Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #51450 > unrolled thread

Quicklook no longer plays Video?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 01:09 -0400
    Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-10-31 10:20 -0700
      Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 15:02 -0400
        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-31 14:15 -0500
          Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-10-31 12:51 -0700
            Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-31 14:54 -0500
            Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-31 22:58 -0700
        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-31 12:28 -0700
          Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-31 15:04 -0500
            Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-31 22:59 -0700
          Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 00:36 -0400
            Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-01 18:56 +1300
              Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-01 00:20 -0700
            Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-31 23:00 -0700
              Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 06:00 -0400
                Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-01 07:03 -0700
                  Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 14:16 -0400
                    Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-01 12:06 -0700
                      Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 01:25 -0400
                        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-02 18:42 +1300
                          Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 02:50 -0400
                            Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-03 09:56 +1300
                              Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 20:59 -0400
                                Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-02 19:57 -0700
                                  Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 23:26 -0400
                                    Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-02 21:08 -0700
                                      Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-03 05:27 -0500
                                        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-03 08:38 -0700
                                Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-03 17:40 +1300
                                  Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-03 05:38 -0500
                                    Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-04 09:24 +1300
                                    Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-03 17:18 -0800
                                      Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-05 07:27 -0500
                                        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-05 09:14 -0800
                                          Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-05 13:46 -0500
                        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 03:15 -0400
                        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-02 16:25 -0700
                          Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-11-02 18:59 -0500
                            Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-02 19:54 -0700
                              Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-11-02 22:26 -0500
                                Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-11-02 22:29 -0500
                              Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-11-02 20:31 -0700
                                Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-02 21:09 -0700
                              Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2013-11-03 00:29 -0800
                                Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-11-03 07:04 -0600
                                  Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-03 08:37 -0700
                                    Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-11-03 09:47 -0600
                                      Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-03 08:56 -0700
                                        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-11-03 10:06 -0600
                                          Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-03 12:05 -0700
                                Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-03 08:33 -0700
                          Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-02 20:07 -0400
                            Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-02 19:55 -0700
                Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-01 07:45 -0700
                  Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 14:02 -0400
                    Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-01 12:57 -0700
                      Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 01:30 -0400
                        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-02 11:12 -0700
                          Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 15:07 -0400
                            Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-02 13:14 -0700
                            Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-11-03 08:33 +1100
                              Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-03 12:06 +1300
        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-10-31 12:49 -0700
        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-01 07:06 -0700
    Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-31 12:25 -0700
      Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-10-31 12:54 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#51710

On 11/2/13, 10:26 PM, Ted Lee wrote:

>
> Whether you'll have to wear glasses for distance depends somewhat on how
> it turns out.  The problem is that they can't control exactly how far
> away from the retina the artificial lens ends up sitting.  They get it
> close, but a few millimeters can make a big difference.  My contacts
> turned out to be focussing at maybe 10 feet -- so I can see things on
> the opposite side of a typical room just fine.  That means I don't have
> to wear glasses to watch TV -- but I do to drive.
>
> Ted

Correction:  that should be "my lenses", not "my contacts."  (I used to 
wear contact lenses until I had to switch to bi-focals.)

Ted

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51711

In article <021120131954481383%michelle@michelle.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <l543lm$6l2$1@dont-email.me>, Lloyd  E Parsons
> <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> 
> > > They told me in 2002 or 2003 that I'd need cataract surgery in five
> > > to ten years.  Between March of this year and now, my vision has
> > > gotten worse, so I'll be seeing an eye doctor on Wednesday to see
> > > whether it's bad enough to warrant surgery.  (Actually, one already
> > > told me that it is, and he offered to do it for $2400 per eye, but
> > > next week's visit is to see whether it's bad enough for the VA to
> > > do it for free.)
> > 
> > I just had both eyes done earlier this summer.  7 minutes per eye and
> > I was on the golf course the 2nd day after each surgery.  It's like
> > having new eyes!!  :)
> 
> If I understand things correctly, I'll no longer have to wear glasses
> or contacts for distance vision, but would still need reading glasses. 
> (I currently have three prescriptions:  reading glasses;
> middle-distance glasses primarily for the computer, but also for other
> middle-distance use; bifocals with both of the above that I carry with
> me when out of the house; and trifocals for when I'm not wearing
> contacts.)

