Best way to "Input" card value in Iphone

Jun 7, 2011
4
0
Hey guys, Im trying to determine what is the best (easy) way to "input" a card in an Iphone app.

Im working on something related to magic/iphone.

I think that the way you "input" the card in the Invisible Deck app of ellusionist is kind of complicated.

I was thinking on method where you can "input" any card to your Iphone with 3 touches.
Dividing the screen in 4 depending on where the user touch.

1st touch determine de suit.
2nd touch determine de group (1 to 3, 4 to 6, 7 to 9, 10 to K).
3rd touch determine de card.

Any suggestions?
Does anyone have a better method to do this?

Thank u :)
 
Feb 9, 2011
53
0
Sorry ... didn't understand that you meant *secretly* input a card.

First touch: screen divided into 4 parts for suit

Second touch: screen divided into 13 parts for value. Think "stars on the American flag":

A 2 3

4 5

6 7 8

9 10

J Q K


Naturally these would be spaced out across the screen on their respective line, not scrunched together like it appears.
 
Jun 6, 2010
796
0
Nashville, TN
Hey guys, Im trying to determine what is the best (easy) way to "input" a card in an Iphone app.

Im working on something related to magic/iphone.

I think that the way you "input" the card in the Invisible Deck app of ellusionist is kind of complicated.

I was thinking on method where you can "input" any card to your Iphone with 3 touches.
Dividing the screen in 4 depending on where the user touch.

1st touch determine de suit.
2nd touch determine de group (1 to 3, 4 to 6, 7 to 9, 10 to K).
3rd touch determine de card.

Any suggestions?
Does anyone have a better method to do this?

Thank u :)

I personally think that the original "swipe" method is best for this kind of trick. With the different parts of the screen idea, you could easily mess up, forget which suit/value is where, and accidentally touch the wrong area without even knowing it.

With the original, you can see what you can touch, you can touch it multiple times if you happen to mess up, and when you swipe, the numbers and suits disappear (with T11's rising card app). I've shown the Rising Card countless times with the spectator looking at the screen and I've never been caught. Just make sure you hide the bottom bar where the suits are fully spelled out.
 
Jun 7, 2011
4
0
Thanks for answering!

Can you explain me how does the raising card app method for selecting a card works? I didn´t understand :)
 
Feb 9, 2011
53
0
I thought the idea was to be able to have the screen in full view at all times. If you have to have it facing you (or cover up any part of it for any amount of time) you kind of defeat the purpose of an invisible deck type of effect (even though it may be perfectly fine for a rising card thing.

Put the suits in standard CHaSeD order:

CH
SD

and space out the values (again like stars on the American flag) in "numerical" order. You can always count it off in your mind if you forget on the fly.

Then add a swipe for error correction, i.e., a swipe means start again from suit. Heck, you could even add an option for use in the cases where you're holding the phone: have it do 1 quick vibrate to confirm your input.
 
Jun 6, 2010
796
0
Nashville, TN
I thought the idea was to be able to have the screen in full view at all times. If you have to have it facing you (or cover up any part of it for any amount of time) you kind of defeat the purpose of an invisible deck type of effect (even though it may be perfectly fine for a rising card thing.

Put the suits in standard CHaSeD order:

CH
SD

and space out the values (again like stars on the American flag) in "numerical" order. You can always count it off in your mind if you forget on the fly.

Then add a swipe for error correction, i.e., a swipe means start again from suit. Heck, you could even add an option for use in the cases where you're holding the phone: have it do 1 quick vibrate to confirm your input.

Even it sounds like that idea would work, it's way too complicated. Most spectators won't think you're doing anything fishy if you turn the iPod to yourself for 2 seconds. The only reason for having to eliminate that small window of time would be to convince magicians.
 
Feb 9, 2011
53
0
Complicated?

Even it sounds like that idea would work, it's way too complicated. Most spectators won't think you're doing anything fishy if you turn the iPod to yourself for 2 seconds. The only reason for having to eliminate that small window of time would be to convince magicians.

Wow. If the method I suggested is something that qualifies as "too complicated" for magicians nowadays, I worry about the future of magic.

Consider the sequence: magician shows iPhone (or your favorite smartphone), a card is named, then magician turns phone toward himself for 2 seconds, then magician turns phone so spectators can see the screen, then the card is revealed.

