Slashdot Mirror


Are Programmers Ruining the Design of eBooks?

An anonymous reader writes "The Toronto Review of Books claims that the majority of digital books are awful because major publishers are handing over the design work to programmers, not artists and editors. This results in the 'typographical horrors' typical of so many eBooks, and hundreds of 'lackluster' iPad adaptations. 'Programmers are suddenly being given free reign to design books,' the article laments. 'Most publishers don't care about the iPad or eBooks very much... which may be an aesthetic rejection based on the publisher's historical reverence for the printed page.' Don't we deserve better eBooks?"

470 comments

  1. Yes! by DCTech · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Programmers don't really understand good design and usability. Just look at the state of Linux and most open source programs. They might have the specific functionality, but they seriously lack in UI and design. On top of that linux geeks fail to understand that people don't want to use command line to do tasks. Graphical UI's are more fast, easier to use, you don't need to remember commands and even new users can do their thing quickly, without resorting to reading manuals and other crap like that.

    Another stupid thing I've noticed about programmers is that immediately when they think of design, UI and easy of use it somehow translates as features taken off or hard to use. That's because programmers cannot think logically like most people do.

    Good example is Ribbon UI. Ribbon is actually a great step forward in terms of usability. I wasn't really heavy Office user but have used in from time to time. Same is true now. The difference is, when I use it now, I find it much easier to use and I'm using the advanced features I didn't know about. That's because Ribbon shows them more clearly to me when I need them. I never realised that the features were there or that I should had used them. I'm not going to browse thru all the menus and try the different options. Ribbon presents them to me in an easy, quick format. And this isn't only Office. There are other programs I use that have been "Ribbonized" and I've noticed the same pattern. My overall usage of those programs advanced features has only grown.

    Also, considering that geeks usually complain how people don't get them or they're bullied, they seem to have a huge "I'm better and more intelligent than the rest of people" complex. You can just follow slashdot and you see what I'm talking about. Constant dissing of non-geeks, how they're stupid, how people should spend time learning computers (while geeks not wanting to learn stuff like socializing, how sports leagues are going or stuff that interests girls) and everything else. Geeks also look down at designers as in "they don't know what they're doing". Designers are professionals, they know these things better than programmers do. Live with it.

    1. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "more fast"? Sounds like an English major there.

    2. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, programmers, you can't design user interfaces for toffee so stop confronting us with that garbage.

      Also don't give us command line interfaces either they're worse!

      Pick one of the remaining options.

    3. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I guess what they say is true, stereotypes save time.

    4. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if trolling
      or just stupid

    5. Re:Yes! by tripleevenfall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On top of that linux geeks fail to understand that people don't want to use command line to do tasks.

      Well... I think what Linux geeks miss is that the parts of Linux that they like best are things the general public is not interested in. Customizability is not something the average home PC user cares about. They want things to "just work". The standard for "easy" is Apple, and people don't feel like computers should be any harder to use than that.

      Hobbyists, which is what Linux geeks are, want something different than everyone else does. There are some people who enjoy working on cars and fixing them, customizing them, souping them up, doing DIY repairs... most people just want to get to work without thinking about it.

    6. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Graphical UI's are more fast, easier to use, you don't need to remember commands and even new users can do their thing quickly, without resorting to reading manuals and other crap like that.

      I'll give you the rest, but no way graphical UIs are faster than using command-line tools.

    7. Re:Yes! by muon-catalyzed · · Score: 2

      More clutter the better, design an easy GUI and they don't buy your documentation, manuals and Amazon dummies books -- the only revenue you will ever see from your FOSS.

    8. Re:Yes! by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And here, boys and girls, we have one of the so-called "designer" types that has been fucking up Ubuntu et al for the last two years.

    9. Re:Yes! by ibwolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Programmers don't really understand good design and usability.

      While sometimes true, it is far more commonly a failure to understand the user. The ability to evaluate the usability of an interface, not just based on how it fits your needs, but on how it would fit someone else's needs is rare and requires a good bit of cultivating. Of course everyone thinks this is easy because they know what is wrong, but it is really the same as with the programmers, you just know what works for you. So you might reword that statement as "People don't really understand good design and usability."

      And to bring this back on topic, artists and editors are (on balance) no better at usability than programmers. They do however have significant domain-specific insights into how to present readable text and that should not be discarded. You should however also bring in usability experts to help design the interactive aspects of your e-book experience.

    10. Re:Yes! by Xanny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to detract from the programmers are stupid bandwagon here, but I'm pretty sure the groups of people who are extremely artistically deficient and who program are not correlated in any strong way.

      Linux is difficult to use because of the command line problem, yes, but more so the problem is that Linux is a hodge podge of software that need not work well together. A lot more stuff is user space than in windows / osx and the tradeoff is that user space stuff isn't tested with rigor to work 100% of the time like kernel mode stuff. It leaves Linux more secure but user space programs failing that average joe has no idea how to remedy does not make him happy.

      But overall, as a programmer, I do take offense to not knowing how to design a UI. I know perfectly well how to. All you do is come at it from the perspective that it needs to work for someone who has no idea how anything works (aka, my mother) and someone who knows how everything works (aka, me, if I made it) and make sure there is no gap in the swathe of people between those extreme points where the design fails to, if not intuitively, at least give them the ability to change it to become intuitive for them, naturally favoring the lower end where significantly more people are than the high end.

    11. Re:Yes! by nhat11 · · Score: 1

      We're programmers, not designers so management think we can do everything so they dump everything on programmers.

    12. Re:Yes! by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Graphical UI's are more fast, easier to use, you don't need to remember commands and even new users can do their thing quickly, without resorting to reading manuals and other crap like that.

      I'll give you the rest, but no way graphical UIs are faster than using command-line tools.

      They're faster for new or occasional users, that's all.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re:Yes! by dirtyhippie · · Score: 1

      Yeap. Lynx is way faster than firefox.

    14. Re:Yes! by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 2

      Ribbon - Designed by programmers, Loved by some, Hated by others - there seems to be no groupings on this some programmers love the Ribbon, some hate it, some experienced Word user love it, some hate it, some new users love it some hate it ... This is not a good design....this would be a system where people use it without complaint ...i.e. no-one hates it

      The real issue *is* a programming one, most books are typeset by non-programmers and non-artists - Just like normal books, and normal newspapers so they need tools that will allow them to produce book that look as good as possible with no effort or time ...these are seemingly non-existent ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    15. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because programmers cannot think logically like most people do.

      I am not a programmer. But i can tell you that programming is probably the most logical profession out there !

    16. Re:Yes! by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Linux is Unix, Apple (iOS, and OSX) is Unix, Android is Unix ... All totally built around the command line ...?

      How many times do you use a command line (or even see one) on any of these in normal use ...? ...about the same as in Windows ... i.e. never ...

      Unix was designed around the command line 40 years ago ... but you don't need it anymore for everyday use, this is not stopping you using it, but you don't need it now unless you are customising the system ....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    17. Re:Yes! by icebraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Many Linux geeks don't "miss" it, we just don't care.

    18. Re:Yes! by noobermin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're really setting yourself up for flaming, you know. You bring up a valid point but your method is so abrasive that few people will listen to you.

      Yes, design is, in fact, a thing many people don't understand however design can make or break a product, and I wish more people who are on the left-side of their brains would realize that. We perhaps don't realize it but subconsciously we prefer more aesthetically pleasing interfaces/media/etc to ones that are uninspired. At least I do.

      Anyhow, GUI's aren't always easier to use and the command line is the superior tool for some things because of one thing: it is explicit. Commands do exactly what you tell them to do, there is no guesstimation. Yes, a button is either pressed or not but you have to aim your pointer at the button :-). I can type "ps auwx | grep python" without having to move my wrist about the GUI and thus it can be quicker in some cases. Add in tab-completion and "remembering commands" is trivial.

      This whole learning curve rubbish is just that, rubbish. I remember teaching my 9 year old cousin how to use a PC (she never had used one before). It didn't come "naturally" to her, she had to learn it as something new. Newsflash: buttons and switches didn't exist in nature! Saying that somehow we prefer GUIs by some a priori preference is silly. We find these familiar because buttons and switches are things we have learned to be used to from physical analogs like light switches but the "preference" stops there. There is one pre-computer analog to the command line and I bet my socks that it is more second nature(or first!) than switches: speech.

      There is a reason people still use the command line and it isn't because of some cult of computer geeks that keep it going; it actually is quite useable.

    19. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (while geeks not wanting to learn stuff like socializing, how sports leagues are going or stuff that interests girls)

      They don't want to learn about our stuff, so why should we. Spoiler: people only bother learning stuff that interests them.

    20. Re:Yes! by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They are different, you cannot really compare the speeds. doing many things by command line simply takes a lot of typing and clicking can be quite fast.
      Also the gui does a far better job of stopping the user from looking up how to do things and customization, both of which can waste a lot of time.
      And I don't care who you are, either you have every single command memorized (with every single argument as well) and you have wasted, probably months of your life learning these things or more likely just know some small subset and have to look up news ones on occasion.
      Every second spent learning how to use a computer and customizing a computer is wasted, and if it can be trimmed down with a better interface then you have just created a better interface.

      So the answer: After tens years of practice, uncountable hours (probably closer to days or weeks in some cases) reading man pages, and a similar amount of time creating custom scripts I can now use my computer 25% faster then GUI users (as long as I only do normal every day tasks) is not a shining recommendation for the command line.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    21. Re:Yes! by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most of the time I'm on Linux (or BSD for that matter), I use the command line. Mostly because, for what I do with it, the GUI tools available on either aren't very good. Particularly for file navigation/management. In general they either look like garbage, or just feel kludgy in the way the act.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    22. Re:Yes! by ByOhTek · · Score: 2

      Lynx isn't command line, it's console. Having used both (primarily firefox), yes, Lynx IS faster than firefox, but if you like pictures, stick with FireFox...

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    23. Re:Yes! by ByOhTek · · Score: 2

      The design failure is that they don't allow users to select the ribbon OR classic menus.

      Unless you have to support the product :-)

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    24. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many times do you use a command line (or even see one) on any of these in normal use ...? ...about the same as in Windows ... i.e. never ...

      Very often, actually. My Windows 7 Explorer has somehow become unable to rename a file. No error, it just doesn't change the filename.

      So, until I find a solution, it's "ren oldname newname" every time.

    25. Re:Yes! by Rennt · · Score: 1

      Nearly anybody can be a software "designer", you just need an over-developed sense of style and, crucially, the ability to listen to actual school-trained professionals.

    26. Re:Yes! by rickb928 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Whine all you want, but I was dead against the Ribbon until I had to use it.

      Ribbon is functional. It works. It's NOT worse than menus from Office 2003 etc, it's genuinely different, and it just works.

      I'm not a Microsoft shill, just calling out as it is. If you're still convinced the ribbon is so bad, you have the freedome to go back to an older version of TheGIMP.

      And good riddance. Get off it. And get a name. Pussy.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    27. Re:Yes! by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One of the remaining options like getting a UI designer to design your UI.

    28. Re:Yes! by Mitchell314 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If it's your job to use computers efficiently and effectively, or have to access servers remotely via a shell, that can be quite useful.

      But what do I know? It's not like we extensively use computers that need maintenance. We all know that managing large institutional networks is exactly just like using MS word on our personal PCs.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    29. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can still use the commandline:

      for example::
      run programs on a remote PC (ssh) when bandwith is too low voor VNC/RDP
      automate / schedule commands (cron)
      it's quicker

      on windows XP i needed to interface industrial hardware, which required a static IP.
      netsh set interface "local area connection" static $ip $subnet is way, way faster than network connections > local area connection > properties > ipv4 > properties > select fixed > type address > ok > ok > close

      in 7 it takes even more clicks. so i think not using dhcp makes you a poweruser nowadays..

    30. Re:Yes! by ynp7 · · Score: 1

      I want a cookie!

    31. Re:Yes! by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Funny

      One of the remaining options like getting a UI designer to design your UI.

      Mmm, Unity and Gnome 3.

      Letting 'UI designers' design UIs has been a freaking disaster, because they always seem to pick shiny over usability.

    32. Re:Yes! by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wish there were a "mod to infinity" option. If there were, I would give it to you.

      Too many programmers think of a UI like some needless accessory (or worse yet, think *they* know how to design a great UI, which usually leads to disaster). This is why so many open source apps have such godawful UI's. GIMP, Blender, etc. have a lot of great work under the hood, from a lot of very dedicated and skilled programmers. Too bad they've traditionally been buried beneath a *horrid* UI that would have made Steve Jobs commit seppuku.

      Here's a tip. If your open source project is worth a bunch of programmers, it's worth at least one decent designer too.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    33. Re:Yes! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      no way graphical UIs are faster than using command-line tools.

      They are if you don't know the commands.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    34. Re:Yes! by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Linux is difficult to use because of the command line problem

      What 'command line problem'? My girlfriend uses Linux all the time and wouldn't have a clue as to what to do if presented with a command line prompt.

      Linux hasn't required regular command line usage for a decade now.

    35. Re:Yes! by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Programmers don't really understand good design and usability.

      This is the first rule of IT that should never be broken: Never let a programmer design your application.

      One would think this should be obvious, but it is astounding how often this rule is broken. GIMP, Linux in general, Windows 7, games, the list goes on. Time and again, when applications suck, you can trace it back to letting programmers have a hand in designing it.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    36. Re:Yes! by ynp7 · · Score: 1

      The ribbon is superior for the vast majority of MS Office users, who really don't know how to use it that well in the first place. For what I use Office for it's better about 85% of the time.

    37. Re:Yes! by tigersha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How many times do you use a command line (or even see one) on any of these in normal use ...? ...about the same as in Windows ... i.e. never ...

      On my Mac i Use the command line every day, most of the time. I sometimes write word documents with a bash script (actually, using Word on a mac with data from a database is a Great way of publishing things, because someone who knows Word can do the final processing and layout).

      I use the command line on the Mac to do image processing and a lot of other things too. BUT I refuse to use Linux as a desktop GUI because they cannot even get a font to render priorly and because some things MUSt be done is a GUI and there are no good programs for that in Linux. If you can use a command line AND a Gui to do your work you will find a lot of productivity increase. And for that, MacOS/X is pretty much the only game in town.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    38. Re:Yes! by slyrat · · Score: 1

      +1 cookie for you.

    39. Re:Yes! by olau · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed. I've seen my share of beautiful but horrible usability-wise interfaces.

      Furthermore, it's a well known fact that even usability experts only have limited success in predicting the failures of real users with a given interface. And I think most real usability experts are in the analytical camp, knowing what to look for and how to setup a user test to deconstruct an interface, not actually designing new interfaces.

    40. Re:Yes! by masternerdguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're kidding right? This guy just criticized everyone and then pushed ribbon as a case of excellent design. He went so far as to say that everything's faster with a GUI, and we all know that isn't true.

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    41. Re:Yes! by Anonymus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't imagine how bad an ebook designed by artists/editors would turn out. 90% of designers still think the web is print, even the ones who grew up using the web. If artists were in charge, an eBook would be a 500mb PDF with rendered graphics of every page.

      What is needed is a modern typesetter profession, with a mix of design/UI sense and logical/programming skills, who can design "books" with various requirements that can be viewed on a multitude of devices with different sizes and capabilities, with minimal time invested in each individual book.

    42. Re:Yes! by hgriggs · · Score: 1

      I use the command line in Linux and Mac all the time for almost all my work. I browse with the GUI parts but everything else, including CD and DVD ripping is done on the command line. It's far more efficient FOR ME. It's where I prefer to work.

    43. Re:Yes! by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Ribbon - Designed by programmers,"

      - Citation needed

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    44. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or it requires the use of tons of focus groups and iterative design based on the results of those things. This is something that disparate open source communities have a hard time doing. You need a strong centralized entity that can make those things happen.

    45. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe developers are more selfless about devoting their time to FOSS projects than designers/UI people.

    46. Re:Yes! by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 2

      Too bad they've traditionally been buried beneath a *horrid* UI

      Make the UI layer detached from all the core logic. Get a GUI-oriented guy to focus on the UI only.

      I thought this was a standard design pattern, no ? There's nothing "burried", they just had more focus on the functionality and don't have a dedicated GUI guy.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    47. Re:Yes! by arikol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not disagreeing here, just trying to add to what you are saying.

      Programmers aren't horrible people or anything, they've just spent a lot of time at becoming quite good at a specific skill. Artists and designers spend an equal amount of time becoming good at another skillset, and usability specialists spend the same time becoming good at understanding other stuff that faces the user.

      I don't really think that the problem is the fault of the programmers, but rather management. See, management seems to understand the process of creating something as only the mechanical part of the creation (hammering in the nails, writing the code, making the pictures) and completely miss the complexity of coming up with a good design to begin with, as well as the iterative nature of most good design (usually only partly successful on the first try). This is just the mentality of managers, mostly old-school managers who still think that all problems can be solved by engineering and manufacture (or the equivalent).

      Most programmers that I know are fully aware of the fact that their skills at making usable interfaces are very limited, as is their knowledge of colour theory and such (the domain of the graphic designer). I am painfully aware that although I can perform a mean usability analysis, my skill at programming is limited to "hello world" levels. Okay, some graphic designers think that usability is simple and they can do it based on artistic insight (they usually state this just before creating some usability nightmare).
      Management then stops the programmer from implementing the solutions proposed by the usability experts as that takes resources away from making the nuts and bolts and says something like "we will fix that at the end of the project", resulting in a really clever but unusable product that requires a few months of fixing all the little details at the end...which is too much work, so it just gets shipped like that. Surprise, surprise, nobody wants to pay for it.

      Editors for text, artists for art, usability experts for usability, programmers for programming, and managers who have a clue about this all. Please?

    48. Re:Yes! by wootcat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not a designer you need. There are plenty of UI designers who prioritize form over function. To really get a simple, workable, clean UI you need a usability expert who is going to take the time to design a front end that streamlines the functionality and ease of use for the end users. It's not easy, but with the proper prototyping and testing, any UI can be improved.

      It's sad to see the current state of eBooks. There is so much potential there, features and possibilities which are as yet untapped.

      --
      I'm really a low 5-digit Slashdotter, but this ID is where I am now.
    49. Re:Yes! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The most obvious example of the Ribbon is Office.

      Which I think is a bad example for *anything* UI related. Mostly because office software is so ridiculously crufty that the only way to make it more usable is by offering *less* features.

      Firefox does pretty well with the ribbon. what's going to get me off FF isn't the ribbon.

      (Hey Moz, fix the damn memory leaks!)

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    50. Re:Yes! by anonymov · · Score: 2

      You seem to be underestimating time spent learning and using GUIs and overestimating time spent learning CLIs.

      Once you learned basics of some interface - graphical or textual - time spent learning new tools with similar interface is logarithmically smaller, you already know where to look.

      Fundamental error the OP troll and you make is assuming for some reason that CLI and GUI are mutually exclusive. They're not. They're complementary.

      CLI (in various incarnations) beats GUI every time on repetetive, clearly defined tasks. GUI beats CLI every time on tasks requiring tweaking and immediate feedback. Think TeX for scientific papers vs PageMaker for a magazine.

    51. Re:Yes! by wootcat · · Score: 1

      You can't make blanket statements like this. Yes, command-line tools are faster for some things, but when you are working with visual content such as formatting a paragraph in a document or drawing a box or adding an illustration, a graphical UI will get the job done faster in most cases.

      --
      I'm really a low 5-digit Slashdotter, but this ID is where I am now.
    52. Re:Yes! by BetterSense · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or, the GUI tools aren't that bad, but the change the goddam things every couple months. The file managers, window behaviors, drag-and-drop behaviorss, where the links are located, the menu layouts...it all changes, even within the same distro, over a time span of years. Compare that to XP which has been the same for 10+ years. So when I use Linux, I use the command line a lot...at least they don't change that (too much).

      My wife: honey, how I do "X"?
      me: "remembers how he did that 3 years ago, but now every fucking thing in the GUI is different, the buttons are on the opposite side of the window, the menus are completely different, the network manager is completely different, the sound system is new, and the program I used to use no longer seems to exist anymore"
      me: says "fuck it" and uses the command line.

    53. Re:Yes! by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      shutdown NOW

    54. Re:Yes! by operagost · · Score: 1

      The ribbon also doesn't give any visual feedback once a tab has been selected. I have a brand new laptop, and even on that machine there is a small delay before the ribbon changes. This usually results in me clicking two or three times because I'm not sure it has registered. Since Microsoft programmers still haven't figured out how to keep their apps from being so bloated that they don't run smoothly even on new machines, maybe they could have at least used visual cues (you know, like in an old-fashioned menu) to indicate when a tab has been selected.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    55. Re:Yes! by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean a "usability expert". UI designers make things pretty, usability experts make sure the user never notices the pretty things.
      Usability requires boring (anything that draws unneeded attention is bad) and efficient, which simply isn't something many open source contributers want to do.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    56. Re:Yes! by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This entire article seems to be yet another case of "design guys can't be bothered" and "management isn't interested".

      It's a management failure and there's really no need to slander programmers.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    57. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You have to be very careful about "getting a UI designer" -- many of them have UIDD (UI Designer Disease) and will take a functioning UI and layer on more stuff until it becomes hard to use. Recent battle: UIDD-guy -- "that UI is to complicated -- too many buttons on the main screen"; me -- "but the users use every one of those buttons on a regular basis"; UIDD-guy "but if you just put them in menus you could add other functionality to the program without adding more clutter"; me --"the users don't have any additional functionality requests, they just want to get the job done. You are here because someone higher up decided that everything needs a UI designer review"; UIDD-guy "well this certainly does need to be changed"; me "ok, watch the users use the tool -- the flow goes from upper left to lower right as they do their work, there's no back-hitching, there are no "extra clicks" involved with them getting their work done -- how are menus going to help this?" ; UIDD-guy "Menus are just better because it's less visually taxing. Clearly you aren't listening to me." Months later someone else re-wrote the UI according to UIDD-guy's suggestions. Users revolted and were ticked enough to actually measure throughput and number of clicks. The redesigned and simplified version took 22% longer with 35% more clicks -- so yes with the redesign users could do more clicks per minute -- but it often took two clicks instead of one. UIDD guy still thinks its better because it's cleaner. UIDD is a crippling disorder.

    58. Re:Yes! by joebok · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I apologize for unloading on you, but you've just hit a major peeve.

      I am a programmer. I recognize that Graphic/UI design is a separate skill from programming. The problem is, often I get handed a project with no UI specs. I always point it out (because I am sick and tired of the "programmers are poor designers shit") but no resources are assigned - so people end up with what I think is a good idea.

      The root cause is not your perceived programmer hubris, it is the cheapness of the upper levels setting project budgets. The thing about programmers is that good programmers are excellent problem solvers - so you can ask us to do anything - and it will get done - some things better than others.

      Oh, and you will find that programmers are the most logical people around - it is the rest of you that are irrational.

    59. Re:Yes! by Golddess · · Score: 1

      you have the freedome[sic] to install a current version of OpenOffice.org.

      FTFY. Seriously, "go back to"? "Older version"? "TheGimp"?? It's almost as if you are intentionally trying to mislead people here.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    60. Re:Yes! by PJ6 · · Score: 1

      That wasn't exactly the best way to say it, but I agree. Derision of users is frequently offered as a justification for laziness in design.

      Ironically, developers are the ones that suffer the most from this attitude. We have to deal with stuff that "normal" users would never put up with, up to and including obvious breakage.

      I mean, hell, even /. provided us with an example for several months.

    61. Re:Yes! by Jetsurf · · Score: 0

      I also use the command line almost every day. There are even times where using a GUI is a pain. This comes up all the time in server management where 1) you really don't need a GUI and 2) it is actually a burden due to network limitations. Even on my desktop, I find that I can do many things faster in a command line rather than a GUI.

    62. Re:Yes! by oreiasecaman · · Score: 1

      How many times do you use a command line (or even see one) on any of these in normal use ...?

      Almost all the time

      ...about the same as in Windows ... i.e. never ...

      Nice trolling there!

      --
      This is a UDP joke, I don't care if you get it or not...
    63. Re:Yes! by T.E.D. · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally, I don't believe in design by focus groups. If you want a horrible design where a million confusing badly-designed functions are all crammed into one page/screen, then a focus group is the way to go.

      Users are really good at knowing what annoys them, but they generally don't understand what the good available solutions are. As a consequence, they will invariably insist on slight tweaks to the way they have always done things, and that every new function gets added to their favorite screen, page, or menu. The end result is invariably the UI equivalent of the worst spaghetti-code hacks.

      A really good design requires someone with the insight to see what the basic problems to be addressed are, what all the available tools are on your platform to solve such problems, and to design the entire system around that. No committe will ever be capable of that feat.

      What you need to take from users is what tasks they need done, and how they are used to doing them. The design then needs to be created by a designer, who has the insight to see what could be made easier for them, and will generally act as their advocate. This is the one thing I felt Steve Jobs always got right.

    64. Re:Yes! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The whole "not remember commands" thing is also bogus.

      Complex GUIs have the same problem here. It can be so hard to find stuff that you might want to use a command line or script instead. Some GUI's are just bad (Windows) or some things are just complex.

      A comprehensive GUI for a complex task may give you lots of easy switches and buttons and provide no indication of what those things are or how you are supposed to use them.