My eyes got that bad to need trifocals. I went for LASIK in 2001 and 
never regretted it. I've worn Coke bottles since I was 10 and being able 
to see without glasses or have them fog when I open the oven door was a 
revelation.

I still need readers to use the computer and see what I'm writing if 
it's to small, but I can live with that.  No cataracts yet.

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51719

In article <vilain-9E2A63.20312802112013@news.individual.net>, Michael
Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:

> I went for LASIK in 2001 and never regretted it.

I've had two opthamologists tell me that I'm ineligible for LASIK, so
it's not an option for me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51739

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> writes:

> In article <l543lm$6l2$1@dont-email.me>, Lloyd  E Parsons
> <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> 
> > > They told me in 2002 or 2003 that I'd need cataract surgery in five
> > > to ten years.  Between March of this year and now, my vision has
> > > gotten worse, so I'll be seeing an eye doctor on Wednesday to see
> > > whether it's bad enough to warrant surgery.  (Actually, one already
> > > told me that it is, and he offered to do it for $2400 per eye, but
> > > next week's visit is to see whether it's bad enough for the VA to
> > > do it for free.)
> > 
> > I just had both eyes done earlier this summer.  7 minutes per eye and
> > I was on the golf course the 2nd day after each surgery.  It's like
> > having new eyes!!  :)
> 
> If I understand things correctly, I'll no longer have to wear glasses
> or contacts for distance vision, but would still need reading glasses. 
> (I currently have three prescriptions:  reading glasses;
> middle-distance glasses primarily for the computer, but also for other
> middle-distance use; bifocals with both of the above that I carry with
> me when out of the house; and trifocals for when I'm not wearing
> contacts.)

An option is monovision, which gives you near vision (e.g., for
reading) in one eye and distance vision in the other eye.  That's what
I have after cataract surgery in one eye (for near vision) and wearing
a contact in the other (distance).  It has worked out pretty well,
although there's an intermediate distance (2-3 feet) where I can't
focus so well, so I usually use glasses when using a computer (or else
I pull my head in close -- about 18 inches -- if I don't have my
glasses handy).

A good friend of mine in his 40s also chose monovision, via LASIK, and
he's happy with it too.

Now if we only had three eyes, I could have the middle one focused at
30 inches.

Good luck whichever way you go.

Martin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51751

On 2013-11-03 08:29:38 +0000, Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht 
edu said:

> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> writes:
> 
>> In article <l543lm$6l2$1@dont-email.me>, Lloyd  E Parsons
>> <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> They told me in 2002 or 2003 that I'd need cataract surgery in five
>>>> to ten years.  Between March of this year and now, my vision has
>>>> gotten worse, so I'll be seeing an eye doctor on Wednesday to see
>>>> whether it's bad enough to warrant surgery.  (Actually, one already
>>>> told me that it is, and he offered to do it for $2400 per eye, but
>>>> next week's visit is to see whether it's bad enough for the VA to
>>>> do it for free.)
>>> 
>>> I just had both eyes done earlier this summer.  7 minutes per eye and
>>> I was on the golf course the 2nd day after each surgery.  It's like
>>> having new eyes!!  :)
>> 
>> If I understand things correctly, I'll no longer have to wear glasses
>> or contacts for distance vision, but would still need reading glasses.
>> (I currently have three prescriptions:  reading glasses;
>> middle-distance glasses primarily for the computer, but also for other
>> middle-distance use; bifocals with both of the above that I carry with
>> me when out of the house; and trifocals for when I'm not wearing
>> contacts.)
> 
> An option is monovision, which gives you near vision (e.g., for
> reading) in one eye and distance vision in the other eye.  That's what
> I have after cataract surgery in one eye (for near vision) and wearing
> a contact in the other (distance).  It has worked out pretty well,
> although there's an intermediate distance (2-3 feet) where I can't
> focus so well, so I usually use glasses when using a computer (or else
> I pull my head in close -- about 18 inches -- if I don't have my
> glasses handy).
> 
> A good friend of mine in his 40s also chose monovision, via LASIK, and
> he's happy with it too.
> 
> Now if we only had three eyes, I could have the middle one focused at
> 30 inches.
> 
> Good luck whichever way you go.
> 
> Martin

They've got new lenses that are multi-focal so some can get them and 
not need reading glasses.  Unfortunately Medicare/Tricare-for-life 
won't pay for them.  So I use reading glasses.

