50 most influential gadgets from Time

On Fri, 13 May 2016 12:48:32 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

it wasn't intended to be a typing test.

it was intended to see whether a keyboard or mouse is faster, and it
clearly shows the mouse to be faster, even when the deck is stacked
against it.


Which may well bee true. But the discussion was about document
production,

no it wasn't.

it was about user interface design, and in particular, that a gui is
faster than a cli.

and you presented it as proof that use of a mouse is faster
than straight typing.

i did not. stop lying.

Your wriggle out is accepted as an admission that you wee wrong.

your continual lying is admission that you're full of ****.

He is not lying and your failure to accept the point he is making does
not mean that he is.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 13 May 2016 10:36:37 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Is this your only citable example?

it's an example where the test was heavily biased against the mouse,
yet the mouse still was faster.

apple did a ****load of research on human interface design, as did
other companies before apple did (but nowhere near as much).

Are you really suggesting this is a typical word processing task?

no.

Good, because it is not.

it wasn't intended to be.

it was intended to be a contrived scenario where the tasks were
designed to be harder for mousing and easier for keyboarding.

in other words, the keyboard *should* win such a test.

except, it didn't.

But you put it forward as a test to show the benefits of a mouse/gui
in word processing. The selected task is not at all representative of
anything that would be done in normal word processing.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 13 May 2016 10:36:38 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I will grant that if I have a document in plain mono-spaced type that
I'm going to make into a desktop published masterpiece, it is probably
faster to use the mouse for selecting and enhancing selections of text.
But for just typing, I never touch the mouse- it slows me down.

who the hell would use a mouse for typing? seriously, wtf.

Not even for bold, underline, redline, italics etc. It's quicker to
use the keyboard. Same for subscript/superscript.

nope. people *think* it's quicker to use the keyboard, but the clock
says otherwise.

Cite a test which proves me wrong.

already done.

For bold, underline, redline, italics, subscript/superscript?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 13 May 2016 10:36:41 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

nospam did indeed say "learning to type is not required". I would
still like to know how he could say that in the context of word
processing.

not everyone needs to be a pro typist to be able to use a word
processor, just as not everyone needs to be a graphic artist to be able
to use photoshop or lightroom.

Unless they want to do it well, and do it quickly. Two qualities highly
valued in the business world.

nothing stops someone from becoming proficient at typing.

See
https://static.dvidshub.net/media/th...00x450_q95.jpg

however, being proficient at typing is not required in order to use a
computer.

Please confine yourself to word processing.


if someone writes the occasional document, then there's no need for
them to crank it out at 120wpm.

But they still need to know how to type.

No they don't. They need to know how to hit a key and that's it.

Then they know how to type.

knowing how to type is more than hitting a key.

That's right. It's hitting the _correct_ key. If you are getting paid to
type, it's hitting the correct keys repeatedly and rapidly.

this isn't about being paid.

it's about user interface design and being productive.

For that you
need to keep your hands on the keyboard, not be constantly reaching over
for the mouse.

wrong.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 13 May 2016 02:45:25 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 13 May 2016 10:16:52 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:


So I asked about command line text to show that it did matter.

command lines don't need to be bolded or have any style accisoated with the command.
You do know what a command line is.

Lets see when you copy a file .
http://www.computerhope.com/copyhlp.htm

When do you use the command B function in the command line ?

I've already said that I know all that. I've also explained that I
asked about it to falsify nospam's earlier claim.


















Answer : When you want to boldley copy a file where no file has been copied befrore :-)

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 13 May 2016 10:36:39 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But you seem to be
saying that this applies to all typing on a Mac. Does it work when
you
type a command line instruction?

what does that even mean? unix shells don't use styled text. you type
in the command and it does what you tell it.

I know that but the claim that it doesn't matter which software is
being used. You have just confirmed that it does matter.

i have not confirmed any such thing. you're confused and making
assumptions, again.

So cmd-I has no effect when entering text in a command line but it has
when entering text in Word.

that's because there is no concept of italic text in a command line, so
why would you expect it to italicize it??

I don't. But you asked "what were the codes for underline and bold on
a Mac ?"

I replied "With what software?"

You replied "you just made my point. it does't matter."

So I asked about command line text to show that it did matter.

nope. it does't matter.

bold/italic/underline are standardized across all apps on the mac. apps
get that for free, with no effort on the part of the developer.

1. Are no other commands standardised?

2. You have already explained that this does not apply to all apps.

while it's possible that an app developer can intentionally override
that, it's extra work for no gain. users would find it confusing and
reject the app, making it a very stupid design decision.

and if an app doesn't have bold/italic/underline, such as a game, then
those commands don't apply.

Which means that when you wrote "bold/italic/underline are
standardized across all apps on the mac..." you didn't really mean
'all' apps.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 13 May 2016 12:24:02 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-05-13 16:52:24 +0000, PeterN said:

Stuff Snipped

BTW: Has anybody here even thought photography in the last three to
four days, especially now that we are 293 posts into this thread?

Yep. I've been trying to select a fringe of silver-gray hair against
an off-white background.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 21 May 2016 11:44:45 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article 2016051313185830337-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2016-05-13 20:06:50 +0000, Bill W said:

On Fri, 13 May 2016 12:56:43 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-05-13 19:43:24 +0000, Bill W said:

On Fri, 13 May 2016 12:24:02 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-05-13 16:52:24 +0000, PeterN said:

Stuff Snipped

BTW: Has anybody here even thought photography in the last three to
four days, especially now that we are 293 posts into this thread?

Yes. The Spyder thread reminded me that one needs to leave the sensor
connected for continuous ambient light measurement. So I reconnected
it, and then woke up and realized that since I have the only window
blocked off with Styrofoam insulation to block the 115 degree heat,
the ambient light ain't going to change all that much...

My HueyPro still works just fine, but one must have the sensor plugged
in. The only area where it fails is when I reboot or start up the
computer for any reason the X-Rite software doesn't activate the sensor
until it has been unplugged and plugged back into the USB slot. Then it
will adjust for ambient light in the room. My normal routine is to
produce a fresh profile once a month.

But it also reminded me that I never did RTFM, so I think I'll do
that, and then recalibrate.

Sometimes reading it even once can help. ;-)

Anyone want to see my Ebay auction photos? Some very nice photos of
Cadillac service manuals are going up soon. There were also some nice
photos of old cameras, but they sold. Now I'm down to only 9. That's
probably a low count on this group.

Sorry, these days I am not in the market for Cadillac service manuals,
or old cameras.

Oh, not trying to sell anything here, it's just the photos. They are
spectacular! Carefully shot, lovingly retouched, pure art. Might even
be putting up a couple of motorcycle manuals today. I think a couple
of the covers are in luscious B&W, so that should add an intriguingly
noirish element to my Ebay portfolio.

Where have do you have these images on display?
Ebay seems to be an odd place to use for a photo gallery.

And yet it kind of is. A wide range of work with a wide range of
subjects and a wide range of photographer skills. You have people who
use their iphone for everything and stock photos whenever they have one,
and others who have proper studios set up and max out the allowed photo
count for every item.

I have a friend that has been selling thousands of items on Ebay for a
very long time. He started out using a Sony Mavica - the one that used
floppies for memory. I looked at his auctions the other day for the
first time, and was shocked at the poor quality of his photos. So I
asked him what sort of camera he was using these days, and, you
guessed it, it's the very same Mavica. I told him that using his phone
would be a huge improvement, and it would be.