicks to do things that should be easy to do, hiding commands and options in hard-to-find-places, too many different ways to do the same thing, different ways to do the same thing depending on where you are, etc.)

They do this all over the place (Vista, WM, even the new office interface is inconsistent across the suite), except, it seems, with XBOX. Maybe they should let the xbox guys take over the WM division.

Apple, while making some consistency mistakes with the iphone, does tend to be much better about this. As for "semi-functional" stuff on iphone (of which there is much), I'll withhold judgment for a couple of months to see if there is new firmware and what the new firmware brings us.

 

[bcaslis#IM]

By semi-functional I mean not following through on a design. If your phone was locked in their first place, why on earth do you want it to be unlocked and awake after answering a call? It's probably in a pocket or case or something and just leaving it on is asking for trouble that's what Microsoft does.

I do think they thought out the recessed jack. By their own words to not recess it would have forced them to make the iPhone thicker. They didn't want to do that. You can may disagree with that, but that's their decision and was thought through.

And for the personal crack, I have a B.S.E.E. and have been involved in software design of high-end engineering software tools for 15 years. I know very well the difference between correct and incorrect engineering.

Apple's decisions show that they think the whole "widget" through from beginning to end. Microsoft is very much a component philosophy where there design each piece pretty much in isolation from the other pieces resulting in total flows that are clunky and inelegant.

By functional, I was referring to overall functionality, not elegance, and not just one application.

To call WM5/6 devices "semi-functional" is a just not true. It if is true, then the iPhone is "sub-functional" at best (which I do not think it is).

"Nobody thinks it out fully" (in reference to MS). Again, some spin. Does this apply to the iPhone's recessed jack, lack of stereo BT, lack of file system access, lack of note syncing, lacking email functions, non-removabel battery? You could say that about Apple as well.

I'm not sure what type of engineer you are, but this is absolutely engineering (function) vs marketing (user design/spin).

Non 3rd party was absolutely done from the marketing side - for control and dollars, as well as to avoid apps that crash, which they perceived (wrongly) would reflect poorly on Apple.

 

[AnteL0pe]

So it's a "pause" when you want to stop entering, look at something, and then go back? I don't think so. The only thing I see is if you tap back on the webpage you can get go somewhere or open a new safari window.

But the text you started to type will still be in the original field (like the reply box). So this kind of does what you want. It's not as obvious as a hide button in the keypad, but I think it will do what you want.

you just hit the "done" button, the keyboard drops away and any text that was entered remains in text field. You can also still move the page around with the keyboard visible.

 

[dgoodisi]

The only problem I have with microsoft from an engineering perspective is they tend to have a bolt-on philosophy. It's understandable, given their experience with office and windows that requires perpetual backwards compatibility, but it permeates the microsoft culture.

Oh the problems of being the number 1 OS, having to support coporate IT by maintaining backwards compatibility. Apple can only wish they had this problem.

They add features willy-nilly with little thought to the overall architecture, often undermining the architecture in the process. By that I mean both from a software engineering perspective (resulting in instability, crashes, weird behavior, unexpected results, etc.)

As compared to what? Microsoft's track record with stability is actually quite good. Sure there have been a larger number of complaints but MS also has an exponentially larger install base.

and from a user interface perspective (requiring many clicks to do things that should be easy to do, hiding commands and options in hard-to-find-places, too many different ways to do the same thing, different ways to do the same thing depending on where you are, etc.)

Choice is bad? Microsoft comes up with a new way of doing things but leaves the old ways in place. Again this is due to the backwards compatibility requirement.

Curious how MS is getting dinged for tacking on features isntead of throwing out the old and replacing it with the new. Especially as MS just basically did that with Vista, and is getting heat for doing so.


Elsewhere in this thread the concept of "consistency" was discussed.

So MS releases a new version of Windows Mobile. As Windows Mobile is a platform there are numerous applications, both from MS and 3rd party, that run on it. A new version of Windows Mobile comes out with a new interface (hopefully easier to use). What now? Prevent all those older apps from running or provide backwards compatibility? By providing backwards compatibility MS insures that the user can be just as productive with the new version as the old. You can only obtain backwards compatibility at the expense of consistency.

Not considering that Apple released a feature lacking v1 iPhone merely to make a delivery date (even this site's review called it a beta product); what will apple do with gen 2, 3, 4? What if that wondeful multi-touch needs to be modified slightly to support copy and paste? What happens to consistency then?

