Xcode = "Unassigned Children" error:
(Xcode 14.1, 14.2)
I've begun with the treatises presented in great numbers throughout SO.
Initially, it looks solved with "Individual Scales", until I change from Individual Scales to Single Scale, whereupon the "Unassigned Children" re-appears.
I have dragged the Unassigned images UP TO the Individual Scales which temporarily helps UNTIL I switch Scales as just stated.
I have also selected the unassigned image(s) and deleted via delete button. Clean and Build. NO HELP.
It's obvious that this error would cause my iOS App to be rejected.
So, what am I doing wrong?
Appreciate it.
The TFS pending changes view (VS2010) is annoying to use, especially the fact that the hierarchy view is always expanded. Further when I check in a few files, the pending changes view is refreshed and all the items are expanded and is selected. Considering there are multiple solutions in the workarea (which are functionally and logically disjoint) and at any time I could be working on multiple tracks, the auto refresh, expand and select forces me to go through each node and collapse and deselect it.
A bit of searching brought me to this page where there specify a workaround to have the Hierarichal view selected by default using macros. Extending this method to resolve the above issue didn't materialize as I believe the events of node collapse and deselection are not getting recorded.
Is there any solution to this issue similar to say the VS Power Tool which provided an exceptional feature 'Collapse All', that collapses all the projects in the solution!
Your complain is not new, many many people complained about that to MS for year, unfortunately there's no real solution.
There's no workaround for the expand/collapse issue, but to improve the experience when you deal with many changes in multiple solutions you can activate the "filter by solution" item to only show the pending changes of the current opened solution. It reduces the number of items, hoping things will get better for you.
As Dave Shaw said the experience was totally refactored in VS11, it's much better now.
I am implementing Pinterest on my site and we have encountered a problem. Pinterest will automatically put a graphic on the picture for an item if it sees a monetary value in the description.
We have a free activity that we would like people to be able to pin (via 'pin it' button) called "The $100 game". Pinterest automatically puts the $100 graphic on the pin which makes it look like our game costs $100 when it is actually free.
Any way around this? Short of changing the name of the game.
Pinterest is still new and I don't think there is a way to escape $ sign to be treated as text and not price. If I were you I would post that on their forum so that they know of the issue, but other than that I guess you have to figure something else out.
I have some doubts regarding secondary tiles.
How many secondary tiles can be
pinned to the start screen for an
application (is there any limit)
Secondary tiles are pinned to the
start programmatically. Do we have
to ask the user whether he wants the changes to a particular section to be pinned to the start as secondary tile or without getting any confirmation from the user we can pin the secondary tiles.
There is no, currently published, restriction on the number of tiles that can be added.
Due to the screen real estate available on the start screen and the value of updated/animating live tiles which aren't always available (or at least in the first few "screens" worth of tiles) becomes decreasingly useful.
While pinning tiles can be done without a user initiated action, when a new tile is added the app closes and the phone returns to the start screnn to show the new tile. As such it's not possible to add lots of live tiles without the user being aware.
If a marketplace requirement isn't added regarding the behaviour around the creation of additional tiles I would expect it to be added quite quickly.
The potentially bad user experience of an app which repeatedly creates additional tiles without a specific instruction from the user would, I strongly expect, lead to that app not getting used much. ;)
In summary:
You can add as many secondary tiles as you wish but only do it when the user requests it and only make the option available to the user when it will add real value.
I have a Cocoa application managing a collection of objects. The collection is presented in an NSCollectionView, with a "new object" button nearby so users can add to the collection. Of course, I know that having a "delete object" button next to that button would be dangerous, because people might accidentally knock it when they mean to create something. I don't like having "are you sure you want to..." dialogues, so I dispensed with the "delete object". There's a menu item under Edit for removing an object, and you can hit Cmd-backspace to do the same. The app supports undoing delete actions.
Now I'm getting support emails ranging from "does it have to be so hard to delete things" to "why can't I delete objects?". That suggests I've made it a bit too hard, so what's the happy middle ground? I see applications from Apple that do it my way, or with the add/remove buttons next to each other, but I hate that latter option. Is there another good (and preferably common) convention for delete controls? I thought about an action menu but I don't think I have any other actions that would go in it, rendering the menu a bit thin.
