Is this possible? I would love to create multiple view controllers for each apple device. I know I could go in and add constraints to make all my labels and buttons line up properly, but after about 4 hours of messing with constraints and watching tutorials, I just can't get it right! Is there any possible way to just create multiple view controllers for each device?
You can, and I have done it before, but I wouldn't recommend it. I did that when AutoLayout was introduced and it all seemed too hard. I returned to AutoLayout when Apple introduced size classes. They make life much easier to have very different constraints for different devices. They also handle things like an iPhone 6 Plus being pretty much as big as an iPad mini.
You could probably spend a lot of time hacking away at making a work around for not being able to use auto-layout but you would definitely end up spending more time in the long run.
I struggled a lot with auto-layout when I started (and still wouldn't say i'm an expert) but after spending some time reading the millions of different tutorials I found it much easier.
It's difficult to recommend different sources for training material like this because everyone has a different preferred style. It's easy to recommend the official Apple docs (Auto Layout: https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AutolayoutPG/index.html) but they can be so verbose that frankly, you end up getting bored and/or daunted so give up. Some people love youtube videos and some love blogs.
It's up to you to find a guide that helps but if you come back on Stack overflow with clearly explained, small and simple examples of UI elements that you are trying to manage with auto layout then people might try and explain what approach you should take and these instructions will come in different formats.
I'm developing a web site, but I don't know what the lowest 'supported' resolution should be. I know that it will function in all resolutions, but by 'supported' I mean that all the content will fit in the page without scrolling from side to side. Should I even think about 'supporting' 1024x768?
There isn't a correct answer here, other than "know your audience". That's not a very easy thing to do early on in development, unless you are targeting a very specific niche audience.
The common approach for a generic website would be to check current browser display statistics for popular sites:
W3 Counter
W3Schools Browser Display Statistics
1024x768 is still a very popular resolution, and a safe bet. And, although I haven't found any official stats, it's obviously the resolution Stack Exchange targets.
Not at the moment because I plan on making a mobile site later.
I'll focus on the desktop side of things in this answer.
According to Net Applications, 1024x768 is the most popular resolution used today with over 15%. The next step down in 'desktop' sizes is 800x600, but it only has a share of 0.89%, so you probably won't have to bother supporting resolutions below 1024x768 on your desktop site.
A safe width for content on desktop browsers is 960px, which leaves just enough room for a simple background on the very common 1024x768 displays mentioned in other answers. A 960px width is also friendly to grid layouts.
In case you want to go the more flexible route and support not worry too much about certain ranges of resolutions (mobile devices probably nonwithstanding), consider liquid layouts.
I 100% agree with #Yannis this, its a target audience question. 1024 wide is a good baseline for a worldwide audience, but if you're website isn't for the 'average' internet user you may have a really good reason to use a wider (or narrower layout). For example if you are targeting power users 1280 or even 1600 may be acceptable.
Another possiblity would be to use a variable layout which many modern sites use. This means adjusting your width (or even your whole css) based on the current users browser width. This gives a really sleek feel to your sites.
One really good example of the usage of a variable layout is inside the Trello application.
1024x768 should be ok. But find out what resolution the person signing the check uses and try to develop a liquid layout to avoid side scrolling.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
How do you sketch out your iPhone App designs and ideas? I am currently about to start my next project and want to find a way to get my ideas on screen instead of good old fashioned paper.
For the first stage, nothing is going to beat paper. Whatever tool you use will be (hopefully) more accurate, sure. But you're trading time for that accuracy, and in the initial stage of UI design you need speed more than accuracy.
I do my designs with a few different pencils on index cards. When I'm satisfied I'm going in the right direction, I tape the card to a ruler and use my iMac's camera to take a picture of them. I then convert it to B&W and do a simple brightness/contrast to try to get them looking as good as possible, and I've got something reasonable to digitally store.
The great thing about this is that I can draw a rough card in not much more time than it takes Save As to open up if your Time Machine drive has gone to sleep. :) I can do a nice card in a little more time. And if I ever want something nicer looking, I can edit the scan or use it as a tracer in some other program.
(And I toss the cards in ziplock bags by project.)
Balsamiq has an excellent tool for doing mockups of interface designs. They also have some iPhone components. There is an online demo that I have started using (after seeing the answer to another SO question) and have really enjoyed the experience so far.
MockApp looks great!
OmniGraffle. ( http://www.omnigroup.com/products/OmniGraffle/ ) When combined with various iPhone Stencils like: ( http://graffletopia.com/stencils/413 and http://graffletopia.com/search/iphone ), OmniGraffle makes a great toolset.