Not to get to far off topic. I suspect that the iPhone does not have copy and paste because it can't be done with the chosen interface. Consider, your in Safari, how could you select text to copy? You can't tap as that triggers zoom/centering. You can't tap and hold as you do this to slide the screen around. You cant use a gesture as these already mean something.

 

[braj]

I'm sure you could figure out copy/paste on an iPhone. Multitouch is great and if anything it hasn't been used enough on the iPhone. As people get more familiar with the concept we'll probably see more gestures.

But the criticism of MS that there are many ways to do something was an advertised feature of Mac OS. Apple used this to say how great the Apple Finder was. And I agree. I would take OS X over Windows any day, except for programs I have to run on Windows I have no love for it. Some things are just excessively hard to deal with. But my wife finds similar issues with OS X, so I don't think either are as good as they could be. I haven't used WM much so I can't say how good/bad it is.

 

[marcol]

So MS releases a new version of Windows Mobile. As Windows Mobile is a platform there are numerous applications, both from MS and 3rd party, that run on it. A new version of Windows Mobile comes out with a new interface (hopefully easier to use). What now? Prevent all those older apps from running or provide backwards compatibility? By providing backwards compatibility MS insures that the user can be just as productive with the new version as the old. You can only obtain backwards compatibility at the expense of consistency.

It's an interesting question. I've no idea what Microsoft will do but would note that in going from S60v2 to S60v3 Nokia broke every single third-party app. During that period they also managed to increase their (already dominant) share of the smartphone market.

 

[cmaier]

Oh the problems of being the number 1 OS, having to support coporate IT by maintaining backwards compatibility. Apple can only wish they had this problem.

Yes, I'm sure apple wishes they did. Doesn't change the fact that having to maintain backwards compatibility leads to compromise. Look at what a mess the x86 architecture is. I was on the AMD team that invented amd-64 (now called x86-64, i guess) and the only reason it doesn't suck is that we were willing to throw away complete compatibility and beg microsoft to pretty please rewrite things to support us.

As compared to what? Microsoft's track record with stability is actually quite good. Sure there have been a larger number of complaints but MS also has an exponentially larger install base.

Quite good? Compared to what? Have you ever used solaris? linux? osx? Sure, it might be good given what they have to deal with in terms of backwards compatibility, but it's not good on an absolute scale. I ran a linux desktop for 8 years at amd and the only time i probably had to reboot 10 times. I run windows on 5 machines in my house, and seldom's the week that i don't have to reboot 2 or 3 of them.

Choice is bad? Microsoft comes up with a new way of doing things but leaves the old ways in place. Again this is due to the backwards compatibility requirement.

Curious how MS is getting dinged for tacking on features isntead of throwing out the old and replacing it with the new. Especially as MS just basically did that with Vista, and is getting heat for doing so.[\QUOTE]

Yes, choice is bad from a user interface perspective. Especially when you have 5 choices for setting a font in one program, and five different choices for doing it in another. And especially when this is not aftermarket software, but the OS itself. Consistency is the core of good user interface design. The fact that iphone is inconsistent (sometimes you rotate, sometimes you don't, etc.) drives me nuts.

There's nothing wrong with allowing multiple ways of doing things if each of them is a natural and efficient choice. But you have to be consistent.


You seem to think I'm dinging MS for being compatible. I'm not. They did what they had to do. But it results in a system that is worse for it in nearly every way than if they started from scratch. Note that xbox 360 is brand new in every way over xbox, and you run xbox in an emulator. In my opinion, ms should have done that.

As another example, apple TWICE made a major architectural change (68000->power pc->intel) and has still managed to keep things reasonably tight despite maintaining reasonable backwards compatibility. Now, MS couldn't accept mere "reasonable" compatibility, so the job for them is harder, but, still, you can't argue that the result is great. And if I was the engineer tasked with doing it, I would build a virtual machine into the OS to run all the old "bad" code. If the old code goes down, it can only bring down the virtual machine. I mean, what the hell is with old code on vista causing aero glass to turn off for all other windows? In engineering we call what MS did a "kludge." And they are the masters of it. THey know it, too. What do you think .NET is all about? They want to start from scratch. They are trying. But the market won't necessarily go with them (and, even worse, if the market is willing to start from scratch, why not go to linux or mac?)

To summarize: i'm not really blaming ms. They did what was expedient, and what was necessary given their market position. But it's stupid to say that because of that we should put up with their engineering tradeoffs rather than switch to something more elegant.