Compare that to the sequence: magician shows iPhone (or your favorite smartphone), a card is named, then with screen never leaving the audience's sight the card is revealed.

If even one spectator thinks you're doing something fishy, that's one too many. Better to attempt to "fool" all of the spectators and maybe even some of the magicians than to risk leaving some spectators "un-fooled."

But when it comes to magic with technology, an ever-increasing number of spectators (especially those who own that very same technology) - aren't really going to be "fooled" by the actual technology part of an effect anyway. They're well aware of apps (they typically own dozens) and they're well aware that you're running one whether you actually fired it up in front of them or not (a smartphone typically doesn't show a deck of cards all by itself.) So all that remains is figuring out how the magician communicated the card to the app. That quickly devolves into a question of WHEN it could have been done rather than how (they know input comes through the screen or the buttons.) It obviously had to happen sometime between when the card was named and when it was revealed. And since that is such a narrow window of time, it doesn't take long to fathom that it was done when they couldn't see the screen if the effect is accomplished in such a manner. Better to have them going around saying "but the screen never left our sight" and "I didn't catch him" than to say "it had to happen when we couldn't see the screen" if you're doing one of these effects. Full disclosure (in case you haven't surmised): I'm not a fan of these effects with technology to begin with since the technology does tend to hog the spotlight during such an effect. But if I were to do one, I'd want to minimize any handling of the technology. Of course, even then you'd be accused of wireless shenanigans.
 
Jun 6, 2010
796
0
Nashville, TN
Wow. If the method I suggested is something that qualifies as "too complicated" for magicians nowadays, I worry about the future of magic.

Consider the sequence: magician shows iPhone (or your favorite smartphone), a card is named, then magician turns phone toward himself for 2 seconds, then magician turns phone so spectators can see the screen, then the card is revealed.

Compare that to the sequence: magician shows iPhone (or your favorite smartphone), a card is named, then with screen never leaving the audience's sight the card is revealed.

If even one spectator thinks you're doing something fishy, that's one too many. Better to attempt to "fool" all of the spectators and maybe even some of the magicians than to risk leaving some spectators "un-fooled."

But when it comes to magic with technology, an ever-increasing number of spectators (especially those who own that very same technology) - aren't really going to be "fooled" by the actual technology part of an effect anyway. They're well aware of apps (they typically own dozens) and they're well aware that you're running one whether you actually fired it up in front of them or not (a smartphone typically doesn't show a deck of cards all by itself.) So all that remains is figuring out how the magician communicated the card to the app. That quickly devolves into a question of WHEN it could have been done rather than how (they know input comes through the screen or the buttons.) It obviously had to happen sometime between when the card was named and when it was revealed. And since that is such a narrow window of time, it doesn't take long to fathom that it was done when they couldn't see the screen if the effect is accomplished in such a manner. Better to have them going around saying "but the screen never left our sight" and "I didn't catch him" than to say "it had to happen when we couldn't see the screen" if you're doing one of these effects. Full disclosure (in case you haven't surmised): I'm not a fan of these effects with technology to begin with since the technology does tend to hog the spotlight during such an effect. But if I were to do one, I'd want to minimize any handling of the technology. Of course, even then you'd be accused of wireless shenanigans.

First of all, if a method is considered too complicated and there's another method that would work just as well and is a lot simpler, then the complicated method doesn't need to be used. This doesn't just apply to magic, but it applies to everything. There's no need to make something more complicated than it needs to be, that would just be a waste of time that could be used perfecting the simpler method.

Second, in the two scenarios that you described, each one would look the same to a spectator. When they want to recall what happened, they won't focus on two (or less) seconds where they didn't see every single thing on the screen. Plus, if you look at a past post of mine on this, you don't need to turn it around. For the Rising Card App, the letters disappear when you swipe, so there's a split second where you might need to hide something, but it wouldn't be necessary. And besides, if you were correctly doing your job as a performer, the thought, "He's doing something fishy because I don't see the screen" shouldn't even be crossing their mind. Also, if you were going to use your method, wouldn't it be a little weird to see the person tapping different areas of the screen for no apparent reason without anything else opening up. Seems like it doesn't make sense right?
 
Feb 9, 2011
53
0
Simple?

First of all, if a method is considered too complicated and there's another method that would work just as well and is a lot simpler, then the complicated method doesn't need to be used. This doesn't just apply to magic, but it applies to everything. There's no need to make something more complicated than it needs to be, that would just be a waste of time that could be used perfecting the simpler method.

