iOS7.1 b2: Reduce Motion kills Weather.app animation?

[mavis]

Well, ok - this sucks.

I've had Reduce Motion turned on since June or July, because I can't stand the wallpaper parallax effect. Then they tied the app and folder open/close animations to Reduce Motion (which sucks, but I got used to it) and now I find that in 7.1 beta 2 they've also tied the Weather app animations to this same, single toggle. Jeez.

Is it working like this on everyone else's devices? Just thought I should ask before I spend the time doing a clean install to see if that solves the problem.

 

[imaginex20]

Yup turning on reduce motion stops weather animation. That's pretty dumb, hopefully it's just a bug.

 

[bbfc]

Well, ok - this sucks.

I've had Reduce Motion turned on since June or July, because I can't stand the wallpaper parallax effect. Then they tied the app and folder open/close animations to Reduce Motion (which sucks, but I got used to it) and now I find that in 7.1 beta 2 they've also tied the Weather app animations to this same, single toggle. Jeez.

Is it working like this on everyone else's devices? Just thought I should ask before I spend the time doing a clean install to see if that solves the problem.

It was like that in 7.1 Beta 1 too. I think they've applied it throughout the entire OS. Kinda makes sense to me. Reduce Motion turns off all animations.

 

[mavis]

Thanks for the replies, guys. I guess I'm going to have to jailbreak again to get what I want.

 

[LostSoul80]

Yup turning on reduce motion stops weather animation. That's pretty dumb, hopefully it's just a bug.

How can it be a bug? It's a choice. The weather app didn't behave like that before, so they have implemented the feature. Write some feedback to Apple.

 

[p0x]

How can it be a bug? It's a choice. The weather app didn't behave like that before, so they have implemented the feature. Write some feedback to Apple.

The reduce motion setting is for people with a disability. Apples not going to change it for someone using it as a cosmetic effect.

 

[LostSoul80]

The reduce motion setting is for people with a disability.

Provide the source for your claim.

Apples not going to change it for someone using it as a cosmetic effect.

The motion feature is a cosmetic effect, that's the whole point.
Also, you know what Apple will do or will not do in the future?

 

[p0x]

Provide the source for your claim.





The motion feature is a cosmetic effect, that's the whole point.

Also, you know what Apple will do or will not do in the future?

The accessibility settings function is for people with disabilities it says so on its website. Apple has no reason to change it.

 

[LostSoul80]

The accessibility settings function is for people with disabilities it says so on its website. Apple has no reason to change it. Image

You have not provided any source that references Reduce Motion as being intended for use by disables. Not even one, so your claim is your personal opinion, to which I'm not interested.

Hint: The fact that Reduce Motion is included within the Accessibility menu proves nothing.

Reduce Motion is used by the majority of people not because they are disabled, but because it provides different transitions and animations in the usage of the operating system, and because Apple received negative feedback when the feature was not there.

The weather application is not a system wide implementation of anything. It is an application by itself, and one can dislike the removal of animations within its functioning. The choice of removing animations in an application has nothing to do with accessibility.
Hopefully the behaviour will be reverted back to the original.

 

[C DM]

You have not provided any source that references Reduce Motion as being intended for use by disables. Not even one, so your claim is your personal opinion, to which I'm not interested.

Hint: The fact that Reduce Motion is included within the Accessibility menu proves nothing.

Reduce Motion is used by the majority of people not because they are disabled, but because it provides different transitions and animations in the usage of the operating system, and because Apple received negative feedback when the feature was not there.

The weather application is not a system wide implementation of anything. It is an application by itself, and one can dislike the removal of animations within its functioning. The choice of removing animations in an application has nothing to do with accessibility.
Hopefully the behaviour will be reverted back to the original.

The are very much accessibility-related reasons for the reduce motion setting: https://www.macrumors.com/2013/09/2...sickness-due-to-parallax-and-zooming-effects/

So, yes, the fact that Reduce Motion appears in the Accessibility section of settings is in fact proof in itself.

Whatever different people might decide to use various accessibility settings for, the existence of the section and the items provided in it is for accessibility reasons first and foremost, any other uses aren't really considered much as that's not what those settings are really for. That doesn't mean people won't use them for other reasons, but that still doesn't change the fact that's not what the actual reason is for them there.

http://www.apple.com/accessibility/ios/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_accessibility

 

[LostSoul80]

The are very much accessibility-related reasons for the reduce motion setting: https://www.macrumors.com/2013/09/2...sickness-due-to-parallax-and-zooming-effects/

So, yes, the fact that Reduce Motion appears in the Accessibility section of settings is in fact proof in itself.

Whatever different people might decide to use various accessibility settings for, the existence of the section and the items provided in it is for accessibility reasons first and foremost, any other uses aren't really considered much as that's not what those settings are really for. That doesn't mean people won't use them for other reasons, but that still doesn't change the fact that's not what the actual reason is for them there.

http://www.apple.com/accessibility/ios/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_accessibility

None of those sources claim that Reduce Motion is intended for use by people with disabilities, as claimed by the previous poster.
The fact that the feature is included in the Accessibility menu isn't conclusive of anything, as I said. I wouldn't be surprised to see it under General, or somewhere else, since it is more of a choice of animations than anything else.
It is questionable both the label this setting was assigned to, and its purpose.
Since users that use Reduce Motion are mostly willing to have fade animations, that should be the definite role of setting, and the weather applications should not be related to any of this, in my opinion.

The point of a feature is to satisfy the users in a task. It's dumb to think that settings are decided by who knows who, and that they have to blindly follow a rather arguable role they were given.

 

[C DM]

None of those sources claim that Reduce Motion is intended for use by people with disabilities, as claimed by the previous poster.
The fact that the feature is included in the Accessibility menu isn't conclusive of anything, as I said. I wouldn't be surprised to see it under General, or somewhere else, since it is more of a choice of animations than anything else.
It is questionable both the label this setting was assigned to, and its purpose.
Since users that use Reduce Motion are mostly willing to have fade animations, that should be the definite role of setting, and the weather applications should not be related to any of this, in my opinion.

The point of a feature is to satisfy the users in a task. It's dumb to think that settings are decided by who knows who, and that they have to blindly follow a rather arguable role they were given.

If it ever comes out of Accessibility settings, then there might be an argument for that there, but as it is, it's certainly meant for accessibility reasons first and foremost, as I mentioned (in particular for reasons like mentioned in the previously linked article at https://www.macrumors.com/2013/09/2...sickness-due-to-parallax-and-zooming-effects/).

The point of that feature is not for people to tweak things to their liking just because they might or might not like animations or something (again, even though it can be used for that), the reason for it being there (the real underlying driving reason) is for accessibility purposes for people who are affected by various motions present in the new iOS design.

 

[LostSoul80]

If it ever comes out of Accessibility settings, then there might be an argument for that there, but as it is, it's certainly meant for accessibility reasons first and foremost, as I mentioned (in particular for reasons like mentioned in the previously linked article at https://www.macrumors.com/2013/09/2...sickness-due-to-parallax-and-zooming-effects/).

I wonder how can you be so utterly certain about what is the target of a feature implemented in an operating system. Did Apple consult you about it?
The article proves absolutely nothing, and is of no indication regarding Apple's implementation of the Reduce Motion.
Stating that the feature is "certainly meant for accessibility reasons first and foremost" is ridiculously insolent, especially when linked to a MacRumors article.

The point of that feature is not for people to tweak things to their liking just because they might or might not like animations or something (again, even though it can be used for that), the reason for it being there (the real underlying driving reason) is for accessibility purposes for people who are affected by various motions present in the new iOS design.

The point of the feature is to let users tweak animations to their liking.
That is exactly what happens, and why people use it. The parallax effect is not appreciated by many, and the setting allows them to turn it off, for example.

 

[SanjeevRana]

If Apple would have intended it to be a UI CHOICE , then it would be in the proper Setting menu option (maybe General) ... not tucked away into Accessibility which is what Apple wants it to be viewed as ... And no I dont know what Apple is thinking nor do I influence it, however, I am deriving it from common sense

 

[Tubamajuba]

You have not provided any source that references Reduce Motion as being intended for use by disables. Not even one, so your claim is your personal opinion, to which I'm not interested.

Hint: The fact that Reduce Motion is included within the Accessibility menu proves nothing.

Reduce Motion is used by the majority of people not because they are disabled, but because it provides different transitions and animations in the usage of the operating system, and because Apple received negative feedback when the feature was not there.

The weather application is not a system wide implementation of anything. It is an application by itself, and one can dislike the removal of animations within its functioning. The choice of removing animations in an application has nothing to do with accessibility.
Hopefully the behaviour will be reverted back to the original.

None of those sources claim that Reduce Motion is intended for use by people with disabilities, as claimed by the previous poster.
The fact that the feature is included in the Accessibility menu isn't conclusive of anything, as I said. I wouldn't be surprised to see it under General, or somewhere else, since it is more of a choice of animations than anything else.
It is questionable both the label this setting was assigned to, and its purpose.
Since users that use Reduce Motion are mostly willing to have fade animations, that should be the definite role of setting, and the weather applications should not be related to any of this, in my opinion.

The point of a feature is to satisfy the users in a task. It's dumb to think that settings are decided by who knows who, and that they have to blindly follow a rather arguable role they were given.

I wonder how can you be so utterly certain about what is the target of a feature implemented in an operating system. Did Apple consult you about it?
The article proves absolutely nothing, and is of no indication regarding Apple's implementation of the Reduce Motion.
Stating that the feature is "certainly meant for accessibility reasons first and foremost" is ridiculously insolent, especially when linked to a MacRumors article.



The point of the feature is to let users tweak animations to their liking.
That is exactly what happens, and why people use it. The parallax effect is not appreciated by many, and the setting allows them to turn it off, for example.

No, no, and no.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/22/4867386/apple-releases-ios-7-0-3-update
http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser...ickness-complains-with-better-solution_b75601
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/23/ios-7-0-3-motion-sickness-imessage-fixes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/25/ios-7-update_n_4163143.html
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-rolls-out-ios-7-0-3/

iOS 7.0.3 enhanced the "Reduce Motion" feature specifically to cure motion sickness in the people that were experiencing it. Yes, that means the people who didn't experience motion sickness also can use this setting to change the cosmetic appearance of some animations. But that takes a backseat to the main intention of the feature. So Apple isn't really concerned about people who wish the feature did "x" but not "y".

If you want to nitpick and say "well motion sickness isn't a disability", then fine. If you still want to argue that nobody knows Apple's true intention behind the feature, then fine. Apple never came out and said that they introduced the iPhone to make money, so we really can't be sure if they want to make money off of it, right?

 

[C DM]

I wonder how can you be so utterly certain about what is the target of a feature implemented in an operating system. Did Apple consult you about it?
The article proves absolutely nothing, and is of no indication regarding Apple's implementation of the Reduce Motion.
Stating that the feature is "certainly meant for accessibility reasons first and foremost" is ridiculously insolent, especially when linked to a MacRumors article.



The point of the feature is to let users tweak animations to their liking.
That is exactly what happens, and why people use it. The parallax effect is not appreciated by many, and the setting allows them to turn it off, for example.

Well, you keep on misunderstanding accessibility settings, so there wouldn't be a way to explain or convince you of something that is pretty much common sense just by definition even. If a setting was meant to be a general one then it wouldn't be in accessibility--that's why screen brightness isn't there but is in another section unrelated to accessibitly. It can truly be seen as being that simple (even through there's more to it). If Apple meant for it to be a general setting why would they put it in accessibility section and not in many other possible sections?

It's almost beyond common sense, which would make it almost impossible to convince soeone who doesn't even want to hear it. If someone thinks that the sun goes around the earth because that's what you can see ewvryday in the sky, and doesn't want to hear any scientific explanations otherwise, how can you convince them? You pretty much can't. But it still doesn't change the fact that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around. You can certainly think of this in any way you want, but it doesn't change what it is in reality for everyone else.

 

[LostSoul80]

iOS 7.0.3 enhanced the "Reduce Motion" feature specifically to cure motion sickness in the people that were experiencing it.

iOS 7.0.3 enhanced the "Reduce Motion" feature specifically to let users that disliked the parallax effect, and some slow animations change that very behaviour.
See what I did there?

But that takes a backseat to the main intention of the feature.

Another Apple consultant/developer trying to explain what he really meant to implement?

Wonderful.

So Apple isn't really concerned about people who wish the feature did "x" but not "y".

"x" and "y" are not defined.
The whole "motion sickness" that has been brought to attention has no proven value. Most users, as you can read in your linked articles, simply disliked the feature of the parallax effect in the wallpaper, and wanted to disable it.

If you want to nitpick and say "well motion sickness isn't a disability", then fine.

I have not stated that. You are stating that.

If you still want to argue that nobody knows Apple's true intention behind the feature, then fine.

Isn't that obvious?

Apple never came out and said that they introduced the iPhone to make money, so we really can't be sure if they want to make money off of it, right?

How does that even remotely relate to a feature being added to an operating systems because a lot of users wanted it?

Well, you keep on misunderstanding accessibility settings, so there wouldn't be a way to explain or convince you of something that is pretty much common sense just by definition even.

So, you are basing your "argument" on "common sense".
Right.

If Apple meant for it to be a general setting why would they put it in accessibility section and not in many other possible sections?

Do you think that everything a company puts into an operating system is correct by definition?
If there is an error in a danish translation, do you think danish people should change their dictionary accordingly?

It's almost beyond common sense, which would make it almost impossible to convince soeone who doesn't even want to hear it.

Again, "common sense". Hilarious.

If someone thinks that the sun goes around the earth because that's what you can see ewvryday in the sky, and doesn't want to hear any scientific explanations otherwise, how can you convince them?

Are you really comparing a scientific discovery, such as the relative orbits that planets follow around the Sun, to... Reduce Motion?
Wow.

Also, let me remind you that here your beloved "common sense" has no scientific value.

But it still doesn't change the fact that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around.

Thank you for the information, and the precision with which you have expressed it.

 

[superstrikertwo]

Move along stop feeding the troll.

 

[C DM]

iOS 7.0.3 enhanced the "Reduce Motion" feature specifically to let users that disliked the parallax effect, and some slow animations change that very behaviour.
See what I did there?



Another Apple consultant/developer trying to explain what he really meant to implement?

Wonderful.



"x" and "y" are not defined.
The whole "motion sickness" that has been brought to attention has no proven value. Most users, as you can read in your linked articles, simply disliked the feature of the parallax effect in the wallpaper, and wanted to disable it.



I have not stated that. You are stating that.



Isn't that obvious?



How does that even remotely relate to a feature being added to an operating systems because a lot of users wanted it?



So, you are basing your "argument" on "common sense".
Right.



Do you think that everything a company puts into an operating system is correct by definition?
If there is an error in a danish translation, do you think danish people should change their dictionary accordingly?



Again, "common sense". Hilarious.



Are you really comparing a scientific discovery, such as the relative orbits that planets follow around the Sun, to... Reduce Motion?
Wow.

Also, let me remind you that here your beloved "common sense" has no scientific value.



Thank you for the information, and the precision with which you have expressed it.

Single shred of evidence that Apple didn't mean the reduce motion setting as an accessibility feature?

Hint: Simply saying they made a mistake isn't evidence (or really anything at all).

And there you have it.

 

[imaginex20]

You have not provided any source that references Reduce Motion as being intended for use by disables. Not even one, so your claim is your personal opinion, to which I'm not interested.

Hint: The fact that Reduce Motion is included within the Accessibility menu proves nothing.

Reduce Motion is used by the majority of people not because they are disabled, but because it provides different transitions and animations in the usage of the operating system, and because Apple received negative feedback when the feature was not there.

The weather application is not a system wide implementation of anything. It is an application by itself, and one can dislike the removal of animations within its functioning. The choice of removing animations in an application has nothing to do with accessibility.
Hopefully the behaviour will be reverted back to the original.

Way to contradict yourself. First you say it's not a bug. Then go on to say that you want the animations "feature" to return to normal. Which is normal? Weather animations stop when reduce motion is on or not?

And thumbs up for crapping this thread.

 

[LostSoul80]

Single shred of evidence that Apple didn't mean the reduce motion setting as an accessibility feature?

Here: it is a feature that changes animations and visual effects of the user interface.
Is it really that hard to understand?

Hint: Simply saying they made a mistake isn't evidence (or really anything at all).

Evidence of what? Saying what?
Elaborate?

And there you have it.

I have it...?

Way to contradict yourself. First you say it's not a bug. Then go on to say that you want the animations "feature" to return to normal. Which is normal? Weather animations stop when reduce motion is on or not?

Contradiction? Where?
First, I say that Apple implemented a feature in the weather application to make it modify its behaviour basing on a setting.
Then I go on and say that such a feature shouldn't have been implemented, in my opinion.

Again: contradiction? Where?

 

[imaginex20]

Here: it is a feature that changes animations and visual effects of the user interface.

Is it really that hard to understand?







Evidence of what? Saying what?

Elaborate?







I have it...?







Contradiction? Where?

First, I say that Apple implemented a feature in the weather application to make it modify its behaviour basing on a setting.

Then I go on and say that such a feature shouldn't have been implemented, in my opinion.



Again: contradiction? Where?

Look at where you first quoted me. I said the behavior of the animations of stopping when reduce motion is on is hopefully a bug and you called me out asking me how do I know it's a bug. Are you confused?

 

[LostSoul80]

Look at where you first quoted me. I said the behavior of the animations of stopping when reduce motion is on is hopefully a bug and you called me out asking me how do I know it's a bug. Are you confused?

I know what I post.
I said that Apple implemented a feature in the weather application to make it modify its behaviour basing on a setting. That is not a bug, it is a feature.
Such a feature shouldn't have been implemented, in my opinion.

Confused?

 

[imaginex20]

I know what I post.

I said that Apple implemented a feature in the weather application to make it modify its behaviour basing on a setting. That is not a bug, it is a feature.

Such a feature shouldn't have been implemented, in my opinion.



Confused?

Therefore I said, "hopefully it's a bug" AKA not a feature. And how do you know it's a feature and not a bug? Anyways, we're agreeing to disagree.

Don't get your panties all in a bunch.

 

[LostSoul80]

Therefore I said, "hopefully it's a bug" AKA not a feature. And how do you know it's a feature and not a bug? Anyways, we're agreeing to disagree.

A "bug" is, by definition, an error that occurs in a program or operating system, because of technical input in the code.

Apple has added the feature to make the weather applications behave like a setting.

Don't you know the meaning of "bug"?

Don't get your panties all in a bunch.

What does that mean?