As for copy/paste, there are many ways it could be done easily with multitouch. For example, to select, circle the text with your finger. Or to select, put down two fingers side by side at the start of the selection region, then move one to the end of the selection region. Or to select, touch and hold the start and end point with two fingers.

Once you have selected, i think you would agree it's easy to gesture "copy" or "cut."

 

[dgoodisi]

As for copy/paste, there are many ways it could be done easily with multitouch. For example, to select, circle the text with your finger. Or to select, put down two fingers side by side at the start of the selection region, then move one to the end of the selection region. Or to select, touch and hold the start and end point with two fingers.

Once you have selected, i think you would agree it's easy to gesture "copy" or "cut."

I'm not convinced inre cut/copy and paste. If only because if it could be done it would already be there.

Circling the text might work with a single word, but what about a character, a sentence, a paragraph, or text that extends beyond the screen. Anyway circling is moot as right now that just moves the viewport in circles.

The two finger slide method also fails, you can't select text that spans lines or extends off the screen.

Perhaps the two finger method can select blocks of text, (like the block select feature of some text editors). Again, how would you select text that extends off the screen, or wraps back on itself?

Let's suppose you do select the text; of course there would have to be some kind of popup to state if you are copying or cutting the text. Obviously on a web page this would be a copy only, but an email would be both copy and cut.

So now you have selected the text and you need to paste it. How would you identify the insertion point? You can't tap, you need to do that to get to the next page, different app, etc. You can't circle or use the two finger technique because that means copy. What to do?

Again I maintain if copy and paste were possible it would already be there. This is simply to basic a concept for a "smartphone" to not deliver without it. Of course I may be wrong, and I hope I am.

But then perhaps a buddies comment sums it all up the best, "I don't really miss not being able to copy and paste. The iPhone is a video iPod with a phone tacked on; and I am OK with that." (he is an ex-PPC 6700 user).

I would further wager it is this additude that Apple is counting on.

 

[cmaier]

The "if it could be done it would be there" thing makes no sense. Lots of things can be done but aren't there (yet). I guarantee cut/copy/paste will be there and will use gestures of some sort. Rather than responding to your individual complaints, here's one that avoids your objections:

Tap and hold with two fingers side-by-side. A magnifier comes up, but you use it to start the insertion point. Remove your fingers. Scroll to wherever you want to end the selection. Tap and hold with two fingers again, and use the magnifier to adjust the end of the insertion point.

Remove your fingers. This does a copy, and highlights the selected area. If you want to cut, just swipe a line through the selection region (or make an x, or double-tap, or whatever).

Now go to where you want to paste. Press and hold (again, with 2 fingers). Use the magnifying glass to pick the exact destination. Remove your fingers to paste.

We can extend this further for common operations. Tap a word with two fingers and it defaults to selecting the word (if you don't hold your 2 fingers down). Double tap, and you get the sentence. Triple tap and you get the paragraph (or the entire textarea, or whatever makes sense given the context).

This is all a semi-natural extension of the mouse, where one finger = position, and two fingers = click (or shift-click).

Happy now? I'm really baffled by your "it can't be done" attitude. It shows a tremendous lack of creativity - I mean, the screen can detect and track up to three fingers at once. And my ideas don't even use modal buttons. If you add that idea (for example, use the one finger hold technique that currently brings up the magnifier, but have the magnfier have a "start selection" button as well) then various other methods come to mind.

 

[cmaier]

btw us patent application number 20060026521, assigned to Apple, discusses selection versus tracking extensively, and claims methods of selecting two regions and performing different operations on them (like copy vs paste)

 

[braj]

I'm sure it could be done and done elegantly. Why it wasn't we can only speculate. At some point I'm sure Apple will want to target the business market and they will have to have it implemented by then. Personally I would have liked a traditional menu system, I don't think just because you introduce new tech you have to throw out tried and true methods necessarily. You could have an icon that is displayed when a menu is available, and then a gesture that simply displays the menu, then you select items just like you would in OS X. I dunno, it would work fine for me.

 

[cmaier]

In the short-term, menus or cascading buttons or the like would have definitely been a way to make people feel more comfortable. Having used the iphone now for a couple of weeks, however, I have to say it all feels very natural (except, as I've frequently pointed out, where things are inconsistent between different applications).

It remains to be seen whether new features can be integrated into the iphone framework without resulting in too many compromises. As a UI-geek, I have high hopes. I expect they will have to add modality but will do so without menus (at least as we currently know them). Perhaps something like the rotational menus that surround objects when you click on them in the Sims, perhaps something else entirely.