      You can hide things that are generally not necessary, or make things easier to find but some tasks will always have technical elements related to that task. A big shiny button won't change that.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    65. Re:Yes! by itof500 · · Score: 1

      Or, the GUI tools aren't that bad, but the change the goddam things every couple months. The file managers, window behaviors, drag-and-drop behaviorss, where the links are located, the menu layouts...it all changes, even within the same distro, over a time span of years. Compare that to XP which has been the same for 10+ years. So when I use Linux, I use the command line a lot...at least they don't change that (too much).
      ==
      Amen

    66. Re:Yes! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Even if I don't know the commands, automating something will likely be a lot quicker than babysitting a GUI for n+1 iterations.

      If a "programmer" is "designing" eBooks, I would imagine that the result would be a program rather than n+1 manual designs. The result would be very much like iLife where you've got some cookie cutter templates that you force all of your content into.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    67. Re:Yes! by kirillian · · Score: 0

      I wish I had mod points to downvote such a negative and bigoted post. From the viewpoint that you wrote, it sounds like you are not a programmer yourself but look from the outside in. I'm actually quite sorry that you've only run into the bad programmers out there (and the implication that you've never met a good one). More likely than not, I'm inclined to believe that you just weren't able to appreciate the good ones. There's a mix of good and bad out there. Different people have different strengths and making sure that the programmers with the right skills are doing the right job is usually not the responsibility of the programmers themselves but of HR and management. So, when you're mad that the programmer making the UI for something isn't a good UI designer, remember to place some of that blame on the party that hired them or the manager that isn't evaluating the strengths/weaknesses of his employees. Something to also remember since you seem to not be a programmer yourself is that what seems easy to you is often the most complicated stuff to implement. Programmers are not monkeys, but problem solvers. You give a programmer a problem to solve and they let you know what they see as the easiest/most scalable/best longterm (all depending on the goals that they are trying to accomplish) solution. If you have no respect for them, then go find someone that you do respect to solve your problem. It's difficult to work with people that you don't respect and if you're being difficult, then you can't blame the programmer then can you? You're going to have to at least share the blame for problems that occur when you contribute to the issues.

    68. Re:Yes! by DCTech · · Score: 0

      Firefox doesn't even use Ribbon.

    69. Re:Yes! by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Other than Chrome, Terminal.app is easily my most used application on OSX. Apple is very good about creating useful command line hooks into system functionality. 'mdfind' for spotlight, 'open' for interfacing with Finder/Applications, 'osascript' for interfacing with AppleScripting, 'pbpaste' / 'pbcopy' for interfacing with the system clipboard, etc.

    70. Re:Yes! by quintus_horatius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How was this modded "insightful"? There's no insight here, It's so bad it isn't even wrong.

      ...but I'm pretty sure the groups of people who are extremely artistically deficient and who program are not correlated in any strong way.

      I hope you're kidding. Most artists that I know are not particularly technical. Most of the programmers I know are not particularly artistic. Creative, yes, they're both creative activities. The theory of multiple intelligences holds, but the two paths rarely seem to cross.

      Linux is difficult to use because of the command line problem

      What command line problem? My pre-teen children use Linux, and they don't touch a command line. Ever. I use Linux and I use the command line frequently, but I don't see it as a "problem" but as a path to efficiency, both in creating interfaces (I can create a command-line app much faster than a GIU-based app) and getting my work done (I can restart Apache from a command line in half the time that I can restart IIS by navigating through the GIU). Show me the problem.

      Linux is a hodge podge of software that need not work well together.

      And a windows system with any third-party database or web server, or a set of third-party domain administration tools is... what, exactly? A hodge-podge. I would wager that a system running IIS or MSSQL is equally a hodgepodge under the hood, but the branding is more consistent.

      user space stuff isn't tested with rigor to work 100% of the time like kernel mode stuff

      Citation desperately needed. I think that several million long-term Apache installations on various Linux, Unix, and Windows servers would beg to differ.

      But overall, as a programmer, I do take offense to not knowing how to design a UI.

      Why? I have my areas of expertise. I'm not offended that someone understands a discipline better than I do and I take their inputs with gratitude.

      I know perfectly well how to.

      I have worked with people like you. You don't know nearly as well as you think you do. Sure, you may be able to design an interface perfect for you, but creating something that works well for everybody is an art that few people master. I think your "theory" about design is a bit too pat and self-serving.

    71. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^^^Get a load of this douche.

    72. Re:Yes! by _0xd0ad · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think he was referring to the Office-logo-style menu that you get when you disable the regular menu bar.

      Really, though, the "Ribbon" is a gimmick. All it is is (1) redesigned, reorganized menus and (2) the menu is always "down", and context-shifts automatically.

      The benefit of point (1) is highly dependent on how intuitive the reorganized menus are. Naturally, anyone who's used to the old menus will hate them for changing things. However, it does at least seem that they got this much right; it's really not hard to pick up the organization of the new menu system.

      Point (2), on the other hand, is an "in-your-face" sort of behavior that you may or may not like. Users who don't know what they're doing might benefit from having the menu right there in front of them. Personally, however, I just collapse the Ribbon (double-click it) so that it acts like regular pull-down menus (albeit arranged horizontally instead of vertically). If I'm doing stuff that requires a lot of menu interaction (text formatting in Word) I might lock it open (again, double-click it) but in general I don't want it in my way.

      If you took nothing else away from my post, hopefully you caught the fact that double-clicking the Ribbon makes it go away.

      Oh, and the silver theme is much better than the default blue.

    73. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What command line problem? Just because you have a problem with the command line doesn't mean there is a command line problem.

      I bought a Mac Book Pro with my latest refresh. Worst. Decision. Ever. (for me). Why, because I actually know how to use the command line productively and the GUI gets in the way *of what I do*. YMMV. If so, use the GUI and be happy. Just don't make blanket statements about a nonsensical "command line problem."

      (Now get off my lawn!)

    74. Re:Yes! by Catbeller · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Programmers also think they know how to name things as well. The... GIMP? Really? Try to explain to your employer that you want everyone in the department to use the GIMP to edit images. Then you can try to bring in the GNONORREA, RTARD, and MYBYTCH office suite components, all really well built - with names designed to send you to sensitivity training and a fine permanent billet in the data entry department (if they don't fire you outright).

    75. Re:Yes! by linuxwolf69 · · Score: 1

      +1 cookie for you

    76. Re:Yes! by BVis · · Score: 1

      This, minus the horrendous punctuation and grammar. I spend a good deal of my time explaining what the difference is between a web designer (which I am not) and web developer (which I am). One deals with the front end, the other deals with the back end. Unfortunately the people with money are generally clueless as to how a web site actually works, and just want pretty pictures with as little money paid as possible - which precludes hiring two people (expensive) or one person with both skill sets (unicorn expensive). You get either crappy code with pretty pictures, or good code with crappy pictures. Bad code doesn't show up in Firefox, so is it any wonder there's so much horrible code out there?

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    77. Re:Yes! by _0xd0ad · · Score: 4, Funny

      But Nintendo somehow managed to make it socially acceptable to announce that you're going home to play with your Wii.

    78. Re:Yes! by anonymov · · Score: 1

      OS X has this nice thingy called Terminal.app which gives you command line access to all kinds of other nice thingies, both OS X specific and common for *nixes.

      Just saying.

    79. Re:Yes! by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Personally after working with the Office Ribbon for a while, I do find that I like it, but that's just personal preference and also an employer mandated piece of software.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    80. Re:Yes! by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Linux is easier to use, because you can set it up in whatever way you find easiest to use. If you like the command line, then Windows is actually harder to use than Linux. If you like virtual desktops, Windows is harder to use than Linux. If you like to automate your workflow, Windows is harder to use than Linux.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    81. Re:Yes! by WWWWolf · · Score: 2

      Linux is difficult to use because of the command line problem, yes, but more so the problem is that Linux is a hodge podge of software that need not work well together.

      No, Linux is difficult to use because it is a hodge-podge of software that works well together. Newbies take annoyance on the fact that sometimes you need to use a completely different software to finish your job, and that's just bad. They think that the software isn't good enough if it can't do everything they need it to do. They want completely integrated solutions to everything.

      Of course, the pros know that it's better to just have separate tools that by themselves work much better than whatever hacked-together crap you will integrate in the software. And, incidentally, that is also true for other operating systems, on all fields of work. You don't just pick a piece of software to do your job; you do your job by picking the right pieces of software for the tasks at hand. A subtle but crucial difference.

      It's just that it takes some user conditioning ("No, you may need to use separate app for that part of the job, and since I do that every day without a hitch, it's not as painful as you think, trust me"), and user education ("There are several apps that can do that part of the job, like X, Y and Z, but you can search for more options using website W and package manager P.")

    82. Re:Yes! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Most of the 'artists' I know aren't particularly 'artistic'. They just self apply the label as a lifelong excuse for being fuckups.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    83. Re:Yes! by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      You need to explain to them how much cheaper a web designer is vs. a web developer.

      Which gets me back to a question about the premise of this article.

      Publishers are using programmer time instead of editor/artist time? This has to be costing them a fortune.

      I think someone is using a broken definition of 'programmer'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    84. Re:Yes! by siride · · Score: 1

      Wow, the same version of Windows has been the same for 10 years? That's some smart analysis there.

    85. Re:Yes! by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      I read the first sentence and thought "wow, he got modded troll, must be some pissed off programmers. Understandable." Then I read the second sentence.

      Just look at the state of Linux and most open source programs. They might have the specific functionality, but they seriously lack in UI and design.

      That's unadulterated bullshit. Microsoft is the one with the worst design. Yeah, Windows is prettier than kde but kde is far easier to use and far more intuitive. It took a month to figure out where to shut off the "tap to click" feature (bad bad BAD design, tap to click is a horror) in Windows; it wasn't in the Control Panel where you would expect it to be. It only took a minute using kde's "control panel". As to the CP itself, that design sure went to hell in Win 7.

      There's the infamous MS double click. I absolutely HATED that back in the 90s when I was teaching people how to use Windows. That was the single hardest thing about Windows for folks to learn -- and it's completely unnecessary; your mouse has TWO buttons. MS was copying Apple, whose mice only had one button at the time. They're finally offering single click selection in Win 7, but it's far from polished.

      Then there's the start button. "How do I stop the computer?" "Press 'start'". Yeah, that's logical and reasonable. They finally followed kde's lead here, too, in Win 7 because instead of "start" it now has a Windows logo, just like kde has a kde logo and has had for a decade or more.

      On top of that linux geeks fail to understand that people don't want to use command line to do tasks.

      I feel sorry for you. You're either a pathetic troll or incredibly ignorant. I haven't been at a command prompt in Linux for years, but I have been at a Windows command prompt recently.

      That's because programmers cannot think logically like most people do.

      That's the most idiotic thing I've heard so far this year. Why don't you try a GNAA next time? Far more real looking. Moron.

      Good example is Ribbon UI. Ribbon is actually a great step forward in terms of usability.

      I haven't used the ribbon (we have old software at work), but from what I've read it's almost universally despised and has made some folks switch to Open Office despite OO's shortcomings.

      BTW, the paragraph I refer to reads like a press release straight out of Redmond. If you're shilling, you're doing an offal job of it.

      Also, considering that geeks usually complain how people don't get them or they're bullied, they seem to have a huge "I'm better and more intelligent than the rest of people" complex.

      Nice. Now, sonny, why don't you run off to the AARP site and bitch about your money going to Social Security? Asshole.

    86. Re:Yes! by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      MacOS may be Unix, but that doesn't mean it's built around a command line.

      MacOS X is just as "built around a command line" as Windows is. Both systems are built around a GUI shell. The shell is the root program for the user.

      In Linux, everything is based around the command line because the root shell is typically a command line, and that command line then loads a GUI. Not so with MacOS, Windows, or Android.

    87. Re:Yes! by uberjack · · Score: 1

      Most programmers I know (myself included) hate doing UI work. We feel that there are people far more qualified to do layouts and graphical design than we. Unfortunately, this usually falls on deaf ears for management, who feel that it's a lot cheaper to have one person do mediocre work, than two people do something that actually looks good/is usable.

    88. Re:Yes! by DCTech · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, I'm a programmer with only a little recent learning of usability and design. At least I can admit that I do programming good, but I can't design or think about usability that much.

    89. Re:Yes! by mk1004 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. A perfect UI is different for different people. Touch-typists, among others, usually hate any task that takes their hands from the keyboard. A good UI will be efficient in the number of clicks required to do a task, and will probably have a good way to accomplish the same tasks using only keyboard commands. Many UI designers and programmers forget how a program is going to be used. Look at how many web forms request something like a phone number, for instance, and make you manually page (tab or click) through three input boxes to enter the (US) number.

      --
      I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
    90. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Package management is probably the only thing I feel any need to use bash for and that's only because I am using Arch. If you don't want to explore any more than you would on Windows then you can feasibly use Ubuntu or Mint without ever using a terminal emulator.

    91. Re:Yes! by grumbel · · Score: 1

      GIMP, Blender, etc. have a lot of great work under the hood, from a lot of very dedicated and skilled programmers. Too bad they've traditionally been buried beneath a *horrid* UI that would have made Steve Jobs commit seppuku.

      Gimps UI, yeah, that leaves something to be desired, but overall, while still not great, has become perfectly usable over the years. I'd say the UI is the least of Gimps problems, it's the lack of features that bothers me the most these days (lack of support for 16bit/HDR images formats, adjustment layers, complete lack of advanced brushes, etc.).

      Blender on the other side has after the recent rewrite easily become one of the best UIs in the Free Software world. It started out rather bad, years and years ago back when it was first Open Sourced, but since then has made continous improvements and today it's actually pretty awesome and easy to use. Most notably: Blender gives you access to every function it offers via a text search box, so no more digging through menus, you just type it and even more cool, you can hover over any GUI element and it will not only tell you the keyboard shortcut, but also how to access that functionality via Python scripting. Of course the basic GUI layout is now also much more organized then its used to be. That said, Blender of course isn't easy to use, but that's because 3D rendering is a pretty complex topic, not because the UI is bad.

      The UIs that bother me the most in the Free Software world are the basic stuff, Gnome applications that don't allow you to reorder the toolbars, that provide no scripting support what so ever and DE environments and distributions that reinvent the wheel with every new versions, without actually providing new features or improving anything. They simply shuffle things around, remove some features in the progress and provide no noticable benefit to the user.

    92. Re:Yes! by bananaquackmoo · · Score: 1

      You lost ALL credibility the second you said the Ribbon was good UI. I spit on you sir.

    93. Re:Yes! by centuren · · Score: 2

      The real issue *is* a programming one, most books are typeset by non-programmers and non-artists - Just like normal books, and normal newspapers so they need tools that will allow them to produce book that look as good as possible with no effort or time ...these are seemingly non-existent ...

      Calibre *really* shows that it was created by programmers (yes, I know, duh). It's such a versatile program for editing (things like content flow and structure), converting between formats, and getting your new version on whatever device it's needed. It has an effective but obtuse UI itself, and shows little to no effort put into beautifying eBooks. I am always satisfied that my converted eBooks are easy to read on my android phone, but also always a little disappointed in their lack of aesthetic.

    94. Re:Yes! by fuzzywig · · Score: 1

      If your large institutional network is based on Active Directory, then it's not a million miles away from using Word. At least the old, pre-ribbon version.

    95. Re:Yes! by nomadic · · Score: 1

      I agree with everything you said except for your example of Ribbon. Ribbon is just terrible, primarily because so many of the actions are miscategorized and make no sense where they're placed.

    96. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't like calling it GIMP, then just say you are using the GNU Image Manipulation Program (the real name)

    97. Re:Yes! by Hentes · · Score: 2

      What is needed is a modern typesetter profession

      Webdesigners?

    98. Re:Yes! by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Of course, Apple isn't easier to you. Users have just been convinced that when they can't figure out how to do something on an Apple product, they must have been confused in thinking that they wanted to do it, or "They are holding it wrong."

      Apple products are just fine, but their famed usability is definitely the Emperor's Clothes.

    99. Re:Yes! by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Lol, you have a choice here, make your own imaging software and name it w/e you want?

    100. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your example of a good UI is goddamned Ribbon?? Go kill yourself, preferably in a very painful way.

    101. Re:Yes! by netsavior · · Score: 1

      I work for a very large company that is not a software company, but which publishes a lot of software. I can tell you everything that a customer sees has UI designed by usability experts and UI designers working together, everything else the UI is an afterthought, thrown together by developers such as myself, who suck at UI (90% of our software is only used by employees).
      That is why you download slick iPhone apps, but then go into the store and the employees are using text based terminals on 20 year old hardware.

      The actual problem with publishing and the ebook quality lag is that they already had developers (publishers make all kinds of tools for in-house use) but they didn't have any experience with the difference between asking Mister Anderson to write a regular expression, and publishing consumer software. It will get better. Probably.

    102. Re:Yes! by hedwards · · Score: 1

      MS is pretty much the worst in that regards if you ignore Ubuntu. I'm not really sure why Ubuntu does it as MS at least has the excuse of trying to sell copies of their latest version of Windows and most people just download Ubuntu for free. Scratch that, most people have given up on Ubuntu because it's run by poorly trained circus monkeys.

    103. Re:Yes! by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 1

      I actually like Gnome 3. I hated it at first, then I made myself use it for a while. I think my workflow is improved. It actually makes more sense than the legacy interfaces. Do I miss the add-ons and tweaks, yes. But with the scripting interface, I'm sure those are going to start coming by the shovel Bottom line, even without those, I still prefer Gnome 3 to the old interfaces. Unity, not so much. They kind of sat on the fence, trying one without leaving too much of the previous metaphor behind. It's not as useful. I love how the Gnome 3 interface makes is easier to use the multiple desktops. I love how you get new desktops on the fly.

      The one think that is screwed up is not so much Gnome 3 but Nautilus specific. There is no option to associate an arbitrary application to a file type. There is also no way in nautilus to create a Launcher .desktop file as there used to be. Those two features are not optional and should have been a must have in the first release.

      --
      I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
    104. Re:Yes! by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      This isn't the 90s anymore. "Geeks" wear business casual just like everybody else. The only ones that look down on others are the 15 year olds on here, and seriously if you let a 15 year f up your day then lol. Most "Geeks" are professional and at least on the surface friendly and professional. The complex you describe doesn't get anybody anywhere and geeks being known for their intelligence tend to realize this, I've seen this unfold before my eyes :)

      In terms of GUI design, a dedicated designer can do a better job sometimes, but its really the user who should dictate how the UI looks. As in paper copies should be approved by the customer or at least the customer should have a heavy say in the process. I'll be perfectly honest, what looks good to me, may not look good to you. That doesn't mean what looks good to me is bad, or that your stupid, it means we have a difference of opinion, but if you (the customer) doesn't give an opinion, it's not something that can deciphered.

    105. Re:Yes! by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Speech to command?

    106. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      usability experts make sure the user never notices the pretty things.

      That would be wrong. We need pretty things; they are inspiring and make our life more pleasurable. We also need working, reliable things, that are easy to use, delivered on time, and with an appropriate price/cost. It's a game of trade-offs, a delicate balance that (evil?) managers need to achieve.

      So, there should be a place for pretty things, just not all around the place. Usability experts should make sure the pretty things are in the proper places, and serve a purpose.

    107. Re:Yes! by Belial6 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Exactly. My son started using Linux at about 18 months, and did his first install a week after his 2nd birthday. Given that he didn't learn to read until just before he turned 3, I think it is safe to say that there is no 'command line problem'.

    108. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terminal.app is the first thing I fire up when I use my sister's Mac. She's an artist by trade, and is horrified that I would prefer such an "ugly" interface to the oooh shiny OS-X interface. It completely escapes her that I get things done 10 times faster that way.

      I think people in general, and artists in particular, prefer an eye candy interface to an efficient interface. We're just wired that way. Our instincts tell us that good-looking = healthy and that's what we're attracted to.

    109. Re:Yes! by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Mutliple intelligences is bunk, the reason why most artists don't program and most programmers don't create art is purely one of interest and effort, if they would put effort into crossing that gap I doubt very much that it would be unusual to see people doing both.

      AFAICT it's the graphic designers that have been fucking up the UI in recent times. Programmers typically want an efficient tool that gets things done, it probably isn't pretty, but the interface probably doesn't trick the user by hiding elements that might lead to an ugly UI.

    110. Re:Yes! by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Yeah, really, I was under the impression that Ribbon like Unity was the child of designers' need to pretty up the interface rather than make for a more usable interface. Few programmers I've ever met would be willing to chunk an interface that works in the garbage because it's not as pretty as it could be.

    111. Re:Yes! by bipbop · · Score: 1

      That's because programmers cannot think logically like most people do.

      An obvious troll comment, modded up to +5. Yeesh.

    112. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like Unity. Hide the menu bar to reduce visual clutter. Now I have to mouse up to the menu bar, wait a second for it to appear, then mouse to the menu I want - instead of just mousing straight to the menu.

    113. Re:Yes! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

      Most artists that I know are not particularly technical. Most of the programmers I know are not particularly artistic. Creative, yes, they're both creative activities. The theory of multiple intelligences holds, but the two paths rarely seem to cross.

      And most people overall are neither particularly technical nor particularly artistic; thus you'd expect the combination to be quite rare just by chance. GPP said, "I'm pretty sure the groups of people who are extremely artistically deficient and who program are not correlated in any strong way" and that seems like a reasonable enough statement. There are a few people who can do good art, a few people who can do good programming, and a very few people who are good at both.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    114. Re:Yes! by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While sometimes true, it is far more commonly a failure to understand the user. The ability to evaluate the usability of an interface, not just based on how it fits your needs, but on how it would fit someone else's needs is rare and requires a good bit of cultivating.

      No, this is mischaracterizing the problem. The problem isn't that people fail to understand "the user". The problem is that people think there is a single entity called "the user" whom they can design to satisfy. Programmers think "the user" is like them, so they make a UI which suits themselves. Designers think "the user" is like them, so they make a very different UI which suits themselves. Then they argue with each other about how they are right and the other is wrong. TFA is just another volley in this pointless war of blame.

      The reality is that there is no single "the user". Users come in all different shapes and sizes. Some like ribbons, others like menus, and others still like command lines. If you design your UI to placate one of these types of users, you will alienate the others. The holy grail of a single UI which everyone likes is unattainable, so we shouldn't even bother trying.

      Instead, I think the best way to approach UI design is like the presets for your car seat. Each user can customize the position of their car seat exactly how they like, and store it in a preset. But a different user can customize the seat they way they like, and store it in a different preset. In a similar way, I think UIs should come with several standard default presets - ribbon mode, menu mode, etc. You can pick the type of UI you want, tweak some elements if you prefer them different than the default, and save it as your own UI preset. That way when you work on your computer, the UI is to your liking. But if someone else borrows your computer, instead of getting all confused by your UI customizations, they can just click on one of the default presets (or load their own preset which they're carrying on their USB stick) and use something more comfortable to them. Microsoft has kinda done this with Windows 7. The file explorer interface is button-centric. But if you hit alt, the old menus appear.

      In publishing space, designers and publishers are worse offenders than programmers. Look back at the history of HTML. When Tim Berners-Lee (a programmer) first came up with HTML, it was completely user-centric. The only thing the author got to "design" what text and pictures to include. The author had zero control over how it would be displayed on the user's screen - that was controlled entirely by the user (or rather, the user's browser).

      Designers and publishers didn't like this. They (rightfully) wanted certain formatting, like the amount of indent at the beginning of a paragraph, to be consistent. So HTML was gradually extended to allow you to "hard-code" certain types of formatting. But then designers started to go overboard, insisting that their web page appear as similar as possible on every user's screen. Trying to view a web page on an 800x600 laptop screen? Too bad, the page is optimized for 1024x768, and I'm not going to let you change it to fit in your display. The ultimate culmination of this was the flash website. Where the menus, pages, pictures, were all coded in flash instead of in HTML, so that the site looked exactly as the designer wanted on every display, regardless of how well or how poorly the design worked on your particular display.

      So HTML (or rather, HTML/flash) in its short history has spanned both extremes. Zero author control and total user control, to total author control and zero user control. And has now settled on CSS which gives lots of author control, but with the right tools (e.g. firebug) offers lots of user control. A site I visited insisted on formatting the text as centered, so I just modified the CSS in firebug to display it as left justified. (This example only covers pub

    115. Re:Yes! by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      The ribbon is not new. Ask any Lotus 123 user from way back to look at the ribbon in Excel. They should see things that look very familiar.

      The "make it look and work this way" attitude that many designers have doesn't fly. Most designers only care about how it looks. For things to work you need both. Depending on the item form or function should take the lead. When you totally go one over the other, you fail. Designers have this "I know better they you" complex as well.

      There are too many people who only care about form or how things look. Discounting function will burn you no matter the field.

    116. Re:Yes! by khb · · Score: 1

      Has anyone is this thread wasted the $9 to read what "good" is being held up as? Instead of the iPad native swipe it's right and left arrows. Words are split willynilly (yes it's proper typesetting it's just unpleasant to read) etc

      Sure, it's nicely illustrated and some of the animation provides mild entertainment but a simple "nook" translation of the original text is a better read.

    117. Re:Yes! by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      I hope you're kidding. Most artists that I know are not particularly technical. Most of the programmers I know are not particularly artistic. Creative, yes, they're both creative activities. The theory of multiple intelligences holds, but the two paths rarely seem to cross.

      I started off doing more artwork myself. Now, I do far more coding. Generally I get put into positions where I am far closer to the front end though. I'm good at it. I will say I am very far more the exception than the rule, however. I always feel that usability is first and foremost. That usually simplifying a design will lead to better usability. From a simplified design, you can go further into more aesthetic changes. Many designers/artists don't understand usability, and many programmers don't either. There is a very large gap from artistic approach, design, usability and functionality. This is where the gap is, unfortunately filling that gap is the hardest thing to accomplish. The person filling that gap should have a lot of control over the application development as a whole, and this rarely is the case.