My eye surgeon offered the monovision setup, but I had tried that with 
contacts and it didn't work out for me very well.

-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51753

In article <l55hla$64q$1@dont-email.me>, Lloyd  E Parsons
<lloydp21@live.com> wrote:

> They've got new lenses that are multi-focal so some can get them and
> not need reading glasses.  

I tried them with contacts and they didn't work well for me; my
Presbyopia is so severe that they don't make multifocal contacts that
can handle the difference between prescriptions. 

> Unfortunately Medicare/Tricare-for-life won't pay for them.  So I use
> reading glasses.

Unfortunately, the VA doesn't pay for contacts, so I wind up paying for
them out of pocket.  Fortunately, Arizona allows all medical expenses
to be deducted, unlike the federal income tax rules.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51758

On 2013-11-03 15:37:26 +0000, Michelle Steiner said:

> In article <l55hla$64q$1@dont-email.me>, Lloyd  E Parsons
> <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> 
>> They've got new lenses that are multi-focal so some can get them and
>> not need reading glasses.
> 
> I tried them with contacts and they didn't work well for me; my
> Presbyopia is so severe that they don't make multifocal contacts that
> can handle the difference between prescriptions.

Too bad, I've heard good things about them.  But then VA wouldn't do 
them even if they would work I suspect.  I think most insurance/medical 
plans, including gov't ones, will only pay for single vision lenses for 
cataract surgery.

With Medicare/Tricare, I had no out of pocket, but would have to have 
paid about $1K per eye to get the better lens I was told.

Fortunately I'm tickled pink with my 'new eyes'!!  :)

> 
>> Unfortunately Medicare/Tricare-for-life won't pay for them.  So I use
>> reading glasses.
> 
> Unfortunately, the VA doesn't pay for contacts, so I wind up paying for
> them out of pocket.  Fortunately, Arizona allows all medical expenses
> to be deducted, unlike the federal income tax rules.

Neither does Medicare/Tricare.  In fact they don't pay for optometrist 
stuff at all.  Only for certain eye issues treated by an Opthomalogist.

-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51761

In article <l55r5t$s0j$1@dont-email.me>, Lloyd  E Parsons
<lloydp21@live.com> wrote:

> > Unfortunately, the VA doesn't pay for contacts, so I wind up paying
> > for them out of pocket.  Fortunately, Arizona allows all medical
> > expenses to be deducted, unlike the federal income tax rules.
> 
> Neither does Medicare/Tricare.  In fact they don't pay for
> optometrist stuff at all.  Only for certain eye issues treated by an
> Opthomalogist.

The VA hospital here has an eye clinic; as best as I can tell, it
doesn't have any optometrists on staff, just opthamologists.  However,
they're so booked up that they contracted with a civilian eye clinic
for my (and most likely lots of other veterans') appointment next week.

What service were you in, and when did you serve.  I was army, from
1961 to 1983.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51762

On 2013-11-03 15:56:16 +0000, Michelle Steiner said:

> In article <l55r5t$s0j$1@dont-email.me>, Lloyd  E Parsons
> <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Unfortunately, the VA doesn't pay for contacts, so I wind up paying
>>> for them out of pocket.  Fortunately, Arizona allows all medical
>>> expenses to be deducted, unlike the federal income tax rules.
>> 
>> Neither does Medicare/Tricare.  In fact they don't pay for
>> optometrist stuff at all.  Only for certain eye issues treated by an
>> Opthomalogist.
> 
> The VA hospital here has an eye clinic; as best as I can tell, it
> doesn't have any optometrists on staff, just opthamologists.  However,
> they're so booked up that they contracted with a civilian eye clinic
> for my (and most likely lots of other veterans') appointment next week.
> 
> What service were you in, and when did you serve.  I was army, from
> 1961 to 1983.

