The Android Gets Its HyperCard 256
theodp writes "Steve Jobs & Co. put the kibosh on easier cellphone development, but Google is giving it a shot. The NY Times reports that Google is bringing Android software development to the masses, offering a software tool starting Monday that's intended to make it easy for people to write applications for its Android phones. The free software, called Google App Inventor for Android, has been under development for a year. User testing has been done mainly in schools with groups that included sixth graders, high school girls, nursing students and university undergraduates who are not CS majors. The thinking behind the initiative, Google said, is that as cellphones increasingly become the computers that people rely on most, users should be able to make applications themselves. It's something Apple should be taking very seriously, advises TechCrunch."
Just in time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't wait for all the CrAppTastic crApps!
Re: (Score:2)
Power to the people!
Isn't that what the executioner says in Florida, where they still use the electric chair?
I might have to sway back and get an iphone.. (Score:2, Interesting)
If this means the android market is gonna be filled up with apps made by toddlers and high-school girls.
Seriously though, props to google for making android development even more accesible, i just hope this doesnt result in milions upon milions of fart-apps and such, their largely unmoderated app-store is one of the reasons i want an android phone instead of an iphone, but this might become a tad painfull is left unchecked
Re:I might have to sway back and get an iphone.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is not that Android Market will be flooded by low-quality apps. The problem is that Android Market has pretty rudimentary app search and filtering capabilities to reduce signal to noise ratio. Sorry for the irony, but Google must build a decent search engine for Android apps.
Re:I might have to sway back and get an iphone.. (Score:5, Insightful)
i'll just reply to you, since many others have already replied to me saying search etc..
I dont care if people want fart apps, or even milions of them, but if, when browsing an app-store, i end up wading through thousands of pieces of junk to find one or two actually good apps, that is annoying. I find this already happens a lot on the apple app-store, the mechanisms for searching etc. simply arent 'fast' enough for my taste, i spend too much time scrolling or whatever.
truth be told, i am very curious about android and the android market, i have no doubt that as soon as my contract is up for renewal i'll get a nice android phone
Re:I might have to sway back and get an iphone.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok. You want an easy way to find good quality apps.
Apple does that by restricting production. It might work.
Google should do that by smart ranking, even if they are not doing it well now, more apps doesn't mean it's going to be worse. In fact, Google is good at finding the good stuff in a sea of crap. A larger volume of data might be of help.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple tries to ensure a little bit of quality mainly by charging developers to put their app in the app store. The review process screens out some, but mostly for other purposes. $100 a year discourages an immense amount of crap - just like spam would be reduced if there was some significant cost to send an e-mail.
The Android market requires a one-time $25 registration fee, so the difference isn't really that big.
Average people have never wanted to write their own programs for any other "computer they depend on." Why would a phone be different?
Disagree. Microsoft Access, Word, and Excel all offer programmability for the average people. And there sure are people using that programmability, and even depending on the resulting software. (Yeah, they all are bad for large programs, but this is not about large programs.) As long as the sandbox is solid enough, I don't see a reason to discourage people from writing their own programs for their phone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's much easier to find apps using one of the app review websites than it is to use either Google's market or Apple's app store. Android makes this nice and simple with Google Goggles integration, so you find the app you want, snap a shot of its barcode with the phone camera and it will do the donkey work of finding the app. Alternatively you can use something like App Brain, where (I believe this is how it works, not used it myself) you have a login and you select the apps on your pc and your phone will j
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if, when browsing an app-store, i end up wading through thousands of pieces of junk to find one or two actually good apps, that is annoying.
This is already the case on Android (no idea about AppStore, but I've heard that it's not really very different despite the "walled garden"). When browsing practically any store category, about 50% is porn, 30% are themes, wallpapers and ringtones, 15% are crappy apps doing something that has been done thousand times before (and doing it badly), and 5% is something that might actually be useful - and I'm probably being overly optimistic here.
As it is, the only practical way to find a useful app in the store
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like Google doesn't know how to do search and ranking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I might have to sway back and get an iphone.. (Score:4, Funny)
What's more is that this application will bring programming "back" the the masses.