      I can restart Apache from a command line in half the time that I can restart IIS by navigating through the GIU.

      WIN+R
      iisreset
      ENTER

      And a windows system with any third-party database or web server, or a set of third-party domain administration tools is... what, exactly? A hodge-podge. I would wager that a system running IIS or MSSQL is equally a hodgepodge under the hood, but the branding is more consistent.

      IIS and MS-SQL are much more well integrated into windows today than a decade ago, but the point is well stated.

      But overall, as a programmer, I do take offense to not knowing how to design a UI.

      Why? I have my areas of expertise. I'm not offended that someone understands a discipline better than I do and I take their inputs with gratitude.

      I think that if you are going to be doing an initial UI creation (without a design to work from), that you should at least be aware. I've seen developers come back with screens that don't even implement pretty standard interfaces. Modal windows with the save button in the top-right. A textbox where other interfaces make far more sense. It may sound funny, but I would swear that some programmers will write a UI as if they'd never even *used* a program before.

      I know that there are better designers, and better programmers out there. I also know that I fill a niche that a very small fraction of developers or designers can.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    118. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all programmers are incapable of designing a good user interface. It sounds like you are focused on a particular type of programmer, one that focuses on the "engine". You can have a programming team that has "engine", "communication", "archiving", and "user interface" programmers. You can also have "UI" programs that already exist and has documented methods for using it, like Xboard, which makes it easy for chess engines to have a graphical interface without the programmer having to learn how to develope a user interface.

    119. Re:Yes! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Lynx isn't command line, it's console.

      When the distinction between true command line and pseudographic menus is important, it can be referred to as TUI - Text-mode User Interface.

    120. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! I've been there.

      A few months ago I decided to make a conscious effort to try to use a GUI for as much as possible. Not only am I painfully slow but there is so much I'm no longer able to do.

      It's a bit like giving up English and trying to communicate with people by pointing at things and grunting.

    121. Re:Yes! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Good example is Ribbon UI. Ribbon is actually a great step forward in terms of usability. I wasn't really heavy Office user but have used in from time to time. Same is true now. The difference is, when I use it now, I find it much easier to use and I'm using the advanced features I didn't know about. That's because Ribbon shows them more clearly to me when I need them.

      You had to pick the one thing that's arguably worse than a simple hierarchical text menu system? What do those icons mean again? I'm trying to save a file, what icon do I hit? (Oh yeah, the big circle thingie up top, yep.... much more clear than the "File->Save" menu item.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    122. Re:Yes! by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      FYI: The click to execute has been an option since at least Windows 98. The tap to click is generally a part of the touchpad driver, which usually (not always) extends the mouse control panel. "Start" was meant as a hint, ie: your first step is here. "This is where you start" ...

      Though I would happen to agree with a lot of your sentiments, the fact is that many of the options in windows. However, given that Win95 predates KDE's start of development, really KDE followed windows quite a bit in its' incarnation. Personally, back then I was pretty fond of OS/2's Presentation Manager interface and dock. Today, Windows 7 is probably my favorite. I run windows, linux and mac regularly, and see advantages, and disadvantages to all of them.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    123. Re:Yes! by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      I mostly agree with you. I disagree on the "but you have to aim your pointer at the button" being less explicit that typing. When you type, you are pressing buttons just the same. You still have to aim a pointer at a button and press it. Minor quibble, but still there.

      I would add to the issue that a large part of it is also a culture of proud aggressive ignorance. We see this in many subjects, but computers seem to be one of the worst. I suspect because of when they were presented to the public. Your 9 year old cousin is a good example. People are told that "computers are hard". This meme has become so ingrained into our culture that people will go out of their way to "not understand" them. How many of the adults that claim "computers are hard" are going to acknowledge that their claim amounts to being below the mental level of a 9 year old.

      I see this with the "Linux is hard" claims that we always hear. Even from people involved with computers. At the age of 1, my son was using a Linux PC just fine. A week after his 2nd birthday, he did a completely unassisted install of Ubuntu. While there are lots of fun snaky insults to throw at people who claim they are dumber than a 2 year old, the reality is that they are just being aggressively ignorant.

    124. Re:Yes! by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Not sure why you are modded troll. Maybe it's the WAY you are saying it, but it's pretty much a universal truth. The left-brain/right-brain phenomenon is generally real. It's why non-programmers seem so illogical to programmers and why programmers have such horrible design sense to designers. It's a rare breed to have both skill sets.

      And even in your own post you demonstrate the right-brain bias against left-brainers, furthering (anecdotally) this notion that there are two distinct ways to look at the world.

    125. Re:Yes! by stewbacca · · Score: 0

      they always seem to pick shiny over usability.

      So says the hyper-logical, left-brained geek living in his mom's basement?

      What you think qualifies as "usability" is nowhere near the usability spectrum of the average user.

    126. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good example is Ribbon UI. Ribbon is actually a great step forward in terms of usability.

      Stopped reading there, Ribbon is terrible.

    127. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you know, for uses which are primarily graphical and visual in nature.

      UIs have their place. So do command lines. One is not "better" than the other in all cases, different approaches are more or less useful depending on the application.

    128. Re:Yes! by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      What's easier for a novice to figure out? Clicking around the UI until they figure out how to rename a file, or using a command line (that they probably didn't even know existed). Therein lies the power of the GUI.

    129. Re:Yes! by Creepy · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call the ribbon a good design from a UI perspective because it forces learned behavior, which is bad from a usability perspective, but it also declutters the user interface, which is good from a design perspective. In UI design there are usability vs design tradeoffs that have to be made or you get nowhere. The biggest problem with programmers designing the interface is they are concerned with neither - they care most about features that set them apart from competition.

        I'm actually working on a new client and everything has to go through the UI designers and usability engineers first, which wasn't the case with any of our old clients (yes plural) - developers just tacked on new menu options, and often these weren't relevant to most users. The new client goes through Usability and Design engineers, everything seen must be relevant to the user contextually, and most importantly, the interface cannot be cluttered. The UI/Usability people are even harder on the client design than I am, and I complain plenty (though they have the benefit of usability studies that I'm not a part of, since I'm not in their group).

    130. Re:Yes! by TemporalBeing · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Linux is Unix, Apple (iOS, and OSX) is Unix, Android is Unix ... All totally built around the command line ...?

      Well, Linux is NOT Unix. It does, however, implement a Unix-like environment, but it is not itself Unix. For that, it would have to be certified as a Unix.
      OSX is certified as a Unix, and therefore is Unix. iOS, not sure - possible, but not necessarily.
      Android is Linux, and as Linux is not Unix, neither is Android; and Android just goes to show that you put a nice GUI on top of Linux and everyone can use it. The main thing holding Linux back from the mainstream has been the inferior quality of the GUIs and expectation that old software continues to run but most people (not necessarily companies - most anyone that grew up in the 1980's and later has been primarily in a monoculture for computers - namely Windows on x86).

      Linux doesn't require that a command-line interface be present (see Android). It's just that most Linux users find a command-line to be extremely useful as well - even when they run Windows or Mac. Yes, I use the command-line on every platform I utilize (except Android since it doesn't have one); I also typically install GnuWin32 on Windows systems so I can get a somewhat functional Windows environment (no, powershell doesn't cut it).

      I've also introduced a number of people to Linux+KDE - most recently my computer illiterate dad. He won't ever touch the command-line; but he's quite happily now using Linux.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    131. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since you brought it up I'm going to address something that has been bothering me for a while, all the criticism of GNOME 3 and Unity. These interfaces are not unusable, they are DIFFERENT THAN GNOME 2. Different does not equal unusable. I can appreciate that people have personal preference, which is why I don't attack Gnome 2 even though I don't particularly like it. It is highly usable and customizable and I recognize that. But so are Gnome 3 and Unity (okay yeah not as customizable but more so than most people seem to realize).

      Since pretty much every argument against these Desktop Environments has been "It's different than Gnome 2, so I don't like it" I have a request to make: STOP IT! These things do what they are supposed to do and if you don't like it, use something else (like, oh I don't know, XFCE or Mint's fork of Gnome 2). For Example, Canonical is trying to build a Linux for the masses with Ubuntu, and Unity took me about thirty seconds to teach to my grandmother who now uses linux everyday. Again I'm NOT saying its BETTER then Gnome 2, I'm saying it's DIFFERENT, which is better for SOME people.

    132. Re:Yes! by ponos · · Score: 1

      Omg, I wanted to rate you +32 Mega-insightful, but this is not technically possible because you are already at +5. Ubuntu gets worse with every iteration...

    133. Re:Yes! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      it all changes, even within the same distro, over a time span of years. Compare that to XP which has been the same for 10+ years.

      XP stayed the same for ten years because MS didn't have Vista ready. My 2002 automobile hasn't chaged since then, either, although a 2012 model would have a lot more gizmos and gadgets. When they released Vista, it still wasn't ready.

      As to your "it all changes", I haven't seen it, even changing distros. The kde on my PC now, kubuntu, isn't much different than it was on Mandrake ten years ago, although it's gotten faster and leaner and added features.

      me: "remembers how he did that 3 years ago, but now every fucking thing in the GUI is different, the buttons are on the opposite side of the window

      Ah, I get it now. Gnome. Jees, there is more than one choice for your desktop, unlike with Windows. Don't like Gnome? Pick a different distro, say, kubuntu instead of Ubuntu. I don't like Gnome either, which is why I don't use it.

    134. Re:Yes! by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      To the average user, look at Apple's "System Preferences" versus the Windows control panel. That would be exhibit A.

    135. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On top of that linux geeks fail to understand that people don't want to use command line to do tasks. Graphical UI's are more fast, easier to use, you don't need to remember commands and even new users can do their thing quickly, without resorting to reading manuals and other crap like that.

      You talk about geeks as if they aren't humans and computer users too. They are just as human as anybody else, you know. And once you acknowledge that there can be only one conclusion: one size does not fit all. Different types people are best served with different types of user interfaces. Many geeks fail to recognise that, but I think many designers have a blind spot too.

      That's because Ribbon shows them more clearly to me when I need them. I never realised that the features were there or that I should had used them. I'm not going to browse thru all the menus and try the different options.

      To me that never was a big problem. I do browse through the menus, I do try things out, I do read manuals. I don't need an application to constantly throw everything in my face (that's how I see the ribbon) to find my way. I find it rather annoying if an application insists on shouting at me or constantly wants to hold my hand. I know how to cross a street, thank you. We're obviously different types of people, and it is not surprising that we have different preferences in user interfaces.

      Another stupid thing I've noticed about programmers is that immediately when they think of design, UI and easy of use it somehow translates as features taken off or hard to use. That's because programmers cannot think logically like most people do.

      I would say that programmers generally think much more logically than most people, logical thinking is an absolute requirement for writing programs and for solving production problems. The lack of logical thinking about user interfaces you see is probably caused by the amount of attention they need to put in the internal workings of the program to get correct results. It's not al lack of logical thinking, it's a different focus. That has a relation with the fact that designer and programmer are different professions.

      Constant dissing of non-geeks, how they're stupid, how people should spend time learning computers (while geeks not wanting to learn stuff like socializing, how sports leagues are going or stuff that interests girls) and everything else. Geeks also look down at designers as in "they don't know what they're doing".

      I hope you do realise you're dissing geeks now, saying they're stupid, suggesting they should spend time learning to socialize, etc. You're doing exactly the same thing from a different perspective. You seem to be just as bad at understanding geeks as you accuse geeks to be at understanding what you call people, for which you use a definition that excludes geeks. That makes you part of the problem as much as the geeks you complain about.

      Designers are professionals, they know these things better than programmers do. Live with it.

      Programmers are professionals too. If you can't work together well it is because you both don't communicate well. Deal with that.

    136. Re:Yes! by BVis · · Score: 1

      My point is, that you really need two people to get the job done: a developer, and a designer. People don't understand that you're taking time away from programming when you make the coder do layout or other design tasks; all they know is that they don't have to hire a second person. After all, they can just make the programmer do all his/her work IN ADDITION to the design stuff. It's a weak labor market.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    137. Re:Yes! by imahawki · · Score: 1

      Graphical UI's are more fast, easier to use, you don't need to remember commands and even new users can do their thing quickly, without resorting to reading manuals and other crap like that.

      I'll give you the rest, but no way graphical UIs are faster than using command-line tools.

      They're faster when you don't know the commands. And they're often still faster if you only need to perform the action ONCE. I know enough to be dangerous in a command line and about the only time I find it useful is when I need to do multiple things to many objects over and over. And even then I PREFER a UI which allows me to set that up (do XYZ to every file in ABC dir, etc.)

    138. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, you're significantly less likely to *accidentally* rename a file using the CLI than you are with the GUI. (Renaming the wrong file? That's probably a wash, but renaming a file when you had absolutely no intention of renaming anything? That's pretty much solely the domain of the GUI.)

    139. Re:Yes! by wootcat · · Score: 1

      Good to hear your customer-facing apps involve the usability process. Bad to hear the Powers-That-Be don't see the value for employees as well. My last 3 contract jobs have all dealt with usability for internal-facing applications only. Streamlining the process and reducing stress and frustration for employees by applying usability principles can have a major positive impact on development costs and end user productivity. Even morale and loyalty can be boosted when employees see their company cares about them enough to improve the tools they use every day.

      --
      I'm really a low 5-digit Slashdotter, but this ID is where I am now.
    140. Re:Yes! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You know, this may be where the "you have to use a CLI in Linux" misconception may come from. On a server, a GUI just gets in the way, and passing by the server room seeing the network admin using a CLI they think a GUI isn't available. If I were running a server it would have no GUI, but on my box at home I never use a command line. Well, OK, once when I forgot the root password and had to go in and change it. But not normally.

    141. Re:Yes! by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Interesting link.

      However, you forgot the 0th rule:
      0. Any ideology when taken to an extreme is harmful.

      "Rules" are _guidelines_, not "Laws". What you are championing is Dogma. You can _always_ come up with a valid except to any rule.

      There are times to to break the rules -- the hard part is knowing when. But yes, for the majority of the time, the rules should be followed.

      P.S.
      Neither Programmers, nor Designers, nor Users should be used for the Theory+Implementation of Software. You need a person who is ALL THREE, because the 3 perspectives are too myopic / microscopic -- you need BOTH a microscopic and macroscopic view of ALL THREE perspectives: implementation, design, use/work-flow.

    142. Re:Yes! by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no. There's nothing backing that statement up.

    143. Re:Yes! by Rudisaurus · · Score: 1

      Point (2), on the other hand, is an "in-your-face" sort of behavior that you may or may not like. Users who don't know what they're doing might benefit from having the menu right there in front of them. Personally, however, I just collapse the Ribbon (double-click it) so that it acts like regular pull-down menus (albeit arranged horizontally instead of vertically). If I'm doing stuff that requires a lot of menu interaction (text formatting in Word) I might lock it open (again, double-click it) but in general I don't want it in my way.

      If you took nothing else away from my post, hopefully you caught the fact that double-clicking the Ribbon makes it go away.

      Thank you! I did not know about this. With this feature and ALT key prompting, Word is much more to my liking now. Cheers!

      --
      licet differant, aequabitur
    144. Re:Yes! by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > And I don't care who you are, either you have every single command memorized (with every
      > single argument as well) and you have wasted, probably months of your life learning these things
      > or more likely just know some small subset and have to look up news ones on occasion.

      I see it different. If I have to look up the switches on a command it is because it is for something I rarely use; meaning it probably is rare enough I wouldn't be able to do it AT ALL with a graphical tool since they tend toward the lowest common denominator.

      Instant example. Do man ls. Note the --author switch on the first display page of the manual (assuming 80x24 xterm) and now tell me how you do that on any of the graphical file system browsing tools? How many provide the option to display size in both decimal and SI units? None I know of, which is also exactly how many offer the functionality of the --block-size option. Do you even know WHY one would want to use the --block-size option? Not something you need every day but when you do you need it enough to read the man page, especially because it isn't all that hard or time consuming since UNIX culture makes it a point to always have the man pages available and they are laid out for fast access.

      Again, just sticking to the ls command, all of those options were useful enough for someone to add code for but any gui that tried to expose them all would probably become unusable. But spend a few minutes reading the page and count em. They are all handy for somebody: -a AND -A, -b is certainly obscure enough but -B really clears the clutter from a display, you usually get -C by default but sometimes you need to override in a pipeline and the same can be said for --color, emacs peeps need -D, -f is great in pipes, -F is a bit cluttered for my taste most of the time but others love the additional info, --format is full of useful options, -h is for humans, -i is certainly a special option for the hard things that it makes possible, -n is something you probably can't do with a gui but is info an admin needs sometimes, -N is another one for pipes and scripts along with -q and -Q, and how many graphical tools provide access to all of the SELInux context?

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    145. Re:Yes! by nine-times · · Score: 2

      That's a little like saying, "Mmm, Windows Vista. Letting programmers program has been a freaking disaster, because they always seem to pick bloat over efficiency."

      When really that's not the problem. It's not UI designers per se, but it's bad UI designers functioning under misguided management and unreasonable demands. A good UI designer will use some "Ooooo, shiney" when it can be use appropriately, but not for the sake of itself. Shininess can actually be used to enhance usability.

    146. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I had a dollar for every time my mom asked me how to write a word document with a bash script. That's not normal use.

    147. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Programmers also think they know how to name things as well. The... GIMP? Really? Try to explain to your employer that you want everyone in the department to use the GIMP to edit images. Then you can try to bring in the GNONORREA, RTARD, and MYBYTCH office suite components, all really well built - with names designed to send you to sensitivity training and a fine permanent billet in the data entry department (if they don't fire you outright).

      If you care about name over function, it's your loss. If my employer wants to pay money for photoshop when, for their use case, GIMP would be enough, just because they don't want a software named GIMP, then that right there is enough of a reason to have more software named offensively. It's a push back against ridiculousness.

      The name should not matter. In the real world, it does, but it's our job to change that.

    148. Re:Yes! by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      Only if you are doing the task a small number of times. Otherwise you should formalize the procedure and then codify it in the form of a program.

      Tex does a better job of formatting a paragraph than 99.9% of humans are likely to do manually, with or without a gui tool. For most cases it probably does a better job of adding an illustration. Seriously. Try banging out a simple document with LaTEX and having it include an illustration in the text. Now have someone bang it out in Word or something. After a one time learning ramp to get the hang of using LaTEX markup you will almost certainly find that the time spent is about the same and the output will be more attractive and much more consistent. While Word can use style sheets and such to get consistancy it is almost never done, because manual placement and formating is what most users see first and never move beyond.

      Creating the illustration for insertion is probably a task best left to graphical tools. Everything in it's place.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    149. Re:Yes! by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      Linux is Unix, Apple (iOS, and OSX) is Unix, Android is Unix ... All totally built around the command line ...?

      How many times do you use a command line (or even see one) on any of these in normal use ...? ...about the same as in Windows ... i.e. never ...

      Unix was designed around the command line 40 years ago ... but you don't need it anymore for everyday use, this is not stopping you using it, but you don't need it now unless you are customising the system ....

      How many times I use the command-line in those systems? Just about every time I'm on my linux box, I use the command-line. I have Terminal on the dock for my mac os x. I ssh into my iPad and my android phone. That is indeed about the same as in windows, as I often open the command prompt (and hell, there are some team foundation commands you cannot run from Visual Studio, so the command prompt it actually needed in Windows of all places).

      I agree that for the most part we don't need it, but for many things it's still by far the most efficient way of doing things, even when there's a GUI way of doing it. I can go to Ubuntu Software Center and click around between search boxes and install buttons...or I can type apt-get install blah.

    150. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you can't design well doesn't mean other programmers can't. Furthermore, your experience with the Ribbon is far different from anyone else I've talked to. The Ribbon lacks a LOT of the more advanced features that were easily accessible via the menu structure, which are now buried under a hierarchy of child windows. In short, it was a terrible, terrible idea, and studies have proven that it takes on average longer to do the same task using the Ribbon, and takes much longer to learn the locations of tools.

    151. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think what Linux geeks miss is that the parts of Linux that they like best are things the general public is not interested in

      Linux geeks missed nothing in particular. They are NOT in agreement what is a good user interface (UI), and designed many different UIs to interact with a computer. The command line works, too, but it is not nearly what all groups within the geeks prefer.

      What some alleged "normal users" seem to miss is a no learning-curve "same as on windows or smartphone" no-choice approach. Except this is a cheap stereotype of a "normal user" people have in order to complain about why THEIR old habits aren't supported perfectly.

      The "normal user" in that sense doesn't actually exist, otheriwse I assure you, programmers would fully support his/her needs. However, I know people who still regard Win 3.11 as the optimal design for UI, or the old norton commander, or MSX DOS and they were not programmers or computer scientists. They can also (usually be younger) and like android, gnome shell or lxde, or their TV's menu that is operated with a remote control. Some of the Windows users are happy and some are unhappy with the UI changes between Win XP and Win Vista or 7.

      It just seems pretty clear that there is no "normal user" to be found here, but different people who are often of the opinion their own habits would be the best default for anyone.

      There's also another kind of "normal user", one which is essentially just missing a marketing department telling him/her that this or that UI is perfection and the best choice to date, and enables them to brag to their peers. They would be really happy with kde or gnome or even the command line if it existed. But this way, they have to deal with their peers who can repeat Apple's or Windows advertisment slogans.

      TL;DR version: Normal users don't exist, what people are missing are the habits they got themselves while operating this or that OS or UI (and they each got their own), or a marketing department telling them they got the best thing ever and allowing them to brag to their peers...

    152. Re:Yes! by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Or 'GNU IMP', or 'G-IMP', or something like that. I think it's being held back simply by stubborn pride on the developer's side. The name is having a definite effect on adoption.

    153. Re:Yes! by Toonol · · Score: 1

      He's a troll, but I actually agree that the ribbon is not a bad UI element. I'd like some changes to it (ability to add and remove elements, for instance)... but I think most of the criticism against it is just stubborness.

    154. Re:Yes! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      This is management we're talking about. If they can't blame someone else for their own failings, then what point is there to management?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    155. Re:Yes! by Pope · · Score: 2

      2 cookies is 1 too many, now he has diabetes.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    156. Re:Yes! by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Completely depends on the task.

      I'd say that, in general, complicated tasks and bulk tasks are faster on the CLI, but that's not always the case.

      Let's say I have a folder open, and want to copy all the images with redheads into a subdirectory. Pretty fast and easy in most GUIs. It would be very slow on a CLI, unless you were really forward-thinking form the outset with your file naming conventions.

    157. Re:Yes! by sjames · · Score: 1

      ?So just make sure to use a 10 year old distro and everything will be exactly like it was, just as it is with a 10 year old version of Windows.

      Or were you wanting it to be new but not new new?

    158. Re:Yes! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      On top of that linux geeks fail to understand that people don't want to use command line to do tasks.

      I heard they have GUIs on linux now, though real men still use lynx.

    159. Re:Yes! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      +1 cookie for you.

    160. Re:Yes! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Good example is Ribbon UI. Ribbon is actually a great step forward in terms of usability.

      Spoken like a true designer! What of the many many users that despise the ribbon and want it dead? (yes, I know that there are also many who like it). Do you declare them wrong and haughtily demand that the unwashed masses get cultured so they will know a tasteful designer UI when they see one or do you go the geek route and make it an option?

      The rest of your post is just doing what you accuse the geeks of in reverse. Your personal preference isn't the one true way either. The difference is that few geeks will opt for the 'my way or the highway' approach, they will make it a configurable option. Sorry if that confuses you. BTW, I'm running Linux right now, looking at a GUI. It has some graphical oriented apps on it and it has a few text terminals open.

    161. Re:Yes! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      the GUI tools available on either aren't very good. Particularly for file navigation/management.

      You can find something powerful like an XTree Gold clone, the only problem is, for the average user that much power in a file manager just helps them delete all their critical files faster.

      I just use a CLI for most file tasks, (it is much faster when familiar) but use a GUI for selecting media files. That is the only case I can see where the GUI is actually better suited for a frequent user... thumbnails do provide legit visual cues that don't exist in a CLI, as do audio previews on mouseover.

      But I still end up using the CLI half the time because even if I know what directory Foo_Bar_blahblahblah1997blahblah.media is in, I can probably type find ~ -iname '*foo*bar*'
      faster than I could open a folder and open subfolders and scroll and all that.
      And then I can just type vlc and double-click the path from find, and center click to paste it... literally like 2-5 seconds versus probably 10-15 in the GUI. Of course, if I'm not looking for Foo_Barblahblahbah but "that video with the cat" then the GUI wins.

      For the "average" user, the GUI is going to win every time, and yet, a more powerful solution would destroy them.

      IMO the "average user" is best served by simply not changing or upgrading or improving the UI, keep it simple, let them learn it, and put important features in the menus in a way that when they ask somebody smarter for help (who may not even use the specific program they need help with) they can easily find what is needed.

    162. Re:Yes! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You can tell when a font isn't proper because its shirt isn't tucked in.

      We not be proper enough for you, but power tip: all modern computers have working fonts.

    163. Re:Yes! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps some Ramadan junkie?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    164. Re:Yes! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      When it takes a lot of typing it is because doing the same thing in the GUI would involve a lot of clicking, in different windows, and often mixed together with either typing, or tedious scrolling.

    165. Re:Yes! by westlake · · Score: 2

      He went so far as to say that everything's faster with a GUI, and we all know that isn't true.

      It may be true for the geek who has mastered the grammar and syntax of the command line or memorized all the keyboard shorcuts.

      Is it Slash foward or Slash back?

