Mostly, I just want a normal mouse cursor.
Of course, Apple isn't designing for a user like me, though, I'm really not sure what user they've designed this mouse cursor for.
I didn't bother looking for settings, and sure enough, you can switch off "Pointer Animations" and now my cursor isn't getting "trapped" all over the place.
In particular, each system has a setting to turn off animations for a calmer experience.
On Windows you can make the text cursor thicker so it's easier to see on a high-DPI display, and select a black mouse pointer instead of the default white.
There are a bunch more - worth a look around even if you don't think you have any accessibility needs.
The fact that others can used it is just a side effect.
(At least that's what I'd guess given Apple's usual approach to UX)
It seems to me that the gradient from “application state” to “color scheme/theme” to “preferences” to “accessibility” is a continuous one, and we are still treating it from a mental model standpoint as discrete buckets.
Now it’s back to being used in the literal meaning of the term, which, as you pointed out, is basis for confusion. This is one reason why I try hard to avoid euphemism in general; imprecision that results in context-specific definition drift makes for needlessly messy communication.
Also saying Apple reinvented the cursor is a bit much. Highlighting elements, snapping, and changing the cursor weren't just invented. The author really bought into Apple's marketing here.
* Apple invented the cursor (untrue)
* On iPad, the cursor is a round circle
* They bought over the same Apple TV effect on iPad
Most of the words and sentences in this article are meaningless, and if there's anything reading this has made me feel, it's that I'll never subscribe to their subscription service.
I'm not sure why TC is submitted so much - over often times better articles like: https://www.wired.com/story/ipad-trackpad-cursor/
I feel like this has been happening to a lot of online publications because they’re focusing on SEO over quality content.
Anyway, thanks for your link.
Fwiw the writers (at least, the one I knew) hate it too because it floods the job market with ultra low paid competition, and since it's "just the way things are", a lot of those underpaid people are very talented and are glad to accept very little pay
And that's not even getting into just how annoying it is to try to read anything on Forbes because of all the pop-ups etc.
> Honestly, the thinking could have stopped there and that would have been perfectly adequate. A rough finger facsimile as pointer. But the concept is pushed further. As you approach an interactive element, the circle reaches out, smoothly touching then embracing and encapsulating the button.
> The idea of variable cursor velocity is pushed further here too. When you’re close to an object on the screen, it changes its rate of travel to get where you want to go quicker, but it does it contextually, rather than linearly, the way that macOS or Windows does.
Could be shortened significantly. The passage repeats each point twice, including the main point, and is mostly flowery language that doesn’t add anything.
> The thinking could have stopped there, but instead of being a rough finger facsimile, the circle accelerates, then reaches out to elements as you approach them, embracing and encapsulating the button. This is unlike macOS and Windows, which vary velocity linearly.
The entire article is like this. I think the author was padding for word count or seo or something. I didn’t read the wired piece.
For example, your rewritten version is not an accurate representation of what the author was trying to convey, and mangles the two separate points into one. The contextual acceleration the author is describing is not the same thing as the circle "reaching out" as it approaches buttons.
I literally don’t understand what this means
The videos are from The Mother of All Demos with Douglas Engelbart and Bill English at Stanford Research Institute on December 9, 1968.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos
https://www.wired.com/story/how-doug-engelbart-pulled-off-th...
PARC was founded in 1970.
https://www.parc.com/about-parc/parc-history/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company)
(The Wikipedia article says 1969 in one place and 1970 in another, but 1970 is what PARC's site says.)
This is a question I've asked myself way too many times in relation to Apple hardware these last few years. Mostly when I had to deal with needless dongles.
E.g. I have a Razer laptop which has all the build quality and properties of a MacBook... except that they somehow managed to do the impossible: install 2x USB-C and 2x USB-A. How would have thought something like that is possible?!
She used to have a thicker HP with all the ports, but this one was still plugged into a dock at work, as that was simply the easiest thing to do.
For her, her daily life has not changed at all going from all the ports to two USB-C.
Just an anecdote.
Microsoft got this right with the Surface. I kinda wish Apple would just do that.
Speaking of low power devices, depending on Intel for a device that needs to be both high performance and power efficient is a non starter.
Even though I’m almost all in on the Apple ecosystem. I still use Windows PCs mostly. This isn’t an anti-Windows screed. It’s just a horrible touch screen operating system.