vakkotaur: (computer)


I tried the Mac laptop today and didn't get very far. I did get Opera installed and started fiddling with it and found that everything that had been a single key action (or one key and a click) was now a two-key (or two-key and click) action. There was a two-key and click that still is two-key and click, but the keys are now awkward, even for a laptop. Unfortunately while that might be a Mac standard, it's non-standard for, well, everything else. And when I was lucky the two keys could be reached by one hand without contortions. I wasn't lucky very often and gave up quickly. My wrist wasn't hurting, yet, but the weird precursor feeling was starting in.

I think that's a less than subtle hint that I should look at the new Wolvix or maybe Xubuntu.

vakkotaur: (computer)


I've been using linux on one of [livejournal.com profile] jmaynard's old laptops for a while and I generally like it, but there are a few things that could be a bit easier, such as getting wireless to work fully. One way out of that would to go to a newer machine, and that's possible as Jay has a Mac laptop that he isn't using. That brings with it a different problem: Steve "do it my way only" Jobs rigid user interface design, as far as I can tell.

I was with a few folks visiting an Apple store today and I tried to change the user interface on one of the display machines. There were two settings that pretty much did nothing. One changed a few blue highlights to be gray highlights. The other did the same thing for different highlights. Nothing I could find let me change the retina-searing white-hot default application background to something more tolerable, nor could I change the color of the type. ANY type. I asked the person who had come over to help our group and evidently the question had never come up before. "I'm sure there must be a way." But if there was, it was not revealed to me.

Jay did mention some means of switching everything to be a negative, but that's not what I want. It's like the UI designer figured "Oh, they want it different, well, this IS. So there. Now go away." Alright then, maybe UI sanity has to be set on a case-by-case, application-by-application basis. I looked at Safari. If there's anything that lets me change more than typeface sizes that isn't, "Go write your own CSS page, kid." I have yet to discover it.

For a system that seems to get so much right, this seems a rather jarring omission. I don't think I'm asking for that much to have a user interface that isn't only a choice between eyestrain and eyesore. So, is there some way to get a Mac, one using OS X, to do what I want it do, or does using a Mac mean being tied down in Jobsian interface bondage?

vakkotaur: (wagon)


Most of the vehicles I've driven, especially those I've driven for any length of time, have had manual transmissions. Occasionally I'd drive something with an automatic transmission and those vehicles had the standard straight-line PRNDL or straight-line PRNDL21 controls, whether on the floor or on the steering column. I had, until very recently, never driven an automatic that had the new style zig-zag control that looks like it's pretending to be a manual shifter, almost. I ran into the equivalent of changing from a 4-speed manual to a 5-speed manual, where one can mistakenly think that fourth gear is the last gear.

The RX-350 has an automatic transmission with a zig-zag control. I drove it back from Detroit to Fairmont. I drove it from Fairmont to Minneapolis. And I wondered why I wasn't getting as good mileage as [livejournal.com profile] jmaynard did despite that I do quick accelerations less and have a driving style that tends toward efficiency optimization.

Last night I found out what was going on. It was a rather long day for both myself and [livejournal.com profile] jmaynard but his day started a couple hours earlier than mine, so when we stopped for gas in St. Peter, MN we traded places so he could rest some and I'd drive home. This was the first time I'd driven the RX-350 without driving solo. Jay pointed out that I'd shifted the transmission not into [D]rive, but into [4]. The transmission is a 5-speed.

I'd been doing that automatically as it felt like an interlock feature to me. Having two settings in the same vertical position is something I'd never experienced before. Interlocks I had experienced before, and acted accordingly or so I thought.

The layout is something like this:

  P
  R
  N
4-D
3
2-L


As every other automatic transmission control I'd ever used had only one setting for each of the vertical positions here, I (mis)interpreted 4-D and 2-L as each being one setting rather than two.

That the panel indicator said [4] and not [D] didn't trigger anything, other than me wondering a bit on the way back from Detroit as I recalled it was 5-speed. But I didn't wonder enough. In hindsight, it seems pretty obvious. But it's one of those things that's only obvious after it's been explained and experienced.