      The GUI will tell you --- maybe even show you --- "What Is Going To Happen Next."

      It can and should give you a graceful line of retreat, more than one chance to recover from a mistake.

      "Continue? Yes or No?"

      "Undo This."

    166. Re:Yes! by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      not necessarily, single commands can be very very long while the equivalent in a GUI can be a single click.
      It all depends on what you are doing.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    167. Re:Yes! by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      To the average user, look at Apples red X window decoration (used FAR more frequently than the control panel) versus Windows red X window decoration. That would be exhibit B.

    168. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stopped reading at...
      "That's unadulterated bullshit. Microsoft is the one with the worst design."

      Microsoft is pretty close to catching up to and in some instances even surpassing Apple in UI design.

      What happened to you in the 90s doesn't matter and no one gives a shit anymore in 2012.

      Open-source doesn't pay, so you will never see real UI designers (modern day "starvin artists") getting involved.

    169. Re:Yes! by westlake · · Score: 1

      Mostly because office software is so ridiculously crufty that the only way to make it more usable is by offering *less* features.

      The office suite is complex because it is put into daily use by tens or hundreds of millions of clerical workers, each with their own requirements and skill sets. Full time staff. Office Temps. Senior Volunteers and so on.

    170. Re:Yes! by steelfood · · Score: 1

      A usable design will not bring attention to itself when examined critically, certainly, but it doesn't have to be borning. It just has to be intuitive. And it has to draw the user to where the user wants to go, as opposed to where the programmer or computer wants the user to be.

      Boring and efficient is the little square power button inside the Windows Vista/7 start menu (ignore the other options next to it--that bit sucks and makes the little square button worse that it could be). But it's not the best design. A better design might be a button that is labeled "shutdown" somewhere in the start menu. You can use the drop-down for this purpose, and it would be made tons better if the drop-down actually showed the action that hitting the power button would perform, instead of being a submenu.

      However, the start menu button itself is an example of good design. The user is drawn to it because of its size relative to the task bar, and the function is apparent because it's round and resembles a--you guessed it--power button. The designer recognized that people hit the power button to both turn on and turn off something. So to "turn on" a program, that's where to go.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    171. Re:Yes! by netsavior · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. I try very hard to honor the user experience, and really, I am the only one in my department that does (and I am not that great at it). The internal usability expert was shared at a rate of 75(dev):1(usability) and really he was one of the first to go in the layoffs, because "what does he even do??"

      Even our requirements analysts think I am crazy when I nitpick tab order and that is a minor and obvious thing.

    172. Re:Yes! by Catbeller · · Score: 2

      The "gimp" GIMP was named for was the leather-masked slave kept in the basement of the shop in "Pulp Fiction". The alternate meaning means "crippled" as in a "gimp" leg" or "the kid is a gimp". The intended connotation is horrifyingly stupid - a good parallel would be your word processor - the "TWINK". Equally intended to be sexually childish. And named to fail.

      The connotation is obviously intended to provoke at least and offend at most.It costs nothing to rename it something less adolescent.

      And don't get me started about OGG - dear gods, why???? Name it something related to sound, at least. Obscurity for obscurity's sake is a nerd's joy, but death for the format. Stop gigglesnorting and name it .TUN or .GSND or .FREE, a good name for a good product, named to evoke what it is, rather than crack up your fellow Pterry followers. And it isn't even funny to us. It makes no sense on any level than being intentionally irrelevant for the sheer joy of making people walk away.

    173. Re:Yes! by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Most of the 'artists' I know aren't particularly 'artistic'. They just self apply the label as a lifelong excuse for being fuckups.

      I work in the game development industry, so I'm surrounded by folks that produce awesome art on a daily basis. I'm not doubting you, because I've seen people throw random shit at a wall and call it 'art' before, but when you work with actual talented artists on a daily basis, you get a very realistic idea of your own artistic limitations as a programmer. I'm probably in a relatively unique situation in this regard, I guess.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    174. Re:Yes! by BetterSense · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about KDE 3.x? I used Kubuntu through the late oughts, but jumped to gnome when KDE 4 came out because I found it really buggy, and completely different than the nice simple KDE I was used to.

      Of course I will have to jump from Ubuntu completely soon, since Unity is what I am complaining about, X1million. Any suggestions on a distro that focuses on improving compatibility, genuine improvements, and fixing bugs rather than CREATING bugs by redoing the userland every 12 months?

    175. Re:Yes! by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      I read a really interesting whitepaper (I wish I could find it - anyone?) on the design process that went into the Ribbon concept. In a nutshell, it showed the size and complexity explosion of the menu / toolbar system through the various versions of Office through the years (it was really getting sort of ridiculous). It was then contrasted with the increasing resolutions of modern screens. From what I could see, they did a huge amount of usability study in this features, as one might realistically imagine would happen.

      So, no, the ribbon was not designed by programmers, nor was it a child of designers to pretty up the interface. The simple fact of the matter is that menus and toolbars simply weren't scaling up well with the explosion of features in modern versions of Office.

      Honestly, I think it's pretty hard for people to take a step back from a long-held convention like the traditional menu bar, and take a look at it's shortcomings somewhat rationally. As one example: have you noticed that so many programs have a top level 'File' menu even if they don't really work with files? There's nothing logical about it - it's convention trumping rational design right there. There's absolutely nothing wrong with menus as a core concept, but they past a certain point of complexity, I think the usability tends to take a pretty big hit. And frankly, there's also the simple matter that people simple dislike change - especially when they've already spent a considerable amount of effort learning what may have been a quirky but usable system. I certainly know I'm not immune - I still prefer the old VC++6 shortcuts instead of the newer defaults.

      Did MS get the ribbon design perfect? Of course not, but I think they'll keep refining it based on user feedback until it becomes a ubiquitous part of UI systems in lots of places. At some point in just a few years, people will probably look back and wonder what all the crying and gnashing of teeth was all about. My little prediction anyways...

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    176. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hobbyists, which is what Linux geeks are, "
      I don't believe this is correct. The majority of software on the linux desktop is developed by professional or academic programmers. In most cases it's someone elses responsibility to handle the design side of things. I know that i and at least 4 other developers in my company spend at least 1/2 of my paid for working time developing on existing free software projects. I've had discussions that have lasted for weeks about which data structure to use but when it comes to placing a checkbox or adding a menu item, most of us don't really care where it goes so long as it's there. If someone cares enough they can tell me to move it but at the end of the day i don't really care about it because it's not important to me ( nor my employer apparently otherwise they'd provide me with a designer ).

      It's just scratching your own ( or your companies ) itch...nothing more, and apparently few companies or professional designers have that itch with the Linux Desktop.

    177. Re:Yes! by serialband · · Score: 1

      That's just your Linux bias showing.

      Windows has a command line. There are numerous batch files and scripts that have been written by Admins who know what they're doing. They have resource kit tools and 3rd party tools that simplify scripting on the command line. Done correctly, you can script installs, update, patch, change settings, all on the command line on multiple systems just like unix/linux systems. Now, they also have powershell to better access all the AD components.

      The Linux GUI doesn't have keyboard shortcuts built into the API to access the GUI. Windows has it all built in. I can use the keyboard to navigate all the Menus without ever using a mouse in Windows. With Linux and OSX, I need the mouse to navigate and gain focus on all the windows. There are 3rd party apps to do virtual desktops.

      You can schedule jobs on the command line and automate workflow as well.

      Windows, Linux and OSX just do things differently. You are likely used to Linux and have never been a true power user on Windows to know what's possible. I've worked with all 3 in depth to know that Windows command line is just as powerful and capable.

      Good Window's admins that know their way around a command line and AD can manage an equivalent amount of systems used for the same purpose as any Linux/Unix Admin can. Unfortunately, most people who learn to "Admin" Windows, only really learn the point & click interface.

    178. Re:Yes! by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      Wanting the ability to customise all your settings is thinking like a programmer. Different classes of user want things to "just work".

      TFA is about ebooks and the poor formatting of their text. eBooks are read by all kinds of people with varying levels of computer skills, not just programmers.

      For example, I don't think it's unreasonable for Grandma to expect that when she wants to read a book on her Kindle it displays correctly. Lines, paragraphs, chapters flow just like they would on the page of a print book. She isn't going to want to stuff around for hours setting up a display profile or some nonsense.

      The only requirement should be around accessibility - the size of the text can be changed without breaking the layout & flow.

    179. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Win 95/98 is like NT which is like 2000 which is like XP which is like Vista and 7 - except when they are not alike.

    180. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to organise your porn better

    181. Re:Yes! by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      That's because programmers cannot think logically like most people do.

      While programmers don't think like most people do, it is the programmers that think logically, not "most people."

      Good example is Ribbon UI. Ribbon is actually a great step forward in terms of usability.

      WOW... Justy WOW. Ribbon UI is the most horrendous UI out there. It makes it more difficult (more mouse clicks) to do most things. Really the Ribbon is just a large sticky menu. There are some things that were implemented at the same time the ribbon was create. Things called "live view" This was a huge step forward, but that isn't the ribbon. The ribbon is what makes me click two or three times when I just used to click once before. It also takes up way more real estate than it needs to.

    182. Re:Yes! by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      "Ribbon - Designed by programmers,"

      - Citation needed

      I can guarantee you that the Ribbon was NOT designed by programmers. I'm not exactly sure of the qualification of the person that did design it, he was not a programmer.

    183. Re:Yes! by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      The Ribbon is essentially one large sticky menu. If menus don't scale well then the ribbon really doesn't scale well.

    184. Re:Yes! by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      It sounds like the UI designer mentioned by the GP is just laying out buttons on a screen without reference to anything. He's designing a UI he likes.

      Proper user centred design is about finding out how the actual users of your software work and designing a UI that meets their goals efficiently. Your touch-typist example is a good one. If you're designing software for secretaries then assuming they can touch-type and building a UI that takes advantage of that is probably the right approach.

    185. Re:Yes! by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Ribbon - Designed by programmers, Loved by some, Hated by others

      I've long suspected that people who still claim to hate it -- more than five years later -- probably aren't really heavy Office users to begin with. At least, the people who seem to hate it the most are the folks here on Slashdot ... and let's be fair, half of them use the command line and the other half use Eclipse.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    186. Re:Yes! by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      or you could just configure your DHCP server to give the same IP address every time to your PC's MAC address.

      DHCP can do static IP allocation just as easily as it can do dynamic allocation.

    187. Re:Yes! by treeves · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be hard to rename it...how about GRIM: GNU Raster Image Manipulation? That'd be a step up.
      GNU Raster Editing Program...oh that name is taken?
      GNU Raster Editing And Tailoring
      GNU Image Viewer Editor & Refiner
      Wait. I have an idea. How about naming it without requiring the name to be an acronym?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    188. Re:Yes! by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      This is absurd. Artists read books, and therefore fully understand the beauty of the written word.

      It's not that the command line is 'ugly' - it's that it's inconsistent, difficult to remember if you don't use it for a period of time, and very much not well suited to certain tasks. Such as creating visual art, for instance. And yes, I know you can use code to generate art, but you know perfectly well what I'm talking about.

    189. Re:Yes! by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      but creating something that works well for everybody is an art that few people master.

      actually, it's an art that nobody masters because it's impossible to make a UI that works well for everyone - different people have different requirements.

      I, for example, find most GUI icons hopelessly confusing. I can never tell what the fuck they're supposed to mean(*). They confuse the hell out of me. Even after months or years of use, I just recognise the ones i use regularly by pattern matching (rote memory), not by understanding what the picture is supposed to be. and i suspect that's partially true for everyone - take web browser icons like the icons for chromium or firefox for example....the ONLY reason they're recognisable as web browsers is brand-recognition. There's nothing about them that "intuitively" indicates "web browser' to someone who doesn't already know the branding.

      (*) this is, of course, partly due to resolution - higher res icons have more detail and are generally more recognisable. but it's also partly due to inherent ambiguity - is a picture of a document meant to indicate Open Office or Abiword or something else entirely? is it even a text document or is that funny colored squigle in the corner supposed to indicate that it's a picture? i dunno, click it and see....i might even remember it after a few hundred clicks.

      Words, however, make perfect sense to me. They're unambiguous, clear, and "exactly what it says on the label". So, wherever possible, I use text menus, text labels as well as (or instead of, when possible) the default inscrutable hieroglyphics.

      I fully understand that most people are far more visually-oriented than I am...and that a UI designed for me would be sub-optimal for them, just as a UI designed for them is sub-optimal for me.

      which was my point - different people have different requirements. there is no one-size-fits-all user interface.

      some people like to dismiss textual UIs as being only for geeks. contrarily, i could easily dismiss UIs with an icon fetish as being only for illiterate morons who never mastered reading beyond looking at the pictures in the Mr Men books.

    190. Re:Yes! by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      WIN+R
      iisreset
      ENTER

      you do realise that that's a command-line, don't you?

      you've bypassed the GUI and entered a command line to run a particular program....presumably because navigating the GUI is too slow.

    191. Re:Yes! by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      how about typesetters?

      they managed to do the job back in the bad old dead tree print days.

      some of them even survived and kept their jobs after employers realised that giving the receptionist a DTP program may produce output that looks like arse but it's cheaper than hiring a professional.

    192. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      much betterer.

    193. Re:Yes! by Tooke · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what I was going to post.

      I use the command line all the time, I like to customize stuff, etc, typical linux geek stuff. That doesn't mean I think everyone else should use Linux the way I do or use Linux at all. And if I'm going to write some software on my own time, who do you think I'm going to write it for? Some random Average User or myself? Why on earth would I ever write software that I wouldn't use myself if I'm not getting compensated in some way?

      --
      Anybody want a peanut?
    194. Re:Yes! by Sosarian+Avatar · · Score: 1

      I haven't run into that problem in Linux within the past four years, provided I don't switch to radically different desktops. OTOH my mother had asked repeatedly for help with Windows 7, and I have the same internal dialogue you describe: "let's see, how did I do that in XP...er...no, that option isn't there... what about that other one? no, that can't be changed now either? bah, fuck it, she can call my brother."

      --
      Apathy Sucks, Nobody for President!
    195. Re:Yes! by Y-Crate · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Lol, you have a choice here, make your own imaging software and name it w/e you want?

      It's posts like these that distance users from the OSS movement.

      People want solutions, not "LOL CODE IT URSELF LOL".

      Congrats on working to marginalize open source.

    196. Re:Yes! by st0nes · · Score: 1

      Programmers don't really understand good design and usability.

      This statement is absurd. Do you think all programmers are identical and have identical skillsets?

      without resorting to reading manuals and other crap like that.

      Having to do some work? Shocking! CLIs are actually a faster and more productive method of working once they have been mastered.

      That's because programmers cannot think logically like most people do.

      Oh, good grief! Or are you trying to be funny? And the rest of your post is also worthless drivel.

      --
      Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis
    197. Re:Yes! by Sosarian+Avatar · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself: you don't represent all non-supergeek users.

      My mother's a semi-computer-illiterate "average user" that primarily uses computers for watching videos & websurfing, yet she easily uses & likes Linux environments like KDE 4 & GNOME 2; loves that she can change the colors and all that. She has a few more problems with Windows 7 as it doesn't work the same way XP used to... However, when she tried Mac OS X at my brother's urging, she found it very confusing even with a lot of help.

      I'm an almost-average user: I can't program, I want/need to be able to focus on my writing and other tasks without a struggle, keeping my tech-tinkering a hobby on the side when it's convenient -- yet I have chosen to use Linux full-time for almost 4 years. It "just works" for me, it has little abilities I'd always wanted in Windows; I occasionally use the command-line when it's convenient or lets me do things that aren't possible in any OS's GUI. I found OS X frustrating and counter-intuitive.

      --
      Apathy Sucks, Nobody for President!
    198. Re:Yes! by kyrio · · Score: 1

      Linux has a GUI? I've never seen it.

    199. Re:Yes! by kyrio · · Score: 1

      XP had 5 different service packs between the x86 and x64 editions. If MS was Apple, the service packs would cost $100+ each and everything would look different/be broken with the new service pack. So yes, Windows has the same GUI after 10 years and multiple versions. In fact, it's had the same theme available for nearly 20 years.

    200. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not necessarily, single commands can be very very long while the equivalent in a GUI can be a single click. It all depends on what you are doing.

      The exact opposite can be true too. Very few GUIs has something comparable to aliases or scripts.

    201. Re:Yes! by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

      Why did you then start a discussion about usability and UI design?

      I know shit about UI design...so I try to stay away and especially not start a discussion about it. But I'm smart enough to know that everyone wants something different...some people want KDE, some Gnome2, some Gnome3, some find E17 awesome, others ask what a so-called-GUI is...I can see that people like Ribbon, hell, I can even understand if somebody says "Luna looks cool"...but that's not my opinion, those awesome new designs like Ribbon do not work for me. I like my ugly 16x16 icon-palette with no description, you know, I'm able to remember what every icon means and which ones I need. I'm also able to work quick and flawless with the shell, I'm faster and it's easier, for me. I also don't hesitate to read the manual, after all, that's what they were written for (I find man pages awesome, so much information squeezed into that...that might be why I'm able to solve most problems myself, without running to someone "this doesn't work anymore, why?!" - "What's the error message?" - "Ugh...I don't know!").

      If you like Ribbon, great, go for it...but don't you dare telling me what I should use, because you think it's better.

    202. Re:Yes! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Good example is Ribbon UI.

      I actually agree, but not for the same reasons as you.

      Ribbon is actually a great step forward in terms of usability. I wasn't really heavy Office user but have used in from time to time.

      I totally disagree. I used to be a pretty heavy, sophisticated user of the MS Office applications (along with actually doing my work ; Office is only a tool for producing reports and presenting results, not for doing anything important.) I'd get pretty pissed off with the details of the UI changing appreciably between versions, from 1990 (when we switched away from Word for DOS v5) all the way through to Office 2005. But I could get on with doing the report-writing and presentation producing which I needed to do within seconds of swapping from my work applications into an Office application.

      Then the ribbon was introduced. No choice ; no way back ; no option. No instruction. Hell, this piece of shit even required you to take your fingers off the keyboard, clear desk space, and use the fucking mouse. What does it think it is? Paint?

      You can't find anything. Your keyboard accelerators don't work, and even lead you off into holes that you can't get out of. It would sometimes take me thirty seconds to find how to get out of the fucking program and back to doing my work.

      Office shit-canned. Portable OpenOffice.Org on a memory device : back to being productive.

      The IT department tried forcing me to use MSOffice (still no training and absolutely no discussion) by restricting ability to run programs locally. But they couldn't handle the workload of other support calls. They had to give people the Admin keys in order to do their jobs. So they've given up the fight.

      Yes, the Office Ribbon is a wonderful example of how an utterly fucked up user interface can destroy a program's user base.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    203. Re:Yes! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The tap to click is generally a part of the touchpad driver, which usually (not always) extends the mouse control panel.

      Not on an Acer notebook. Very frustrating trying to find it.

      KDE followed windows quite a bit in its' incarnation.

      Yes, it did. It would have been foolish to design an interface that had to be 100% relearned.

      Win 7 is certainly way better than 98 was, especially its stability, but Linux is still more tolerant of hardware faults.

    204. Re:Yes! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I skipped KDE 4. I was on Mandriva then, and was happy with the version of KDE I was using (don't remember what version). Kubuntu 9's KDE had some serious flaws, but it appears that the latest doesn't have them, although it could have a few I just haven't run across yet.

    205. Re:Yes! by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      The thing I have installed at my conputers is also called "Linux", but doesn't seem to have those problems. There was one big change at the GUI last year. That's all, from 2001 since I've settled on the current distro + GUI + whatever. (Ok, some software come and go, not unlike any other OS - how do you play media on Windows nowadays?)

      All that said I still use the CLI a lot for file management. The GUI tools available for Linux are bad. They just happen to be better than anything common on Windows, but that does not make them good.

    206. Re:Yes! by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      The name "Gnu is Not Unix" is a joke anyway. It is Unix and POSIX doesn't matter anymore, just get over it.

      POSIX stopped mattering at the moment that the companies that sold certified Unixes started to sell "GNU compatible Unix", just before they gone bankrupt or closed their Unix divisions (ok, there is still IBM).

    207. Re:Yes! by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      The name "Gnu is Not Unix" is a joke anyway. It is Unix and POSIX doesn't matter anymore, just get over it.

      POSIX stopped mattering at the moment that the companies that sold certified Unixes started to sell "GNU compatible Unix", just before they gone bankrupt or closed their Unix divisions (ok, there is still IBM).

      FYI - POSIX and GNU have nothing to do with each other. POSIX is a standard that is implemented by the OS Kernel. It is implemented by Windows, Linux, and UNIX and numerous other kernels. Just because something is POSIX compliant does not mean it is UNIX.

      Also, GNU has nothing to do with Linux proper. Linux proper is just the OS Kernel. it happens to use the GNU GCC compiler; but it could just as easily use another if they took the time to port over all the little details - that is, Linux uses GCC and very heavily uses a lot of its little optimizations to denote things like branching, etc. Otherwise, GNU has nothing to do with Linux. Yes, Linux distributions tend to use the GNU user level tools and the GNU C Library; but that is again the user environment and bears nothing per Linux being Unix.

      For example, Android does not use the GNU user tools; yet it runs the Linux kernel.

      Now, take FreeBSD for example. FreeBSD IS Unix. And it also uses a lot of the GNU user level tools. So while FSF likes GNU meaning GNU is NOT Unix, that really only applies to their GNU Hurd Kernel, which is still under development. The rest of the tools run on a lot of Unix systems now, mainly because they standardized user-land in an otherwise messy world.

      Now, I do quite well agree that UNIX doesn't matter any more. However, POSIX still does - that's one of the reasons why Linux has as much support as it does - it has a very complete implementation of the POSIX standard, so software has a reasonable assurance that it can run on it and other POSIX systems; this allows a lot of UNIX targette software to switch to Linux very easily (and some Windows software). It's the POSIX standard that drives a lot of the functionality behind pure C functions like fopen() and fclose() - they are part of the POSIX standard, as is most of the Standard C Library.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    208. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only to realize the command you are trying to use has been deprecated and the new one doesn't support the feature your wife wants.

    209. Re:Yes! by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Then you're either ignorant of its actual mechanics or being purposefully obtuse. The entire point of the ribbon is that it intelligently scales up or down to fill available space much better than previous paradigms. As you resize the window up or down, lower-priority items collapse first, leaving the more important items in view. You probably wouldn't know this if you've only ever seen screenshots of the UI.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    210. Re:Yes! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Real 'artists' sneer at video game artists.

      According to them only the people that 'throw random shit at the wall' are artists.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    211. Re:Yes! by hutsell · · Score: 1

      One of the remaining options like getting a UI designer to design your UI.

      If this is going to be one of the remaining options chosen,
      insure the designer is one of the few that considers the printed word to be useful to the reader.

      --
      Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why
    212. Re:Yes! by Xanny · · Score: 1

      I know this thread is old, but I feel like trying to defend myself because quintus seems to think I'm a smug asshole. And don't get me wrong, I am a smug asshole, but I like to think I'm not evil all the time.

      I don't claim to make perfect GUIs. I don't claim to be a know it all about everything Linux - I always tell myself I suck at software engineering because I don't like the command line and prefer Eclipse over Vi. And I speak from my personal experiences - I recently tried out Ubuntu again after having a long running Debian install that I have had work (and I was always using Synaptic to manage packages because of the aforementioned stupidity of myself in using apt-get). But I always seem to come back to needing to use BASH to get around seemingly simple problems, that a lot of the utilities I use that seem like they would have good GUIs end up being CL based, and that to fix a lot of problems or tweak settings I often need to resort to the CL.

      That is my personal experience - other people have their own. That goes back to the GUI design thing, and the original point of the thread and all. And someone else said that artists and techologists are distinct and rare traits - I feel they are more closely intwined, because they are both creative practices. I feel creativity is a rare trait in people and is the general lead in to coding, architecture, engineering, art. They are all a means to an end - fulfilling a creative impulse. I can't draw worth a crap, but I feel like I have a sense of beauty and elegance that can lead me to design decent UIs, and I acknowledge beauty is opinionated and no design is perfect for everyone, but understanding general cases, what works for the average joe, newbie, and master, is really all that counts - not having that cursory understanding when designing UIs is pretty lazy.

      And yes, many programmers don't want to make GUIs. That is fine, have someone else do it. No one tells you to, no one makes you, and nobody has the right to tell you you are lesser for finding button positioning droll. I am just saying there is no correlation between writing code and having no personal ability to design a coherent usable interface. They are different disciplines and one who is technical need not be artistic or vice versa, but the traits are correlated but there is no causal basis between them.

    213. Re:Yes! by obscuro · · Score: 2

      Usability comes from the following:

      • previous research and patterns (of which there's plenty)
      • core understanding of the problem the USER faces
      • common sense
      • usability testing and real user feedback
      • openness to change
      • understanding when not to change
      • coordinated discipline

      Usability an art informed by cognitive science and engineering. What Linux distros tend to lack is coordinated discipline. They also get user feedback from a skewed population. Android gets feedback from a wide distribution of humanity and it shows. Ubuntu's mix of feedback shifted away from l33ts toward the mainstream and that drove them to make radical changes. Those changes may not serve any user base very well at the moment (I hate them) but they are clearly an attempt to reach out to the average user THROUGH DESIGN. If they keep processing feedback they have a good chance of refining that POS into something really great.

