> That seems like a really strange way of putting it.
I think it's a fair summary of what I understand your overall position to be. Specifically:
> This incorrectly assumes that an argument was being made. I already said: "I think you misunderstood the purpose of the post, which was simply to highlight the latest abomination, not to make a larger argument."
This is just "I'm not making an argument that they're merging, I'm stating it as an underlying assumption" which, again, distinction-without-a-difference.
It seems reasonable to, in this comment section over here, talk about the broader point of your opening assumption in the post. I don't have to accept your priors to talk about it, particularly not when the audience I was talking to was "readers of Hacker News, who may not have even considered this are-the-OSes-merging question before".
I don't think me disagreeing with you about the validity of your arguments violates any HN guidelines, though dang is certainly free to correct me.
Plus, even if I were to grant said underlying assumption as an inviolable topic that cannot be breached in discussion of this specific post, I'd then disagree that this is an example of it.
> Well, I didn't submit my post to HN. I'm not sure I wanted it to be on the front page.
I don't think I've ever seen you in HN comments for one of your posts not being somewhat-upset about people's responses to them. It's not the worst policy to avoid reading social media discussion about your posts, if it's making you unhappy.
> You don't have to darken the video in order to achieve brighter controls.
Sorry, I was apparently unclear about what my issue with Sequoia was, so let me rephrase. It's not the brightness, it's the outline. When I look at the Sequoia screenshot, I find my visual processing goes through two steps -- first I notice the overall button shapes, and second I identify their contents. Brightening the icons in Tahoe probably does help, but it's the reduction of the visual impact of the button-borders that really speeds my comprehension up.
> The other issue, I would say the main issue, is that the controls remain on top of the video for several seconds after you're done manipulating them.
They vanish instantly when you move the cursor off the video, which I reflexively do anyway because I don't want my cursor covering something I'm watching. (And in full-screen, the only time you couldn't do this, the background-darkening doesn't happen.)
> This is just "I'm not making an argument that they're merging, I'm stating it as an underlying assumption" which, again, distinction-without-a-difference.
In retrospect, if there's one thing missing from the post, it's an elaboration of how terrible it is to dim the videos. I thought that would go without saying. The terribleness of dimming videos is the elephant in the room.
When the post is viewed in this light (pun intended), the fundamental question becomes, why did Apple make this change? The post is not trying to argue for the thesis that iOS and macOS are merging; rather, the post is trying to explain why we got video dimming on macOS.
At first I thought it was just part of Liquid Glass, which wouldn't be surprising, because Liquid Glass makes a lot of things harder to see. Video dimming would be a natural accompaniment. However, I then discovered that video dimming in iOS predated Liquid Glass by years, so the explanation was apparently not Liquid Glass. Thus, I concluded that video dimming was added to macOS to copy iOS, as Apple has done with many other features.
If there's an argument in the article, that's it.
> I don't think me disagreeing with you about the validity of your arguments violates any HN guidelines
That's not what I said.
My point is that you did not respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what I said but rather a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Specifically, the following is a stupid argument that only a stupid person would make: "The argument apparently being that any change at all, if it was first made on iOS, must inherently be a sign that the two platforms are merging." Your reply treated me like an idiot.
> I don't think I've ever seen you in HN comments for one of your posts not being somewhat-upset about people's responses to them.
There's a logical explanation: the post itself already says what I wanted to say, so there's no reason for me to comment on my own post except to correct misinterpretations of the post. If the conversation is going well, and people understand what I wrote, then there's nothing for me to add.
I upvote some comments, but you wouldn't see that.
> it's the reduction of the visual impact of the button-borders that really speeds my comprehension up
Ok, but I'm not sure why this couldn't be achieved without dimming the video.
In any case, have you ever complained about the video controls until now? I've never heard anyone make this complaint before. Who was asking for this change before it happened?
