Chris Ridd

On 2007-11-30 18:13:35 +0000, peter@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) said:

> Sarah Brown <sarahlizzy@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
>>> Until recently, Nokias had a brilliantly simple and consistent user
>>> interface. Then they went through a rotten patch, but it seems to be
>>> getting better.
>>
>> This seems to be recieved wisodm, but I always found them really
>> fiddly and unintuitive
>
> All the cell phones I have used extensively have been Nokias; I have
> always found their UI to be pretty simple and logical, certainly
> compared to any others (like the phones my daughters use) which aren't
> Nokias but instinctively I have suppressed the brand name involved, in
> the way that the brain suppresses bad experiences.
>
> But *my* Nokia is an 1100, which has the infinite virtue of being just a
> phone, so things are pretty minimalist.

I think you need to distinguish the (useable, but painful) Nokia
interface on dumb phones like the 1100, from the completely different
ones they provide on S60 "smart" phones.

Cheers,

Chris

Sarah Brown

In article <1i8ekce.17hruvu1jvi5l2N%peter@cara.demon.co.uk> ,
Peter Ceresole <peter@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Sarah Brown <sarahlizzy@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
>> >Until recently, Nokias had a brilliantly simple and consistent user
>> >interface. Then they went through a rotten patch, but it seems to be
>> >getting better.
>>
>> This seems to be recieved wisodm, but I always found them really
>> fiddly and unintuitive
>
>All the cell phones I have used extensively have been Nokias; I have
>always found their UI to be pretty simple and logical, certainly
>compared to any others (like the phones my daughters use) which aren't
>Nokias but instinctively I have suppressed the brand name involved, in
>the way that the brain suppresses bad experiences.
>
>But *my* Nokia is an 1100, which has the infinite virtue of being just a
>phone, so things are pretty minimalist.

It's teh phone functions I findn the most convoluted. Previously my
phones were all Ericssons or Sony Ericssons. They either had a button
to call and a button to hang up, or just one button that started and
ended a call. In addition, there was a "menu" button. The call button
- marked "OK" on recent phones, worked in much the same way the left
or single mouse button does on Macs - it's the "do it" button
througout the phone UI.

My Nokia replaces this arrangement with a cluster of five buttons,
with up to all of them becoming slightly different variartions on "do
it" at different points in time. If I want to call someone, I have a
choice of buttons to press - one will just call the number, others
will ask me if I want to make a voice or video call, etc.. Two of the
buttons seem to swap functions between "menu" and "do it" depending on
what mode the phone is in. Sometimes none of the five buttons do
anything useful, and I have to use the * and # buttons on the keypad
to accomplish auxillary functions.

Frankly, it's a mess. I'm getting to the stage when I'm learning what
to press and when now, but it all seems needlessly complicated. This
doesn't see,m to be a problem with recent phones either - my partner
has always been a Nokia person and whenever I've tried to use her
phones in the past, right back to the design classic 5110, the UI has
felt much the same - functions too spread out amongst too many
nameless buttons all doing subtly different things.

Peter Ceresole

Sarah Brown <sarahlizzy@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

> My Nokia replaces this arrangement with a cluster of five buttons,
> with up to all of them becoming slightly different variartions on "do
> it" at different points in time.

My 1100 (as I said, as basic as it gets) has fundamentally two buttons
and two cursor keys. It all became clear when I understood that
everything went via the soft 'Menu' function.

Yes, there are some fiddly bits- configuring predictive texting is
something I always have to look up, but then that's because once I've
established my defaults I only very rarely have to change them, so I
forget how. Predictive texting itself works remarkably well.

But then if you wanted to define 'power user', you could define it
through me, as being its antithesis.
--
Peter

Sarah Brown

In article <5rb39tF13mhcmU1@mid.individual.net>,
Chris Ridd <chrisridd@mac.com> wrote:
>On 2007-11-30 18:13:35 +0000, peter@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) said:
>>
>> But *my* Nokia is an 1100, which has the infinite virtue of being just a
>> phone, so things are pretty minimalist.
>
>I think you need to distinguish the (useable, but painful) Nokia
>interface on dumb phones like the 1100, from the completely different
>ones they provide on S60 "smart" phones.

Mine is a S60 phone, to which I've migrated from a UIQ phone which I
think, has spoiled me with probably the nicest UI I've ever used on a
phone by a long way (especially with the scrollwheel).

Pd

Peter Ceresole <peter@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Predictive texting itself works remarkably well.

I used to use a 3110 and was quite happy with the predictive texting,
until I got a freebie phone that is smaller and lighter, and folds.
Apart from those three things, it's a pile of poo.

It's a Sagem MyC5-3, and the predictive texting makes me realise how
incredible the 3110 is. It seems to be able to predict exactly what I
don't want. It has a list of words that don't exist. The first choice
offered is often the least used, and it doesn't know lots of words that
the Nokia did.

--
Pd

IronFist

In article
<e6186788-7be0-4d0b-b0a6-4a78bd46a5ce@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Ian
<ian.groups@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 24 Nov, 20:57, Calum <com.gm...@scottishwildcat.nospam> wrote:
> > chris.hollan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 26,000 activations -
> > > hahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahah aha
> >
> > I certainly wouldn't mind raking in 26,000 * £899 in the space of a
> > fortnight.
>
>
> Apple take half the contract fees, don't they? So that's just 26,000
> 18-month £17.50 contracts for O2. Whoop-de-do.
>
> Ian


Avoid corresponding with Chris Holland. He's a putrid moron of the
worst type.