      I'm typing this on a Macbook Air. I've used Ubuntu on a laptop since it came out and other linux variants since 1998. I switched for work purposes to Mac and, as another poster said, "The emperor has no clothes." It's not easier to use. It's prettier, but there are FAR more functions that require foreknowledge to execute on a Mac. There are ways to make a gesture on the multi-touch pad that make shit disappear! I'm a power user type guy so I dug in and learned all kinds of wonderful tricks but I can't imagine how grandma reacts to that shit. I think she just calls herself stupid.

      As for the original post. Book design is a really ancient form of design informed by a great depth of tradition and knowledge. Unfortunately, the world of print has run screaming from the world of digital interfaces. SOME of that print knowledge has come over but not much. Print design theory is PRECISELY counter to the idea of the separation of form and content. The whole challenge in making a beautiful book is to UNIFY form and content. eBooks let you change the size and type of the font.... Some let you turn it sideways and read wide instead of long.... All that freedom DESTROYS book design. That freedom comes from giving the user choices about FORM that can't always be predicted and therefore can't be unified and previewed. What this calls for is a NEW form of design that brings book design and UI design together into a structure that benefits from all the behaviors listed in those bullet points at the top of this post.

      --
      Every rule has more than one consequence.
    214. Re:Yes! by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      It's not too slow... I'm just pointing out that there is a short command line version in windows you can use as well... you can do a lot with scripting in windows as well, either with wscript or powershell... not to mention other options available.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    215. Re:Yes! by dirtyhippie · · Score: 1

      wget is way faster than firefox, too.

  2. It's not just ebooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Programmers (mostly) are terrible at typography and it's not just limited to ebooks - it's evident in software, the web, you name it.

    I should know. I'm a programmer and my type looks awful.

    1. Re:It's not just ebooks by JediHomer · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's why I always use Comic Sans :)

    2. Re:It's not just ebooks by ElmoGonzo · · Score: 0

      Programmers do not need to spell correctly, just consistently. It's the Q/A people, who need to check on everything else. Or, Cow forbid, someone who writes specifications that cover those details. As a programmer, I live on the deadbolt end of Plauger's spectrum -- if you want pretty you need to find a designer or fashion consultant who will ensure that your necktie matches your socks.

    3. Re:It's not just ebooks by Thantik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I really hate when I see a term like "Plauger's spectrum", go to find the definition of it, and the only use of it ever, is right here on Slashdot with no explanation of what it is anywhere else...

    4. Re:It's not just ebooks by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Ah, but a good programmer is a lazy person, and it's much easier to spell consistently if you spell correctly--there's a whole system of rules that acts as compression. Sure, there's outliers that you have to memorize, but without those rules you have to memorize everything.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    5. Re:It's not just ebooks by Rennt · · Score: 1

      EVERYBODY is terrible at typography. Even most book publishers. On the other hand, programmers are more likely to know about tools like LaTeX so have a better chance then most.

    6. Re:It's not just ebooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you spell phonetically and ignore the alternate spellings of a given phoneme you will spell consistently with a higher rate of "compression" and nowhere near correct spelling (at least in English).

    7. Re:It's not just ebooks by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      TeX does a pretty good job of typesetting things, and it was created by a programmer.

      For the most part, except for bad OCRs from google, ebooks are fine. I hate when my nook hyphenates a word and lets it cross between 2 pages, but I think that's my nook doing that.

    8. Re:It's not just ebooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's obvious. We're talking about some dude named Plauger and his 8-bit home micro.

    9. Re:It's not just ebooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Real programmers" just spell it once and then use the associated key sequence/macro/function/object afterwards.
      Given human nature not to get everything right all the time, typos happen.
      Unlike the non-"real programmers" approach, for which they're not being paid for "spell correction, "real programmers" can change the key sequence/macro/function/object because they're paid to. If there was enough $$ in the budget, then I suppose it'd go to Q/A to handle it.

    10. Re:It's not just ebooks by somersault · · Score: 1

      I don't see why programmers should be "designing" eBooks. The eBooks should be automatically converted from whatever format the book was stored in, so that things are shown identically in the eBook format. A "programmer" could add in a few hyperlinks, but that's it.

      Even with older or more complex books everything should be done automatically as much as possible. In cases where things can't be done automatically, a human should try to copy the way the book did things, and not "design" anything themselves.

      It's not just Google doing OCR, in the last Kindle book I read, the word "the" was scanned as "die" a few times. The book had no German in it (some Portugese and Norwegian, but no German). Damn annoying when you're trying to figure out wtf is happening in a sentence before you figure out that a word was scanned wrong.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    11. Re:It's not just ebooks by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      What's the canonical spelling of a given phoneme? Unless you use a transcription system, you'll run into two different people who think that the the other is using the "alternate" spelling. Although the magnitude of rules you need to agree on is much smaller, there's no general agreement on which system of phonetic spelling to use, whereas, alternate spellings of individual words aside, there is a general agreement on what the "correct" spelling of a word is.

      So, if consistency is your primary goal, normal spelling is the way to go. With phonetic spelling, your chances of running into something with an alternate but still correct spelling is much higher.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    12. Re:It's not just ebooks by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Ah,you're definitely not into design, I see.

      What you wrote would send a classical designer into paroxysms of angst and rage. You don't 'convert' books from printed page to a Kindle automatically. You have to think about the strengths and weaknesses of each modality, you have to delve into how that will affect the reader emotional experience.

      That means agnsting about fonts, white space, ligature, kerning, embedded graphic elements, reflectivity and transmission, color space and a whole bunch of other complicating terms and concepts.

      I take it you don't go to espresso bars much.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    13. Re:It's not just ebooks by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      Okay, the problem is with OCR, not just with google. I just brought up google because they offer epub files for a lot of the works which they have scanned. I don't think it requires any particular skill other than the ability to read to catch errors in such a document. Project Gutenberg uses volunteers for it's distributed proofreading, and I haven't found such glaring errors in any of the books I've downloaded from them. In other words, it takes a little bit of effort to produce a good quality ebook from printed material.

    14. Re:It's not just ebooks by jd · · Score: 1

      GOOD programmers know to keep I/O isolated from functionality. This is an example of WHY that is what good programmers do. The underlying code should NOT dictate the display. Seriously, the best that modern industry can do these days is to repeat the errors of the 70s and 80s?

      The GUI, if properly and coherently designed using standard software engineering practices of any merit, should be designed by people who are experts in typography and HCI. In a few, rare, cases these will also be people who are also programmers but they will NOT be thinking or acting as programmers when they design the interface in those cases, they will be thinking as typography experts or HCI experts.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    15. Re:It's not just ebooks by jd · · Score: 1

      People can wear multiple hats, but generally only one hat at a time. Donald Knuth was very obviously not thinking as a programmer when designing TeX (it's a great system, I write almost exclusively in TeX for everything other than web postings, but it violates a lot of good programming practices).

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    16. Re:It's not just ebooks by Sduic · · Score: 1

      Plauger's spectrum: the range of feature necessity with regard to the C++11 specification.

      --
      *this space intentionally left blank
      "One of the four pointers saying 'come and see', and I saw, and beheld a white
    17. Re:It's not just ebooks by somersault · · Score: 1

      Heh, you're damn right. I think font choice should be up to the reader. I like the swishy turning pages in Google's ereader, but they don't have the easy-on-the-eyes sepia colour scheme of Kindle, so I've stuck with Kindle. The font, kerning and illustrations and all that are great. I much prefer it to reading a dead-tree book. Especially when I can just touch a new word and get the dictionary definition immediately. Last time I read a real book I went to touch the page in a slight facepalm moment..

      It's just when poor OCR messes up the words or original style choices - lack of bold or monospaced fonts for function names and code listings in a programming textbook for example - that I get pissed off.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    18. Re:It's not just ebooks by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

      Programmers do not need to spell correctly, just consistently.

      No, programmers need to spell correctly and consistently. I don't want to have to constantly remember to misspell the words making up identifiers because the programmer whose code I'm working on sucked at spelling. Not only that, poor spelling in code (including comments) can easily lead to confusion, also.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
  3. Amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    (Posting AC because I'm at work and I don't log into websites from work...)

    I find it amusing that the article linked for this story has some atrocious typography of its own. In today's day and age of CSS3, that sort of leading on the internet is simply unacceptable. If you're going to complain about the typography in ebooks, perhaps you'd like to get your own website in order first.

    1. Re:Amusing by ciderbrew · · Score: 0

      You typed it so don't have to, thanks. It was an awful site and I couldn't read it.

    2. Re:Amusing by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Because the author is surely the same person who handles typography and css layout. That's the way all the big publishing companies handle it, don'tcha know.

    3. Re:Amusing by snowgirl · · Score: 4, Informative

      (Posting AC because I'm at work and I don't log into websites from work...)

      I find it amusing that the article linked for this story has some atrocious typography of its own. In today's day and age of CSS3, that sort of leading on the internet is simply unacceptable. If you're going to complain about the typography in ebooks, perhaps you'd like to get your own website in order first.

      Perhaps, because the Toronto Book Review isn't the one who said it, and it was actually Chris Stevens the author of Alice for the iPad who said it?

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    4. Re:Amusing by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      I find it amusing that the article linked for this story has some atrocious typography of its own. In today's day and age of CSS3, that sort of leading on the internet is simply unacceptable. If you're going to complain about the typography in ebooks, perhaps you'd like to get your own website in order first.

      Don't worry .. the Internet has already routed around the failure.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    5. Re:Amusing by gnapster · · Score: 5, Funny

      I find it amusing that the article linked for this story has some atrocious typography of its own.

      Really? What I see is a single sentence in a black serifed font on a white page. No ads; nothing. It is beautiful:

      Error establishing a database connection

    6. Re:Amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the AC label is ./'s emotional manipulation to have you register.

      More programmer inspired bs from the legends of their own minds.

    7. Re:Amusing by residieu · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say that. "Error establishing a database connection" is displayed in clear bold letters with nice high contrast against the background. It's hard to critique the typography much on such a short article, though.

    8. Re:Amusing by _0xd0ad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find it amusing that the article linked for this story has some atrocious typography of its own.

      No, that's just what happens when you let an artist choose the typography rather than a programmer. They want you to appreciate the article as art, not process it as information. You don't "read" it, you "experience" it.

    9. Re:Amusing by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      It is perhaps amusing to point that out... but part of the same problem. I've had to build websites as a developer... and they're not the most aesthetically pleasing, but it's not like we have designers on staff.

      The times when I have consulted a designer, they're so far divorced from the practicalities of software design, i can really only use their input for fonts, colors...

      But ultimately, this is nothing new in the field. Businesses like low costs.
      Developers haven't organized into any kind of professional association en mass to address such things. You'll find for example very specific paths for lawyers, doctors... in terms of training, residency...

      And it's not specific to design work. Even something like SQL, IT administration... requires very specific knowledge to do it right... but it's just lumped in there with general programming.

    10. Re:Amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with respect to the design and also, on my computer at least, the last bit of every line gets cut off.
      You know, if the site hadn't had its own CSS, it would have displayed perfectly fine, in colours I like and in fonts that please me. Perhaps we are giving designers too much freedom and maybe we should be pushing for a restricted kind of HTML where web sites can't really do their own design.

    11. Re:Amusing by diodeus · · Score: 1

      So the author of the article is somehow responsible for the site's design?

    12. Re:Amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it amusing that the article linked for this story has some atrocious typography of its own.

      No, that's just what happens when you let an artist choose the typography rather than a programmer. They want you to appreciate the article as art, not process it as information. You don't "read" it, you "experience" it.

      What a load of horseshit! Not all artists or creative people are pretentious pricks. Having an attractive and functional layout is massive in publications and when it comes to sales appearance can trump content so yes it IS important. Traditionally modeling and animation softwares were hard to use because they were designed for programmers not modelers or animators. Things got better. Game Engines have gone through a similar evolution and they are getting more user friendly for designers. Right now if you aren't a programmer there's InDesign and support for handhelds is light at best. They are finally adding decent flow functions in the next release so you don't have to design a layout for every device and orientation. The article isn't a slight against bloody programmers it's talking about the fact that few of them are also designers so leaving it up to the programmers is a bad idea. I think that layout tools that are user friendly will have a relatively fast evolution but it's still likely to be 3 to 5 years before they catch up with the basic functions needed for artists and designers to do their work. I recently picked up InDesign for the first time. I had heard lots of wonderful things but I was shocked to find virtually none of it was supported in handhelds. Even very basic formatting involves jumping through lots of hoops. Absolutely everything involves setting up a style and applying each time it's needed. Imagine most of the tool bar at the top of your word processing software went away and you had to set up everything ahead of time or manually format the document practically line by line. It's a hassle. All the fancy element animations and page turn triggering is gone in a handheld unless some one programs it for you. Most basic HTML functions are supported in ePub they just aren't supported in the authoring software.

    13. Re:Amusing by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      The article is barely readable unless you turn off style sheets.

      Your move.

    14. Re:Amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's impressive is that it's clearly an intentional choice. I can't work out if it's for aethetics or usability -- it's equally hideous and unreadable. So who knows?

    15. Re:Amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS

      Wait, what?!? You're female? On slashdot?!? Pictures, or it didn't happen.

    16. Re:Amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it amusing that the article linked for this story has some atrocious typography of its own. In today's day and age of CSS3, that sort of leading on the internet is simply unacceptable.

      sounds like you're reading it on Linux then :-P

    17. Re:Amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a load of horseshit! Not all artists or creative people are pretentious pricks. Having an attractive and functional layout is massive in publications and when it comes to sales appearance can trump content so yes it IS important. Traditionally modeling and animation softwares were hard to use because they were designed for programmers not modelers or animators. Things got better. Game Engines have gone through a similar evolution and they are getting more user friendly for designers. Right now if you aren't a programmer there's InDesign and support for handhelds is light at best. They are finally adding decent flow functions in the next release so you don't have to design a layout for every device and orientation. The article isn't a slight against bloody programmers it's talking about the fact that few of them are also designers so leaving it up to the programmers is a bad idea. I think that layout tools that are user friendly will have a relatively fast evolution but it's still likely to be 3 to 5 years before they catch up with the basic functions needed for artists and designers to do their work. I recently picked up InDesign for the first time. I had heard lots of wonderful things but I was shocked to find virtually none of it was supported in handhelds. Even very basic formatting involves jumping through lots of hoops. Absolutely everything involves setting up a style and applying each time it's needed. Imagine most of the tool bar at the top of your word processing software went away and you had to set up everything ahead of time or manually format the document practically line by line. It's a hassle. All the fancy element animations and page turn triggering is gone in a handheld unless some one programs it for you. Most basic HTML functions are supported in ePub they just aren't supported in the authoring software.

      That would make a very well-written three or four paragraphs, if it was written well.

  4. Cost-cutting by tripleevenfall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a symptom of the down economy, but also of the must-make-earnings-or-else management style.

    PHB's don't see design and development as needing different skillets, they just see two jobs that can be consolidated into one. If you have a programmer who does a B+ job programming and a C- job on design, eliminate the design, produce a C+ product, and then go tell your C*O you eliminated positions without impacting productivity.

    1. Re:Cost-cutting by realsilly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It goes beyond simple cost cutting measures. Project managers don't really see the benefit of good artistic design and layout. It is rare indeed that a programmer has the artistic eye for design and are a great programmer. They do exist, and those that are really great at what they do have set a precedent of sorts. As managers try to find cost cutting measures that still provide a product worth selling, but if the manager doesn't have an artistic sense then that manager will hold little to no value in a designer. They don't see value added work. But the reality is quite the opposite. A great design can help sell a product because it is visually pleasing to the eye.

      Look at banking web pages for example, they are designed pretty nicely and are very functional.

      --
      Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
    2. Re:Cost-cutting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have a programmer who does a B+ job programming and a C- job on design, eliminate the design, produce a C+ product....

      I think many grade on a curve.

      B+ job and a C- job on design - A+ product.Ship it!

    3. Re:Cost-cutting by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      but also of the must-make-earnings-or-else management style.

      I think you are right that it is cost-savings, but not in the way you think.

      I read that publishing houses need to support many eBook formats, which don't all have a common feature set. Amazon's .mobi does not support everything in .epub, and neither support everything in .pdf. So what do they do? They use design rules that limit you to a common subset of features, which is almost no features at all. This way they only have to create one eBook "master", which ends up having very primitive formatting.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Cost-cutting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      PHB's don't see design and development as needing different skillets

      Developer's would be happy with these skillets.

      A designer would require something more like this set.

    5. Re:Cost-cutting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It goes beyond simple cost cutting measures. Project managers don't really see the benefit of good artistic design and layout.

      Because you can't measure some things and put them into a spreadsheet. How do you quantify the difference between these two experiences in a way that lends itself to mass number crunching:

      1. Product has horrible, but nonetheless functional, design. It's not so bad that customers won't buy another copy but they find themselves irritated by various issues with the product.

      2. Product has a wonderful design. The design is so functionally AND aesthetically beautiful that the customer finds just using the product brings great satisfaction and joy. They find themselves wanting to use the product whenever possible.

      You might be tempted to say, "Ha! In the case of #2 the sales would increase by word of mouth and customer loyalty." That's true, but increasing sales doesn't necessarily mean you have a superior product; you may have a barely functional jalopy of a product, but the only one that does/has what the customer wants. Your sales might be increasing by 10% annually, but what your spreadsheet can't see is that it might have been growing at 20% if your design was flawless. In the case of copyrighted and patented products like books, movies, and software, there frequently is no way for a competitor to offer the same product in a better design.

    6. Re:Cost-cutting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To bad Tex doesn't have an eBook extension --- perhaps that's a future volume to be written?

    7. Re:Cost-cutting by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I think people with LaTeX content go the TeX->XHTML->ePub route.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    8. Re:Cost-cutting by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      It goes beyond simple cost cutting measures. Project managers don't really see the benefit of good artistic design and layout.

      Because you can't measure some things and put them into a spreadsheet.

      It's not at the project manager level where governance is by Excel and Powerpoint.

      Project managers have to relate to higher-ups in a way that keeps them happy while simultaneously making sure that what's important still gets done. Higher-ups don't largely know what happens on the ground or what is important on the ground. Your project manager more likely could do your job, or at least would be qualified for it. The PM level is one where understanding still exists, it's their (difficult) job to get those above them to make the right decisions. Sometimes the battle is worth fighting and sometimes it isn't. You have to be at once big-picture and small-picture, and it's not easy.

    9. Re:Cost-cutting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's programmers, shouldn't it be a C++ product?

    10. Re:Cost-cutting by clodney · · Score: 1

      PHB's don't see design and development as needing different skillets, they just see two jobs that can be consolidated into one. If you have a programmer who does a B+ job programming and a C- job on design, eliminate the design, produce a C+ product, and then go tell your C*O you eliminated positions without impacting productivity.

      Or perhaps you have a total team of 4 people, and your workload requires about 5 full time programmers and a part time UI designer. So you can have 3 programmers and one part time UI designer (because you can't get head count authorization for five people, even if 2 are part time), or you can hire 4 developers, including one who has at least some interest in UI work.

      If you were the PHB, and had budget and HR restrictions to deal with, and more work than people to do it, what mix would you hire?

    11. Re:Cost-cutting by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      Hire 2 coders fresh out of college, release something crappy, and then give all the savings back plus interest paying someone else to fix it.

    12. Re:Cost-cutting by LearnToSpell · · Score: 1
      I believed you up until

      Look at banking web pages for example, they are designed pretty nicely and are very functional.

      lol? That's the absolute *last* example I'd use for either form or fuction, let alone together. Or maybe that was sarcasm, and I can expect a whoosh.

  5. No, the reason why is in the summary by neokushan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most publishers don't care about the iPad or eBooks very much

    There's your problem right there. It's not the programmer's fault if he hasn't been given an artist or designer to work with. If you give an unqualified person a job to do and they do a shitty job, it's your fault, not theirs. Either get someone qualified in, or give them the necessary training.

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    1. Re:No, the reason why is in the summary by EdZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The programmer is probably just as pissed as the user. Imagine designing an ebook format with built in dynamic page breaks, line breaks, columns, tabs, etc so the text can reform on-the-fly for different aspect ratios and text sizes while maintaining formatting. Now imaging the publisher insists of just hitting enter 20 times between chapters and formatting columns by pressing the space bar a lot each line.

    2. Re:No, the reason why is in the summary by velenux · · Score: 2

      The "reading" app should take care of that, just stick with ePub or mobi formats, plenty of apps to read them.

      --
      "Reading that line, you're automagically accepting this EULA"
    3. Re:No, the reason why is in the summary by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 2

      Most publishers don't care about *Books* very much

      Every penny they spend on typesetting and layout is a penny lost in (very meagre) profit ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    4. Re:No, the reason why is in the summary by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      That would make ebooks worse than they actually are.

    5. Re:No, the reason why is in the summary by Anrego · · Score: 2

      Readers are constrained by how well the protocol they read has been used.

      As parent said, the format may have the utility for an author to provide information about sections and let the reader make it look good on a specific device, but just as people did when using netscape composer (and lets pause for a few minutes there and reflect.. ok.. good) a lot of people authoring the documents don't use them and instead use what they know (space bar, enter key) to make it look right on whatever they are using (which may not be their fault... it wouldn't occur intuitively to a non-geek... hell it can be hard to explain to a geek!).

    6. Re:No, the reason why is in the summary by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Spot on. The truth of this becomes apparent when you're reading ebooks that are straight conversions to PDF or ePub. No programmers were directly involved in the conversion, yet these books are often rife with typographical glitches and lexical errors that are clearly the result of OCR errors being incorrectly fixed by the spelling checker. This sloppiness is particularly common in ebooks of older publications, even those from reputable publishers.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    7. Re:No, the reason why is in the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^ This, exactly.

    8. Re:No, the reason why is in the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the format is being used incorrectly.

      It's like you receive a set of source code where the developer used a non-standard tab size for indentation, and then used a mixture of tabs and spaces to do his indentation. If he'd used the format properly and always indented with tabs, you could change the tab size at will and still get decent formatting. Instead, changing tab-size results in a mish-mash of different indentations as in some cases a tab gets changed to 4 characters and in others there are 6 spaces.

    9. Re:No, the reason why is in the summary by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      The "reading" app should take care of that, just stick with ePub or mobi formats, plenty of apps to read them.

      Problem is, they're really just glorified web browsers. ePub and mobi are effectively HTML subsets, so you can toss your book at a web browser and read it there.

      The issue is that web browsers often have horrible typography and layout issues. Fonts aren't hinted or leaded properly, numbers aren't "traditional" with ascenders and descenders, etc. (Most readers offer a "font" option, but the ones with ascenders and decenders still end up shown that way in tables - ascending and descending numbers are for text to make it look more natural, while table numbers (sans ascenders and decenders) are for tables to make everything line up). Plus of all the readers I've tried, only one font was available of them all that had numbers with ascenders and decenders (Georgia).

      Someone really ought to make a ePub/Mobi reader that can take the limited HTML markup, convert it and shove it through something like (La)TeX and use that for typesetting and display.

    10. Re:No, the reason why is in the summary by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I think it's just e-books in general (or perhaps just Amazon). Even brand new books on a Kindle (reader) tend to look like shit. Bizarre pagination / paragraph control. Graphic blocks with no transparency so when you view the text in night view (black background / white text) the graphic is sitting there as a little square flashlight. Pictures / Maps with no controls and totally bizarre jumps (always upsetting to be tossed to the end of the chapter after looking at a map).

      I've seen this on a number of expensive, presumably first run books. Again, maybe it's just Amazon doing a shitty job but it's really putting me off buying more. It's so bad that it's jarring.

      /rant off
      /end AM caffeine run

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:No, the reason why is in the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well this is sort of the problem. Its not that the designers or whatever can not design beautiful pages. Its that many of them don't know how to use a computer well enough. So as a end result they spend their time perfecting one design, whereas they SHOULD be spending time perfecting a family of design. But since they lack the skill of automating their own work they don't succeed. This is where the old line of this page was optimized for X time Y pixels comes from.

      Its not a unique position to artist it plagues a lot of workers out there. While I used to teach this stuff to artists i now teach master mechanical engineers. Same thing they don't have any clue on how to automate their tasks. Indeed I see the every year theres about 5 students in 50 that has interned as a CAD aide. And then they have this special onetime project that does need to print on paper but the catch is its in 150 files. So then they get the task and they print them BY HAND for 3 weeks, until the boss comes and says: "sorry, we need to reprint them". Well how hard is it to automate? With no prior knowledge of scripting with 1 page of advice they ALL get it done in 2 hours. And its not like they were not taught computer science, most are.

      Now the big problem is that many people think that if you pass requirements to a programmer it gets done. But they fail to understand that whet is perfectly readable for you as a requirement does not pass as coherent to others. So they do'nt get that the 1 hour script has a12 hours requirements engineering phase. So now BOTH of you have wasted 12 hours

    12. Re:No, the reason why is in the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I just started reading "The Gun" - wish I had seen the review which warned that the Kindle version was sloppily edited. If you're paying more for an e-book than a good used copy shipped, then it should at least be as readable as the print version.

      I also tried a Curious George book on the ipad - it was literally scanned images of the pages (including text) with the text inserted between the images. Completely unreadable, you couldn't follow it at all. I don't know who the hell they had make that one.

    13. Re:No, the reason why is in the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's your problem right there. It's not the programmer's fault if he hasn't been given an artist or designer to work with. If you give an unqualified person a job to do and they do a shitty job, it's your fault, not theirs. Either get someone qualified in, or give them the necessary training.

      It's not very hard to pick up the basics of book design--any programmer should be able to get familiar with the core concepts in a few hours or a day. Start by flipping through the Chicago Manual of Style. It has interesting chapters on the history of typesetting and other aspects. Of course someone with this basic level of understanding isn't likely to win any awards for book design...but getting from an F (per the summary) to a solid C would make a lot of e-books more readable. No fancy-ass designer required.