I'm a (former) high school teacher myself, and I'm getting near jitters thinking about how fired up my kids would get if they could program their own mobile phone app with the same ease of making a Powerpoint Presentation (younger students *LOVE* making powerpoint, quite often "reward time" would be "if you're all good, I'll let you make a powerpoint about whatever you want")
Think about how amazing it would be to teach a whole year class about creating an App for your phone. "Think of a problem that needs solving" - what buttons do you need? what do the buttons have to do? now draw the screens on paper, now draw the buttons in the interface... now here's how we add "actions" to the buttons.
Want to do something that's more complex? Maybe we need to look "behind the design, at the code"
How many people here grew up on the Apple ][ or on BASIC programs for the C64?
This is fucking revolutionary! What a great time to be alive!
I'm so excited I think I just peed a little :)
Re: (Score:2)
If this means the android market is gonna be filled up with apps made by toddlers and high-school girls.
The market is already filled up with piece of crap apps [androidzoom.com]. It's just that you never see them until they become popular on the marketplace. If the majority is only using the top 1% of applications on both Android Market and Apple App Store, does it matter that at the very bottom there are spam apps made by high-school girls or not?
i just hope this doesnt result in milions upon milions of fart-apps and such, their largely unmoderated app-store is one of the reasons i want an android phone instead of an iphone, but this might become a tad painfull is left unchecked
If some people want the fart apps, let them have their fart apps. Just don't spend money on fart apps and you'll be okay. Android Market has reviews and popularity ... how in the
Re: (Score:2)
piece of crap apps [androidzoom.com]
Holy crap, that app made me smile and cry at the same time...
Android Market has reviews and popularity ... how in the hell is that "unmoderated"?
From what i understand, apple does remove some total crapware once in a while from the app-store, including all those "bikini girl pictures FREE" apps which just clog up the pipes for no added value what so ever, i thought the android marketplace is completely open to any and all apps. As much as i hate apple for their approval policies, some level of QA is probably a plus (and apple is taking it way to far)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As much as i hate apple for their approval policies, some level of QA is probably a plus (and apple is taking it way to far)
The approval process is not so much about QA as it is about making sure your app doesn't compete with Apple's. Yes, they do check to make sure you're not using any undocumented APIs and that the app doesn't blatantly crash, but there is some real trash out there. They'll gladly let anything through, no matter how useless, including those that make a mockery of their own HIG.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But what if I want "bikini girl pictures FREE" apps anyway? As long as they're not spyware or malicious, I don't see why *any* app should be kept out. Find ways for the cream to rise to the top, but don't necessarily keep anything out.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a story the other day stating that Google intend to allow you to sign in to a desktop (presumably web) based version of the marketplace to remotely install apps on - kind of like you can use iTunes to install apps on your iPhone I guess.
I wouldn't be suprised if Google revamps the marketplace on the phone somewhat at the same time to be honest. It does seem to work quite well as high rated stuff tends to remain at the top and lower rated sinks to the bottom, but I agree, in the long run there will
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Moderate yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
It is like Slashdot. If you want to look at everything at -1 you can. Naturally you will see a bunch of crap.
For android applications you can always sort things by how popular they are and find the creme of the crop.
Who knows, you may be surprised by what application may be developed by a high school girl. To ignore the potential creativity of a vast swath of society is foolish. Maybe the killer app is one that targets high school girls.
Re:Moderate yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
Who knows, you may be surprised by what application may be developed by a high school girl.
My guess is: The same as operas written by computer geeks.
No, I don't mean the browser.
The basis of society as we know it is division of labour. Let people do what they are good at, and give the parts they aren't to someone else. We don't need 5 million nonsensical crap applications on the marketplace. What we need is a way to request applications. If 1000 people want a fart app and are willing to pay $0.99 for it, I'm sure someone will write one.
Right now, there's no way for the consumer to tell the market what you are looking for. Back when we came up with all this Internet thing, wasn't the fact that it makes bi-directional communication possible one of its best features? Instead of having only the big corporations being able to talk to the costumers via advertisement and press releases, the customer could talk back and the companies would listen?
