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

[2nd4ever]

Can't believe I read this whole thing.

 

[jaochoui]

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.

It just means “Maps Voice” is related to “Sounds”, which it is.

There's no need for it to be related to ringtones or sound notifications. Just being related to the sound category suffices, and nothing else should be/is being implied here.

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.

Yeah, absolute certainty is indeed not possible.

But we can make deductions from what we can see placed before us.

Regarding what Apple meant for Reduce Motion, the only “evidence” is that Apple placed it under Accessibility. And from there, we reason that Apple meant it as an accessibility feature.

Yes, that's only one piece of evidence. Yet, I would say — as far as suggesting what their intentions are — it's a solid one. It certainly does not suggest the contrary, at the very least.

It could be a mistake, and Apple might have accidentally placed it there, but until we can be sure it's a mistake (which we aren't sure of), it's reasonable to assume Apple meant for it to be an accessibility feature (at least, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that possibility).

Still, we don't assume mistakes outright — this will require evidence of its own. If such an evidence is present, then it will counter mine.

(Whether it's a “sole” accessibility feature is not something I've been talking about.)

Of course, to be 100% certain of what Apple meant for the feature, we would need the developers to say so themselves. Since they didn't, and I can't ask (hehe...), I won't dare say it with 100% certainly.

"Very likely".
It is "very likely" that Apple really meant the feature not to be under Accessibility, and made a mistake.

I only used “very likely” based on the categorisation, which is the so-called “evidence” I mentioned. So, it is “very likely” because that's what we can tell from what we can see.

What we can see tells me that Reduce Motion is “very likely” meant to be under an accessibility feature because it's under Accessibility. There's nothing else present that says otherwise.

What it does not say, and so cannot be “very likely”, is that Apple made a mistake. Whether they did indeed make a mistake or not is beyond what the categorisation can tell us. (That's not to say the categorisation is correctly made.) Some other evidence will need to be present to say it's Apple's mistake*.

*And even for “mistakes”, there are two kinds:
The first is Apple accidentally placed it under Accessibility when they intended/meant it to be somewhere else (slipped through the checks).
The second is that their intention itself is a mistake.


LostSoul80, I know you are not interested in Apple's intention. I'm just responding to the quoted parts.

I also don't see why would Apple's original intention matter in any way in relation to the use that is causing.

It depends on what is being discussed, doesn't it? The multi-page spanning discussion has blurred this somewhat, which was why I wrote of the possible misunderstanding. It does get messy if the parties involved are not discussing and arguing for/against the same point(s).

From what I gather, I don't think the posters are denying that there are people who use Reduce Motion as a tweak to reduce the animations and such, and that probably wasn't even what they are arguing about.

What they are likely arguing against are claims that Reduce Motion is not an accessibility feature at all, whether by Apple's intention or by user's usage scenarios (or both).

Anyway, LostSoul80, since you've stated you are not interested in Apple's intention, I don't think I should be bringing up this "intentions" issue any longer, nor should we discuss this aspect further.

Going with your point, I do agree that Reduce Motion is used by users as a tweak for reducing animations. And perhaps some finer-grained controls for these would be good to have.

 

[LostSoul80]

It just means “Maps Voice” is related to “Sounds”, which it is.

There's no need for it to be related to ringtones or sound notifications. Just being related to the sound category suffices, and nothing else should be/is being implied here.

The "Sounds" section only contains settings that are directly linked to notifications.
"Maps Voice" does not exist, and wouldn't be related to the other "Sounds" settings if it existed.

Apple's sectioning is arbitrary, and is based on often arguable bases. I believe that Reduce Motion is yet another example of this.

Yeah, absolute certainty is indeed not possible.

But we can make deductions from what we can see placed before us.

Regarding what Apple meant for Reduce Motion, the only “evidence” is that Apple placed it under Accessibility. And from there, we reason that Apple meant it as an accessibility feature.

Yes, that's only one piece of evidence. Yet, I would say — as far as suggesting what their intentions are — it's a solid one. It certainly does not suggest the contrary, at the very least.

It's not an evidence of anything. Just like "Maps Voice" being under "Sounds" wouldn't imply any relation to ringtones and notifications.
The categorization of settings does not assign meanings or evidence of what they were meant to be, it should only respond to a simple logic of easily finding what users want.
Tweaking the interface would be suited under "General", as there already are other options for this very aim.

Deductions are useless if based on undefined criterias and entities, and especially if they don't lead to any concrete point.

I only used “very likely” based on the categorisation, which is the so-called “evidence” I mentioned. So, it is “very likely” because that's what we can tell from what we can see.

Evidence of what?

What we can see tells me that Reduce Motion is “very likely” meant to be under an accessibility feature because it's under Accessibility. There's nothing else present that says otherwise.

There is nothing supporting your opinion, for which Reduce Motion "is “very likely” meant to be under an accessibility feature because it's under Accessibility". That is your own speculation, based on personal feelings of yours.

What it does not say, and so cannot be “very likely”, is that Apple made a mistake. Whether they did indeed make a mistake or not is beyond what the categorisation can tell us. (That's not to say the categorisation is correctly made.) Some other evidence will need to be present to say it's Apple's mistake*.

You seem to give importance to what seems "very likely" to you.

It's also beyond the categorization the aim of a feature. The latter is indipendent of where it can be placed.
Your assumption is based on considering "evidence" something that holds no value in relation to what you're trying to affirm.

 

[Ge.nu]

How old are you?
It is simple logic! WTF