Unfortunately, SJ isn't always right about this. I just got a nano, and find the way the volume control works to be clearly inferior to my previous $20 radio.

On my radio, I can adjust the volume, and even change stations without taking the radio out of my pocket - with the iPod, I can't do anything without looking at it, which is bad because I use it most while bike riding. An old fashioned analog volume dial on top would be nice.

Once I got used to my iPod, I no longer need to look when changing the volume or skipping the songs. I bet you will too.

'That simplicity even extends to Apple's retail stores. The elevator in Apple's store in Tokyo has no buttons. It simply stops on every floor. "I got used to this," said customer Hiroshi Kawano. "It's simple, and I like it."'

That's brilliant. Seriously. Who else would think of tampering with the classic elevator paradigm when building a simple retail store? And yet, it makes so much sense. If you've got a limited number of floors with a constant flow of traffic, why *not* stop on every one every time?

"Apple's mice of old clung to one button."

And, now, they have NO buttons.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
'That simplicity even extends to Apple's retail stores. The elevator in Apple's store in Tokyo has no buttons. It simply stops on every floor. "I got used to this," said customer Hiroshi Kawano. "It's simple, and I like it."'

That's brilliant. Seriously. Who else would think of tampering with the classic elevator paradigm when building a simple retail store? And yet, it makes so much sense. If you've got a limited number of floors with a constant flow of traffic, why *not* stop on every one every time?

Yea, but the simpler idea of "stairs" kinda wins out.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Unfortunately, SJ isn't always right about this. I just got a nano, and find the way the volume control works to be clearly inferior to my previous $20 radio.

On my radio, I can adjust the volume, and even change stations without taking the radio out of my pocket - with the iPod, I can't do anything without looking at it, which is bad because I use it most while bike riding. An old fashioned analog volume dial on top would be nice.

When I got my first typewriter, I couldn't type as fast as I could write. I learned. When I first tried playing a hammered dulcimer, I couldn't play it as well as a piano. I learned. When I first drove a car, I couldn't handle the manual transmission. I learned. When I first started riding horses, I couldn't ride a canter or jump. I learned.

You will, too.

Quote

daemon wrote:
Yea, but the simpler idea of "stairs" kinda wins out.

Stairs take up more floor space than elevators. If you have a small store, they're a waste of space. They also impede people with disabilities.

There is a balance between too many buttons and not enough and it is device specific.

My cable TV remote has 57 buttons including one rocker. There are several sets of up/down keys that are used on different navigation screens, but could be combined. A few of the keys I never use on purpose. Many of the keys have the same shape and it is hard to tell in the dark which one you want to press, a backlight would help.

I do think that the iPod hits the sweet spot with the click wheel, center select button and the lock/unlock slider. As to the guest's remark about a volume control on top, there are remotes available.

Is this a similar article or what!?!?! Translate the page below...
http://www.melablog.it/post/4208/steve-jobs-luomo-senza-bottoni

The first was a war against shoe laces. Followed by a war on zippers. Now, he is conducting his penultimate war against buttons.

It all goes back to his early childhood, when his Mom would scream at him, "Stevey, before you go outside and draw fonts with your friends, you need to tie your shoes, zip up your fly, and button your shirt."

It was, of course, the absurd implication that he had to do this for his friends that set young Steve off. Surely his Mom knew he had no friends, and if he did, the last thing they would be interested in is his vision of thousands of distinct fonts. One is a lonely number, but a number he was used to long before he invented the Macintosh.

Quote

Bosco wrote:
The first was a war against shoe laces. Followed by a war on zippers. Now, he is conducting his penultimate war against buttons.

(Emphasis added)

Hmm, you already know that he will have one and only one more war?

Quote

Bosco wrote:
The first was a war against shoe laces. Followed by a war on zippers. Now, he is conducting his penultimate war against buttons.

It all goes back to his early childhood, when his Mom would scream at him, "Stevey, before you go outside and draw fonts with your friends, you need to tie your shoes, zip up your fly, and button your shirt."

It was, of course, the absurd implication that he had to do this for his friends that set young Steve off. Surely his Mom knew he had no friends, and if he did, the last thing they would be interested in is his vision of thousands of distinct fonts. One is a lonely number, but a number he was used to long before he invented the Macintosh.

How "FarSide" of you Bosco-relli. Quite enjoyable while I have my box of chocolates... would you like one?

Quote

gslusher wrote:

Quote

Bosco wrote:
The first was a war against shoe laces. Followed by a war on zippers. Now, he is conducting his penultimate war against buttons.

(Emphasis added)

Hmm, you already know that he will have one and only one more war?

The war on velcro or perhaps snaps?

Cell phones will be his next war and the iPhone is already out of the sheath.

"We few, we happy few, we band of Macs;
For he to-day that iphones with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in Redmond now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Jobs' day."

It will be his war on meat. With shoelaces, zippers, and buttons, Steve is just a bit eccentric. But when he finally declares war on meat (for both health and ethical reasons), we'll all think he's totally lost it.

Quote

gslusher wrote:

Quote

Bosco wrote:
The first was a war against shoe laces. Followed by a war on zippers. Now, he is conducting his penultimate war against buttons.

(Emphasis added)

Hmm, you already know that he will have one and only one more war?