Whatever happened to that? Wouldn't the app market with its thousands of small developers a fantastic place for this old dream? Tell them what you need, or what the available apps are lacking, and the chances that someone will set out to satisfy that need are better than ever before.
That would be a true innovation that drives the app store or marketplace or whatever you want to call it forward. Apple is too much into the uni-directional conversation for that to happen, Google could make it happen. Don't tell me that with all the very smart people they employ, nobody has dug up this idea from the 90s.
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that a developer is more likely to "get" your App needs from a bodged prototype created on this platform, than the usual arm-waving and vague specifications.
Furthermore, while it's wonderful to imagine the millions of hobby programmers jumping at the chance to develop my concept for a program that automatically locates waffle houses by GPS and texts my friends if I enter them, I think it's a fantasy. The mismatch between my enthusiasm for the project and the sheer tedium that would lie in codi
Re: (Score:2)
The mismatch between my enthusiasm for the project and the sheer tedium that would lie in coding it could only be realigned with hard cash I don't have.
No, but it may be worth $0.99 to you. And to a hundred other people. Or a thousand. If there are enough people that want it done, it will get done. Someone's gonna say "that's an easy $999, let's go coding".
Re: (Score:2)
It's called the market - the way the customers "talk back" to the producers is by choosing which products to buy (or not to buy); the feedback is pretty quick and much better than any other process that I can thing
Re: (Score:2)
It is a one-bit feedback channel. How many companies out there are wondering why their product fails (and sometimes, they have no idea why their other product is a success) ?
More importantly, how many people are paid for what is essentially guessing what the customer wants?
You can not be serious when you say that a one-bit channel is the best you can think of.
Re:Moderate yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, I think that App Inventor is pretty awesome.
Re:Moderate yourself (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Moderate yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
The Hypercard analogy is a good one.
I remember when writing HTML 1.0 was considered programming. Applying your logic retroactively, only professional programmers could be expected to create web pages worth looking at.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense.
People who are good at programming have already crossed the barrier, they don't need them lowered.
This is specifically for people who are not good at programming, and have no desire to spend the effort to learn it (i.e. "cross the barrier").
Taking domain knowledge and turning it into something useful has been a big hype of AI research for 30 years or so. Turns out that it's a lot harder than most people think, because domain knowledge is worthless if you can not express it in a form that makes it c
Lingo anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
This reminds me of the early 1990s trend of "programming for everyone", particularly Macromedia's Lingo in Director. Languages and environments that start this way quickly realize that the end products would be ever so slightly more appealing if they were more flexible. And flexibility is the end of simplicity. The 1.0 of this language is going to be fine for a few intrepid schoolgirls, but soon they're going to have to add basic programming concepts and structures which will leave most people scratching their heads. Haven't we already seen this dramatic arc with Director and Flash?
Re: (Score:2)
HS: "Lingo, dead!"
L: "Lingo *is* dead."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about Flash though is there are some people who have stuck with it and made some really cool tools/products/games with it (everything from C64 [codeazur.com.br] emulators to word processors [adobe.com] not to mention tons of games - some of which are quite complex) using a serious dev toolkit like Flash Builder.
Hopefully this kind of tool inspires someone to dig deeper and pick something up something a bit deeper like the Android SDK
Google (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
errr... because?
Do you really think that one, even just one application of quality or merit will be created with this? There will be a billion "look ma, I click this button and something happens" apps. Aside from that?
We've been there. Visual programming had its place, back when it was done by nerds. There were games, serious applications, the whole nine yards. Turns it it's all shit. Beyond trivialities, you can't model anything worth writing a program for with boxes. Even Minesweeper is too complicated fo
Re:Google (Score:5, Interesting)
>There will be a billion "look ma, I click this button and something happens" apps. Aside from that?
That's what they said about html because of its simplicity, but it turns out that most people's needs aren't met by commecial software and need something that's just not worth paying someone to develop.
There's always going to be a need for simple apps. I don't see this than being any different than VBA for apps or building front-ends in Access. Non-coders can learn these things, build prototypes or even little production apps, and be better off for it. I think it would be foolish to let Apple or WinMo take the lead in simple app development because it has the potential to be a big deal. I'm pleased to see that not only is Google not emulating Apple's lock down/walled garden approach, they are also promoting simplified development to end users!