On the drive from Detroit and the drive to Minneapolis I got mileage in the (very) low 20s. On the drive home from St. Peter, things went better, since I finally allowed the 5th gear to be used. This trip did have the advantage of being on fairly low-traffic highways at night so I didn't have to brake or accelerate very quickly to deal with other folks on the road. I also had the good luck to not need to stop for any of the traffic lights on the way home. The result was that the statistics indicators said I'd gotten about 28 mpg on the trip. And that on Minnesota's 10% ethanol gasoline. I suspect I might have broken 30 mpg with real gasoline.

vakkotaur: Centaur holding bow - cartoon (camera)


Yesterday afternoon I wound up taking a few pictures with an unfamiliar digital camera. I forget the make, which is a bit unfortunate as it's probably one I best avoid. The digital cameras with which I am somewhat familiar, which are [livejournal.com profile] jmaynard's, have a certain shutter button behavior that I've gotten used to.

To take a picture with the cameras I'm used to using one presses the shutter button partway and the camera beeps or beep-beeps to let you know that it is taking or has taken measurements such as light level and range or focus adjustment. Then the button is pressed the rest of the way and the picture is taken, complete with the playing of an audible shutter sound to let you know you've taken the picture.

The camera I used yesterday was not set up like that. I'm not sure if it was configured different or designed different, but it was different enough to cause me trouble. When the shutter was pressed, there was a soft beep-beep and the picture was taken. I kept trying to push the button the rest of the way to take the picture and wondering why the camera wasn't working. I suspect that whoever owns that camera has two or three pictures of each shot I tried to take as I simply didn't believe the camera was working.

I suspect the opposite is what happened when [livejournal.com profile] wendyzski was using the camera I had at ACRF. I guess she heard the beep-beep when the button was pushed partway and figured a picture had been taken. But that camera was only getting itself set up to take the picture then.

vakkotaur: Centaur holding bow - cartoon (radar)


We replaced the microwave oven last night. The place we bought the new one from took the old one for a few dollars so the disposal problem is solved. As the title reveals, the new one is an Amana. It'll do. It will take some getting used to, however.

The new one is white, which matches the rest of the kitchen with the exception of the dishwasher. The old one was a sort of matte black. At the store I saw Amana's glossy black and it looked far worse than the glossy white and the only choice was glossy. The display seems to be vacuum fluorescent which seems harder on the eyes, but isn't a big deal on a something I don't look at all that much really.

Now I have to be careful when opening the microwave oven door. This one is a bit lower than old one and will swing right into an empty plate. The old microwave's door would swing over an empty plate. This is something I hadn't even considered last night but discovered this noon. The numeric keys are laid out as two lines of digits instead of in a proper numeric pad. The START button is just a start button. The 'start and cook for a minute'/'add a minute' button is separate. I really hope that was done to get around a patent and is not an intentional design misfeature. I guess I'll find out in about ten years. Overall, I get the impression that whoever did the user interface design didn't know much about good user interface design. Yeah, it gets the basic job done - and stops at that.

There are some good features. The bell is, if left at the default ring (it has a few possibilities, including tunes... oy) is enough to be informative without being irritating. The clock has a daylight savings time setting so that can be switched on and off without having to fully re-set the clock. The set up with the scrolling text and such seemed to me to be a bit much.

I probably won't really notice the differences in a week or two. Right now, though, they seem to jump out at me.

vakkotaur: (kick)


I've been setting things up on icelandic and have run into an old complaint of mine: "Kewl" default skins or themes that try too hard to be coolkewl and end up being ugly or difficult to read.

There's nothing really wrong with skins and themes in and of themselves. But is it too much to ask that the default be the "boring" useful, readable look, or at least include that in the package so a person doesn't have to hunt for something good?

As [livejournal.com profile] jmaynard noted in this post I had a similar issue with Eterm (I'd have stuck with xterm had the scrollbar enabled in the configuration file actually appeared - that was the only reason I went to Eterm, to get the scrollbar). The default, at least on Ultima Linux, has a sort of side-lit brushed metal look. It's cool, er, kewl, but again the thing is not a piece of physical equipment that would look good in a brushed metal case. It's a terminal emulator program on a computer. I had to find a plain theme that makes it look like what it is. For the record, I settled on the crux theme, which is at least close to what it should be. The shot solid theme would be good without the colors. The menus aren't too bad, but the scrollbar, erf. I may end up going through the hassle of making my own "boring" theme to get what I really desire.