Second, in the two scenarios that you described, each one would look the same to a spectator. When they want to recall what happened, they won't focus on two (or less) seconds where they didn't see every single thing on the screen. Plus, if you look at a past post of mine on this, you don't need to turn it around. For the Rising Card App, the letters disappear when you swipe, so there's a split second where you might need to hide something, but it wouldn't be necessary. And besides, if you were correctly doing your job as a performer, the thought, "He's doing something fishy because I don't see the screen" shouldn't even be crossing their mind. Also, if you were going to use your method, wouldn't it be a little weird to see the person tapping different areas of the screen for no apparent reason without anything else opening up. Seems like it doesn't make sense right?

It seems that you have hedged your own position by using a very big IF in your premise. It also seems unwise to rely on your spectators' faulty memory when it comes to those among them who are bent on reconstructing your presentation in an effort to ferret out your method. Why would you want to give them any wiggle room at all?

I completely and totally agree about keeping things simple. I completely and totally agree that that there's no need to use complicated methods when simpler methods are a better choice. But the part you keep missing and failing to address is whether in fact a simpler method (and I agree that your method itself is certainly "simpler") really is a better choice in a particular circumstance. You have to have both components. Just because a simpler method exists does not automatically imply that it is also the better choice. It's absolutely wonderful when they are one in the same, but there are many times when they are not. This is especially true when it comes to magic. (It also applies to everything, BTW: it is definitely possible to kill a grizzly bear that's attacking myself and my family with something as simple as a knife; but I'd prefer the slightly more complicated shotgun method given a vote towards a better choice under the circumstances.)

While we're on the topic of simplicity, what's simpler: concealing a set of selection buttons for a second or two while you tap them? Or keeping the screen in full view at all times from the moment you bring the phone out and concealing nothing? There's just something about bringing the phone into view with a "normal" (appears that no app is running) screen and letting the spectators see that from the get-go (well before the card is named) that IMHO makes the effect so much stronger than not showing them the spectator the screen until after the card is announced.

But what about all that phantom tapping you say? Yeah, I guess I have to give you that one. If I blatantly tap the screen a couple of times for no apparent reason in front of the spectators, that definitely would not make one bit of sense. And it would look pretty danged weird too. Of course, if you were doing your job correctly as a magical engineer, you would find a way to incorporate the two required taps into the routine itself and they would not only go unnoticed, they would in fact be motivated when executed by a performer. For example, since no app is supposedly running when you bring the phone out, it makes perfect sense to tap the screen to launch the "magic deck of cards" app (even though it really is already running.) So there's one free well-motivated tap right under the spectator's noses. Now let's take that one step further. Suppose an alert or a message or something appears on the screen a little while after you bring the phone out (but it's really coming from the magic deck of cards app.) You'd be given another free tap to dismiss the alert - another well-motivated tap that the spectators have undoubtedly done themselves many times before too.

Now put it all together: Start the app running and bring out the phone. Set the phone in front of the spectators as you begin talking about their favorite card (forgive the lame patter cues; I trust you could do better. Like Indiana Jones, I'm making this up as I go along.) As you set the phone down, you touch the screen to get the (already secretly running) app to start a 20 (adjustable in the software) second timer. Just as you have the spectator name their favorite card, a text message (choice of interruption and contents therein also adjustable in software) pops up. You dismiss the text message with a quick tap (on the quadrant that secretly selects the suit.) You then launch (as far as the spectators know) the magic deck of cards app with a second tap (conveniently with a quick tap that secretly identifies the value.) It's all presentation from here.

IMHO, that's way stronger and more than justifies the more "complicated" method since nothing needs to be concealed - even for a split second. I'd also be lying if I didn't say I really enjoy performing any effect where the spectators can be burning your hands as you do the dirty work out in the open and right in front of them and they still don't suspect a thing. Being able to actually (albeit casually) draw their attention TO the (secret) dirty work (rather than misdirecting their attention AWAY from it) is almost more fun than magicians should be allowed to have. I'm actually starting to like this. BlackIce2x: when you're done working on the effect that started this thread, let's talk! :)

In practice, it's really hard to make things simple. But like Albert Einstein famously said "Make everything as simple as possible - but no simpler."
 