  6. Management failure by plopez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Probably what is happening is that management is trying to go cheap on labor. I can see the attitude in my mind. Someone says "Why do we need designers when we can just have the programmers throw it on the eBook for free?"The same thing happened with websites for years, before people realized how important good design really is.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:Management failure by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      The same thing happened with websites for years, before people realized how important good design really is.

      lol wut

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    2. Re:Management failure by Chatterton · · Score: 1

      Some company/administrations still didn't realized that. I am in charge of one of the websites of the biggest european administration. I do the code, the design, the infography, the typography and writing some of the content in a language who is not my mother tongue. Go figure...

    3. Re:Management failure by emilper · · Score: 1

      Printed book design went to hell lately: A4 pages without columns so a line of text can have 200 characters, no spacing between paragraphs, sans serif fonts in printed pages ... book design is dirt poor on paper too, not only ebooks. At least in an ebook (well, not if it's pdf) I can arrange the page size, the font and the spacings so it's comfortable to read. One hundred years ago even the pulp books were designed better.

    4. Re:Management failure by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What makes you think programmers are doing the eBook version, they already have the text in electronic format, they just get the Office lackey to use a quick and dirty program to turn it into an eBook ...

      The issue is that no-one is writing a program to convert into the eBook formats that cares about typesetting ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    5. Re:Management failure by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      You win the prize today. You nailed the real reason.

      Where do you want us to ship your cookies?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:Management failure by Anrego · · Score: 2

      While I don't think every website is golden (or even most) right now.. I definitely see this trend.

      There was a time not too long ago where people would get the "office geek" (aka the guy who knew just a little bit more about tech than everyone else) to throw a website together on their ISP supplied webspace.

      At least now most companies hire someone to do their site.. even if they hire someone cheap it's usually better than Rob down in shipping hammering something out with netscape composer.

    7. Re:Management failure by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      The same thing happened with websites for years, before people realized how important good design really is.

      People have started putting good design into websites? When did this happen? Why haven't I noticed it?

    8. Re:Management failure by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      The trend is to train MS Office jockeys as wannabe print media artists, and let them make web pages as a combination of Photoshop and copypasta from tutorial sites. This is worse, not better.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    9. Re:Management failure by plopez · · Score: 1

      *writing some of the content in a language who is not my mother tongue*

      That has the potential for some true hilarity. Especially if you decide to go BOFH with it. :)

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    10. Re:Management failure by Tom · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

      This is not a programmer vs. designer issue. In fact, all good programmers know very well where their expertise ends and that of the designer begins.

      The problem is that e-books are basically HTML+CSS and for some reason, in the heads of management that is still a geek domain and not a designer domain.

      It's stupid management, not stupid programmers.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  7. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Marketing is ruining the work of programmers.

    Just look at the Linux desktop (Unity, Gnome3 reinventing Windows, badly) or Firefox.

  8. why does the typography a property of the ebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't the entire point be to separate the content from the presentation? Some people might find it easier to read different kinds of fonts, or line spacings, or what have you. Shouldn't the display be entirely up to the reader, and the ebook just contain the content?

  9. LaTeX by ath1901 · · Score: 1

    I wish they would. LaTeX is typically much better at typesetting than your average artist/editor using Word. All real programmer would use LaTeX right?
    (No, I haven't RTFA)

    1. Re:LaTeX by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      (No, I haven't RTFA)

      And it doesn't look like you'll be able to anytime soon. Someone's site has just gotten a good slashdotting.

      Error establishing a database connection

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    2. Re:LaTeX by tehcyder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wish they would. LaTeX is typically much better at typesetting than your average artist/editor using Word. All real programmer would use LaTeX right? (No, I haven't RTFA)

      Software can't turn you into a great designer any more than it can turn you into a great programmer.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:LaTeX by bhaak1 · · Score: 2

      I wish they would. LaTeX is typically much better at typesetting than your average artist/editor using Word. All real programmer would use LaTeX right? (No, I haven't RTFA)

      Software can't turn you into a great designer any more than it can turn you into a great programmer.

      No, it cant. But good software at least has decent defaults that were set by someone that knows his/her stuff.

    4. Re:LaTeX by lahvak · · Score: 1

      No, it cant. But good software at least has decent defaults that were set by someone that knows his/her stuff.

      Which, according to most typographers I talked about it to, is not the case with LaTeX. I mean I am sure Lamport knew his stuff, that just his stuff was physics, not typography and design. Besides, defaults for physics journal articles will not necessarily be the same as defaults for a book of literature.

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:LaTeX by bhaak1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Which, according to most typographers I talked about it to, is not the case with LaTeX. I mean I am sure Lamport knew his stuff, that just his stuff was physics, not typography and design. Besides, defaults for physics journal articles will not necessarily be the same as defaults for a book of literature.

      Oh yes, don't use the LaTeX' standard "book" package by Lamport. I completely forgot about that because it's so old. But I don't think it's fair to judge by stuff from the 80s. We don't do that with Word either :).

      There are much better packages for a long time, like "memoir" or "komascript". But those mainly change the page layout and the default settings for fonts. For the cool microtypography stuff you also need something more recent than Knuth's original TeX compiler, like luatex (which shall finally get to 1.0 in 2012) or pdftex.

      In short, just install TeXLive or MiKTeX and use that.

    6. Re:LaTeX by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Why are you even mentioning Word? Word has nothing to do with typography.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    7. Re:LaTeX by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      It's hard to screw up a LaTeX document because, beyond doing the basics like defining headings and writing paragraphs, it's hard to do anything in LaTeX. If there's a style file or an environment that does what you want, you're golden, but if you want to design your own, god help you.

      What I wish is that LaTeX had a sane box model, and a language designed around the idea of defining constraints (soft and hard) that relate various boxes. It is close to being this, but the gap is frustrating. It also needs the ability to flow content between boxes.

      Furthermore, math should be semantic. I should be able to evaluate a properly-written LaTeX math expression. I say this because, at present, the semantics and presentation of math are so tied together that you cannot, e.g., switch a document from one- to two- column format and expect your math to reflow accordingly. LaTeX cannot reflow your math, because LaTeX does not sufficiently understand the structure of the expressions you're writing. Really, in order to automatically typeset math, you need to understand its parse tree.

      So that's what I want. A sane box model, with constraints and flow between boxes. And parseable math.

      The HTML DOM seems a lot more consistently designed to me, but there are no good typesetting systems that take HTML+CSS as input, as far as I know (and MathML may be more semantic, but it is also much too verbose). HTML also currently lacks one very important thing that LaTeX has, which is the ability to define new tags/commands in terms of old ones. So although with some imagination HTML is almost a viable alternative to LaTeX, it is not quite.

      I stick with LaTeX. But it leaves much to be desired.

    8. Re:LaTeX by bhaak1 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately Word has something to with typography:
        1. bad typography
        2. people thinking it produces good typography

    9. Re:LaTeX by lahvak · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the Knuth's original compiler could produce pretty amazing things. It had neither all the cool microtypography features pdftex has, nor the font selection possibilities of luatex or xetex, but it was quite capable. Lamport just simply did not care about the way his documents looked. I actually remember when all the guys in our physics department started switching over to LaTeX and constantly talked about it, most of our reaction was like: "that's a pretty neat macro package, but boy does it look ugly!"

      Anyway, this whole discussion brought back some fond memories of the mid 90's great and endless "HTML standards vs. artistic design" usenet debates.

      --
      AccountKiller
    10. Re:LaTeX by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Ha, ha! Good point. I should have said it has no positive association with typography - or something similar.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
  10. Wrong approach. by shic · · Score: 2

    I don't want specific media for ebooks. I want an ebook device that accurately displays the printed page.

    Where's my A4 300+DPI E-ink tablet that's been promised 'just around the corner' for years now.

    1. Re:Wrong approach. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      You left out color.
      That is part of the problem. Not all "books" are the same.
      Not all are A4 sized. Some need color, some do not.
      Here is an example of the problem.
      I have a Kindle Fire which I use for two of my magazines, Cycle World and Motorcyclist. When I use "page view" it is terrible to read them. Now when I use Text view it is great to read the articles. In fact better than on paper. I do not have to deal with "continued on page" in text mode.
      The down side is I do not get to see the ads. And yes sometimes the ads are useful. One of the advertisers could have a jacket on close out that I really want. On the Fire I will miss it.
      I have to admit that I do love just reading the article from start to finish with out the page hunting.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Wrong approach. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I would like to see a larger, higher res tablet ereader. the typical kindle/nook is designed for reading paperback sized novels, but if I have just a few minutes spare at lunch or on a bus etc, I don't have time to get into a novel, I want to read a magazine type thing and magazines normally come with larger pages.

    3. Re:Wrong approach. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Why do you want your futuristic whiz-bang gizmo to be constrained by ancient technology? It can do more than display the printed page, shouldn't it?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Wrong approach. by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      I don't want specific media for ebooks. I want an ebook device that accurately displays the printed page.
      Where's my A4 300+DPI E-ink tablet that's been promised 'just around the corner' for years now.

      Pages are obsolete in a digital world. It would be nearly twice the size of current tablets. It doesn't face technology obstacles, it faces market obstacles. As in, is there a market to buy a product that:

      *doesn't fit conveniently in a purse.
      *Is no longer one-handed but should be set on desk or propped up.
      *Can't display images well (either no color or low color depth). So still can't display PDF/Figures/Charts

      The problem isn't e-readers poor rendering of PDF's. The problem is PDF standard has a primary objective of defining exactly how something should be printed. It is not a standard that should be used for anything that isn't meant to be printed out. We need to be using a standard that provides markup that the e-readers decide how best to render.

  11. You want to replace ebooks with apps? by Patron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I prefer my ebooks as .epub, thank you very much.

    1. Re:You want to replace ebooks with apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For traditional books I totally agree, but new formats are appearing that do what no "book" could do before; and I guess you need to do an app for that. Take this one, for example. It's a beautiful, beautiful thing that couldn't have been done otherwise.

    2. Re:You want to replace ebooks with apps? by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      Are websites done in Flash still evil? It seems a similar situation.

  12. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds like the book equivalent to flash sites. What's better about having every book as a separate DRM infected app which probably only works on iOS? No thanks, I'll stick to EPUB.

  13. Not terribly impressed with the story by SarekOfVulcan · · Score: 1

    It takes a single quote from a review about a particular company's book/app -- it's not a statement in the Book Review's voice. Of course the interviewee wants to make "programmers" look bad - it makes his work look better by comparison. Not that it isn't amazing by any standards, but...

  14. No by donscarletti · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is that the design work is being done by someone who doesn't care about typography and usability, not because it is done by someone who is skilled in programming.

    If you don't know about about structure, algorithms and logic, it is hard to give an application design that is novel, implementable and will actually work out the way it is envisioned. But to effectively design you need skills in design as well as actually caring about the usecases. Code is the medium to express design, just like paint and stone can be used to express visual art, but an interface designer who can't code is as useless as an artist who cannot use a paintbrush or chisel. Coding isn't that hard if you can structure your thoughts clearly enough to explain your design to others anyway, there's nothing arcane to it.

    So the crux is, two things, equally important, the code and what you are coding.

    --
    When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    1. Re:No by centuren · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that the design work is being done by someone who doesn't care about typography and usability, not because it is done by someone who is skilled in programming.

      If you don't know about about structure, algorithms and logic, it is hard to give an application design that is novel, implementable and will actually work out the way it is envisioned. But to effectively design you need skills in design as well as actually caring about the usecases. Code is the medium to express design, just like paint and stone can be used to express visual art, but an interface designer who can't code is as useless as an artist who cannot use a paintbrush or chisel. Coding isn't that hard if you can structure your thoughts clearly enough to explain your design to others anyway, there's nothing arcane to it.

      So the crux is, two things, equally important, the code and what you are coding.

      I was getting ready to proclaim this the most off-topic Slashdot discussion ever, then I finally saw mention this mention of typography. Yes, there are more further down, but I'm already burnt out on all this UI and usability talk. The article is about eBooks, not readers or tablets and especially not desktop environments or word processors. When reading a book, UI and usability don't come into it -- those things are already fixed into the platform on which I'm reading the book.

    2. Re:No by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I'm in the same boat. I'm trying to figure out what is being 'Programmed'. Once the platform is written, there should only be minor typographical adjustments. The platform is extremely basic from a UI point of view. What are publishers doing with programmers anyway other than for internal software applications. There is not programming for ebooks at the publisher's level. Heck, I question the basic premise presented here. Every ebook I have read has been document displayed in a document viewer. Some of them might have had a few typographical problems, but saying that they are "horrible" is hyperbole. Most are exactly what you would expect them to be.

    3. Re:No by PCM2 · · Score: 2

      The problem is that the design work is being done by someone who doesn't care about typography and usability, not because it is done by someone who is skilled in programming.

      I'm not even sure that's necessarily true. (Why would a publisher assign design and typography work to such a person?)

      It seems to me the problem is that the tools for ebook publishing are lacking. I read a lot of ebook fiction (the layout needs of which are few) and every publisher does it differently. Some do a good job, others do a terrible job (and it has little to do with whether the publisher is a "big name" or not). Some of the ones who appear to be trying the hardest end up with the worst product. Someone (you'd think Adobe) should step in and offer "the gold standard" ebook publishing tool that makes it easy to implement the best practices, but no such tool seems to exist so far.

      I would add, however, that the other half of the problem is that, once again, digital publishing is not the same as print publishing. When you're offering ebooks, you have to accept that readers are going to view them on all different kinds of devices, on all different sizes of screens, in all different kinds of conditions. Some of them are going to want to override your font choices. Some of them are going to want to override your margins. I can't tell you how many times I've had to crack the DRM on a purchased ebook just so I can modify the CSS so it will display properly on my device. As long as publishers treat ebook formatting like print page layout instead of HTML layout, they're doing it wrong.

      If, on the other hand, you're publishing something where print page layout is the only way to approach it -- something like a textbook, for example, where a lot of pictures, graphs, tables, and other complex layout is involved -- then PDF is still the way to go and it's up to the reader to find a device that will display it properly.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    4. Re:No by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      There is not programming for ebooks at the publisher's level. Heck, I question the basic premise presented here.

      I'm pretty sure they mean "programming" in the sense of "HTML programming."

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  15. Not the Toronto Review, the Alice in W guy!! by shilly · · Score: 2

    The summary is more than usually dreadful. This was a thoughtful interview with the guy that designed the Alice in Wonderland app, ie someone who knows what he's talking about. And he's right.

  16. Re:why does the typography a property of the ebook by fish+waffle · · Score: 2

    No more than the display of a web page should be entirely up the client. Often the style is not all that relevant, but sometimes fonts, spacing, line-breaks, placement of images, etc are important to the author intent.

  17. Not just the ebook versions. by jbrandv · · Score: 1

    My wife has two e-readers. (Sony and Kindle) When she noticed several glaring errors in one book I picked up the paperback of the same title. The errors were in there too. Converting bad text into an ebook doesn't fix the bad typing or bad grammar.

  18. Don't judge a book by its cover by Tim4444 · · Score: 1

    It's an ironic criticism considering how ugly the font is that they used for the article.

    The complete lack of care and attention

    That's an odd generalization for programmers. If you hire people who don't pay attention to detail, you'll get sloppy resuls whether they're programmers or designers.

    I’m desperate for the book industry to produce some work that blows me away, but for now there’s a few Alice clones and not much else.

    Is he actually reading the books or just looking at the pictures?

  19. Not so Amusing by advid.net · · Score: 2

    Thanks also, I don't have to second that since you did it.

    That's what stroke me first: "what an horrible typography !"
    How ironic.
    But then, trying to read such a page is a pain, so I gave up... And that's not amusing.

    1. Re:Not so Amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's what stroke me first: "what an horrible typography !"

      Wow. Just. Wow.

  20. Why? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    We already have dozens of readers and formats.

    --
    Deleted
  21. terrible by SolusSD · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well, most programmers are terrible at everything- including programming. That said, most people are terrible at what they do. :P

  22. Let programmers be programmers! by bhaak1 · · Score: 1

    TFA is actually not as harsh on the programmers as the summary sounds like. Quote from TFA: "We watch as publishers like Random House outsource the design of cherished titles to programmers whoâ"despite their excellence at programmingâ"are not designers."

    Programmers should be programming and the design should be done by designers. Pretty obvious, isn't it? So really the publishers should be blamed for not releasing their books as ePubs or - when the book has requirements that ePub can't fulfill - let designers design the more elaborate eBooks.

    Of course programmers usually don't know about typography (unless they have an interest in it [hi fellow LaTeX friends] and I suggest you pick up a good book or blog about it, it's really fascinating).

  23. I work for a company that provides eBooks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and our first offering (which was around for 6 years before being updated) was designed by our development team. It was shit, pure and simple. We had creative types in the group, we had a design person who worked on all sorts of options, but at the end of the day, the development team were in charge (of our start-up) so only what they wanted was adopted.

    Even the name of the reader software was chosen by development; I remember the email from one of the developers "we encourage everyone to submit their suggestions on the reader software". This was quickly followed by a clarifying email from the same person saying "while we want to see everyone's suggestions, this is not a democracy, development will decide what the product will be named".

    Different companies have different issues and approaches to eBooks, but not every eBook product that's crap is because of ruling by executive committee, PHB's or clueless publishers. Sometimes you have an entire department of entitled, arrogant developers who will actively tell you that customer feedback is overrated because "Henry Ford said "if I asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse". Not one of those developers is still with us today (we've been taken over) but the legacy of their gross incompetence haunts us still and will for a few more years.

    Marketers should market, designers should design and developers should shut their fucking mouths and build the product they've been told to.

    1. Re:I work for a company that provides eBooks... by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Not one of those developers is still with us today (we've been taken over) but the legacy of their gross incompetence haunts us still and will for a few more years.

      Don't tell me: they went to work on Gnome 3, Firefox and Ubuntu?

  24. what about sales? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    They may be making an awful product, but it sure isn't hurting their sales... and eBooks are one of the easiest formats to pirate. If anything, they should be a lesson to the rest of the media industry. I think if they actually started pricing them competitively (i.e. at least a little bit less than the real book, instead of more than the real book) they'd make even more money and maybe be able to hire an artist to keep this joker happy.

    1. Re:what about sales? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't hurting their sales? Proof, please.

      I'm not being argumentative here; this is something I see constantly in online discussions, a maddening logical flaw that warps a lot of conversations, and we would be better off without it. For example, this is the same line of non-reasoning that causes people to say that a government policy meant to boost employment was a failure if unemployment went up. Unless you can filter out the effects of everything else in the economy (and no one can), you're making a huge assumption about what would have happened without the government policy in place.

      But back to the case at hand. What would ebook sales be with first-rate design at the same prices? I would guess at least a bit higher than they are now, with no way of knowing if those marginal sales would pay for the professional design work. But this is just a guess, not something I'm stating as a firm conclusion like your "...but it sure isn't hurting sales". Clearly the publishing houses are betting that the higher production costs would not result in enough additional sales revenue to maximize profits. They might be right or they might be wrong; we're so early in the development of mass market ebooks that we're all guessing about such things.

    2. Re:what about sales? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huh? e-books are cheaper.

  25. What's The Problem With Programmer's Prose? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

    So really, who says programmers can't design enjoyably readable books?!

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  26. No! by DdKL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course designers know better design than programmers, that's obvious. Programmers are there to do their job. They program. They build the system and its functionalities. They are not designers, and if they know something about UI and design, it's a bonus, not a defficiency. It eBooks lack decent design, it's because the publishers didn't hire designers. You can build an ugly program with only a programmer, but you can't build a pretty software with only a designer. Programmers are essentials. If you ever need a working app, you know which to hire first.

    1. Re:No! by m.ducharme · · Score: 2

      But if you want a working app that lots of people will enjoy using, you have to hire both. Or find one person who understands both.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    2. Re:No! by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      If your a publisher and you want the program that your ebooks are read on to be a working app that lots of people will enjoy using, you don't hire anyone to do programming. You publish your books in one or more formats that allow users to use any of the many well designed and enjoyable to use ebook readers that are produced by companies who write ebook readers.

      This whole discussion sounds like discussing how radio stations can improve drive time show quality by building better cars.

    3. Re:No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course designers know better design than programmers, that's obvious.

      It is not obvious to me. Have you ever seen a magazine decide to make a digital version, and then because they think the choice of fonts and the layout is the most important thing they give you something that you can't search and that doesn't even have a clickable index? This is what happens when you let designers make e-books. I would much rather have a e-book where I could choose what font to read it in, copy and paste the information freely, save bookmarks, etc. I couldn't care less about how pretty the pages look. The designers who build e-books are the problem, not the solution.

    4. Re:No! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Exactly, if you hire a plumber to fix the leak in the bathroom and demand that while he's at it, he should paint a mural to cover the patch on the wall, don't be surprised if it's not quite a showpiece.

  27. If programmers made ebooks by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    If programmers designed eBook formats, they'd have vector graphics support.

    1. Re:If programmers made ebooks by bhaak1 · · Score: 1

      If programmers designed eBook formats, they'd have vector graphics support.

      So true.

  28. I find it the other way around. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    epubs are great. the PDF ebook are slow as hell because some fricking "designer" thinks it needs a buttload of 5megapixel or higher images, and a background image per page.

    Programmers wont do that.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  29. Erm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You haven't met too many professional programmers then, if you're claiming they are the "most logical profession."

    IMHO, they for the most part are illogical.

    1. Re:Erm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO, they for the most part are illogical.

      I think you've met a lot of bad programmers. I've met good programmers and bad, and in my experience, a programmer's skill is directly proportional to how logical he or she is.

      From my perspective, I'd say the US software industry still needs to sack the bottom-performing 50% of software developers, even after the contraction during the dot-com bust and subsequent downturn.

    2. Re:Erm by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      People tend to act in opposite ways outside of the outside/work/professional life, than they do in them.

      For example - programming requires a lot of logic and analytical skill, however that can be stressful and boring, they may want some "unwinding", and so they act particularly illogical outside of their professional life, or even within it, when not actually programming..

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    3. Re:Erm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From my perspective, I'd say the US software industry still needs to sack the bottom-performing 50% of software developers, even after the contraction during the dot-com bust and subsequent downturn.

      But that will destroy India's IT sector!

  30. problems with LaTeX and e-books by infernalC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Disclaimer: I am a technical writer, and have a lot of experience with publishing workflows.

    I love the ease of obtaining books for my e-book reader. I also love the space savings I get from e-books and not having to choose which physical book to dispose of when I get a new one.

    Given good content to work with, any programmer could figure out how to make it beautiful using LaTeX. There are even several excellent packages for typesetting novels out there on CTAN. However, there isn't a mature, standardized workflow to get from LaTeX to epub. I sort of expected this by now. It'd be nice if XeLaTeX had an output driver for epub. Everything on planet LaTeX revolves around PDF output, and it doesn't do tagged PDF output, which means that paragraphs cannot be reflowed. So, you can generate a beautiful document for your e-book reader, as long as you don't plan to zoom, and you have to generate a different PDF file for every size of device out there.

    That's not to say that LaTeX and friends haven't come a long way. Synctex and TeXworks make editing a joy. XeTeX and fontspec make font selection easy-cheesy.

    However, I pine for the day when I can just do epublatex document.tex or taggedpdflatex document.tex and get awesome output. I don't want to have to rasterize my graphics either... I just want it to work. It's coming, I'm sure.

    1. Re:problems with LaTeX and e-books by infernalC · · Score: 1

      We also need to get some sanity with hyphenation and re-flow, and, I am disappointed that my reader doesn't seem to do a good job of kerning, or do ligatures at all.

    2. Re:problems with LaTeX and e-books by lahvak · · Score: 1

      The problem with using LaTeX for ebook formats is that the main strengths of LaTeX are in its line breaking algorithm, kerning and generally building paragraphs. Once you start reflowing paragraphs, all that goes away.

      I think it actually sort of show what the problem is. Most ebook readers that IO had seen had fairly small screen with somewhat poor resolution, with font support anywhere between difficult to horrible. Designing and programming something that reflows easily upon zoom, can be easily navigated, and looks good, must be hard.

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:problems with LaTeX and e-books by bamwham · · Score: 1

      I'm using an ASUS Transformer as the exclusive way I read mathematics papers off of Arxiv and journals, almost 99 percent of which are written in Latex and formatted for a letter or A4 paper size. They display perfectly readably; they way I see it, more devices should be of the appropriate size for displaying a letter sized page of a pdf document. Problem fixed (at least for Latex users).

    4. Re:problems with LaTeX and e-books by BlackCreek · · Score: 1

      I never noticed any problem with reflow or line breaking in my Kindles. The kindle handles text novels just fine. Books with an occasional picture are not more or less of a problem than with LaTeX.

      TFA seems to be about children books. In this case, picture placement is much more important. And perhaps as sentences may be shorter, strict line breaking becomes necessary, but not 'harder' (unless you reduce the number of words per line accordingly).

    5. Re:problems with LaTeX and e-books by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      The TFA seems to be about weird interactive books with a physics package embedded in it. Think Angry Birds meets Thomas Pynchon.

      I'm not sure anything is going to solve the author's issues....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:problems with LaTeX and e-books by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      One attraction of e-readers is that the user can adjust display settings to suit his needs, most notably font size. I wear eyeglasses pretty much constantly, but reading is one notable exception, because I can make the text large enough to read it with the naked eye without straining. Your solution discards this advantage.