Bwaahahaha! Good catch!

and jobs wears turtlenecks which have no buttons

"They are, in effect, blemishes that add complexity and detract from the clean lines of a product."

Unfortunately, clean lines aren't always worth it. It's a classic example of placing form for the sake of form over function. For example the "clean lines" of the iphone prevent you from using the "standard" headphone jack with any standard headphones unless you purchase an adapter.

"That simplicity even extends to Apple's retail stores. The elevator in Apple's store in Tokyo has no buttons. It simply stops on every floor. "I got used to this," said customer Hiroshi Kawano. "It's simple, and I like it.""

There's another perfect example of form over function. It's simple and it's dumb. I'm sure when you're the only person on an elevator going from floor 1 to 5 you would really like to stop at floors 2, 3 and 4. If there is anything we all love, it's spending more time in an elevator than is needed.

Quote

Guest wrote:
That's brilliant. Seriously. Who else would think of tampering with the classic elevator paradigm when building a simple retail store? And yet, it makes so much sense. If you've got a limited number of floors with a constant flow of traffic, why *not* stop on every one every time?

Seriously? I've built elevators before. This design does not make any sense, but it is easier to do if you have to work from scratch. Unfortunately, it would be a lot easier to buy an Otis as is than to make an elevator with no buttons. You have assumed something that is not true, constant traffic. By assuming costant traffic, it makes it easier to implement an elevator, sure, you don't need to build the queueing logic. It makes it much more inefficient though. Why, when someone requests the elevator on floor 5 when it is on floor 1 should it stop at floors 2, 3 and 4 when those floors are vacant. It wastes both time and energy. Again, it's doing things for the sake of being different without any real good reason other than to say, we have an elevator with no buttons. The great irony is that they presumably spent the effort and money to design and make an elevator with no buttons, and it ends up costing them more money to operate. PS, the "classic" elevator paradigm is an operator who controls the motion and stops the elevator at the requested floors. Buttons are what improved upon the design, made it simpler and cheaper to operate.

Well, if there are only two floors in the store the buttons don't change a thing. So why not get rid of 'em?

Quote

macinnerd wrote:
Well, if there are only two floors in the store the buttons don't change a thing. So why not get rid of 'em?

I didn't pull the number 5 out of thin air. The Tokyo Apple store has 5 floors. At least the video of the animation on the LCD that shows what is on each floor shows 5 floors as I have never personally been there. So your point is moot.

Is it me, or is this article just way off base? Jobs didn't put no buttons on the iPhone, the home screen is a series of 16 buttons. I think a more appropriate title would be Jobs' War on Tacticle Feedback. The on screen interface has long used the term buttons to describe exactly the iPhone does. For instance the start button of Windows. It's not an actual physical button (there is a "Windows key" on many keyboards, but that is functionally different than the start button). There are also graphical elements known as buttons in many websites. Go to www.google.com and you'll see two buttons right below the text field. In reality, if you think about it, the Windows Mobile interface has less buttons than the iPhone interface. There are the start & new buttons, but the majority of the screen is taken up with information presented in text format that is clickable. In the web space this is known as a link.

So really, Jobs is waging a war on tactile buttons and tactile feedback. This is bad for people who use a sense of touch to do their work, such as blind typists (people who type without looking), or people who are literally blind.

Also, the virtual keyboard is not new, Microsoft has had this since at least Pocket PC 2002.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Is it me, or is this article just way off base?

It's just you.

Quote

LaurieF wrote:

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Is it me, or is this article just way off base?

It's just you.

LOL, now that's what I call a thoughtful post. You are so insightful, or is that inciteful?

I was thinking "pithy".

Quote

LaurieF wrote:
I was thinking "pithy".

Or "pissy", perhaps?

Excuse me while I atypically, surprisingly and exasperatedly transmogrify into a fourteen-year-old girl going through the pubic wars: "Whatever!"

The original anonymous poster (was it you? it's impossible to tell) missed the point (perhaps through an ignorance of GUI operating design history?). The article was not about software buttons, it was about hardware buttons. The lack of physical buttons is a design aesthetic, allowing for a clean profile. I'm not that familiar with Apple hardware prior to the original iMac in 1997; since then however there has been a overall lack of bas-relief style of buttons. Those physical buttons that exist tend to be touch-sensitive, or flush with the surface.

Even prior to that, and what anti-Mac bigots continue to ignorantly pillory Apple for, existed the one-button mouse. It's not that Apple couldn't make a two-button mouse, or that it was a design flaw; the operating system didn't actually require it. Even with OS X, it's possible to use a single-buttoned mouse perfectly adequately, and only relatively rarely control-click to get the right-button functionality. I personally prefer two buttons, but can get along perfectly happily without them.

When I bought my Cube in 2000, I got the precursor to the Mighty Mouse, which only had one button being the mouse surface itself. The Mighty Mouse appears to be the same, but actually incorporates two buttons internally, although the outside is smooth. The aesthetic continues.

You know those very useful buttons on your mouse that allow you quickly move backwards or forwards on websites. You know, the are usually thumbs buttons on one or both sides of the better mice out there. The buttons that work in IE and FF? Yeah, they don't work in Safari. I guess Jobs' philosophy is that when you can't force your hardware upon someone because they prefer something different, you must break their current hardware. Think Different, as long as you think like Jobs.