Comment by lapcat | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lapcat | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I'm admitting that people making this argument have suggested there were things that supported it before. That doesn't mean I agree with them, which you seem to be implying there?

No, I'm not implying that. Whichever side of the controversy you stand on, apparently the opposite side from me, you have to admit, and seemingly are admitting, that many people have been arguing for years that iOS and macOS are merging.

My point is that if you're trying to interpret my views, you can't dismiss the prior examples as irrelevant. You may think my views are false, but my views are nonetheless based on the prior examples. You initially invented a straw man view out of thin air that I do not believe myself: "The argument apparently being that..."

> It was your opening paragraph that talked about merging the OSes. There's a reason I responded to it by assuming you thought the rest of your post supported your opening statement.

I think you misunderstood the purpose of the post, which was simply to highlight the latest abomination, not to make a larger argument.

A 391 word blog post is almost never going to be a comprehensive argument for anything. So if you're thinking "That's your argument???" well no, of course it's not. I don't have the time or desire to make every little blog post into a book-length treatise just so that random internet commenters don't assume I'm an idiot. (Some probably would anyway, so it would be wasted effort.)

> If you'd like, we really could just talk about whether the change to the video player behavior is a reasonable thing to apply to both platforms. I think it probably is, on balance, for the aforementioned control-visibility reasons. You?

I've never seen an case where the visibility/legibility of the controls were a problem. Do you have any examples?

The irony is that Tahoe has made many things on macOS less legibile, which of course is a matter of great public controversy now.

I'm willing to rephrase it down to "the argument being that a change made on iOS later coming to macOS supports the idea that the platforms are merging", though that feels like a distinction without a difference to me.

> A 391 word blog post is almost never going to be a comprehensive argument for anything. So if you're thinking "That's your argument???" well no, of course it's not.

Putting aside my disagreement with the larger argument.... If you want people who see your posts from the HN frontpage to go do independent research about the history of your ideas on the topic before responding, you're going to be left a frustrated and unhappy person. Really, you're lucky when people are replying to the actual content of your post rather than just the title and other people's comments. :-D

> I've never seen an case where the visibility/legibility of the controls were a problem. Do you have any examples?

Just looking at your comparison screenshots in your post, my focus is drawn to the control-icons much better in the Tahoe one. In the Sequoia screenshot the button-outlines draw more of my focus because of how they stand out, and that actually makes me take longer to parse what their contents are. The Tahoe version thus feels easier to quickly use to me.

This might be a personal thing to do with how our respective brains process visual information, but I think the Tahoe one is a genuine usability improvement.

> I'm willing to rephrase it down to...

That seems like a really strange way of putting it. What does your willingness have to do with it? I, the article author, am right here. Thus, you can just ask me what I meant. To insist on putting words in my mouth that I don't believe would be absurd, especially when it's directly to my face.

> the argument being that a change made on iOS later coming to macOS supports the idea that the platforms are merging

This incorrectly assumes that an argument was being made. I already said: "I think you misunderstood the purpose of the post, which was simply to highlight the latest abomination, not to make a larger argument."

In fact, the second paragraph of the blog post, immediately after the embedded video, already takes for granted that Apple is merging iOS and macOS: "this denial [No.] did not age well."

> If you want people who see your posts from the HN frontpage...

Well, I didn't submit my post to HN. I'm not sure I wanted it to be on the front page.

> to go do independent research about the history of your ideas on the topic before responding

I already addressed this earlier in the thread: "I don't expect you to know my full history. However, I expect comments to follow the HN guidelines".

> Really, you're lucky when people are replying to the actual content of your post rather than just the title and other people's comments.

I replied to you. What other people write in their comments is a separate matter. You're responsible for the content of your own comments about my article.

> Just looking at your comparison screenshots in your post, my focus is drawn to the control-icons much better in the Tahoe one.

It's important to note, however, that the controls themselves are brighter on Tahoe, independent of the background. Try cutting and pasting the controls from the Tahoe screenshot onto the Sequoia screenshot. You don't have to darken the video in order to achieve brighter controls.

The other issue, I would say the main issue, is that the controls remain on top of the video for several seconds after you're done manipulating them. So you keep having a darkened video for several seconds every time you adjust something, which is a degraded viewing experience. This happens even with play/pause.

> That seems like a really strange way of putting it.

I think it's a fair summary of what I understand your overall position to be. Specifically:

> This incorrectly assumes that an argument was being made. I already said: "I think you misunderstood the purpose of the post, which was simply to highlight the latest abomination, not to make a larger argument."

This is just "I'm not making an argument that they're merging, I'm stating it as an underlying assumption" which, again, distinction-without-a-difference.

It seems reasonable to, in this comment section over here, talk about the broader point of your opening assumption in the post. I don't have to accept your priors to talk about it, particularly not when the audience I was talking to was "readers of Hacker News, who may not have even considered this are-the-OSes-merging question before".

I don't think me disagreeing with you about the validity of your arguments violates any HN guidelines, though dang is certainly free to correct me.

Plus, even if I were to grant said underlying assumption as an inviolable topic that cannot be breached in discussion of this specific post, I'd then disagree that this is an example of it.

> Well, I didn't submit my post to HN. I'm not sure I wanted it to be on the front page.

I don't think I've ever seen you in HN comments for one of your posts not being somewhat-upset about people's responses to them. It's not the worst policy to avoid reading social media discussion about your posts, if it's making you unhappy.

> You don't have to darken the video in order to achieve brighter controls.