Thanks everyone for you quick responses!
After testing both Balsamiq and MockApp I have come to the conclusion that MockApp gives me exactly the sort thing I want for design my Apps as you can see exactly how it will look and the sort of space each UI Element will take up. Also with the use of Keynote or Powerpoint you could go a stage further and link all the buttons up to create an effective demo presentation of your ideas if you required to present such a thing, though this is a little more time consuming and for myself I don't require this, but nice to know its there!
Balsamiq is a slightly quicker and easier tool to use but has less stock UI components and gives a sketchy look to the design which appears cool if you wanted to create quick story board images of your app idea but for actual design MockApp creates a much more realistic appearance which I believe is better. Also Balsamiq costs $79 if you want more then just the demo.
The reason I would choose MockApp over all the other solutions is that I would assume most already have either powerpoint or keynote on their computer compared to Photoshop or Fireworks, though I'm sure if you have those applications on your computer it may be better to use those. Also MockApp is free / tweet-ware, see the MockApp website for more details.
Hope this helps
Dan
P.S. I have yet to try OmniGraffle, thats next on my list!
I am developing WireframeSketcher wireframing tool that lets you create iPhone mockups using an external stencil. You can also link screens together to simulate interactivity.
I use these Photoshop templates from Teehan and Lax...
http://www.teehanlax.com/blog/2009/06/18/iphone-gui-psd-30/
or for a whole list of iPhone and iPad stencils: http://emilychang.com/2010/03/ipad-templates-and-stencils/
(source: emilychang.com)
I just create my designs in Adobe Fireworks using this mockup toolkit: http://blog.metaspark.com/2009/02/fireworks-toolkit-for-creating-iphone-ui-mockups/
Omnigraffle works well
I also create my designs in Adobe Fireworks using mockups toolkits you can find everywhere.
If you're a Fireworks fan you really should take a look at a very nice Fireworks Extension which allows you to preview your designed app in a iPhone simulator which is AIR based. The transition effects which are the trademark of the mobile device are also built in the extension and can be applied to the designs.
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?event=extensionDetail&loc=en_us&extid=1786031#
if you're already familiar with fireworks mockups you will love this extension.
best
Rob Rhyne's Briefs is great for mocking up the user experience. You can play your briefs on the phone.
Software is attractive, but you'll end up spending more time playing around with colors and moving things than getting the design/functionality down. What you need is speed. With speed you can move onto the programming sooner than later. I'll admit if you ultimately want to share the design with someone else MockApp is probably a good choice.
Here's what you need: (In order of preference)
http://technabob.com/blog/2009/09/28/notepod-paper-iphone-notepads/
or
http://appsketchbook.com/
or
http://thenextweb.com/2009/05/21/designing-iphone-software-pencil-wooden-forms-ink-brush/
Software is useful and may be more efficient but sometimes getting away from the screen is a good way to increase concentration on design rather than implementation. And nothing draws quite as many "cool!" comments as my stainless steel iPhone stencil:
Design Commission Stainless Steel iPhone UI Template
I don't use the print image they provide but made my own with a reduced-alpha screen capture from the simulator.
I would have to say mockapp or omnigraffle at the moment.
Don't miss out on this one by Less Code: http://lesscode.co.nz/interface
It lets you design right on the iPhone with iOS native components.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I am toying with the idea of creating an completely new operating system and would like to hear what everyone on this forums take is on that? First is it too late are the big boys so entrenched in our lives that we will never be able to switch (wow - what a terrible thought...). But if this is not the case, what should a operating system do for you? What features are the most important? Should all the components be separate installations (in other words - should the base OS really have no user functionality and that gets added on by creating "plug-ins" kind of like a good flexible tool?)
Why do I want to do this... I am more curious about whether there is a demand and I am wondering, since the OSes we use most today (Linux, Windows, Mac OS X (Free BSD)) were actually written more than 20 years ago (and I am being generous - I mean dual and quad cores did not exist back then, buses were much slower, hardware was much more expensive, etc,...), I was just curious with the new technology if we would do anything differently?
I am anxious to read your comments.
To answer the first question: It's never too late. Especially when it comes to niche market segments and stuff like that.
Second though, before you start down the path of creating a new OS, you should understand the kind of undertaking it is: it'd be a massive project.
Is it just a normal programmer "scratch the itch" kind of project? If so, then by all means go ahead -- you might learn alot of things by doing it. But if you're doing it for the resulting product, then you shouldn't start down that path until you've looked at all the current OSes under development (there are alot more than you'd think at first) and figured out what you'd like to change in them.