Re: (Score:2)
HTML is not a general-purpose programming language. It is a markup language. Not a big surprise that you have visual tools for markup, is it?
Access is actually a great example. All of the "production" apps I have seen that were made with Access are horribly shoddy buckets of crap that if you'd written them for a client you'd be sued into bancruptcy for. When it's made in-house, for some reason it becomes acceptable, maybe because some twit in management did it himself...
they are also promoting simplified development to end users!
Some things should not be "simplified
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Then that's 1 billion proudly loyal Android users busily evangelising Android to their mothers.
Does that make the point clear enough for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you'd be surprised what get's done in the building controls world with blocks and lines.
Yes, but that is a dedicated setting. You're not doing general-purpose coding, are you? I'm not an expert, but AFAIK that is more comparable to editing a configuration file or a database than with programming.
Why is this an Apple story? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we just have a "Google" section already? This might as well be filed under Microsoft, with references being made to "Developers, Developers, Developers!"
But (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even sin. According to the Bible, anyway.
Who said the forbidden fruit was an apple? (Score:2)
Everything begins with an apple.
Even sin. According to the Bible, anyway.
Citation needed. All I see in the text itself is "do not eat of the tree". The common identification as an apple arises from a Latin pun [wikipedia.org] between malus meaning apple and malum meaning evil.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a hardware section and a mobile section already, why not removing the only trademark from the list, and add software and Network (Internet) sections.
For those of you complaining about "Linux" may change it for POSIX and everyone's happy.
Just like Scratch (Score:5, Interesting)
I took a look at the demostration videos and whatnot, and the user interface seems to be a cross between XCode's interface builder and MIT's Scratch. The code is written by dragging "puzzle pieces" into place, just like in Scratch. However, I assume this uses Java rather than Squeak? Scratch is kind of a lot different than HyperCard, but, you know... whatever. If only my BlackBerry Storm hadn't turned me off smartphones forever, I might actually be inclined to give this a shot.
Re: (Score:2)
So you let one crappy phone turn you off of all phones? Whatever you do...don't go watch The Last Airbender. It will make you irrationally think all movies are bad!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have enough of a reasonable need for smartphones anyway, even if they are good. I already saw Airbender, and honestly it was perhaps the least shitty movie Shamalamadingdong has made so far, even though it was a rather poor adaptation of the cartoon.
Re:Just like Scratch (Score:5, Informative)
According to the documentation, [googlelabs.com] App Inventor is based on Open Blocks, which is in turn modeled after Scratch, and uses Kawa [gnu.org] (a Scheme implementation) to produce Java.
As for the Blackberry Storm ... it's best not to speak of these things.
scripting (Score:5, Interesting)
just give us proper scripting with proper exposure of the internals to the scripting language
like hp calculators have RPL.
i see stuff on the android market that would take 3 lines of scripting to accomplish... yet they are presented as "apps".
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you could get JRuby to run on Android, but did you mean something like AppleScript only for Android specifically?
Re: (Score:2)
There's a cool logo interpreter [google.com] for your pretty flower needs :).
Re:scripting (Score:5, Informative)
Here [google.com] you go.
Re: (Score:2)
cool, thanks
Cross Platform (Score:5, Interesting)
A simple App maker like hypercard was? It is supported on Windows, OS X, and Ubuntu. It also works with both Java 1.5 and 1.6. Way to go Google! You may have finally hit upon a great way to outcompete Apple in the mobile space. I just hope you're working on improving the Android Market in a big hurry.
What's amazing... (Score:5, Informative)
... is the fact, that the guy behind this project is Harold Abelson, author of Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs! He described LISP "picture language" in the book as a useful learning concept. He also "...directed the first implementation of LOGO for the Apple II" which seems interesting in this case.
Apple does have Dashcode... (Score:4, Informative)
I think Apple's thinking is that for simpler development, you can use HTML5. They actually have an already existing tool separate from XCode, that lets you pretty easily design a nice UI in HTML5 - it's called Dashcode.
It does require you install the developer tools (which are free).
That said I applaud Google for this effort, perhaps it could become a new standard for introductory programming classes in gradeschool/highschool.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think Apple's thinking is that for simpler development, you can use HTML5.
