Quote:
Originally Posted by holymadness
You haven't contradicted anything I've written, you've just rephrased the directions for improvement. It remains that they are instructions to copy the iPhone's implementation of each feature.
|
Sure I have. How are correcting existing UI errors, making type more readable by enlarging it, and removing clutter on a screen iOS UI features? These things simply fall outside your characterization of the document.
Quote:
|
Absolutely. It shows they were worried about imitating Apple too closely and that while copying the elements that lend iOS icons a "luxurious" and "soft and comfortable" feel, they would need to differentiate them otherwise to avoid being accused of theft.
|
Well, there ya go! Nothing shows their TRUE intent throughout that whole exercise they did that day than those words. Their intent was not to clone an iphone but to improve their own product in ways that don't infringe but rather enhance their product in common sense ways. They had no idea at that time that in a few years, Apple would be making excessive infringement claims in front of a runaway jury!
Quote:
Ironically, this last recommendation was ignored, as Samsung more closely imitated iOS icons over time.
For instance, the S1 icon for the phone app on the S1 is a dialpad; in later models, a phone handset, nearly identical to Apple's. The contacts icon on the S1 is a phone handset; in later models, a book adorned with a silhouette of a man's head and shoulders, nearly identical to the iOS contacts app.
|
While I agree the phone app icon is very similar to that in iOS, I disagree strongly that the contacts icon is "nearly identical" to that in iOS. Maybe only if you're color blind and have no sense of design whatsoever. The two icons look totally different.
At any rate, one phone icon does not a "copy" make in terms of the entire interface. And it doesn't change the fact that the intent of the document was more to correct and improve rather than to "copy."
--Pat