Active Topics
-
The N900 is now 15 years old! (9)
to Nokia N900 by Arno_11 - 2 hrs, 5 mins ago -
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (4)
to SailfishOS by Maemish - 5 days, 14 hrs ago - more...
 |
|
2009-11-17
, 10:47
|
|
Posts: 3,159 |
Thanked: 2,023 times |
Joined on Feb 2008
@ Finland
|
#42
|
Originally Posted by cb474
well those buttons are there for a reason, this conversation was with two buttons: call & end call. not about the fact that pro cams have functions consumer versions doesn't and those have to be controlled via own buttons if you want to have some sense usability in mind....
It's a little bit like professional video cameras (or still cameras for that matter). They have lots of dedicated buttons and switches. It's low end cameras that are completely driven by an on-screen interface. A lot of people find interacting with a screen for every function less useable.
Anyway, that's my preference.
__________________
Want to know something?
K.I.S.S. approach:
wiki category:beginners. Browse it through and you'll be much wiser!
If the link doesn't help, just use
Google Custom Search
Want to know something?
K.I.S.S. approach:
wiki category:beginners. Browse it through and you'll be much wiser!
If the link doesn't help, just use
Google Custom Search
 |
|
2009-11-17
, 10:58
|
|
Posts: 1,309 |
Thanked: 1,187 times |
Joined on Nov 2008
|
#43
|
Back on topic I would say that my first impression of the Engadget review was that it must have been exceptionally good to make they admit it was better than their iHoly at anything. I could hardly believe my eyes.
That video session, however... :roll: I can seriously not take that guy seriously ever again. Not that I know I ever did.
That video session, however... :roll: I can seriously not take that guy seriously ever again. Not that I know I ever did.
 |
|
2009-11-17
, 10:58
|
|
Posts: 4,384 |
Thanked: 5,524 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ ˙ǝɹǝɥʍou
|
#44
|
Few reasons:
Hardware buttons are faster and more reliable to operate on.
You don't have to check what context the screen/apps is in, they're always there.
The tactile feedback and feel-able shapes are easier to find and interact with. Sometimes when you're not looking or giving 100% attention to the device.
Whether you're tinkering with your gadget while driving 100mph in a schoolzone or you're a single mother forced to deal with two kids at the same time while working through your phone, I don't care about the morality and PC-ness of your usecases
Hardware buttons are faster and more reliable to operate on.
You don't have to check what context the screen/apps is in, they're always there.
The tactile feedback and feel-able shapes are easier to find and interact with. Sometimes when you're not looking or giving 100% attention to the device.
Whether you're tinkering with your gadget while driving 100mph in a schoolzone or you're a single mother forced to deal with two kids at the same time while working through your phone, I don't care about the morality and PC-ness of your usecases
__________________
Class .. : Power User
Humor .. : [#####-----] | Alignment: Pragmatist
Patience : [###-------] | Weapon(s): Galaxy Note + BB Bold Touch 9900
Agro ... : [###-------] | Relic(s) : iPhone 4S, Atrix, Milestone, N900, N800, N95, HTC G1, Treos, Zauri, BB 9000, BB 9700, etc
Class .. : Power User
Humor .. : [#####-----] | Alignment: Pragmatist
Patience : [###-------] | Weapon(s): Galaxy Note + BB Bold Touch 9900
Agro ... : [###-------] | Relic(s) : iPhone 4S, Atrix, Milestone, N900, N800, N95, HTC G1, Treos, Zauri, BB 9000, BB 9700, etc
Follow the MeeGo Coding Competition!
|
|
2009-11-17
, 11:03
|
|
Posts: 1,309 |
Thanked: 1,187 times |
Joined on Nov 2008
|
#45
|
Yeah, the point is that there ARE use cases, and lots of them.
Anyway, there are hardware buttons here, I believe some of them should and will be configurable via (third party) software.
Anyway, there are hardware buttons here, I believe some of them should and will be configurable via (third party) software.
|
|
2009-11-17
, 11:05
|
|
Posts: 203 |
Thanked: 68 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#46
|
Originally Posted by volt
1) You obviously didn't read my post immediately above your first one, because I too said that I like to be able to answer a phone by touch with the call and end buttons (although not for driving purposes). So maybe read, before you get all snarky.
The ability to NOT answer the phone but reject it is also much better with hardware keys. That is what I used to do until I got my Pioneer DEH-P9800BT.