Why would they think that? I cannot imagine that Apple would want to turn away the $99 SDK fee, the sale of a Macintosh computer and any additional revenues generated by the sale and/or use of a simple application for any reason. But, just as importantly, I cannot imagine a single advantage to them foregoing having that application exclusive to the App Store and available to any device with an HTML5-compliant browser. Simplified development does not imply useless output applications, so why would they w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Apple's thinking is that for simpler development, you can use HTML5.
Why would they think that? I cannot imagine that Apple would want to turn away the $99 SDK fee, the sale of a Macintosh computer and any additional revenues generated by the sale and/or use of a simple application for any reason.
Developer licensing and sales of Macs to developers that don't have them don't even show up in Apple's bottom line in any meaningful way. Sales of iPhones, however, are a huge part of their profit. Apple is about making money, but they're not idiots that want to nickel and dime people in ways that will lose them larger amounts of money in the long run.
But, just as importantly, I cannot imagine a single advantage to them foregoing having that application exclusive to the App Store and available to any device with an HTML5-compliant browser. Simplified development does not imply useless output applications, so why would they want to push any useful but simple tool to being available on any other device?
Apple makes a lot of money selling Macs as well as phones. By promoting HTML5 (which you can compile into an app in the iPhone store, by the way) they push We
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's two reasons. One, your $99 isn't worth having to deal with even more really bad apps by anybody. They want a bit higher bar to submit apps just to make sure it is worth their while to do so. Two, for the same reason they tried to convince everybody there was no need for an SD
updated browser is whats needed (Score:3, Interesting)
(1) Use all the new GUI features on smartphones like location info, touch screens, etc.
(2) Make better use of small screen real estate. The default should drop window borders and menu borders, etc.
Its a step backwards from the generality of a browser to have to write a custom App for everything.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
By the way, historic[ally], it was Steve Jobs who killed the original HyperCard.
That happened in February 1998, if my memory doesn't mislead me, with a release-grade HC 3.0 just round the corner.
And sorry, I regard a browser as a piece of software that may serve many purposes, but certainly not all, not even close.
Sympathy for RevMobile.. (Score:2)
Well, that's kinda sad.
Apple banned them from making a revMobile that could create apps for iPhone. Now Google are displacing them.
So much for anyone who pre-ordered revMobile.
This is NOT ABOUT APPS ON IN THE MARKETPLACE. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey - Slashdot... (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought this was a fabulous submission - news for nerds, with links to balancing links to opposing points of view and a counterpoint example of a competitor's approach.
That said - isn't it time that Android got its own sub-section?
This isn't Apple news, it's Android news, and it seems to me that just putting this in the Apple area has done little to help signal to noise.
Android isn't going anywhere and it's market share is on a steady incline.
Sure, it's only a mobile OS - but it also represents a significant penetration of a desktop based on a Linux-based operating system for mobile users.
How is that not a good rationale for a new category for news for nerds, stuff that matters?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For some extra irony: at the moment I'm typing this, the latest story on the front page is about the iPhone, and it's in the Mobile section, not the Apple section!
So apparently a story about Android is about Apple, but a story about iPhone isn't. *sigh*
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:lawl (Score:4, Insightful)
>and that is because as soon as Apple does something different the competitors tend to copycat.
I thought this was a story about Google doing something differently than apple.
Re:lawl (Score:4, Insightful)
Didn't you read the headline? Google is just copying Hypercard. Forget copying the iPhone, they're copying the 25-year-old Macintosh! Hey Google, at least copy stuff from this millennium! /snark
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This IDE looks similar to Ares (Palm's webOS IDE, which has been out for several months now).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
and that is because as soon as Xerox does something different Apple tends to copycat.
FTFY
PS) Thank the Lords of Kobol that Palm, HTC, Motorola, etc have been choosing to not copycat Apple!
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Thank goodness we're all using one-button mice! All joking aside, I know what you're saying...but Apple still needs to be paying attention.
