41–50 of 107 posts
Nobody seems to mention a pretty good reason also: standard western text (and content in general) is oriented right-to-left; therefore covering only one side seems to me intuitively less obstructing (we can read perfectly up to the click spot, instead of being confused by what's underneath it)
I remember windows 3.1 had a utility for drawing custom cursors. I had great fun making cursors (I was around 10 at the time I guess) and had completed forgotten about it until now! I think that utility was a 16x16 grid, and indeed the easiest to see arrows utilsed the vertical, although actually a cursor which uses the horizontal and diagonal isn't bad either.
Nobody seems to mention a pretty good reason also: standard western text (and content in general) is oriented right-to-left; therefore covering only one side seems to me intuitively less obstructing (we can read perfectly up to the click spot, instead of being confused by what's underneath it)
Yep: a better reason (than those given on SO) is that it's designed for minimal UX annoyance - it is least likely to cover up what you need to see while still serving its purpose; the asymmetry allows you to more quickly understand which point is important. It's instructive to observe the circumstances when the cursor changes: there is some indication of context change, but also the design of the cursor in each conte…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep: a better reason (than those given on SO) is that it's designed for minimal UX annoyance - it is least likely to cover up what you need to see while still serving its purpose; the asymmetry allows you to more quickly understand which point is important. It's instructive to observe the circumstances when the cursor changes: there is some indication of context change, but also the design of the cursor in each conte…
A better reason in hindsight isn't the right answer. Likely they had to do it per limitations of the computers of the time. Trying to tie it to UX like a modern day designer is just wrong.
As discussed in the accepted answer, vertical line cursors predate the slanted shape. Changing to a different style only makes sense as a design decision.
I remember windows 3.1 had a utility for drawing custom cursors. I had great fun making cursors (I was around 10 at the time I guess) and had completed forgotten about it until now! I think that utility was a 16x16 grid, and indeed the easiest to see arrows utilsed the vertical, although actually a cursor which uses the horizontal and diagonal isn't bad either.
I hated sitting down to a machine with custom mouse cursors, mostly because the actual hit detection point was always in a weird spot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep: a better reason (than those given on SO) is that it's designed for minimal UX annoyance - it is least likely to cover up what you need to see while still serving its purpose; the asymmetry allows you to more quickly understand which point is important. It's instructive to observe the circumstances when the cursor changes: there is some indication of context change, but also the design of the cursor in each conte…
A better reason in hindsight isn't the right answer. Likely they had to do it per limitations of the computers of the time. Trying to tie it to UX like a modern day designer is just wrong.
I tried a straight upwards cursor once. It felt terrible. The tilt gives the cursor "extended hand" feel.
To a right-handed person it does ...I imagine to a left-handed person it must feel like the cursor/pointer is pointing the "wrong" way. I am wrong on this lefto weirdies? Bonus upvotes for casual slur surely.
Some systems make this easy (click the 'flip cursor' box, done!). Others make you spend an hour trying to figure out where to get custom cursors and how to install them. >:(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Commodore Amiga had something similar along with an early 'double 90 degree' cursor [1] and a 1/2 pixel ratio cursor in later versions if the OS [2]. Both are pretty delightful :) [1] http://toastytech.com/guis/amiga1cplpointer.png [2] http://geekometry.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/amigaos204-...
Welp, you just gave me a heap'o'nostalgia
Nobody seems to mention a pretty good reason also: standard western text (and content in general) is oriented right-to-left; therefore covering only one side seems to me intuitively less obstructing (we can read perfectly up to the click spot, instead of being confused by what's underneath it)