I was Navy from 1961 to 1983.  Retired as E8 with no disability.

A little family history and current.

My family was very military.  My granddad was Navy for how many years, 
no one ever knew, the stories he could tell about his time were nothing 
short of amazing and riveting.

my dad retired after 22 years in 1957, my uncle retired 10 years later 
from the army, my youngest daughter just retired after 22 years from 
Navy and her husband will retire one of these days from Navy also.  My 
eldest daughter's husband retired from the Marines after 32 years.

And there were my 2 sons that went Navy but didn't make it a career, 
and other uncles, cousins and nephews that were in various services.

-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51771

In article <l55sa2$39b$1@dont-email.me>, Lloyd  E Parsons
<lloydp21@live.com> wrote:

> > What service were you in, and when did you serve.  I was army, from
> > 1961 to 1983.
> 
> I was Navy from 1961 to 1983.  Retired as E8 with no disability.

As an E7, I knew that I wouldn't be able to hack it as a First
Sergeant, so I became a warrant officer, I retired as a CWO.  In late
2001 or early 2002, I applied for disability and got 10%, which was
later upgraded to 20%.  It's for diabetes contracted as a result of
contact with Agent Orange.

My dad and uncles served in WWII (one uncle in the army, the rest in
the navy), but didn't make a career of it.  My daughter put in four
years in the army, and her husband retired as an E7 after 21 years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51752

In article <mya9hlq45p.fsf@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU>, Martin Frost me at
invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> wrote:

> An option is monovision, which gives you near vision (e.g., for
> reading) in one eye and distance vision in the other eye. 

I tried that with contacts; I couldn't adjust to it.  *sigh*  A friend
of mine tried it with LASIK, and eight years later, she needed reading
glasses anyway because her vision changed.

> Good luck whichever way you go.

Thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51678

On 2013.11.02, 19:25 , Michelle Steiner wrote:

> to see whether it's bad enough for the VA to do it for free.)

Nothing free about it.

-- 
"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another."
                                                 -Ambrose Bierce

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51701

In article <qPOdnfw13ZM7DujPnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> > to see whether it's bad enough for the VA to do it for free.)
> 
> Nothing free about it.

If I don't pay for it, it's free for me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51583

On 2013-11-01 10:00:47 +0000, FPP said:

> In article <311020132300493888%michelle@michelle.org>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
>> In article <fredp151-7B0D86.00362801112013@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Command-double-click will open the folder in a new window.
>>>> 
>>>> -- Michelle
>>> 
>>> So they didn't remove the action... just made it harder to use.
>> 
>> Microscopically harder.
> 
> Twice as hard, actually.  I've got two hands.

It's just plain cruel.

> Making me use two hands instead of one hand isn't microscopic - it's
> double the effort.  That's not microscopic, it's moronic.

Not everybody uses a computer the same way.  It didn't effect me in the least.

> Three steps vs six steps.  Easy vs harder.

It's crueler than cruel.

> "What does removing an easier way to open a folder ADD to the user
> experience?"

Because not everybody uses a computer the same way.

> "How does making a simple, intuitive action more difficult make the
> experience BETTER?"

Because everybody's better is not the same better.

> If you can tell me where it's easier, or better I'll give you the point.
> It's not just *different* - it's worse!
> 
> Was Steve jobs all about making things more complex?

Okay then.  How 'bout another six times around the block?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51590

In article <2013110107451538408-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> It's just plain cruel.
> 
> It's crueler than cruel.
> 
> Because not everybody uses a computer the same way.
> 
> Because everybody's better is not the same better.

Snark is fine... but I have yet to hear an answer to the two questions I 
posed.

> "What does removing an easier way to open a folder ADD to the user
> experience?"

> "How does making a simple, intuitive action more difficult make the
> experience BETTER?"