    7. Re:problems with LaTeX and e-books by pnot · · Score: 2

      However, I pine for the day when I can just do epublatex document.tex or taggedpdflatex document.tex and get awesome output. I don't want to have to rasterize my graphics either... I just want it to work. It's coming, I'm sure.

      Take a look at ConTeXt -- epub support there is far from complete, but seems to be coming along more quickly than it is for LaTeX. epub information on ConTeXt wiki

    8. Re:problems with LaTeX and e-books by bhaak1 · · Score: 1

      The kindle handles text novels just fine? Sorry, no, it doesn't. It only handles the bare minimum for displaying text.

      Look at this picture.

      Displaying one line of text without any paragraphs. You see no hyphenation, no real justification, no kerning (look at all the space between a 'T' and an 'o'), let alone advanced features like hanging punctuation.

    9. Re:problems with LaTeX and e-books by vadius · · Score: 1

      The problem is not LaTeX, but TeX itself: it is fundamentally geared toward rendering text as glyphs at a specific size, then grouping those together to make lines, and arranging lines to paragraphs. That is all it ever does, and it is fantastic at doing it.

      LaTeX is simply the *wrong* tool for the job of writing ebooks in epub and mobi, which need to have a dynamic document flow. LaTeX makes a very static, brittle document flow, because it was meant to. That was a feature, not a flaw.

      What we need is a good workflow from one source format (like restructuredtext, markdown, etc.) into multiple good output formats (LaTeX/PDF, mobipocket / Kindle, epub, HTML). The closest I know of is Sphinx, but its epub output is in its infancy, and it has no support for the mobi / azw formats yet.

    10. Re:problems with LaTeX and e-books by BlackCreek · · Score: 1

      What you call the bare minimum, is still -for me- leagues better than the current alternatives. At the end of the day, the Kindle gives me standard font-types with great legibility, most LaTeX produced stuff I read on my Kindle DX (PDFs fit just right) use Computer Modern fonts - which suck for screen reading.

      FWIW, regarding your linked image:

      1. the font size in the image you linked is too large for the screen size. Reading a novel at ~ 6 words per line is going to suck no matter what. There is a setting for displaying more words per line (without decreasing the font size), perhaps you should try that? The text seems to use the default type face, the condensed would also be better (in my eyes).

      2. You are using German text on a Kindle only sold in the USA, are you surprised at the lack of hyphenation? I honestly can't remember if the Kindle does hyphenation in English or not. OK, my bad, it does not (I just checked). I use a smaller font size, so that is less of an issue.

      3. Either you don't have paragraphs on that page or the book/text displayed is poorly tagged (is the 'Als Gregor Samsa' a paragraph?). I just checked 3 different books I have and they all have proper paragraph justification.

    11. Re:problems with LaTeX and e-books by bhaak1 · · Score: 1

      What you call the bare minimum, is still -for me- leagues better than the current alternatives. At the end of the day, the Kindle gives me standard font-types with great legibility, most LaTeX produced stuff I read on my Kindle DX (PDFs fit just right) use Computer Modern fonts - which suck for screen reading.

      Gargl, yes, "Computer Modern" is ugly (but they really should be using Latin Modern these days, although that is only slightly less ugly).

      But then we are back on topic that people can and will screw up the design. My personal favorite for long non-technical text is actually Palladio (a Palatino clone).

      FWIW, regarding your linked image:

      1. the font size in the image you linked is too large for the screen size. Reading a novel at ~ 6 words per line is going to suck no matter what. There is a setting for displaying more words per line (without decreasing the font size), perhaps you should try that? The text seems to use the default type face, the condensed would also be better (in my eyes).

      Condensed is harder to read at smaller font sizes and ugly IMO. But the font size was of course also chosen to show that the Kindle doesn't do proper hyphenation and justification and how ugly it can look because of this in a bad case.

      2. You are using German text on a Kindle only sold in the USA, are you surprised at the lack of hyphenation? I honestly can't remember if the Kindle does hyphenation in English or not. OK, my bad, it does not (I just checked). I use a smaller font size, so that is less of an issue.

      This Kindle Touch is only sold in the USA, but there are other models that are also sold over here and they don't do it better. German is of course a notorious case for word length and therefore you more often see the ugly line breaks because of the missing features.

      As a programmer, I'm almost insulted that they don't do better. The Kindle Touch is a really cool piece of hardware (even running Linux) but they screw up so hard with the software. I mean, hyphenation isn't rocket-science and even a bad programmer can implement this easily.

      3. Either you don't have paragraphs on that page or the book/text displayed is poorly tagged (is the 'Als Gregor Samsa' a paragraph?). I just checked 3 different books I have and they all have proper paragraph justification.

      As I said in my previous posting, this is just one large line of text without any paragraphs to highlight the problems. The Kindle does a "most-of-the-time-justification". It stretches the whitespace between words somewhat to justify the line but if it would have to stretch the words too much, it doesn't justify the lines. Thus preventing big holes in the text at the cost of justification.

      If you're reading English texts and using a condensed font, you might almost never see this but it happens also with English text.

      The text I used is composed from the beginning lines from several books by Kafka.

  31. It's "free rein" not "free reign" by HBI · · Score: 2
    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:It's "free rein" not "free reign" by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Everytime I ask for free rain, I get told I'm all wet.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:It's "free rein" not "free reign" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think a writer (as opposed to a programmer) would be able to transcribe it correctly.

    3. Re:It's "free rein" not "free reign" by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      And TFA actually did say : "There is this weird situation where programmers are suddenly being given free rein to design books."

      So it was cut and pasted and some moron actually changed it because he didn't know what "free rein" meant.

    4. Re:It's "free rein" not "free reign" by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      It is fixed in the article now. Maybe it was just the summary that was incorrect.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    5. Re:It's "free rein" not "free reign" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canadians cannot spell. News at 11.

  32. LaTeX vs. ebooks by gwolf · · Score: 2

    LaTeX is strongly geared towards producing printed documents. It has a very comprehensive (and beautiful!) amount tweaks, heuristics, and mostly everything is overridable. And while it can be used as the basis for non-printed outputs (i.e. latex2html makes nice structured, internally linked documents), it's not its main goal.

    Reworking a LaTeX document to be used as the source for an epub (believe me, I have been looking at it from some different angles for a physical book we recently printed) is... Far from trivial.

  33. "Given"? by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'Programmers are suddenly being given free reign to design books,' the article laments.

    Given? We're being "given" this?

    I don't know how it works in the ebook industry, but in my fifteen years of professional programming in a variety of other industries, I've found that when they "give" me free reign to design the UI, it really means they rejected my suggestion that they hire a designer (if they even asked).

    You're pointing at the wrong target, bud -- it's the chucklehead manager, with the designer clothes and designer watch, who thinks designers are a waste of money.

    1. Re:"Given"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what the article says. The job of designing isn't being given to designers, but to programmers. Can't see how you'd misunderstand that.

    2. Re:"Given"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So true - we actually have designers but neet some usability experts. Our suggestions as developers to get usability experts are ignored. Our usability recommendations (to the best of our knowledge having worked with such experts in the past and picked up a little) are ignored. The first raft of user complaints are always about usability and it's then development who have to waste more time fixing issues that shouldn't have been there in the first place (and by fixing I don't necessarily mean fixing, more likely tweaking things at a client's behest which result in equally bad end user usability).

  34. Apple and Steve Jobs by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 1

    This is one of the advantages Steve Jobs had.

    He knew design. He could communicate to some degree with programmers. His closed garden approach left something to be desired, though.

    --
    by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
  35. It is managements misunderstanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    not the programmers fault. I'm betting the issue here is that when you look at source of an eBook (I know it is true of ePub, and probably most others to a greater or lesser extent), you'll see that the underlying copy is essentially markup. So, I'm sure, when management looks at it they see that "computer programming stuff" and just naturally pass it off to the geek in the basement.

    The geek in the basement runs it through his favorite editor, replaces all the new lines with a br tag, all the double new lines with a p and whatever else jumps out at him or her. After spending all of half and hour on and wondering what the big deal was they send it back to where they got it from. It is at this point it should be proofed and looked over to make sure it really does look ok in its intended medium. Unfortunately this apparently isn't happening as often as it should. For the most part though I've only seen a very small percentage of truly poorly formatted books.

  36. As an eBook writer by Suki+I · · Score: 2

    I found the whole process of converting my word document, which looked great when printed, into the Kindle format a total chore. It was so bad that I had my best friend finish it and publish it under his Kindle account. That was a couple of years ago and maybe things have changed. I guess having eBook readers read Word documents is too much of a leap.

    1. Re:As an eBook writer by Agronomist+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      I think your showing more issues with Word than with ePub.

      That you manged to get Word to print your document in a way that "looked great" is amazing. It's even more amazing if the formatting managed to stick after an edit. Personally, having written a number of reasonably long technical documents in Word, I've found that it usually manages to screw up somewhere along the way, with mysterious refusal to break a line (or not break a line, or apply a style) somewhere, and the only way to fix it is to move the text elsewhere, delete it, and copy it back, and then apply formatting again. When I can, I avoid Word, because it sucks.

      --
      -DwS
    2. Re:As an eBook writer by radtea · · Score: 3, Informative

      guess having eBook readers read Word documents is too much of a leap.

      You are correct. Word documents are not appropriate for eBook readers because Word layout is handled via some collection of ad hoc and not very clever heuristics. PDF "eBooks" are even more broken, as PDF uses static layout that is incompatible with font scaling and other features you'd like an eBook to have.

      ePub is XHTML and CSS with a few extra XML files for metadata. eBook readers are not much more than special-purpose Web browsers, which is sensible because layout is something Web browsers do really well. There is a problem that many eBook readers use a broken Adobe component for rendering, which simply doesn't work properly in many cases: for example, my Sony doesn't handle floating elements properly.

      If you want to create eBooks my recommendation is to export your Word doc to plain text, write some Python or the like to process that plain text into XHTML, and use Sigl to create an ePub. That's what I do and it works brilliantly, with the one exception that Sigl uses WebKit for rendering so it isn't broken like the broken Adobe component that breaks on eBook readers that use it. What I do is generate and test the correct CSS in Sigl and then test on the various e-reader applications (Adobe Digital Editions, Amazon Kindle for PC and a couple of others) and put in the required hacks to get the correct rendering on the broken ones (of which Adobe is by far the worst... why anyone would go to a company with no Web browser experience for an HTML rendering component is beyond me.)

      Better yet, you can skip Word entirely and write in plain text with your favourite editor (I use EMACS, myself). There is simply no advantage to a writer to using Word.

      With regard to TFA: bad book design is ubiquitous, and decent book design is easy. Not ever book requires a unique design, and the number of best practices required to get something that looks as good or better than the average printed page is not high.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    3. Re:As an eBook writer by cliffjumper222 · · Score: 1

      There's a good tutorial on Amazon's Kindle site here on how to build Kindle books with Word - https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=A2RYO17TIRUIVI

    4. Re:As an eBook writer by Suki+I · · Score: 1

      There's a good tutorial on Amazon's Kindle site here on how to build Kindle books with Word - https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=A2RYO17TIRUIVI

      Thank you! Looks like things have improved since my last attempt. If I ever decide to write another, I will not be as intimidated by the conversion process.

  37. Re:why does the typography a property of the ebook by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 2

    Sure, we just need someone to define a universal and finite set of semantic elements that define every possible author's intent. Have fun with Only Revolutions, or if you're the type that thinks it's not a real book if you didn't read it in high school, E.E. Cummings.

    Ideal and practical are, unfortunately, two very different things.

    --
    <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
  38. Tell me where you find "just works". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Doesn't happen in Apple.

    PS given the money spent on ringtones, screensavers and backdrops for phones, I highly doubt your "Customizability is not something the average home PC user cares about.".

    1. Re:Tell me where you find "just works". by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      I would go further into saying that most people want very easy, and superficial customization, that doesn't change the use/interaction of a given system.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
  39. Re:why does the typography a property of the ebook by Anrego · · Score: 1

    See that's a programmers opinion (and one that I would also intuitively come up with if asked) and probably why this is a problem.

    You want a good ebook you don't get a programmer who views the book as text data, you want an artist who things the line spacing adds to the character of the book and such.

  40. You do, Internet. You deserve better. by brennanw · · Score: 0

    Yes.

    Yes you do.

    You do deserve better ebooks. Because the current quality of ebooks is destroying the Internet, and, dare I say it, destroying the fabric of America itself. And as every red-blooded American knows, the Internet and the United States of America ARE EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

    Every night I weep, weep bitter tears, at the terrible, terrible, quality of ebooks infesting our world. Me, I blame socialists. Or fascists. Or communists. Or atheists. Or Christians. It's the socio-fascist-communo-godless-theocratic industrial complex destroying the world one lousy ebook at a time.

    ... which is why you should immediately run out and buy a copy of Pay Me, Bug!, available on Amazon.com (Kindle), Barnes and Noble (Nook), Smashwords (epub, Kobe, PDF, LRF, PalmDoc), and iTunes. It is the only chance we all have to ensure a better tomorrow.

    --
    Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
  41. Style vs Substance is not a zero sum game by tigersha · · Score: 2

    That it. If I can get the damn Linux freaks who despise anything GUI to learn that one thing my users would be happy.

    There IS something about dressing things up too much, yes. But that does NOT mean that all style is a bad or useless thing.
    Say that again: Style vs Substance is NOT a Zero Sum Game

    --
    The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    1. Re:Style vs Substance is not a zero sum game by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Of course it's not. Everyone can appreciate the utility of syntax hilighting for instance.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Style vs Substance is not a zero sum game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In your opinion.

      Green text. Black background. Underline and bold can be useful when used sparingly.

  42. Hell no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    These aren't real programmers putting eBooks together.They are web developers

  43. It comes in waves by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There have been several dips in typographic quality over the years, usually when the book industry transitions to a new technology or way of working. Going from Linotype machines to computer typesetting lead to some serious dips in typographic quality for a while. The dip was even more severe when printing was outsourced and most typographers was fired and replaced with layouters and designers. The desktop publishing (DTP) horrors from the late 1980's and 1990 also springs to mind. Usually it wasn't the new technology that was to blame, but that typographic knowledge got lost in the transition to the new technology because of cost cutting measures. The new technologies promised productivity improvements and lower cost through reduction in the workforce, but when the workforce is sacked, their knowledge disappear too.

    So it is no surprise that e-books etc. will introduce horrible sloppy typography with no sense of line length versus font size, weird line and word spacing, no knowledge of kerning, no reasoning behind the font used, or matching between text and font.

    But over time decent publishing houses will ensure at least some basic standard of typography for their e-books. There will probably not be a return to the high typographic standards of the 1950's early 1960's, but the default quality will be good and unobtrusive enough that it won't disturb the readers. However, the next group of knowledge workers in the firing line are the editors; when they are gone or reduced to merely salespeople, the text qualities of the books and e-books will drop to new low standards.

    --
    Regards

  44. Teh steve yobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Teh steve yobs new all about design and was teh worlds greatest programor.

    fact!

  45. converting a LaTeX book to ePub format by microphage · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Given good content to work with, any programmer could figure out how to make it beautiful using LaTeX .. However there isn't a mature, standardized workflow to get from LaTeX to epub", infernalC

    "The second talk came from Andrew Ford, who focussed on converting a LaTeX book to ePub format, using the example of his wife’s cookbook of vegetarian recipes. Andrew explained that the ePub format is a combination of XHTML and CSS, and that LaTeXML has allowed a relatively painless conversion process. Looking beyond ePub, conversion to Kindle format (which unlike ePub is closed)."

    1. Re:converting a LaTeX book to ePub format by BlackCreek · · Score: 1

      > Looking beyond ePub, conversion to Kindle format (which unlike ePub is closed).

      Once you have HTML, or EPUB (which is s subset of HTML inside a ZIP file) converting to MOBI (which is what the Kindle uses) is trivial.

      Trust me. Been there, done that.

      The DRM in the Kindle is closed, just like all the (different) DRMs used with ePubs.

  46. Hey, I suspect you all got it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are two main standards, mobi and epub. You don't need programmers to produce these, only someone skilled with html and css. What TFA is speaking about are not books, but those little appgadgets that promote themselves as interactive books (the proper word is horseshit, but in the 90's they were called multimedia cdrom).

  47. Well, shucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Programmers ruin the design of programs, so what do you expect?

  48. This seems perilous to me... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Isn't merely discussing this topic running the grave risk of having the ghost of Donald Knuth come from the future, heavy with unutterable wrath, and smite us all?

    1. Re:This seems perilous to me... by AdamJS · · Score: 1

      You forgot Zombie Dennis Ritchie and his argumentative/impotent horse, Steve.

  49. Fixing my eBooks by Frightened_Turtle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, this has been a pain in the ass for me. Ballantine Press (Random House imprint for Sci-fi & Fantasy) has really screwed up the typography on their ebooks. It is clear that there is absolutely no QA going on in the publishing houses. I have yet to buy an ebook from Ballantine that does not require editing of the ebook to make it readable.

    McCaffrey's The Dragonriders of Pern trilogy collection is in terrible shape. Typographical errors are bad enough, but the books are loaded with spelling errors as well. It was so bad, I actually wrote a letter of complaint to the publisher. I forked over good money for a story I enjoyed, and found it almost unreadable due to the problems. One of the worst examples was the place name "Ruatha". I found over twenty times when it was misspelled as "Ruath"--in one case, it was even misspelled on a page where they had the correct spelling in the following paragraph!

    Of a number of ebooks I've bought from Ballantine, I've had to break open the ebook files on all of them an edit the text and the CSS to correct the errors. It is clear to me that publishers have placed such a low priority on ebooks that they are willing to put out substandard product into the market without any quality control. In Piers Anthony's Xanth series, all it took was two tiny changes to the CSS to fix their typographical mistakes to make it a pleasure to read again.

    Example: In the CSS in some of the ebooks, I noted that they had listed paragraph indentation defined as pixels. Well, 15 pixels on an ebook reader are not the same size as 15 pixels on a computer screen or a smart phone display. Pixels are a subjective value where one device can have 300 pixels in an inch another can have just 72. It is better to define text indentation as an objective value such as 1 cm or 1.5 em so it gets indented properly, no matter the device that is displaying the text. By defining the indentation in pixels, the paragraph indentation in some ebooks was so minimal that the paragraphs just ran together and couldn't be differentiated.

    I find it ironic that the ebooks being sold by independent (e.g. self-published) authors to be flawless in their display while the ebooks from the big publishing houses with all their resources are all messed up.

    --


    Whew! This water sure is cold!
    1. Re:Fixing my eBooks by Jiro · · Score: 1

      How is 1 cm any better? Different displays are a different number of cm in width, and fonts are different sizes in relation to cm, so the same amount will look different depending on the display and font size. em is a little better, but different displays are different numbers of characters in width as well.

    2. Re:Fixing my eBooks by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      Do you have any better than "em"?

    3. Re:Fixing my eBooks by Rysc · · Score: 1

      cm is a little better because it's at least a fixed size, even if it's not proportional to the screen width. Example: 15px may be so narrow on your screen that you can't see it or it may be as wide as your finger, but 1cm is always 1cm. At least the spacing is guaranteed, even if the result is not pleasant, whereas with 15px there may be no space at all. Worse is when you have a very small screen and a book which was px-layed-out for a very large screen. CM layout mitigates this problem somewhat. Of course, em is still better.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    4. Re:Fixing my eBooks by Frightened_Turtle · · Score: 2

      How is 1 cm any better? Different displays are a different number of cm in width, and fonts are different sizes in relation to cm, so the same amount will look different depending on the display and font size. em is a little better, but different displays are different numbers of characters in width as well.

      You are correct!

      1 cm = 1 cm

      15 px can equal 3 mm or 1.5 cm depending on the resolution of the screen displaying the print. One screen might have 28 pixels per centimeter (72 ppi) while another can display 118 pixels per centimeter (300ppi).

      If you define your paragraph indentation as a fixed 15 pixels, on one display that indentation might only be 5 mm in from the margin, while on another display it might only be 1 mm from the margin.

      A better unit of measurement is the em, which is recommended for web design by the W3C for standardization of web page display. Em is now defined for digital use by being relative to the point size defined by the display in use. With the font-size set in points, this means that the em is defined in a relative manner to the size of the font being displayed, thence the display screen resolution, and is thereby scalable. The result is, if you set your indentation to a given number of em, then no matter on what display your text is showing or the font size selected, the paragraph indentation will always be the same number of characters in from the margin. Another advantage using the em is that if one decides to print the text on paper, it should appear on the paper as it did on a digital display without any modification. (That's the theory at least. We all know that famous quote by Yogi Berra: "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.")

      The E Ink Pearl imaging film, which both the Kindle and Nook use, has an imaging resolution of over 200 DPI (dots per inch). As the Kindle and Nook--depending on the model--use screen resolutions roughly around 150 PPI (pixels per inch), it means that those ebook readers are using 1.3 dots per pixel to render characters. If another ebook reader only uses a screen resolution of 100 PPI, then one em on that display will be different from one em on the Nook or Kindle, so the fonts would be sized differently on the different displays. But 1 em on any given device should still display and indentation of the same number of characters relative to the screen of that device, from one ebook to another. In the event of different screen resolutions for the same ebook, the user is going to have to make adjustments to the available font-size to make the text readable from one device to another.

      Nowadays, screens with fixed character width are very rare, outside simple digital displays on equipment or devices such as a calculator. Even those are now using pixelated displays rather than each character having a fixed display unit. Dedicated ebook readers today do not use fixed-character displays.

      I must admit, my initial post could have been better worked out. I was writing quickly being pressed for time. So, I figured using the fixed value of 1 cm vs. the pixel would be easier to follow by the readers than trying to explain the em. Good catch!

      For the record, I set the CSS in the ebooks I fixed to 1.25em for the text indentation for paragraphs on my Nook Simple Touch.

      --


      Whew! This water sure is cold!
    5. Re:Fixing my eBooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most publishers are using offshore teams to convert books to epub/ebook format. They are getting what they pay for--very low quality results--but newer manuscripts are often in electronic format which doesn't require any manual transcription/conversion.

    6. Re:Fixing my eBooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This started for me when I bought The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss from some online store, and the author's name was misspelled on the title page. Fortunately, I could strip the DRM off; I did, I fixed that typo, and I also fixed several others that I found.

      And this is why I don't buy DRMed ePubs, unless I can strip the DRM. I love my iPad, but I won't even look at buying books from the iBooks store.

      Download and read sample chapters? Sure. Actually buying a book? No.

      (Oddly enough, I have noticed some differences between the ePubs on the iBooks store and the ones on, say, Kobo's site; a typo in one doesn't necessarily exist in the other. Are they getting different builds from the publisher?)

  50. TFA shows how not to do it by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    The website of TFA has interline spacing that breaks reading flow and hurts the ability to distinguish individual lines from paragraphs.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:TFA shows how not to do it by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Well, naturally. Did you look at their CSS?

      There are numerous places where they specified font-size in PERCENT ... and line-height in PIXELS.

      What. The. Fuck.

      They need to hire a programmer.

    2. Re:TFA shows how not to do it by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Hurts the eyes, more like...

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
  51. Re:why does the typography a property of the ebook by lahvak · · Score: 1

    There are two things wrong with that:

    • First, that may be true about technical documentation, a science article and so on. In a work of literature, you want the design to go with the text. It is part of it, and although you can separate it, you will be missing something that number of people consider very important. While I agree that a reader should be, if it is technologically possible, to voluntarily deprive himself or herself of this dimension of the work, if they prefer to do so for some reason, the problem is that with the current ebook readers, it is extremely hard to include this aspect of a book for those who want it.
    • Even if we accepted what you are saying as true, and decided that the presentation should be completely separated from the content, and entirely up to the reader, the sad facts is that most (all, as far as I can tell) portable ebook readers are currently incapable to display a typical ebook in such a way that it looks good, regardless whether the actual design is a part of the book or part of the reader.
    --
    AccountKiller
  52. Left unsaid is that by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    probably 95+% of ebooks are fine as they are. What % of books rely on fancy layout or font gimmicry for presentation? Does that paperback you were reading on the subway need it? The hardcover novel? What % of books are reliant on illustrations as "part of the experience"? I think most of us (heavy e-readers in particular) are in it for the text, not the pictures.

    As others have pointed out, screen size, type and resolution all play a part in this too. It would be great if every book could appear on an ereader just as it does in print. Unfortunately, e-readers have not yet discovered how to increase and decrease their size to make that possible.

  53. Book 'design' doesn't seem too complicated by defcon-11 · · Score: 1

    eBook design: if there is a picture or chart please display it on a page by itself plus it's caption. Allow text sections to flow and be resizable. Minimize space between lines. eBook design finished. Thank you.

  54. Typography and design suck compared to the 1600s.. by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

    Back in the 17th, 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, typography and page layout was an art. Fonts had complex ligatures and kerning, there were very fancy page decorations, and the first word of the next page of the book was always placed at the bottom right (really!) so you didn't have a break between page flips.

    This all went away after WWII, and in some cases even earlier, as some bean counters figured out that they were using a few more gallons of ink per year on what was essentially duplicated information, or page decorations which served no immediate informational purpose.

    Anyway, it's ironic that people are complaining about low quality in an industry which has thrived printing whatever will make a quick buck on recycled toilet tissue for the past 50 years.

  55. Easy tasks should be easy, hard should be possible by davecb · · Score: 2

    There's an old, well-honored principle in Unix that explains why it's hard to design a good GUI, a good language, a good interface set or even a good command-line interface: Easy tasks should be easy, hard tasks should at least be possible.

    It's easy to do one or the other. It's surprising hard to do both.

    --dave
    I think this originated as a criteria for the old Bourne shell, and it certainly was part of perl and Elliotte Rusty Harold's XOM.