XMMS has a black stylized default look as if it's a piece of a component audio gear, with a blue vacuum fluorescent display. The problem with this is that it's no such thing; it's an application on a computer. I had to hunt for the HeliXMMS skin and install it to make XMMS look like what it is, an application on a computer. While HeliXMMS may seem unexciting, that's a feature. I want the music it plays, not the interface it has, to be exciting. "But it looks just like every other application!" Exactly. It should not violate the "principle of least surprise" by being jarringly different from other programs - it should get out my way and Just Work.

Fortunately most programs just use the system colors. I don't consider their designs lazy, but sensible. The user can set things as desired on system-wide basis and be done. Or rather, that's how it ought to be. If the user wants a specific program to look different, then a skin or theme can be applied. But the default should be that a program looks how a program is expected to look.

vakkotaur: Centaur holding bow - cartoon (Default)


With this post, [livejournal.com profile] rillaspins reminded me of a bit about the water dispensers at work. We used to have the typical water cooler with the 5-gallon or so jug that would need replacing every day or two. Then a while back we got these gadgets that filter the city-supplied water into something that doesn't taste as miserable as city-supplied water.

These dispensers have three buttons. One button is blue. Two buttons are orange. It was obvious to everyone that the blue button resulted in cold water being dispensed. That was no problem. What was a surprise was how many people didn't realize that both orange buttons had to be pressed to get hot water. I can understand trying one button, then the other, then both, but it came as surprise that the simple safety feature had to be explained to some. It is a safety feature, too. The hot water is steaming hot - I don't need to bother microwaving the water for hot tea.

vakkotaur: (computer)


That message is one I expect to see if I made changes to some file and tried to exit the program without having saved the file. That's fine. I like that reminder. It's useful and has saved me headaches and re-work.

What I do not like is using Word, saving the file, printing it, and then being asked if I want to save changes. Huh? I made no changes. I printed the file. Printing is not editing. Or with Excel, I open a spreadsheet, look at it, make no changes - not even moving the highlighted cell or scrollbars! - and when I close the thing I get asked if I want to save changes. There were no changes. Why ask if I want to save changes when there aren't any?

Is it any wonder I prefer to use third party software whenever possible?

vakkotaur: Centaur holding bow - cartoon (Default)


Someone had a list of questions phrased to make somewhat common things seem rather silly. But the it's just the phrasing that does it. A little thought about how things probably actually happened defuses the phrases. It spoils the joke, but sometimes a right answer is more useful than a moment of alleged humor. So from time to time I'll post something in this series. I'll start off with a common one:

Q: Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?

A: This is a case of definitions mixing. While people do park on driveways, they do have to drive on to and off of them. The driveway is what is driven on to the garage, if a person has one and keeps their car there.

A parkway, as originally meant, is a way through a park. Parking a vehicle was not part of the original definition. As an example there is Theodore Wirth Parkway in the Twin Cities. It winds through Theodore Wirth Park.




While I'm at it, I may as well take care of another one before it starts bugging me too much:

Q: Why do toasters always have a setting that burns the toast to a horrible crisp, which no decent human being would eat?

A: The existence of indecent human beings. Well, maybe not quite. How about unreasonable people?

The char setting of the range is for the same reason that toasters have a setting lighter than almost anyone would really want to use. It's a classic user interface problem, really. If you were in the business of building toasters you wouldn't know what setting every person wants and if you decide for people, you will almost always be wrong. So instead of having no settings, or even a few settings, a range is provided.

So far so good. But the question is, "Why such a large range that includes those silly choices?" A narrow range would probably not be enough for some people and they'd be complaining about how they want their toast "just a little lighter" or "just a little darker" and how the manufacturer is being unreasonable for not allowing that. So instead, the range is made excessive. This quietly demonstrates that the manufacturer isn't limiting your choices. Want dark toast? Well, you can set it all the way to "carbonized bread" if you really want to.

Profile

vakkotaur: Centaur holding bow - cartoon (Default)
Vakkotaur

March 2024

S M T W T F S
     12
3 456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 18 July 2025 09:45
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios