Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iOS7.1 b2: Reduce Motion kills Weather.app animation?
- Thread starter mavis
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You definitely don't know what a definition of bug is. A bug can be any kind of error that deviates from the "requirements" of said feature. You and I both don't know the requirements of how the weather animations are suppose to respond to the reduce motion setting. Therefore, you can't claim it as a feature nor can you state it isn't a bug.
The "bug" could be a simple logic error in code such as:
if(reduceMotion == true)
{
animations = off;
}
There would be no error in the above statement. But there will be adverse effects from the code.
----------
Don't like it move on. You're not required to read nor participate in every thread
Well, like I said, no evidence that the reduce motion setting isn't meant as an accessibility feature (and is therefore there for other reasons).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?
Why are you even posting?
That doesn't make any sense. Weather is a standard application. In order to achieve the current result, that is to disable animations when Reduce Motion is turned on, a specific check to the settings is required, and on top of that, a precise routine has to be setup just for it.
It is clearly not a bug, but a feature that Apple has decided to implement.
As for the definition of "bug", what I stated is correct. There no unwanted behaviour. The only way to setup the current behaviour is to code knowing exactly what to do.
There is no evidence to back up your personal claim.
It is a fact that Reduce Motion alters the behaviour of the user interface.
Why are you even posting?
That doesn't make any sense. Weather is a standard application. In order to achieve the current result, that is to disable animations when Reduce Motion is turned on, a specific check to the settings is required, and on top of that, a precise routine has to be setup just for it.
It is clearly not a bug, but a feature that Apple has decided to implement.
As for the definition of "bug", what I stated is correct. There no unwanted behaviour. The only way to setup the current behaviour is to code knowing exactly what to do.
There is no evidence to back up your personal claim.
It is a fact that Reduce Motion alters the behaviour of the user interface.
You're not a developer are you?
How do you think the animations are changing when the setting is changed? They have to check the setting. Whether is it a global setting or a static setting being read from the settings preferences itself.
And the logic I posted above is pseudo code. The Boolean for reduceMotion is obviously set by getting it from settings preferences.
Anyways I'm done here...
More like there is no evidence to backup your opinion. A number of accessibility settings alter the behavior of the user interface, and that certainly doesn't make them any less of accessibility related settings. Reduce motion is similarly in accessibility settings and is there to alter the behavior of motion and animations for people who are affected by them and experience motion sickness and vertigo like effects because of them.Why are you even posting?
That doesn't make any sense. Weather is a standard application. In order to achieve the current result, that is to disable animations when Reduce Motion is turned on, a specific check to the settings is required, and on top of that, a precise routine has to be setup just for it.
It is clearly not a bug, but a feature that Apple has decided to implement.
As for the definition of "bug", what I stated is correct. There no unwanted behaviour. The only way to setup the current behaviour is to code knowing exactly what to do.
There is no evidence to back up your personal claim.
It is a fact that Reduce Motion alters the behaviour of the user interface.
Last edited:
Have you even read what I wrote?
There was no check to the settings before in the weather applications.
The check, and the behaviour, has been implemented because Apple wanted the weather application not to show animations while Reduce Motion is active.
It is a feature that Apple have implemented, not a bug. In any way.
Thanks for clarifying. I thought it was taken directly from Apple's implementation...
Don't you say? I thought the weather application could read the user's mind... Is that not how it works?
Many people using the feature do so because they like the fade animations, and dislike the parallax effect.
The claims of motion sickness prove nothing regarding Apple's implementation of Reduce Motion.
Reduce Motion could very well be moved to the General tab of the settings, since it is widely used as a means to tweak the user interface than anything else.
You are free to be blind and think everyone using Reduce Motion experiences motion sickness and vertigo, that is up to you and I do not care. You can't show a single evidence of the aim of the feature, and can't reply to what I post. Seems pretty clear to me that your "argument" is not consistent in any way.
Way to keep on misunderstanding it all. Logic just doesn't work backwards like that. Just because many people use the feature because they want to change animations doesn't mean that it wasn't designed as an accessibility feature first and foremost, which has been pointed out time and time again. It could be in another section, but it isn't, it's in the accessibility section because that's the main reason for it being there.Have you even read what I wrote?
There was no check to the settings before in the weather applications.
The check, and the behaviour, has been implemented because Apple wanted the weather application not to show animations while Reduce Motion is active.
It is a feature that Apple have implemented, not a bug. In any way.
Thanks for clarifying. I thought it was taken directly from Apple's implementation...
Don't you say? I thought the weather application could read the user's mind... Is that not how it works?
Many people using the feature do so because they like the fade animations, and dislike the parallax effect.
The claims of motion sickness prove nothing regarding Apple's implementation of Reduce Motion.
Reduce Motion could very well be moved to the General tab of the settings, since it is widely used as a means to tweak the user interface than anything else.
You are free to be blind and think everyone using Reduce Motion experiences motion sickness and vertigo, that is up to you and I do not care. You can't show a single evidence of the aim of the feature, and can't reply to what I post. Seems pretty clear to me that your "argument" is not consistent in any way.
The argument that because people use it for other needs and therefore it's not an accessibility feature is actually the one that doesn't hold much logic in it--using it for other needs or wants has no effect on it still primarily being an accessibility feature.
What you or anyone else can't show is a good and rational reason why the feature would be in the accessibility settings if it wasn't meant as an accessibility feature first and foremost.
Last edited:
So, basically, what LostSouls80 is saying is, by your logic, that "Invert Colors" option is also a "thing" for users who doesn't like the iOS colors because it changes the colors of the entire system?
Dude, you need to realize something... Just because (I'm extrapolating here) 99% of the people uses "Reduce motion" to change iOS behavior doesn't mean that this option was made for that.
The true function is, obviously, to help people from suffering motion sickness. PERIOD. And yes, for god's sake, if it is under Accessibility, it DOES mean something!
Dude, you need to realize something... Just because (I'm extrapolating here) 99% of the people uses "Reduce motion" to change iOS behavior doesn't mean that this option was made for that.
The true function is, obviously, to help people from suffering motion sickness. PERIOD. And yes, for god's sake, if it is under Accessibility, it DOES mean something!
The main reason for the feature being is not determined by you.
Reduce motion lets users who dislike the parallax effects and a certain kind of animations to turn them off.
You have no single evidence suggesting that such a feature is "designed as an accessibility feature first and foremost", apart from a couple of blog articles citing a fantomatic "motion sickness", that are in no way linked to Apple.
Yet you insist on your "line", saying that beyond any doubt the feature is there because people got motion sickness. That's an insolent response given by someone who has no clue about who worked to implement the feature, and the reasons behind it.
As I said: You can't show a single evidence of the aim of the feature, and can't reply to what I post. Seems pretty clear to me that your "argument" is not consistent in any way.
The fact that users activate the feature not because they experience motion sickness is the precise reason why the feature is not restricted to a label such as "accessibility".
Reduce motion is an option for users to tweak the user interface behaviour to their liking.
You are free to blindly believe anything that a company puts into an operating system is correct. I have no interest in your opinion on it, and you are free to think it that way.
Reduce Motion changes drastically an animation that users always happen to view when using the operating system, in particular the fade effect. It is not comparable to other features that have a clear role of Accessibility features.
Who says that?
Apple have implemented the feature because a vast part of their user base disliked particular visual effects of the operating system, and most users activating it do it because they want to tweak the user interface.
There is now law that forces a feature to fit into a category. It is all arbitrary, and decided by the company.
Again, how can you say that?
I could argue that, obviously, by "common sense"
the true function is to help people tweak the user interface to their liking. PERIOD. And yes, it should be under General.Got it, you have no argument that it isn't an accessibility feature first and foremost, just your own opinion that it should be something else (even though it's not). You clearly demonstrated that you don't understand or don't want to understand the simple pretty much universal concept if accessibitly and why it's there and what falls under it. Perhaps that's the root of the whole misunderstand here on your part. But, it's all good, you can certainly believe whatever you feel it is that you think. The rest of us will stick to reality.The main reason for the feature being is not determined by you.
Reduce motion lets users who dislike the parallax effects and a certain kind of animations to turn them off.
You have no single evidence suggesting that such a feature is "designed as an accessibility feature first and foremost", apart from a couple of blog articles citing a fantomatic "motion sickness", that are in no way linked to Apple.
Yet you insist on your "line", saying that beyond any doubt the feature is there because people got motion sickness. That's an insolent response given by someone who has no clue about who worked to implement the feature, and the reasons behind it.
As I said: You can't show a single evidence of the aim of the feature, and can't reply to what I post. Seems pretty clear to me that your "argument" is not consistent in any way.
The fact that users activate the feature not because they experience motion sickness is the precise reason why the feature is not restricted to a label such as "accessibility".
Reduce motion is an option for users to tweak the user interface behaviour to their liking.
You are free to blindly believe anything that a company puts into an operating system is correct. I have no interest in your opinion on it, and you are free to think it that way.
Reduce Motion changes drastically an animation that users always happen to view when using the operating system, in particular the fade effect. It is not comparable to other features that have a clear role of Accessibility features.
Who says that?
Apple have implemented the feature because a vast part of their user base disliked particular visual effects of the operating system, and most users activating it do it because they want to tweak the user interface.
There is now law that forces a feature to fit into a category. It is all arbitrary, and decided by the company.
Again, how can you say that?
I could argue that, obviously, by "common sense"
You are the one claiming that it is "an accessibility feature first and foremost" without providing any kind of source, not me. That is your own, personal opinion.
"universal concept of accessibility"?
Are you kidding? Lol, what is that? Is there a "universal" "concept" of "accessibility"? Where exactly?
Seems apparent that you're trying to base your non consistent, non existent argument on "universal concepts", and on "common sense".
You fail to even remotely support any argument, and lazyngly refer to a choice of a company as a source of truth by definition.
Misunderstand on my part? I'm sorry, what does that mean?
But, it's all good, you can certainly believe whatever you feel it is that you think. The rest of us will stick to reality.
Who is "the rest of us"? Is that you, yourself? Feel free to stick to your "reality", where choices of companies rule out any alternative possibilities.
And only further proof of what I said in my last post. It's all good.You are the one claiming that it is "an accessibility feature first and foremost" without providing any kind of source, not me. That is your own, personal opinion.
"universal concept of accessibility"?
Are you kidding? Lol, what is that? Is there a "universal" "concept" of "accessibility"? Where exactly?
Seems apparent that you're trying to base your non consistent, non existent argument on "universal concepts", and on "common sense".
You fail to even remotely support any argument, and lazyngly refer to a choice of a company as a source of truth by definition.
Misunderstand on my part? I'm sorry, what does that mean?
Who is "the rest of us"? Is that you, yourself? Feel free to stick to your "reality", where choices of companies rule out any alternative possibilities.
And only further proof that you have absolutely no clue about what you are talking about.
You can't even reply to a single line I wrote, and I suspect I know the reason: you have no arguments at all.
It's all good. Next time, avoid entering "arguments" without having any idea of what is being discussed.
Nice attempt at a baseless attack further proving you clearly have no argument (not class). Enjoy the last word.
"you clearly have no argument" - says the one who avoids replying, and prefers empty statements that carry no meaning instead.
WOW. Just wow. So by your logic, ring tones are really for the users experience and just because they are accessed under the "sounds" menu does not really prove that it a setting for SOUNDS. Alreighty then. You are going to have to email Craig Federighi to get the "proof" you seem to need. Not sure its anyone's "personal opinion" that that setting in under accessibility. It is in fact there. Go to settings, then press general, then press accessibility. You will see it in that section. The simple reality is Apple puts certain settings in certain categories that they are meant for that category. If you cant see that or refuse to see that I suspect no one here will be able to offer you anything else.
Now back to the beginning of the topic, I also hated they have the weather animation tied to reduce motion. Wish they would make that a separate option. Of course they would need to put it under "User preferences" if they did.
You appear to be confused.
There is no doubt that Reduce Motion is in the Accessibility tab. I have never denied that.
I don't see any link between Reduce Motion and ringtones. Mind explaining?
You seem to think that the role of whatever function is both, automatically, without a doubt, universally determined and correct by definition by the label a company decided to insert it in; and that its aim is defined completely by such a perfect, correct, universally accepted label, given by said company.
No, that is not how it works. Apple put whatever setting they think might be suitable in a section. That does not mean anything more than that. It absolutely does not mean that the labelling is correct by any means. In fact, I'm supporting the opposite, and it is clearly a legitimate point of view.
You appear to be confused.
There is no doubt that Reduce Motion is in the Accessibility tab. I have never denied that.
I don't see any link between Reduce Motion and ringtones. Mind explaining?
You seem to think that the role of whatever function is both, automatically, without a doubt, universally determined and correct by definition by the label a company decided to insert it in; and that its aim is defined completely by such a perfect, correct, universally accepted label, given by said company.
No, that is not how it works. Apple put whatever setting they think might be suitable in a section. That does not mean anything more than that. It absolutely does not mean that the labelling is correct by any means. In fact, I'm supporting the opposite, and it is clearly a legitimate point of view.
OK
And the ring tone comment was simply an example. Just an example to what seems to be your fundamental logic. Nothing more or nothing related to reduce motion.
And sure, your explanation makes WAY more since, they just put options wherever they have space for another switch. Not necessarily what feature/category it actually pertains to. Never thought of it that way.
The Reduce Motion setting is exposed to apps, and it is up to the developer to choose what to do with it. For example, Safari's tabs do not use parallax when the option is enabled, neither do wallpapers in Whatsapp. Apple seems to be adding support for this setting to more of their default apps.
It would be great if there were advanced settings for Reduce Motion, allowing you to customise exactly how much motion is disabled.
It would be great if there were advanced settings for Reduce Motion, allowing you to customise exactly how much motion is disabled.
OK
And the ring tone comment was simply an example. Just an example to what seems to be your fundamental logic. Nothing more or nothing related to reduce motion.
And sure, your explanation makes WAY more since, they just put options wherever they have space for another switch. Not necessarily what feature/category it actually pertains to. Never thought of it that way.
Many settings have been moved throughout different versions of the operating system.
There does not exist a universal law that tells to what category a setting should be labelled as. It is all arbitrarily decided by Apple, in this case.
It has nothing to do with space for switches. It has to do with the the arbitrary, fully arguable decision of putting a label or another to a setting.
Your ring tone example is way out of context, and it does not reflect anything related to the discussion in any way. Reduce Motion clearly implements a tweak for the user interface, and that is why it is used by most.
OK clear to only you I suppose. Sorry you cant understand other examples. I thought perhaps maybe that would help shed some light since you are not understanding what everyone else is trying to say. Sorry if it confused you even more. That was not my intent. Please disregard any mention of ring tones or sounds or any other examples mentioned to try and help.
And certainly you can continue to believe Reduce Motion is in fact a user experience option and has nothing to do with accessibility even thought Apple put it in accessibility options. You are entitled to believe what you want. I would recommend you file in Apples suggestion box about the weather animation issue to see if they will take your recommendation to change/solve it. Have a good one!
I think the source of misunderstanding could be down to trying to answer either of these questions:
1) What Reduce Motion really is.
2) What Apple intends Reduce Motion to be.
2) What Apple intends Reduce Motion to be.
We are not sure of (1); people can have their own uses for it, and at times, the users themselves determine a feature's use. It can be contrary to (or extends) Apple's intended usage. An example would be getting iOS to speak selected text, which is placed under accessibility. Those of us who won't otherwise use accessibility features can also find it useful for reading text aloud to us.