Jun 6, 2010
796
0
Nashville, TN
It seems that you have hedged your own position by using a very big IF in your premise. It also seems unwise to rely on your spectators' faulty memory when it comes to those among them who are bent on reconstructing your presentation in an effort to ferret out your method. Why would you want to give them any wiggle room at all?

I completely and totally agree about keeping things simple. I completely and totally agree that that there's no need to use complicated methods when simpler methods are a better choice. But the part you keep missing and failing to address is whether in fact a simpler method (and I agree that your method itself is certainly "simpler") really is a better choice in a particular circumstance. You have to have both components. Just because a simpler method exists does not automatically imply that it is also the better choice. It's absolutely wonderful when they are one in the same, but there are many times when they are not. This is especially true when it comes to magic. (It also applies to everything, BTW: it is definitely possible to kill a grizzly bear that's attacking myself and my family with something as simple as a knife; but I'd prefer the slightly more complicated shotgun method given a vote towards a better choice under the circumstances.)

While we're on the topic of simplicity, what's simpler: concealing a set of selection buttons for a second or two while you tap them? Or keeping the screen in full view at all times from the moment you bring the phone out and concealing nothing? There's just something about bringing the phone into view with a "normal" (appears that no app is running) screen and letting the spectators see that from the get-go (well before the card is named) that IMHO makes the effect so much stronger than not showing them the spectator the screen until after the card is announced.

But what about all that phantom tapping you say? Yeah, I guess I have to give you that one. If I blatantly tap the screen a couple of times for no apparent reason in front of the spectators, that definitely would not make one bit of sense. And it would look pretty danged weird too. Of course, if you were doing your job correctly as a magical engineer, you would find a way to incorporate the two required taps into the routine itself and they would not only go unnoticed, they would in fact be motivated when executed by a performer. For example, since no app is supposedly running when you bring the phone out, it makes perfect sense to tap the screen to launch the "magic deck of cards" app (even though it really is already running.) So there's one free well-motivated tap right under the spectator's noses. Now let's take that one step further. Suppose an alert or a message or something appears on the screen a little while after you bring the phone out (but it's really coming from the magic deck of cards app.) You'd be given another free tap to dismiss the alert - another well-motivated tap that the spectators have undoubtedly done themselves many times before too.

Now put it all together: Start the app running and bring out the phone. Set the phone in front of the spectators as you begin talking about their favorite card (forgive the lame patter cues; I trust you could do better. Like Indiana Jones, I'm making this up as I go along.) As you set the phone down, you touch the screen to get the (already secretly running) app to start a 20 (adjustable in the software) second timer. Just as you have the spectator name their favorite card, a text message (choice of interruption and contents therein also adjustable in software) pops up. You dismiss the text message with a quick tap (on the quadrant that secretly selects the suit.) You then launch (as far as the spectators know) the magic deck of cards app with a second tap (conveniently with a quick tap that secretly identifies the value.) It's all presentation from here.

IMHO, that's way stronger and more than justifies the more "complicated" method since nothing needs to be concealed - even for a split second. I'd also be lying if I didn't say I really enjoy performing any effect where the spectators can be burning your hands as you do the dirty work out in the open and right in front of them and they still don't suspect a thing. Being able to actually (albeit casually) draw their attention TO the (secret) dirty work (rather than misdirecting their attention AWAY from it) is almost more fun than magicians should be allowed to have. I'm actually starting to like this. BlackIce2x: when you're done working on the effect that started this thread, let's talk! :)

In practice, it's really hard to make things simple. But like Albert Einstein famously said "Make everything as simple as possible - but no simpler."

Well... with ALL THAT being said, I think we can let this discussion come to a close. I completely get what you're saying and you get what I said. :)
 
Jun 7, 2011
4
0
Aaron and Darth Vader:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH

Thanks for giving me your ideas and thoughts to decide what the method should be.

Now I think I have decided that my original method is kind of complicated and you will have to misdirect the spectators when you input the card..so....I think I will do something similar to Rising Card app (just the way to input the card)

Im really motivated with this app...I think it is totally diferent to any other magic apps out there.

I hope that the idea that I have in my head do the same as the app im trying to develop.

The estimated release time should be between 2 weeks and 1 month..and between 1 month and 1.5 month for Android.

I hope you enjoy my idea.

:) thanks again.
 
Searching...
0 Results