Re:lawl (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at Apple's release model, particularly for iDevice stuff, it is the very opposite of "early and often". They are totally willing to take flack(cut and paste, MMS, multitasking, etc.) for as long as necessary in the service of delivering what they consider to be the "right" solution. Obviously, they do do iterated development as well(just ask anybody who had to endure OSX before about 10.3...); but Apple, in the present day, has a strong bias against "good enough and a lot faster/cheaper" type stuff.
Releasing an environment explicitly designed to lower the barrier to entry for application creation would have an effect precisely contrary to Apple's design aesthetic and integration philosophy. Consider the analogy of MS Access in the context of Win32 desktop software. On the one hand, the existence of that application is probably responsible for the existence of more utterly rubbish "applications" than just about anything else on earth. On the other hand, it has allowed millions of people who are basically nonprogrammers to hack together "good enough" applications to solve the weird little application-specific problems that are important to them or their business, and which are too small to pay for a real developer.
Google's "App Inventor" will very likely have similar results: large numbers of people who would otherwise be unable to create any software will create bad software that is "good enough" because, while bad, it is precisely tailored to problems that they care about. Apple could, in all likelihood, create such a system if they were so inclined; but there are two reasons to suspect that they won't(again, unless they find themselves under really heavy competitive pressure, which they haven't yet. Android has grown phenomenally; but mostly by sniping geeks, eating the WinMo and legacy-Palm markets, and pretty much crushing the "high end dumbphone", not by cutting the iPhone user base): One, Apple currently has the substantial majority of 3rd party developers, and many of the ones considered to be doing the best work. Two, "good enough" makes Steve cry, and the programs that will come out of any bar-lowering super-simple application development environment will just ooze "good enough" from every pore...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't seriously think Apple held back 3G, a half-decent camera, etc., simply because they wanted to do it "right"? Apple will hold back on basic features because then they can get their users to buy the same product again in 12 months. There's nothing more to it.
Re:lawl (Score:4, Insightful)
Because hardware cannot be patched, any feature delay(whether a legitimate delay caused by having a fairly small engineering team, or an instance of cynical milking) tends to look and feel like milking, and have similar economic consequences.
With software, it is harder to argue that there is a cynical economic strategy at work; because (with iPhones) software upgrades are not paid for, so the delay has no profit, only a PR cost. They might make a few bucks off the iPod Touch users; but I'd be shocked if the money made by nickel and diming them is worth a delay that might reduce the number of comparatively high-roller iPhone users they have raked in and locked into contract at a given time. The only aspect of their software strategy that is arguably "milking" is tying relatively trivial features of their OS bundled applications to OSX upgrades, in order to encourage people who don't care about APIs, or wouldn't know one if it bit them in the ass, to update anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Since Apple is notorious for forcing old hardware into obsolescence (not so much their phones as their computers: it's not like HTC isn't worse), I'm not going to give them the benefit of doubt, which is something you seem to be going out of your way to do. No, the piss poor camera in the first generations were not due to a "small engineering team"; a camera is a commodity. 3G, likewise. It's only now that the competition has caught up with it in usability that the iPhone is starting to compete in hardware
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I'm serious, and no, the G4 iMac wasn't released in '96 -- in fact, the first iMac (G3) was introduced in 1998, whose latest supported OS was Panther (2003). Oh, and the latest supported OS for the original G4 iMac was 10.4.11. Don't bother much with facts, do you?
Re:lawl (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
you think many everyday people creating a pet the kitty app are gonna sign up as a developer and submit their app to the app store? i doubt that. it would actually be good to have a separate app store for this so people know they are limited apps, but it gets people interested in the process and friends and family can download the app.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I will debate the "not cutting in to Apple's iPhone user base" statement.
I know of three different "non-geeks" who had second and third generation iPhones who have switched to Android handsets. Two have switched to the Sprint EVO, one to a Verizon Droid handset (I don't remember which) in the last 30 days.
In all three cases, the reasons were simple. Their contracts with AT&T were up, and they were irritated at AT&T's issues so they went looking. In all three cases, they found features present in
Re:lawl (Score:5, Interesting)
A higher barrier for entry certainly has not prevented the deluge of "iFart" apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Thank goodness we're all using one-button mice!