Quite possibly the effort would be better spent improving/changing an existing open source system. Even for your own experimentation, it may be easier to get the results you want if you start out with something already in development.
First, a little story. In 1992, during the very first Win32 ( what would become the MS Professional Developers Conference ) conference, I had the opportunity to sit with over some lunch with one Mr. Dave Cutler ( Chief Architect of what most folks would now know as Windows NT,Windows 2000, XP, etc. ).
I was at the time working on the Multimedia group at IBM Boca Raton on what some of you might remember, OS/2. Having worked on OS/2 for several years, and recognizing "the writing on the wall" of where OSes were going, I asked him, "Dave, is Windows NT going to take us into the next century or are there other ideas on your mind ?". His answer to me was as follows:
"M...., Windows NT is the last operating system anyone will ever develop from scratch !". Then he looked over at me, took a sip of his beer, and said, "Then again, you could wake up next Saturday after a particularly good night out with your girl, and have a whole new approach for an operating system, that'll put this to shame."
Putting that conversation into context, and given the fact I'm back in college pursuing my Master's degree ( specializing in Operating Systems design ), I'd say there's TONS of room for new operating systems. The thing is to put things into perspective. What are your target goals for this operating system ? What problem space is it attempting to service ?
Putting this all into perspective will give you an indication of whether you're really setting your sights on an achievable goal.
That all being said, I second an earlier commenters note about looking into things like "Singularity" ( the focus of a talk I gave this past spring in one of my classes .... ), or if you really want to "sink your teeth into" an OS in its infancy....look at "ReactOS".
Then again, WebOSes, like gOS, and the like, are probably where we're headed over the next decade or so. Or then again, someone particularly bright could wake up after a particularly fruitful evening with their lady or guy friend, and have the "next big idea" in operating systems.
Why build the OS directly on a physical machine? You'll just be mucking around in assembly language ;). Sure, that's fun, but why not tackle an OS for a VM?
Say an OS that runs on the Java/.NET/Parrot (you name it) VM, that can easily be passed around over the net and can run a bunch of software.
What would it include?
Some way to store data (traditional FS won't cut it)
A model for processes / threads (or just hijack the stuff provided by the VM?)
Tools for interacting with these processes etc.
So, build a simple Platform that can be executed on a widely used virtual machine. Put in some cool functionality for a specific niche (cloud computing?). Go!
For more information on the micro- versus monolithic kernel, look up Linus' 'discussion' with Andrew Tanenbaum.
I would highly suggest looking at an early version on linux(0.01) to at least get your feet wet. You're going to mucking about with assembly and very obscure low-level stuff to even get started (especially getting into protected mode, multi-tasking, etc). And yes, it's probably true that the "big boys" already have the market cornered. I'm not telling you NOT to do it, but maybe doing some work on the linux kernel would be a better stepping stone.
Check out Cosmos and Singularity, these represent what I want from a futuristic operating system ;-)
Edit :
SharpOS is another managed OS effort. Suggested by yshuditelu
An OS should have no user functionality at all. User functionality should be added by separate projects, which does not at all mean that the projects should not work together!
If you are interested in user functionality maybe you should look into participating in existing Desktop Environment projects such as GNOME, KDE or something.
If you are interested in kernel-level functionality, either try hacking on a BSD derivate or on Linux, or try creating your own system -- but don't think too much about the user functionality then. Getting the core of an operating system right is hard and will take a long time -- wanting to reinvent everything does not make much sense and will get you nowhere.
You might want to join an existing OS implementation project first, or at least look at what other people have implemented.
For example AROS has been some 10 or more years in the making as a hobby OS, and is now quite usable in many ways.
Or how about something more niche? Check out Symbios, which is a fully multitasking desktop (in the style of Windows) operating system - for 4MHz Z80 CPUs (Amstrad CPC, MSX). Maybe you would want to write something like this, which is far less of a bite than a full next-generation operating system.
Bottom line...focus on your goals and even more importantly the goals of others...help to meet those needs. Never start with just technology.
I'd recommend against creating your own Operating System. (My own geeky interruption...Look into Cloud Computing and Amazon EC2)
I totally agree that it would first help by defining what your goals are. I am a big fan of User Experiences and thinking of not only your own goals but the goals of your audience/users/others. Once you have those goals, then move to the next step of how to meet it.