Now I do talk on the phone and drive, using the hands free (stereo). If I have passengers, I also talk to them while driving. That is more of a distraction. Not only sound, but also movement and smell.
As far as I am the judge of every truth in the universe, there is NO more danger between talking to someone who is in the car and not in the car. There is however a difference between having a regular conversation and trying to solve a customers problems which requires concentration.
I don't see a law against bringing a client on a car ride.
Apart from the car thing, much more common scenario really, is that I ALWAYS answer the phone without looking at where I put my fingers. I have this sense called "touch" (without the letter "i") which I can use to "feel" the device and answer without thinking, in any light, and without removing my concentration from whatever I am doing, which usually involves glaring at some PC screen.
I believe that the lack of hardware accept/reject buttons make ANY phone less intuitive, and more intrusive.
2) Yeah, people like to think they can judge their own driving ability, when talking on the phone (just as drunk drivers always think they're okay to drive), but it's wrong. Studies show that pretty much nobody multitasks well. It's a cultural myth we've developed. When people multitask, they perform much worse at both tasks. In fact, people who multitask a lot, actually become more distractable in general and perform worse at multitasking when they have to, as compared to people who don't multitask a lot. And it may even be the case that this effect is not reversable, but rather permanently alters your abilities (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/25...ful/index.html).
But talking on the phone (headset or no) is in a special category by itself. Again, studies show that people are much more distracted on the phone, than when talking to people in the car. In a phone conversation, people's thoughts are absorbed in an activity that's going on elsewhere. It's called cognitive disruption. When the person you're talking to is in the car with you, they can see what's going on and if they need to stop talking, because something's happened on the road or you're distracted. But a person on the phone can't see this and keeps talking. The driver's response tends to be to attempt to keep carrying on the conversation themselves, even if they're driving into a brick wall or running down pedestrians.
Here's a study that actually found, people talking on cell phones (even with a handset) drove worse than drunk drivers. The cell phone talkers in the simulation based study crashed and the drunk drivers didn't: http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1.
It's true, as you say, there are no laws against talking with people who are actually in the car with you. That's because it's not as ridiculously dangerous as talking on the phone, which obviously does have laws against it in many places.
The bottom line is that people who think they're driving well, when talking on the phone, are fooling themselves. And it's selfish, because you're endangering the lives of people around you.
Last edited by cb474; 2009-11-17 at 11:41.
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to cb474 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-11-17
, 11:09
|
|
Posts: 203 |
Thanked: 68 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#47
|
Originally Posted by ossipena
Yeah, I was talking about the call and end buttons. You only quoted half of my post. The point about the convenience of actual buttons on professional video cameras was just to illustrate my point about how the call and end buttons are useful. It was an analogy. You took one paragraph of what I said, interpreted it completely literally, and quoted it out of context.
well those buttons are there for a reason, this conversation was with two buttons: call & end call. not about the fact that pro cams have functions consumer versions doesn't and those have to be controlled via own buttons if you want to have some sense usability in mind....
 |
|
2009-11-17
, 11:14
|
|
Posts: 319 |
Thanked: 289 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Lisboa, Portugal
|
#48
|
engadget guys are just bitter cos nokia isnt "cuddling the usa market"...
what they dont comprehend, and most north americans dont, is that there are OTHER COUNTRIES ON EARTH...
so if by "cuddling with america" means losing the 1st position as phone maker in the world... let them buy the walkie talkies from "mororola" and the rest of the world will be fine... serisously!
[edit] typo [/edit]
Last edited by HangLoose; 2009-11-17 at 11:17.
what they dont comprehend, and most north americans dont, is that there are OTHER COUNTRIES ON EARTH...
so if by "cuddling with america" means losing the 1st position as phone maker in the world... let them buy the walkie talkies from "mororola" and the rest of the world will be fine... serisously!
[edit] typo [/edit]
Last edited by HangLoose; 2009-11-17 at 11:17.
|
|
2009-11-17
, 12:10
|
|
Posts: 1,309 |
Thanked: 1,187 times |
Joined on Nov 2008
|
#49
|
Originally Posted by cb474
I did. However, I did not reply to it. I replied to the one that was directed at me, and then I talked about why I judge buttons to be better than no buttons.
1) You obviously didn't read my post immediately above your first one, because I too said that I like to be able to answer a phone by touch with the call and end buttons (although not for driving purposes). So maybe read, before you get all snarky.