Actually, as a usability expert, I really wish we were using one button mice. Well, not really. I wish Windows was designed to work with a single button mouse and that was the default type of mouse shipped with consumer systems. I'm also happy with variable-button mice which can become multi-button mice depending upon the software or user settings; but which default to a single button setup.
The truth is, a one button mouse setup leads to a great many usability improvements. Clicking the wrong mouse button i
Re:lawl (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, as a usability expert, I really wish we were using one button mice. Well, not really. I wish Windows was designed to work with a single button mouse and that was the default type of mouse shipped with consumer systems. I'm also happy with variable-button mice which can become multi-button mice depending upon the software or user settings; but which default to a single button setup.
So, as a "usability expert", you advocate dumbing things down to a preschooler level...instead of advocating people learning how to distinguish between button #1 and button #2? Hell, even first graders can do that...ever see the "what's different" challenges in Highlights [highlights.com]? Seriously...if someone is struggling with two buttons, they shouldn't be using a computer.
You can call that being a dick, you can call that not listening to user's problems, you can call it whatever you like....but people can differentiate between a gas and a brake pedal. They should do the same between a left and a right mouse button.
The truth is, a one button mouse setup leads to a great many usability improvements.
Source? If anything, it would make things WORSE. You would have to use the keyboard to modify how that one mouse button functions. So now, instead of just clicking the button next to one the user is already using, you want them to have to find a specific key on a keyboard to act as a modifier? They already have trouble using two buttons on the same object...what makes you think they could choose one out of 104 buttons on a separate object?
Look. I can understand what you're getting at...I just think you are way off base. Your point about tablets have some credence to them, but their problem isn't that the interfaces weren't originally designed for a single mouse-button....the problem is that tablets have no buttons. That takes time to perfect and for people to get used to. Nothing more.
Re:lawl (Score:4, Informative)
So, as a "usability expert", you advocate dumbing things down to a preschooler level...instead of advocating people learning how to distinguish between button #1 and button #2?
Maybe you don't understand what usability is. It's making tasks as easy and efficient as possible. For the most part, two button mice are wasted because the interfaces are designed by someone who does not know what the user's tasks are. For example, on a machine that ships with a single button mouse, nothing stops you from installing a three button mouse. I'm using one right now. But instead of a developer who does not know my workflow choosing what two of those buttons do, and me getting to program one of them in a customized way, I get two to customize and one is preprogrammed. That also means no functionality is "hidden" in a context menu. All of it is accessible from the regular menus, which means if a person with a mouth controlled joystick needs to use the software, they can actually get to everything.
Simple DEFAULTS don't dumb down an interface. They make it usable.
Seriously...if someone is struggling with two buttons, they shouldn't be using a computer.
In my experience that would be about 30% of users in a given day, including a network security expert that is running the show for one of the largest telecomm companies in the world and has an IQ, PhD's, and enough experience to make your resume look like crap. You want to bet you never look in the wrong menu using the wrong mouse button when trying to perform tasks? I bet you do. Almost everyone does. It's just part of how people use computers these days and something we don't pay attention to.
You can call that being a dick, you can call that not listening to user's problems...
I call that idiocy and ignoring problems and blaming users for shitty usability. That would make you the average programmer then... maybe even one at MS :)
The truth is, a one button mouse setup leads to a great many usability improvements.
Source?
Umm, every book on computing usability ever published; or very nearly. Are you joking? Have you bothered to do any research on the topic, ever?
You would have to use the keyboard to modify how that one mouse button functions.
That's one option. It's called "chording". Another, more common, option is to make everything accessible without needing a second button. A third option, for more advanced users, is to add a device with multiple buttons, or enable those buttons when present in devices with a flexible number of buttons (ala magic mouse or whatever they call it).
So now, instead of just clicking the button next to one the user is already using, you want them to have to find a specific key on a keyboard to act as a modifier?
For some advanced options and shortcuts to actions, sure. For regular users, they should never need to use options only available there. It should strictly be for shortcuts, advanced options, and user programmable functions.
They already have trouble using two buttons on the same object...what makes you think they could choose one out of 104 buttons on a separate object?
The point is, if you only have one button by default, they never have to because no programmer in their right mind puts functionality ONLY in that place, as programmers routinely do for right click menus.