> If you can tell me where it's easier, or better I'll give you the point.
> It's not just *different* - it's worse!

Until you can answer those credibly - you have no real point.

FPP

-- 
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51595

On 2013-11-01 18:02:42 +0000, FPP said:

> In article <2013110107451538408-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> 
>> It's just plain cruel.
>> 
>> It's crueler than cruel.
>> 
>> Because not everybody uses a computer the same way.
>> 
>> Because everybody's better is not the same better.
> 
> Snark is fine... but I have yet to hear an answer to the two questions I
> posed.

Snark is fine I suppose but I'm pointing out a simple reality: These 
microscopic changes that have some people tearing their hair out (and 
I've done it myself), sometimes don't reflect the viewpoint of very 
many users.

>> "What does removing an easier way to open a folder ADD to the user
>> experience?"

It's not easier for me.  It's easier for you. You seem to have confused 
your subjective viewpoint with an objective universal.  As I said 
(without snark), everybody's better is not the same better. Okay, you 
can't follow that.  I'm done with it: Clearly your absorption of the 
idea means nothing to me.

>> "How does making a simple, intuitive action more difficult make the
>> experience BETTER?"
> 
>> If you can tell me where it's easier, or better I'll give you the point.
>> It's not just *different* - it's worse!
> 
> Until you can answer those credibly - you have no real point.

I have precisely the same point: YOUR experience is not a benchmark 
either for all users at large or even of a micro-segment of the market. 
 I don't know how many it is, obviously.  But EVERY change causes some 
irritation for somebody.  That's just progress, which you might 
consider devolution. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51611

In article <20131101125756345-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> Okay, you can't follow that.  I'm done with it: Clearly your absorption of the 
> idea means nothing to me.

Insult me all you like, I'm not taking the bait... 

Like I said, I have yet to hear an answer to the two questions I posed.

> "What does removing an easier way to open a folder ADD to the user
> experience?"

> "How does making a simple, intuitive action more difficult make the
> experience BETTER?"

Until you can answer those credibly - you STILL have no real point.

FPP

-- 
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51638

On 2013-11-02 05:30:18 +0000, FPP said:

> Like I said, I have yet to hear an answer to the two questions I posed.

Like I responded, "easier", "intuitive" and "difficult" clearly don't 
mean the same to everyone that they mean to you.

One more time around the block?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51643

In article <2013110211122040256-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2013-11-02 05:30:18 +0000, FPP said:
> 
> > Like I said, I have yet to hear an answer to the two questions I posed.
> 
> Like I responded, "easier", "intuitive" and "difficult" clearly don't 
> mean the same to everyone that they mean to you.

Actually, yeah, they do.

True, there are NO absolutes... (and ALL generalizations are False) but 
words do have meaning.  Barring mental illness, reasonable people will 
ovewhelmingly make similar judgements.

Graduate Elementary School - "easier" than graduate college.

Remove a blockage in an artery - more "difficult" than remove a splinter.

Dying quickly of a cerebral hemmorage in your sleep - "better" than 
dying slowly in a firey blaze.

If Sony came out with a TV remote control that required two hands to 
use, REASONABLE people will think this is a step backwards.  Your point 
is that when Apple does the same thing, it's not.  

Granted, not everybody has to put up with it to the same degree - but 
those people that LIKE the new method always had the option to do it 
that way in Mt Lion.  

In Mavericks, they don't.  Taking away a choice is a step backwards.  
It's a bigger headache for me due to the way I have to use my Mac.

Your Mileage May Vary...

-- 
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51647

On 2013-11-02 19:07:50 +0000, FPP said:

> In article <2013110211122040256-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> 
>> On 2013-11-02 05:30:18 +0000, FPP said:
>> 
>>> Like I said, I have yet to hear an answer to the two questions I posed.
>> 
>> Like I responded, "easier", "intuitive" and "difficult" clearly don't
>> mean the same to everyone that they mean to you.
> 
> Actually, yeah, they do.

Okay, that's settled once and for all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web