Sorry, I was apparently unclear about what my issue with Sequoia was, so let me rephrase. It's not the brightness, it's the outline. When I look at the Sequoia screenshot, I find my visual processing goes through two steps -- first I notice the overall button shapes, and second I identify their contents. Brightening the icons in Tahoe probably does help, but it's the reduction of the visual impact of the button-borders that really speeds my comprehension up.

> The other issue, I would say the main issue, is that the controls remain on top of the video for several seconds after you're done manipulating them.

They vanish instantly when you move the cursor off the video, which I reflexively do anyway because I don't want my cursor covering something I'm watching. (And in full-screen, the only time you couldn't do this, the background-darkening doesn't happen.)

> This is just "I'm not making an argument that they're merging, I'm stating it as an underlying assumption" which, again, distinction-without-a-difference.

In retrospect, if there's one thing missing from the post, it's an elaboration of how terrible it is to dim the videos. I thought that would go without saying. The terribleness of dimming videos is the elephant in the room.

When the post is viewed in this light (pun intended), the fundamental question becomes, why did Apple make this change? The post is not trying to argue for the thesis that iOS and macOS are merging; rather, the post is trying to explain why we got video dimming on macOS.

At first I thought it was just part of Liquid Glass, which wouldn't be surprising, because Liquid Glass makes a lot of things harder to see. Video dimming would be a natural accompaniment. However, I then discovered that video dimming in iOS predated Liquid Glass by years, so the explanation was apparently not Liquid Glass. Thus, I concluded that video dimming was added to macOS to copy iOS, as Apple has done with many other features.

If there's an argument in the article, that's it.

> I don't think me disagreeing with you about the validity of your arguments violates any HN guidelines

That's not what I said.

My point is that you did not respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what I said but rather a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Specifically, the following is a stupid argument that only a stupid person would make: "The argument apparently being that any change at all, if it was first made on iOS, must inherently be a sign that the two platforms are merging." Your reply treated me like an idiot.

> I don't think I've ever seen you in HN comments for one of your posts not being somewhat-upset about people's responses to them.

There's a logical explanation: the post itself already says what I wanted to say, so there's no reason for me to comment on my own post except to correct misinterpretations of the post. If the conversation is going well, and people understand what I wrote, then there's nothing for me to add.

I upvote some comments, but you wouldn't see that.

> it's the reduction of the visual impact of the button-borders that really speeds my comprehension up

Ok, but I'm not sure why this couldn't be achieved without dimming the video.

In any case, have you ever complained about the video controls until now? I've never heard anyone make this complaint before. Who was asking for this change before it happened?

I would emphasize that the goal is to watch the video, not to watch the controls. Apple could make it even easier for you to process the controls by completely blanking out the video, leaving only the controls, but that would be even worse, not better.

> They vanish instantly when you move the cursor off the video

This is an inconvenient workaround and not a solution to the problem.

It's not just the vanish time, though. There's no reason to darken the video when you're adjusting the volume. And if you want to pause a video and look at the still frame, it's darkened unless you move the mouse away, then you have to move the mouse back. And if you're moving the video timeline control, the video is darkened the whole time.

I think we're at an impasse on the issue of your argument, and your characterization of my interpretation of it. I disagree, but I don't think we're going to reach an agreement here. I will drop it, and we can just argue about product design.

> In any case, have you ever complained about the video controls until now? I've never heard anyone make this complaint before. Who was asking for this change before it happened?

I don't think this matters. It's an improvement. Does every change to a product have to be driven by active complaints? Doing so feels like a way to get everything to just "good enough".

> I would emphasize that the goal is to watch the video, not to watch the controls.

Sort of. The goal is mostly to watch the video, sure, but sometimes the goal is to use the controls. When the goal is to watch the controls, it's best if they can be used as quickly as possible, so you can get right back to watching the video. For me, this change supports that.

> Apple could make it even easier for you to process the controls by completely blanking out the video, leaving only the controls, but that would be even worse, not better.

Yes, so I'm glad they found a happy medium where I can more-easily comprehend the controls and still see the video. Good call, Apple!

> This is an inconvenient workaround and not a solution to the problem.

Isn't it? I admit that it conforming to my prior behavior, because I never want to have the video covered up by the cursor, makes me find it not inconvenient at all... but I'm unlikely to be the only one with that preference. Plus, "the mouse recently moved and is now hovering over the video" feels like a pretty reasonable cue that the user might intend to interact with the controls, so Apple choosing to make it easy for me to quickly get the control I want the moment my cursor moves onto the video feels like it's making my video-watching experience better. And in the unlikely case that I was to overcome my distaste and just leave the cursor there, hey, it's only a few seconds before it hides the controls anyway.

To make sure I understand it correctly: upon pausing the video, the screen darkens until it is unpaused?

>The other issue, I would say the main issue, is that the controls remain on top of the video for several seconds after you're done manipulating them. So you keep having a darkened video for several seconds every time you adjust something, which is a degraded viewing experience. This happens even with play/pause.

This is a more detailed, informative critique of the Tahoe change than is in the post, where all that's specifically written as evaluation is,

>Seriously, why??? I thought Liquid Glass was supposed to “bring greater focus to content”? Darkening videos brings less focus to content!

> This is a more detailed, informative critique of the Tahoe change than is in the post

Correct. The post was not intended to be an informative critique. Some people seem to be completely misinterpreting the purpose of the post and then claiming I'm some kind of idiot for failing to do what they mistakenly believe I was doing rather than what I was actually doing, merely raising awareness of the change among my followers (who are already sympathetic to my views).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com