Look. I can understand what you're getting at...I just think you are way off base.
But you clearly haven't bothered to do any research on the topic. You just have an opinion formed out of your own emotional baggage and with no scientific basis or evidence.
Your point about tablets have some credence to them, but their problem isn't that the interfaces weren't originally designed fo
One button mice are not so useful (Score:3, Insightful)
One button mice are not so useful, but as you say, they can be replaced with n-button mice. One button trackpads, however, are the devil. They obviously can't be replaced, and many of us don't want to replace a trackpad with a mouse. I was in this situation with my first Powerbook, and I had to search out and install a semi-crappy third-party replacement trackpad driver to obtain right-clic
Re:One button mice are not so useful (Score:4, Insightful)
A zero button mouse would be great "if applications were designed for it". No mouse at all would be even better "if applications were designed for it". Then we would just have a keyboard, and we all know that a computer designed for use with no mouse and a keyboard is a massive step forward, right?
Just because something is simpler it doesn't mean it is more usable. And even if it COULD be more usable, it's reliant on a near mythical level of software interface design.
I grew up with two button mice. When the third button was added I thought it was the most useful development in the world- as did my far less computer savvy parents; it gave programs a whole extra layer of context commands to play with- and context specific controls are excellent. When that third button evolved into a wheel- bliss.
I now own, by user choice, a mouse with 8 buttons (L click, R click, wheel, back, forward, and buttons tied to a program selector and to mouse sensitivity controls). It's a little excessive for most users (I doubt most users have need for more than the first 5 in that list), but it illustrates a point of how complexity is not necessarily alien to usability.
Single Button Apologists, 21st Century Styling! (Score:3, Insightful)
You want to bet you never look in the wrong menu using the wrong mouse button when trying to perform tasks? I bet you do. Almost everyone does. It's just part of how people use computers these days and something we don't pay attention to.
Yes, a thousand times yes.
You know, sometimes I am looking for some spare keys. I often look in the wrong drawer first, before the right one.
This does not imply that a single drawer to hold everything is a more efficient solution.
Your argument for a single button overloaded
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple only got where it's at by copycating. Pretty much everything else it's done has been available before. Is there anything Apple's done that hasn't fallen into this pattern:
1) Copycat something someone has done before
2) Clean up the UI/polish of the device to make it more user friendly
3) Go on a marketing blitz to try and make it popular and trendy.
4) Profit
And then I've seen in several products (but not all)..
5) Stagnate while competitors catch up with and improve upon/beyond Apple's original concepts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if high schoolers are anything like they were when I was one, boys are more likely to take to programming while girls are more likely to spend time using the phone. If the boys who already program want to get into cell phone development, its not going to be that much of a stretch, even without this tool. If they want to encourage girls who aren't already interested in programming but want to make their phone more "personal", then this is probably a good way to start. I doubt its some sort of sexist
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it strikes me as a "DO WANT" for Steve Jobs. He's targeting the trendy and faddish types for uptake and then slides the products into the more common-tier placement. Nerds are hot his primary target (just a happy and useful coincidence in OS X).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We've tried that (Score:5, Interesting)
Keep in mind that among the flood of horrid homepages with purple backgrounds, jumping frogs, blinking stars and background MIDI tunes, there also emerged hundreds of thousands of highly valuable niche Web resources created by highly motivated nonprofessionals ... and Google figured out a (community-powered) algorithm for finding the good stuff.
Re:Sexists (Score:4, Insightful)
"high school girls" Why the fluck do they do this? Why pick "girls" or "boys" don't they think we can think?
It's not a matter of whether or not women can think. Rather it's about exploiting the social trends and biases that result on gender disparity in the programming industry. Today, a girl in high school is 5-10 times less likely to become a programmer than a boy in the same high school. When trying to develop a tool that caters to people with no inherent ability or experience, then, in makes sense to target girls in your study group, maybe not exclusively, but primarily. Recognizing the current trends in society and using them is not an endorsement of them, nor an implication that one gender is inherently less suited to a task. The arrangement of our society is the primary factor pushing various gender disparities in particular professions (in both directions).