Now days what is an Operation System any way? kernal, Operating System, Virtual Server Instance, Linux, Windows Server, Windows Home, Ubuntu, AIX, zSeries OS/390, et al. I guess this is a good definition of OS... Wikipedia
I like Sun's slogan "the Network is the computer" also...but their company has really fallen in the past decade.
On that note of the Network is the computer... again, I highly recommend, checking out Amazon EC2 and more generally cloud computing.
I think that building a new OS from scratch to resemble the current OSes on the market is a waste of time. Instead, you should think about what Operating System will be like 10-20 years from now. My intuition is that they will be so different as to render them mostly unrecognizable by today's standards. Think of frameworks such as Facebook (gasp!) for models of how future OSes will operate.
I think you're right about our current operating systems being old. Someone said that all operating systems suck. And yes, don't we have problems with them? Call it BSOD, Sad Mac or a Kernel Panic. Our filesystems fail, there are security and reliability problems.
Microsoft pursued interesting approach with its Singularity kernel. It isolates processes in software, using a virtual machine similar to .NET, and formal verification methods. Basically all IPC seems to be formally specified and verified, even before a program is ran.
But there's another problem with it - Singularity is only a kernel. You can't run application not designed for it on it. This is a huge penalty, making eventual transition (Singularity is not public) quite hard. If you manage to produce something of similar technical advantages, but with a real transition plan (think about IPv4->IPv6 problems, or how Windows got so much market share on desktop), that could be huge!
But starting small is not a bad choice either. Linux started just like this, and there are many cases when it leads to better design. Small is beautiful. Easier to change. Easier to grow. Anyway, good luck!
checkout singularity project,
do something revolutionary
I've always wanted an operating system that was basically nothing but a fresh slate. It would have built in plugin support which allow you to build the user interface, applications, whatever you want.
This system would work much like a Lua sandbox to a game would work, minus the limitations. You could build a plugin or module system that would have access to a variety of subsystems that you would use. For example, if you were to write a web browser application, you would need to load the networking library and use that within your plugin script. Need 'security' ? Load the library.
The difference between this and Linux is that, Linux is an operating system but has a windows manager that runs over top of it. In this theoretical operating system, you would be able to implement the generic "look" and "feel" of a variety of windows within the plugin system, or could you create a custom interface.
The difference between this and Windows is that its fully customizable, and by fully I mean if you wanted to not implement any cryptography at all, you can do that, or if you wanted to customize an already existing window, you can do that. Nothing is closed to you.
In this theoretical operating system, there is an OS with a plugin system. The plugin system uses a simple and powerful language.
If you're asking what I'd like to see in an operating system, I can give you a list. I am just getting into programming so I'm not sure if any of this is possible, but I can give you my ideas.
I'd like to see a developed operating system (besides the main ones) in which it ISN'T a pain to get the wireless card to work. That is my #1 pet peeve with most of the ones I've tried out.
It would be cool to see an operating system designed by a programmer for other programmers. Have it so you can run programs for all different operating systems. I don't know if that's possible without having a copy of windows and OSX but it would be really damn cool if I could check the compatablity of programs I write with all operating systems.
You could also consider going with MINIX which is a good starting point.
To the originator of this forum, my hats off to you sir for daring to think in much bolder and idealistic terms regarding the IT industry. First and foremost, Your questions are precisely the kind you would think should engage a much broader audience given the flourishing Computer Sciences all over the globe & the openness taught to us by the Revolutionary Linux OS, which has only begun to win the hearts and minds of so many out there by way of strengthing its user-friendly interface. So kudos on pushing the envelope.
If I'm following correctly, you are supposing that given the fruits of our labor thus far, the development of further hardware & Software concoctions could or at least should be less conventional. The implication, of course, is that any new development would reach its goal faster than what is typical. The prospect, however, of an entirely new OS system #this time would be challenging - to say the least - only because there is so much friction out there already between Linux & Windows. It is really a battle between open source & the proprietary ideologies. Bart Roozendaal in a comment above proves my point nicely. Forget the idea of innovation and whatever possibilities may come from a much more contemporary based Operating System, for such things are secondary. What he is asking essentially is, are you going to be on the side of profit or no? He gives his position away easily here. As you know, Windows is notorious for its monopolistic approach regarding new markets, software, and other technology. It has maintained a deathgrip on its hegemony since its existence and sadly the windows os is racked with endless bugs & backdoors.
Again, I applaud you for your taking a road less travelled and hopefully forgeing ahead and not becoming discouraged. Personally, I'd like to see another OS out there...one much more contemporary.