For (2), it's much clearer, because they placed it under the Accessibility section. This is probably what some other posters are arguing about.
For now at least, there's only one possible deduction for (2): they meant for it to be an accessibility feature, because they placed it under Accessibility. Anything else is just guessing, and we really cannot say much else*.
* I mean, for all we know, Apple's reason could be that they were too embarrassed to admit the animations were not well-received and so shoved it under Accessibility; however, that can only be speculation.
Unless Apple has made explicit statements to the contrary (that's where you are supposed to bring your evidence to the argument), we can safely take that as Apple's intention. We don't have to be privy to internal developers' discussions to make this deduction.
However, to suggest otherwise — that Apple intended it to be a feature to quell people's dislike for the animations — would require a lot more evidence than just “because people are using it that way”, because we are interested in Apple's intention here, not how people are really using the feature.
Now, Apple's intention could be misguided or wrong. They might realise the feature has a wider appeal than just for accessibility, and shift it to another section in an update, where it could serve as a general-purpose feature toggle.
But till then, our only way to tell their intention is from where they placed the setting under. Since they placed it under Accessibility, Apple very likely intended/meant for Reduce Motion to be an accessibility feature.
Since we are talking what Reduce Motion is designed for, which I take to mean “intention”, I suppose we are talking about (2): Apple's intention for Reduce Motion.
You will need to show your evidence as well, that Apple designed/meant/intended it for people who don't like the animations or want them toned down, and not simply as an accessibility feature. No, not how people are using it right now (no matter how prevalent), but what Apple intended/designed it to be. Release notes, statements, anything.
Yes, a feature can be used outside Apple's intention. But I think what we want to know is what Apple designed it for, and not whether their intention is right or wrong, or what it could be/should be.
Is it not clear that "Reduce Motion implements a tweak for the user interface, and that is why it is used by most"?
I can't help you realize that, sorry. Just know that it is clear.
An unrelated, out of context, meaningless example does not serve any purpose out of creating the impression that the one who made it is pretty confused.
Interestingly, how can you make a completely invented claim, such as what others do or do not understand something? And, what is everyone else trying to say?
You should be sorry that you can't provide any remotely linked example, rather.
What was your intent, exactly? Using an unnecessary and out of context example to do what? To prove anything?
Thanks for the suggestion, but I have been disregarding it since seconds after I read it.
I may write some feedback to Apple.
Reduce Motion is a feature that provides a tweak for the user interface, which in particular lets users disable and modify certain animations.
I can't see how we wouldn't be sure of that.
The fact that Apple placed a feature under a certain section of Settings is not a proof of anything.
As an example, by that logic, Apple placing "Maps Voice" in the "Sounds" section would imply Apple meant "Maps Voice" to be related to ringtones and sound notifications. Which wouldn't necessarily be the case, at all.
Notice also that Apple's original intentions don't hold much value, since the feature is getting used more for tweaking the interface than anything else.
No, that is nothing one can assume with any kind of certainty.
I can't see how I should be supposed to bring any evidence. Bring me evidence that Apple meant and means Reduce Motion as a sole accessibility option.
I also don't see why would Apple's original intention matter in any way in relation to the use that is causing.
That is what is happening. I wouldn't be surprised to see the setting moved out from Accessibility.
"Very likely".
It is "very likely" that Apple really meant the feature not to be under Accessibility, and made a mistake.
I don't see how arguing about Apple's original intentions matters, again.
Reduce Motion is designed to let users tweak the interface to their liking.
Whether this has accessibility advantages is a separate matter for those that use it that way.
I don't need to show any evidence, as it is clear that Reduce Motion lets users modify certain very important animations, and that is the reason it is used.
If anything, the one "defending" the position for which Apple meant Reduce Motion to be under Accessibility is you, so you should show evidence. Release notes, statements, anything.
I'm not interested in Apple's original intentions. "Intentions" are subject to change, and may only be of interest for those willing to study a company's response behaviour to their customers.