Update I should also point out that delete should be an infrequent option - the app is in beta so users are trying out everything. This is a music practise journal, so creating new things to practise happens every so often (and is definitely needed when you start out using the app), but deleting them is not so frequent.
Drew's remark is always your first consideration. All other things being equal, I'm not a fan of making deletion as easy as creation; it's a dangerous and comparatively rarer action, and the UI should reflect that fact. However, not having an explicit delete control can indeed lead to support enquiries (the same happened in MoneyWell after the minus buttons were removed). The issue is that you won't hear from the people who avoided accidental deletion by hitting a too-close-to-the-plus deletion control; those people are happy and quiet. You will, however, hear from those who can't immediately find a button to click for deletion, even though almost all of Apple's applications have no such control.
If you feel that you need explicit UI for deletion, I think you can find a middle ground. The problem with deletion controls is accidental triggering, and the conventional "solution" to that problem is a confirmation alert. The problem with that is how intrusive and jarring they are, because they're modal. iPhone OS can teach us a lesson here: you can make confirmation entirely contextual and non-modal.
Examples are row-deletion (swipe to put the row into its "are you really sure you want to delete?" state, which visually tends to slide a red Delete button into view), then interact again (by tapping Delete) to actually confirm the action. There's a similar model on the App Store whereby tapping the price button changes it into a Purchase button; it's essentially an inline, non-modal confirmation. The benefit is that if you tap anywhere else (or perhaps wait a while), the control returns to its normal state on its own - you don't need to explicitly dismiss it before continuing work.
Perhaps that sort of approach (non-modal change as a sort of inline confirmation) can get rid of the support queries by making deletion controls explicit, but also patch up some of your reasonable concerns about intrusive confirmation.
I would say this depends on how important deletion is to the particular task. Is it something that the user has to do often, or very rarely. If it is rare, delete should just be left as an Edit menu option, and perhaps as backspace (Why cmd-backspace? If you can just have backspace, you probably won't get as many queries.)
As with everything in interface design, my take is to apply an 80-20 rule. If something belongs to the 20% of most used functionality, it should be exposed directly in the interface. If it is in the other 80%, you can hide it deeper (eg in a menu, action menu etc).
A + button is definitely in the top 20% --- you can't do anything without it --- whereas a delete is usually not a common operation, and is destructive, so can probably better be hidden away a bit.
The usual solution to this problem is to put the [+] and [-] buttons next to each other (see, for example, the Network pane in System Preferences). I generally find those buttons large enough that I don't hit the wrong one by mistake, although I can see that potentially being a problem.
If that option doesn't suit you, maybe take inspiration from Safari: put an 'x' inside the selected (or hovered) item.
Since your app supports undoing of deletion, I would suggest that you err on the side of making deleting stuff easy (at the expense of making it too easy) and make it obvious that these mistakes are easily undo-able. GMail does a decent job of that.
HTH.
How frequently is delete needed? Does the data and the user's expectation encourage deleting this data often? (is it a list of tasks, for example)? If so i'd certainly include a contextual action menu, even if Delete was the only option.
Cmd + Backspace may be a little unusual for people too - I know it's used in other places on OSX, but those places also provide context menus to expose the delete - i'd be surprised is every user knows about Cmd + Backspace, so i'd probably change it to Backspace (you do have undo support, so you're covered there).
Finally, and hopefully I don't sound like a git, but it suggests that the built-in help doesn't offer enough guidance on this - might be worth revising it?
Matt gave pretty much the same answer I was going to write.
Note that when you delete the object, you should animate it away: this provides valuable visual feedback: the animation (about 1/3 of a second is good) is long enough to catch the user’s eye, and they’ll see the object disappearing. If the object just disappeared without animating, the user would notice that something had changed instantaneously in the list, but would be less certain what it was. The animation reinforces the meaning of the delete button in the user’s mental model.