I would emphasize that the goal is to watch the video, not to watch the controls. Apple could make it even easier for you to process the controls by completely blanking out the video, leaving only the controls, but that would be even worse, not better.
> They vanish instantly when you move the cursor off the video
This is an inconvenient workaround and not a solution to the problem.
It's not just the vanish time, though. There's no reason to darken the video when you're adjusting the volume. And if you want to pause a video and look at the still frame, it's darkened unless you move the mouse away, then you have to move the mouse back. And if you're moving the video timeline control, the video is darkened the whole time.
I think we're at an impasse on the issue of your argument, and your characterization of my interpretation of it. I disagree, but I don't think we're going to reach an agreement here. I will drop it, and we can just argue about product design.
> In any case, have you ever complained about the video controls until now? I've never heard anyone make this complaint before. Who was asking for this change before it happened?
I don't think this matters. It's an improvement. Does every change to a product have to be driven by active complaints? Doing so feels like a way to get everything to just "good enough".
> I would emphasize that the goal is to watch the video, not to watch the controls.
Sort of. The goal is mostly to watch the video, sure, but sometimes the goal is to use the controls. When the goal is to watch the controls, it's best if they can be used as quickly as possible, so you can get right back to watching the video. For me, this change supports that.
> Apple could make it even easier for you to process the controls by completely blanking out the video, leaving only the controls, but that would be even worse, not better.
Yes, so I'm glad they found a happy medium where I can more-easily comprehend the controls and still see the video. Good call, Apple!
> This is an inconvenient workaround and not a solution to the problem.
Isn't it? I admit that it conforming to my prior behavior, because I never want to have the video covered up by the cursor, makes me find it not inconvenient at all... but I'm unlikely to be the only one with that preference. Plus, "the mouse recently moved and is now hovering over the video" feels like a pretty reasonable cue that the user might intend to interact with the controls, so Apple choosing to make it easy for me to quickly get the control I want the moment my cursor moves onto the video feels like it's making my video-watching experience better. And in the unlikely case that I was to overcome my distaste and just leave the cursor there, hey, it's only a few seconds before it hides the controls anyway.
I think it's a fair summary of what I understand your overall position to be. Specifically:
> This incorrectly assumes that an argument was being made. I already said: "I think you misunderstood the purpose of the post, which was simply to highlight the latest abomination, not to make a larger argument."
This is just "I'm not making an argument that they're merging, I'm stating it as an underlying assumption" which, again, distinction-without-a-difference.
It seems reasonable to, in this comment section over here, talk about the broader point of your opening assumption in the post. I don't have to accept your priors to talk about it, particularly not when the audience I was talking to was "readers of Hacker News, who may not have even considered this are-the-OSes-merging question before".
I don't think me disagreeing with you about the validity of your arguments violates any HN guidelines, though dang is certainly free to correct me.
Plus, even if I were to grant said underlying assumption as an inviolable topic that cannot be breached in discussion of this specific post, I'd then disagree that this is an example of it.
> Well, I didn't submit my post to HN. I'm not sure I wanted it to be on the front page.
I don't think I've ever seen you in HN comments for one of your posts not being somewhat-upset about people's responses to them. It's not the worst policy to avoid reading social media discussion about your posts, if it's making you unhappy.
> You don't have to darken the video in order to achieve brighter controls.
Sorry, I was apparently unclear about what my issue with Sequoia was, so let me rephrase. It's not the brightness, it's the outline. When I look at the Sequoia screenshot, I find my visual processing goes through two steps -- first I notice the overall button shapes, and second I identify their contents. Brightening the icons in Tahoe probably does help, but it's the reduction of the visual impact of the button-borders that really speeds my comprehension up.
> The other issue, I would say the main issue, is that the controls remain on top of the video for several seconds after you're done manipulating them.
They vanish instantly when you move the cursor off the video, which I reflexively do anyway because I don't want my cursor covering something I'm watching. (And in full-screen, the only time you couldn't do this, the background-darkening doesn't happen.)