I do not actually know the word snarky.
Originally Posted by cb474
You obviously do not know my woman.
2)
When the person you're talking to is in the car with you, they can see what's going on and if they need to stop talking (...)
Originally Posted by cb474
A recent study said that Information Technology people makes the worst drivers. I have no illusion of driving well.
The bottom line is that people who think they're driving well, when talking on the phone, are fooling themselves. And it's selfish, because you're endangering the lives of people around you.
Answering or rejecting a call without hardware accessories is in itself quite dangerous. People do drive off the road because they have no handsfree.
If someone call me and I need to do something about it, I feel much safer having a steering wheel remote with accept button, than having to 1) grope for my phone and find the reject button or 2) trying to ignore the sound of the phone.
So, not having the hardware accessories to minimize the danger is in my misguided opinion more dangerous than being able to tell milady i'll call her back as soon as I get to the store.
Let me assure you, I am a whole lot safer in traffic since I got the bluetooth handsfree. Before that, I had to grope in my pants to turn the bastard noise off.
I believe that if you are to frown at handsfree kits in cars, you have to frown at car radios. It is the exact same thing. If you can't phase out what your mum says when there's a moose running over the road, then you can't phase out the news either. The news are a lot more interesting, too.
|
|
2009-11-17
, 12:30
|
|
Posts: 203 |
Thanked: 68 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#50
|
Originally Posted by volt
Well, given that you were quoting my post, it was really hard to tell that you weren't responding to me.
I did. However, I did not reply to it. I replied to the one that was directed at me, and then I talked about why I judge buttons to be better than no buttons.
Originally Posted by volt
You may feel safer with hardware accessories for answering the phone will driving, but again, the studies show, some of which I cite in my post above, that you actually are not driving any better. People are very good at deluding themselves into thinking that they're driving safely when they're doing these things, that's also been examined in studies on the topic. People just don't want to admit that it's dangerous, because they want to do it and they don't want to have to care about how they're endangering others. Like I said, that's selfish.Answering or rejecting a call without hardware accessories is in itself quite dangerous. People do drive off the road because they have no handsfree.
If someone call me and I need to do something about it, I feel much safer having a steering wheel remote with accept button, than having to 1) grope for my phone and find the reject button or 2) trying to ignore the sound of the phone.
So, not having the hardware accessories to minimize the danger is in my misguided opinion more dangerous than being able to tell milady i'll call her back as soon as I get to the store.
Let me assure you, I am a whole lot safer in traffic since I got the bluetooth handsfree. Before that, I had to grope in my pants to turn the bastard noise off.
I believe that if you are to frown at handsfree kits in cars, you have to frown at car radios. It is the exact same thing. If you can't phase out what your mum says when there's a moose running over the road, then you can't phase out the news either. The news are a lot more interesting, too.
And obviously you could just let the phone ring and answer itself. That would be the easiest thing to do. So I don't see how that's relevant at all.
Lastly, yes, people always go for the "car radio" argument. It's actually not the same thing. You're engaging in a slipperly slope argument, which is a logical fallacy. Not all distractions are equal. Some are actually much more dangerous than others. And, again, study after study has shown that talking on the cell phone while driving is extremely dangerous and using a handsfree headset does not reduce the danger. Part of the problem is the talking itself, people are much less distracted when listening than when talking (again demonstrated in university studies). Add to that the fact that the person you're talking to is not in the car with you and can't tell when you need to focus on something else and you have a perfect disaster in the making. In fact, the people who usually make the "car radio" argument are the cell phone manufacturers themselves and truck drivers, people whose livelihoods are effected by cell phone laws and will say anything to try to discount them.
Now I do talk on the phone and drive, using the hands free (stereo). If I have passengers, I also talk to them while driving. That is more of a distraction. Not only sound, but also movement and smell.
As far as I am the judge of every truth in the universe, there is NO more danger between talking to someone who is in the car and not in the car. There is however a difference between having a regular conversation and trying to solve a customers problems which requires concentration.
I don't see a law against bringing a client on a car ride.
Apart from the car thing, much more common scenario really, is that I ALWAYS answer the phone without looking at where I put my fingers. I have this sense called "touch" (without the letter "i") which I can use to "feel" the device and answer without thinking, in any light, and without removing my concentration from whatever I am doing, which usually involves glaring at some PC screen.
I believe that the lack of hardware accept/reject buttons make ANY phone less intuitive, and more intrusive.