iChat, one man's meat ...
in [UK Mac]
|
From: zoara on 9 Dec 2009 12:15 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Q, If that concept was so good, why isn't it implemented on > > > > > more > > > > > (any > > > > > other?) IM clients? > > > > > > > > Because the guys that did iChat are *better* at interfaces than > > > > the > > > > other guys? > > > > > > > > Which I think is true. > > > > > > In this case, compared to adium, I think they are way off the > > > mark. > > > > I'd argue that iChat is a better user interface *for their target > > market* than Adium. And this is from someone who hates iChat and > > loves > > Adium. > > > > The chat bubbles - and their alignment / colouring - seem > > particularly > > suited to the "just want to chat" crowd, as they clearly distinguish > > "me" from "you". They make it a lot quicker to cast the eye upwards > > and > > see what it was they just said a couple of moments ago that they're > > now > > saying "haha lololol" to. > > > > It's interesting to note that a lot of IM apps (and text messaging > > apps) > > are catching onto the chat colouring/alignment idea (and many the > > twee > > bubbles as well). See the Palm Pre, IM+, Beejive and eBuddy > > (multi-platform mobile IM clients), a few clients on Android, and of > > course Adium and Trillian as you say. > > well, the chat colouring idea predates iChat by quite a long way. I am > sure that earlier ICQs had it, certainly we had it on IRC in the mid > 90s > and possibly first class before that. Unless I'm mistaken, they all colour the text rather than the background. Both of these (as T i m points out) reduce readability, but generally changing the background colour has less impact and allows for quicker recognition. It also means you can use less saturated colours which will make the whole effect less contrasty and jarring. And the iChat concept is from 1997... > > It always takes a while, but eventually a lot of people end up > > copying > > what Apple makes mainstream. It seems like only the crappy clients > > built > > by lumbering behemoths haven't yet caught up; Yahoo, AOL and MSN's > > clients are the only ones I can find that don't implement this sort > > of > > thing. > > MSN client has had colouring for a while. So have Yahoo and AOL's clients. But coloured text, not coloured speech bubbles. Certainly not left/right alignment. As I say, this makes little difference to you or me. But to someone unfamiliar with computers, encapsulating something "said" into a speech bubble adds a friendly and recognisable face (it's just like in comics!) to what would otherwise be a relatively indistinguishable wall of text (or, if the client allows colour and font changes to be transmitted to the recipient, a potentially eye-bleeding wall of clutter). The "aligned colour-coded background" was the clever part, not the colouring itself. > > > Adium is much better as an interface than iChat by default. but it > > > also > > > has the advantage of different networks, plus the ability to > > > change > > > your > > > interface to one you prefer. > > > > The former is not a UI difference but a functional one. The latter > > is > > not a sign of a good interface (though I did spend an enjoyable few > > minutes customising Adium to be the way I want). > > It is a functional difference, yes. > The latter isn't a sign of a good interface but does permit more > flexibility in the interface to enable an interface that doesn't work > for you to be fixed. Yep, agreed. But better to have a good interface in the first place (and, as these things go, Adium's is pretty damned good anyway). > > > And it has a duck icon, that even Rowland could recognise in a > > > busy > > > dock, rather than iChat which if I remember correctly is yet > > > another > > > blue round thing > > > > Heh. And it waves its wings about when you get a message. That makes > > it > > worth every penny I paid for it... > > More importantly for me, it is a different colour depending on who is > logged in, so I can work out if I am signed in upstairs! Oh, I didn't know that. That's a nice touch. > > > > Same way that for me the Mac UI is *better* than the Windows > > > > one, > > > > because Apple are better and more creative than Microsoft. It > > > > happens; > > > > some people and groups are simply better than others. > > > > > > Next you will be saying that safari is better than firefox for the > > > same > > > reason! > > > > Oh, but it is. For Apple's target market... Again, I prefer Firefox, > > but > > that doesn't mean it isn't a (more) flawed UI... > > Actually they are both flawed UIs but for different reasons Yup, that's why I wrote "(more)". I added that in after reading it back... I don't think it's possible to create a perfect UI, for *anything*. It's all a damned compromise... -zoara- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: zoara on 9 Dec 2009 12:15 Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > I'm just pleased you're arguing the case for a nifty little feedback > device, which a previous incarnation of T i m wouldn't have even > noticed, let alone felt strongly enough to get all exercised about. > It's a welcome and admirable improvement. Seconded. T i m must be UCSM's fair lady. Now where the devil are my slippers? -zoara- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: Pd on 9 Dec 2009 14:01 zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > > > I'm just pleased you're arguing the case for a nifty little feedback > > device, which a previous incarnation of T i m wouldn't have even > > noticed, let alone felt strongly enough to get all exercised about. > > It's a welcome and admirable improvement. > > Seconded. T i m must be UCSM's fair lady. I think you're confusing Doolittle with doohickey. -- Pd
From: Pd on 9 Dec 2009 14:01 T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:06:17 +0000, peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid (Pd) > wrote: > > >T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > > > >> > You obviously liked the word, cos you've been using it to > >> >describe things you install to get more functions, as well as for the > >> >typing indicator wodjimmet. > >> > >> Nope, linear(ish) use all the way through to describe the 'the other > >> party is typing' function, be that an animated pencil, 3 dots or the > >> words 'John Doe is typing'. > > > >Nope yerself. > I noped you first (and no returns). I noped you last. And best. > > Your first use of it was 1 Dec 2009 18:05:10, in reference > >to Growl: > >> My point, I install a doohickey to try to overcome a deficiency (as I see > >> it) in a Mac version of something I'm used to (and I'm blaming Skype there > >> for this btw) > > PeeDee: 21/11/2009 21:32 "Maybe those Skype programmers are just all > about lots of little doohickies and widgadgets on the Windows side," > (but nice try). Umm, yeah and? I was only saying you liked the word enough to adopt it for all kinds of extraneous use, not suggesting that you coined it, and disputing your claim of "linear(ish)" use. It's a minor point, about as world-shattering as the location of a tiny pencil icon in a chat app, but these things demand clarification. -- Pd
From: T i m on 9 Dec 2009 14:51
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:01:38 +0000, peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid (Pd) wrote: >Umm, yeah and? What eh erm? >I was only saying you liked the word enough to adopt it for all kinds of >extraneous use, 1 use and one ish use ... the thing that shows incoming text and a thing to have to install to overcome the inadequacies or absence of said thing in first thing. > not suggesting that you coined it, Good, never used the word before in my life.. >and disputing your >claim of "linear(ish)" use. Dispute away my friend. > It's a minor point, about as >world-shattering as the location of a tiny pencil icon in a chat app, >but these things demand clarification. Not minor, relevant (to the topic). Is there really nothing better you could be doing? ;-) Cheers, T i m |