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  56. eBooks have PICTURES? *gasp!* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but I only read Playboy for the articles...

    But seriously most of the demo units of e-readers I've seen show text on a printed page, and the only thing important to me would be the font scalability and flow when resizing. Pardon my ignorance, but what is supposed to be designed (by programmers no less) here?

  57. You've been drinking the Random House kool-aid.... by RobinEggs · · Score: 2

    Every penny they spend on typesetting and layout is a penny lost in (very meagre) profit ...

    Spare me. I've looked at the numbers book publishers put out, and they're obviously full of shit. Did you know even textbook publishers, those guys who think 200 hours of editing and new material between printings justifies a new $220 edition every three years, swear up and down that they make a 1% profit?

    1 fucking percent? Are they joking? What other non-commodity business makes 1% and survives? For that matter, almost no commodity businesses make that little, either.

    Furthermore, if 1% was true, then ebooks would've driven them out of business by now. I see plenty of ebooks at 40-80% of their print prices. The printing, binding and shipping is only ~10% of a paper book's cost, so a discount of 20% or more on something that usually replaces a print sale- when your profit on print-only editions was just 1% - pretty much means you're fucked before you sell a single copy.

    Every e-book, every sale price at Amazon, puts the lie to their claims of 1% profits. Just because Amazon and B&N border on monopsony doesn't mean printers can magically afford to lose money on every sale.

  58. they're given hypermedia projects, NOT EBOOKS. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    ebooks are "just" what a scanned book would be. if it's just formatting, like column size etc information, that's fucked up then it's not a programmer but a graphic designer doing the work, most of the time I would reckon the problem there being that it really is a graphics designer working with a single device with no understanding of how it would render on different devices - in other words adding too much specific formatting information that they shouldn't be bothering with in the first place.

    hypermedia is different, it's like webpages. that's what the programmers are given "free reign" to do when doing ipad versions of ebooks. if it's just an ebook, it's just an ebook. but the thing is that the publishers then want rich media versions of them, even if there's no rich media or contextual information to link with anyways, so of course projects like that are going to suck.

    You know what's really funny though? most publishers and publishing industry workers seem to forget this(that they're just old-school hypermedia) totally and view "ipad books" as something totally new! even guys who worked on hypermedia versions on '90s! fucking short memory hype of the day peons. there's this guy in Finland who says that he did the first rich media book in Finland - in 2012! why? because it's on the fucking appstore and not on a cdrom.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  59. Just follow the simple rules. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Programmers can understand what is a good interface follow the UNIX way properly(simple programs that can be connected by pipe's etc etc).

    The problems come from the abomination's (Pulseaudio / avahi / gconf etc etc) trying to make it like Mac OS X or Windows.

    Even on Windows I use the CLI more often than Windows Explorer.

    This still applies :

    http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html

    Particularly these two parts (From 1978)

            (i) Make each program do one thing well. To do a new job, build afresh rather than complicate old programs by adding new features.

            (ii) Expect the output of every program to become the input to another, as yet unknown, program. Don't clutter output with extraneous information. Avoid stringently columnar or binary input formats. Don't insist on interactive input.

  60. App != eBook by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

    I think the biggest glaring issue here is assuming that an app is an eBook.

    If you want an eBook, invest in a Kindle or other "eBook" app/appliance which issues books formatted by the publisher. There the developer creates an app that displays eBooks, but is not involved in the formatting of the book. Of course the app could screw up the eBook format, but then that is fixed with a patch.

    If you download a $.99+ app that features a book, you get what you get. A large portion of apps from app stores are horribly written programs rapidly fired off by unskilled developers. "Publishers" taking advantage of selling a book as an app are only interested in profit and care little for the quality of the material they are publishing. They are uninterested in selling the book through a bookstore as they are trying to skip the middleman and take home more profit.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  61. careful what you wish for by bcrowell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since TFA is slashdotted, I'm just responding to what I could glean from the /. summary.

    The two most popular ebook formats (epub and mobi/azw) are both basically just a collection of html and css files put together into a zip file. The html is extremely limited. For example, in kindle (azw) format, all images are displayed in the center of the page. So, for example, if you want to put an equation rendered as a bitmap embedded in a paragraph of text, you basically can't do it. In most cases, you cannot use javascript. Creating an ebook is also exactly like writing html for the web in that you have to make it work on any device. For instance, a Kindle 2's screen is 260x311 and a Kindle DX is 372x511. You cannot embed fonts and know that it will work on all devices. (E.g., epub 2 allows fonts to be embedded using CSS2 @font-face rule, but the spec doesn't require devices to support it, and many don't.) The CPU on these things is designed for low power consumption, not for heavy processing.

    So, given these resources, there really isn't much that you can do creatively in designing an ebook. If it's a novel, it's pretty much going to look like all other novels. It's in a font that the hardware vendor optimized for legibility on that device.

    It's true that the formats are becoming more sophisticated. For example, epub 3 (which is not yet supported by any devices), includes mathml, which will allow math and science textbooks to be made into ebooks for the first time. Javascripts is coming.

    But be careful what you wish for, because you might get it. Are we really looking forward to reading Wuthering Heights formatted beautifully by a professional designed -- for a screen that's narrower than the one on our own device? How about opening a book and finding that the title of contents is an image, forcing you to guess where to click in order to start reading? How about animations that you can't skip? How about CPU-intensive features that freeze up your device for 30 seconds? What about fonts that looked great on the designer's device, but that look absolutely horrible on ours?

    And there are going to be compatibility nightmares that will make the browser wars look like a child's tea party. For example, epub 3 includes mathml, but it doesn't say that devices must support mathml, it just says that they can. So publishers will be selling one version of a calculus textbook for the Nook 17xi (which supports mathml), but a different version for the Nook 16lx (which doesn't) -- and of course an eyeball-bleeding epub 2 version for "legacy" devices, like that Nook 14 that you bought way back in 2014. Oh, you switched to an iPad? Cool, but you find out that the epub 3+mathml version of the book that you bought for your Nook doesn't work on your iPad, because Apple hasn't gotten around to implementing mathml. But you can buy an iPad version instead, only $187!

    1. Re:careful what you wish for by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

      It's up and down. Hit refresh and you might get it. Or might just contribute more to the Slashdotting.

      Word of advice, though: if it does load, turn off styles; it's nearly unreadable unless you do (Firefox: View - Page Style - No Style).

    2. Re:careful what you wish for by sigmabody · · Score: 1

      Also, to add to this, the tools for creating eBooks (at least Kindle books) are pretty awful. For example, the "recommended" method uses a two-stage conversion, with a third-party app which isn't even supported any more. All the conversion paths mangle any custom formatting, in different (and seemingly unpredictable) ways, and generate "messy" HTML for everything. Alternatively, you can hand-edit HTML, and manually create any extra parts (eg: the TOC), because there are no automatic mechanisms to support features that office apps have had for literally decades.

      As someone who has published an eBook on Kindle, I can tell you that it looks "bare bones". It looks better in google docs where I wrote it, but it was a PITA to just get it into Kindle format, and the tooling to "make it nice" without lots of additional effort was just not there. If Amazon et all could address that problem, it might go a long way toward getting nicer looking eBooks.

    3. Re:careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mobipocket isn't even that sophisticated; it's HTML 3.2 with some custom tags and support for embedded GIFS (and just GIFs) in the file.

      Trust me, I know; I'm writing an Qt/Android Mobipocket ereader for CV/looking for a job in the UK purposes - source is at

      https://github.com/jotheberlock/reader

      and mobi.cpp/bookdevice.cpp handle the details of getting the HTML out of the book.

    4. Re:careful what you wish for by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Javascripts is coming.

      Javascript in an ebook? Somebody needs to be shot. Repeatedly.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  62. Blame the programmers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah it's always the programmer fault when something doesn't work right. Now get out of my office and let me code in peace!

  63. Lots of bad to go around by dsmithhfx · · Score: 1

    Applying a markup language (xhtml) to text is hardly "programming", but the limitations of the medium all but preclude the kind of elegance nostalgically associated with *some* book typography. First, there's been quite a decline in typography in general, since the advent of "desktop publishing", apart from the perhaps overwrought efforts of a few revivalists. One can find plenty of terrible typography in print, it's pretty much the norm. Secondly, there's a lack of standards across devices (and for that matter, platform releases), which tends to enforce a 'lowest common denominator' approach. See, believe it or not, publishing is a business. I suppose once the demand is established for high-end typography in ebooks, and some better tools come out, you will see some improvement. But good luck with the whingeing.

  64. Typography = unrecovered cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone check the typography in your copies of Lords of the Ring or Harry Potter novels before you bought them? How about that Nigel Lawson cookbook?

    Except for coffee table books, our buying is determined by content, not form. Until there are alternatives with the same content, and the same price, but different qualities of typography, we won't be voting for typography with our pocketbooks.

  65. training, yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry about posting AC.

    This problem is huge. I know that we as the tech nerd type tend to view designers as sort of lesser non technical children.

    However, it might be a good idea for us to maybe consider what they do. After all code disasters don't make all of us question the need for coders.

    Instead, we might take the path that we could learn something out of the deal. There are a bunch of people who offer training to non design people on how to make their design better. most of this stuff is actually really easy to do and it pays off hugely later.

    As an example Dan Rubin's Lecture Slides.

  66. Terminology Considerations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I take issue with the word 'Ruining'. There are limited options in 'designing' ebooks. You have your text (hopefully carefully edited) and maybe a graphic or two and you have your ebook design program. Because ebooks must reflow the text when the size of the book chages there is no real typography. You dump in the text file, ensure everything is correct (paragraphs and images), and hit print. Viola -- an ebook is born. The ready must be allowed to change the font, type size and page size.

    Designers hate this. Designers love PDFs because you can't change anything. They know that once you give up iron-fisted control over type you have lost the battle and since most 'designers' are little more than over-paid strippers (not that kind of stripper -- PAGE LAYOUT STRIPPER) who can't draw to save their lives they see the writing on the wall. Who needs wonky geek in ridonkulous glasses to tell them Garamond is better than Times New Roman when you make ebooks?

    So 'ruined'? Maybe not. Possibly this is the beginning of the end of an era and 'graphic designers', 'layout artists' and their ilk will finally fade from our civilization along with the print industry that spawned them.

    Buggy-whip makers the lot of them.

  67. Programmers are enabling new classes of books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something like this couldn't have been done without programmers, though.

    1. Re:Programmers are enabling new classes of books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA is actually interview with author of this one. He's not saying "Programmers are shit, designers is the shit!", he's saying programmers should program, designers should design and they all should cooperate. Shocking revelation, I know, but doesn't make for as much clicks and comments as current title.

  68. E books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right, I'd never read an E book of Playboy unless the asthetics were correct.

  69. Re:why does the typography a property of the ebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes style is relevant, but often it is not, and when not, the ebook should simply have minimal tags (multiple levels of headings, footnotes, block quotes, verse insertion, emphasis, hyperlinks, bulleted/numbered lists, standard location references [page numbers, chapter and verse, etc.], hyphenation markers for words not in a standard hyphenation dictionary), with the finer details of the typesetting left to the client, just as was the original intent for html, before css. :-) A good ereader application would then let the user customize just about everything else, and save in presets like "Novel", "Reference", etc. I don't want every novel to look different: I want the margins, fonts, paragraph and line spacing, indentation, color, footnote/endnote, handling of illustrations, levels of headings to show in the table of contents, size of font in body, block quotes, hyphenation, justification, footnotes and captions, to be all adjusted to my reading preferences rather than the publisher's one-size-fits all preferences, and to be the same for almost every novel I read on the same device.

    Granted, there are going to be cases where more formatting is needed. In extreme cases, the solution is simply non-reflowable pdf. But in most cases, more formatting isn't needed.

  70. use PDF or eat cactus and cry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a lot of ebooks and I buy them regularly. I do not have any problem with ebook quality at all.

    Why? Because I buy only ebooks from publishers who provide non-drmed pdfs (i.e. personalized copies, whatever - O'Reilly does it, and InformIt does it, and some others). PDF quality is equal to printed book, and on my Kindle DX and on home computer I can see them perfectly well.

    I used to work in a publishing house typesetting math textbooks. My understending of current ebook formats is that they are not capable enough (CSS5 or whatever) and PDF is far superior, and always will be, by design. Unless you sell TeX source and generate PDF on the fly. Because when I see formulae in epub or AZW, I do not know wether to cry or to laugh.

    Cheers.

  71. Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems that someone has missed the point. Most of the problems that I have seen with ebooks are due to poor proofreading/editing. Programmers write software/firmware. They should not be expected to edit/proofread ebooks. They may write the software used by proofreaders and editers though. If proofreaders/editers rely too much on software to automatically do their jobs for them, you will get spelling/grammar/formatting errors, as no software is capable (yet) of catching all spelling/grammar/formatting errors and correcting them. I see errors in the local newspaper (I read it online) every day.

  72. I'd say designers should do it only if... by istartedi · · Score: 1

    I'd say designers should do it only if you have tools designers can use that don't result in a doubling of the hardware requirements. Also, the designers must admit that not everybody wants eye candy and some people just want text. They should offer a way to turn off the eye candy. I'm pointing my fingers at you, almost the entire WWW.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  73. UX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of this talk about UI, but not one mention about UX?

  74. Awful article layout by Animats · · Score: 2

    The article in the Toronto Review of Books has at least three spelling errors and typos, including the common error "free reign" instead of "free rein". (That's supposed to be a horse term.) The body text is in a sans-serif font, while the headings are in a serif font. The body leading is huge, almost double-spaced. This publication is in no position to talk about layout. Besides, how much good layout can you do on a tiny screen that updates slowly?

    As for the eBook Alice, colorizing the Tenniel illustrations is bad enough, and animating them is just tacky. What next, 3D? If you want a good version of Alice, get The Annotated Alice, which is not currently available as an eBook and would look terrible on the tiny screen.

  75. They are still holing onto the past by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think many of the publishers want the e versions of their products to be inferior to and harder to use than the printed version.

  76. Are Programmers Ruining eBooks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have four eBooks for sale through Amazon.com and formerly through Nook. When one submits a manuscript which was previously edited and printed in hardcopy by a publisher the text is put through a translating program. I have sometimes submitted the manuscript in Word form and the program has butchered it. In other cases I have submitted the text as prepared by the publisher in Acrobat format. In such cases the butchering can go beyond the realms of a slaughterhouse.

  77. Rein vs. Reign by obsess5 · · Score: 1

    The article says "free rein". The summary says "free reign". "Rein" is the "correct" term, although apparently folk usage of "reign" is moving up fast.

    1. Re:Rein vs. Reign by rmstar · · Score: 1

      The article says "free rein". The summary says "free reign". "Rein" is the "correct" term, although apparently folk usage of "reign" is moving up fast.

      Yeah, and depending on where they live, they also get free rain.

    2. Re:Rein vs. Reign by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      In context, it doesn't really matter - its difference between control and sovereignty, which if you are given free control to do as you please, then you are also given free sovereignty to do as you please as well.

      But the reins allow you to reign over the horse to rein where it goes within your reign.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    3. Re:Rein vs. Reign by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      "Rein" is the "correct" term,

      Good info. Thanks for the heads up.

  78. glassy gassy by epine · · Score: 2

    It is rare indeed that a programmer has the artistic eye for design and are a great programmer.

    Is it really that rare, or are you just looking for love in all the wrong places?

    John Brockman: the man with a three digit speed dial

    I quickly realised, but did not articulate, something the anthropologist Gregory Bateson told me 10 years later: that of all our human inventions, economic man was by far the dullest.

    We've had superlative typography since the 1980s, but instead the world standardized on Widow Maker and other typographic abominations. Economic man noted the score, and the rest is WYG will make your eyes bleed. Then Steve figured out how to pour feminine charms back into the genie bottle by making the terms of engagement non-negotiable. That's one way to do it. Who knows what user interface nightmares ensue once you begin speaking with each other.

    The contributors to Edge are what I call third-culture thinkers or intellectuals. Not only are they focused on science-minded pursuits based on evidence and empiricism, they are also public communicators, reaching out to the public by means of their books, lectures, etc. They live by their wits, and doing so in the changing times of the digital age is a challenge. Their concerns are very different than, say, the casual user, who has signed up for a social network and by default becomes the product whose private information is sold to advertisers.

    If it's asking too much to straddle two culture, how about being insanely good at just one? From How (La)TeX changed the face of Mathematics

    Big mistakes people should stop making:
    1. Worrying too much about formatting and not enough about content.
    2. Worrying too much about formatting and not enough about content.
    3. Worrying too much about formatting and not enough about content.

    Tyler Cowen: Be suspicious of stories

    Tyler has a nice riff there about how ditching the "good vs evil" depiction of world events immediately raises your IQ by ten points. There are many writers out there who could raise their IQ by an additional ten points investing less in glassy gassy.

    1. Re:glassy gassy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, when your electronic books consists only of digital images of the pages in a proprietary wrapper,so it's like a pdf with no OCR, only worse and you can't use it on your eReader from the same company that sold you the ebook, only on their PC application for the viewing things you bought for your eReader, which is the case of most electronic engineering related textbooks (Advanced Engineering Mathematics by Kreyszig, I'm looking at you. On Kindle PC. Because I can't on my Kindle)... ...or when the book you bought has anywhere from one to four spaces between each consecutive word in a sentence... ...or when the book is about 60% full of tables but these tables themselves are nothing but formatted text with relative alignments and justifications, yet to reproduce it you don't put it in a scalable digital text format...you just scan the images in, which don't don't scale with the text (My spanish textbook for the semester, Fuentes)... ...if all that is the case, no amount minimalist typeface fetishism will fix the real issue of readability, which is "Can I put it on my thing and make it as big or small as I want?"

      Programmers are ruinning ebooks, we just disagree as to how.

  79. Future sales by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

    As usual, the answer is "Money." By making the first e-ditions butt ugly, they hope to sell prettified second e-ditions to the same buyer at a later date, for even more profit. One more reason to just read the PD-old classics instead.

    --
    Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
  80. just like websites and different layouts by SageBrian · · Score: 1

    While most of the comments seem to talk about the issue of programmers vs designers, and management cutting corners, only a few of the comments hit upon the inherent nature of varied layouts.

    Just as a website needs to take into account different web browsers and different screen layouts/sizes, and user-controlled fonts, so does an ebook.

    Designers still hate the fact that a website cannot be controlled by the designer like printed material. How many designers embraced Flash because of the absolute control it took away from the user? The designers tend to view things as stationary, and that is the opposite of all the options available on the web, and in ebooks.

    Certainly, we need designers to assist in any creative project. And designers should probably consult a little more with programmers to see if their ideas can be implemented in a more efficient way. Steve Jobs is a perfect example of creating a team of visionaries, designers and programmers.

    The problem with an ebook, besides the multiple formats of epub and amazon and others, is the user options. We can read on our phones, on tablets, on computers, in apps on the computers, in browsers. And many reader applications allow for some personalization, like changing colors, fonts, font sizes. So, like a website, we are stuck with basic text formatting to allow for free-flow of paragraphs and dynamic pages.

    PDF is NOT an ebook. It is a digital format of a printed page, designed as if to be printed. It certainly looks great, and if put into a flash application, can look like a real magazine with page turning, etc. But, will that work on a 3.5" screen? How will it handle zooming in and out?

    I think we need to look at the overall purpose of the product. If it is a magazine, with images and multi-column layout, then certainly the "e publication" needs to be locked into it's print perspective like a PDF. But, if it is a novel, or any book where the message is in the words, then proper formatting is needed for free-flowing text in various sizes. I am not going to view Time Magazine on my phone, but I might want to read an article from Time Magazine. So, now I need two formats.... text only, and Image Layout.

    Let's just learn the proper techniques for the layout output we are looking for, and use programmers where needed, and designers where needed. And get those MS Word office workers out of the process unless they learn about formatting with styles, page breaks, tabs, etc. Not many people can know everything, and do everything. Just because the person down the hall makes cool signs for the wall does not make them someone that can create a proper ebook.

  81. Amen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use the GIMP a lot, and honestly don't have any problem with its interface, but I'm appalled at the name of the program. My daughter's school was somewhat interested in trying it out because Photoshop licenses are tough on their budget, but the administration was strongly put off by the name. It's hard to get anyone to take a program seriously with a name like that.

  82. Who's fault is this? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    Why would a programmer be designing an ebook rather then an editor or designer?

    Maybe because they're the only ones that figured out the software to do it?

    In any case, the editors could very easily check what the programmer did before publishing. If they're just publishing it sight unseen then again who's fault is that?

    Editors are responsible even if they're not doing the work because they're the editors. If they delegate then they're responsible for what happens when they delegate.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  83. Games prove programmers can design. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best software design I see is found in games. The days are long past when it was acceptable to require users to read a manual or documentation even for complex games. It is now the responsibility of the game developers (often the programmers themselves) to clearly communicate the interface to the user. In a world where competition is extreme, and your chance for success depends on the user's impression in the first 10 minutes, there is simply no alternative. UI conventions and standards within various genres of software, games being possibly the most demanding, dictate to a much larger degree the type and quality of interfaces we see. Programmers aren't too dumb to observe what has worked in the past, and they follow established rules where they have been proven to work.

  84. I Agree too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have three kids (10,8,6) and a wife all using Linux on netbooks (mix of Ubuntu and Debian) with no problems and never using the command line. All three got their netbooks around age 4-5 and the wife about 3 years ago (she's been afraid of computers ever since University (20 years ago) -- dropped out because of them (short fuse and frustration was too great to do assignments on them)) but is now a daily user :) Note, I switched to Linux only about six years ago and have been with my wife for 17 years, so 11 years of watching Windows and she had zero interest, but Linux finally got her past her fears.

    I have a good laugh at people who say Linux is not for newbs; I think it is not for newbs that only "know" Windows, but give it to any kid and they'll run with it. For me, it's nice having them use a computer where I literally don't have to touch it for months on end (basically, I install new versions only, e.g., from Ubuntu 9 to 10). What I love most is how much I am learning from them, as they "find" something new or interesting and then wonder why I didn't know that :)

  85. It's not the programmers fault! by gmon750 · · Score: 0

    Don't necessarily blame the programmers. Just as much responsibility falls on management for failing to delegate the proper areas to the proper people. Just because programmers have to know a lot about computers, management will think they will save money by having those same people do design work that should go to a design department.

    I've lost track how many times other departments come to me(us) regarding a re-design of a web page. Sounding like a broken record, we are constantly telling them to "Talk to graphics design, we only work on back-end stuff". Time and time again this occurs. It's very frustrating. Then when schedules fall behind, we get blamed for not getting the design done, even though it was never our job to do it.

    Programmers design code. Cut them some slack.

  86. Blame the Automation by WarwickRyan · · Score: 1

    The reason that so many ebooks are bad is that there are a lot of lazy publishers out there who simply run (for example) Amazon's Word-to-Kindle scripts and upload the output.

    Without ever reading it.

    Or even worse, that use OCR to generate the ebook and then don't bother reading it.

  87. But... by Caerdwyn · · Score: 1

    But... but... we're so GOOD at user interface design! Being a programmer means you are an expert in everything! Disciplines other than our own are worthless!

    --
    Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
  88. Print vs Screen by FrankN · · Score: 2

    I remember the same type of discussion here on /. regarding print vs web. People were complaining about websites that looked like they had scanned in their brochures, and for some that was literally true. It seems that the more things change the more they stay the same. The old school still wants to treat the screen as if it were a piece of paper. God forbid that the person doing the reading might want, or need, a different font size. That might disrupt the carefully chosen 1.2345 microsnick paragraph spacing.

    I recently downloaded my first iBook to my iPad: The Yellow Submarine. (I'm a long time kindle guy.) First impression was: wow this is gorgeous and shows what an ebook can be. My 2nd impression was: holy crap I can't read this small font, let me bump up the... oh wait it's hard coded. I can see where it really would have messed up the flow of that book if I had been able to change the font. I think the ebook industry needs to have that spark where a new approach to layout is discovered that, right now, no one seems to have.

    I will admit that I don't understand much about typography and layout. Most of my reading doesn't require anything more complicated than what can be produced on a typewriter. What I do see, is that we are at a point in time where the screen is taking over, and the print industry is struggling with a change that threatens to leave it behind.

    Frank

  89. As an avid reader ... by MyNicknameSucks · · Score: 1

    This is what I've found:

    I love reading novels on my kindle. I love the sharpness of the next. I love the ability to resize text. I love having a library in my hands. I love that my wife and I don't have to buy new bookshelves or drop off a bunch of books at Goodwill every six months.

    I feel cheated when I come across an e-book that obviously hasn't been reviewed by a human familiar with English -- even mainstream(ish) books like Pratchett's latest, Snuff, had to be revised shortly after release due to some appallingly bad errors. I've been an avid reader for decades; I've seen typos and spelin' mistakes aplenty, but I've never had to slog through entire pages of gobbledygook with dead tree editions of works.

    Reference books on my Kindle can be downright painful -- tables are usually inserted as lo-fi images that are often all-but-unreadable. Worse, if the corresponding page in the dead tree edition includes images and tables, on the same page, all hell breaks loose. Things get ... ugly.

    But the real killer for me is indexes. I love them. The indexes on my reference books are usually rather dog-eared. I find them indispensable. But only once have I found an e-book, Bloodlands, that included a functional index (i.e., you select a term, you're taking to the correct "page"). Every other reference book I've purchased has an index that is simply a list of words. I freaking HATE that. That is bad design in that a feature you expect to be functional does NOTHING. We're talking Web 1.0 functionality here, people.

    But ... you know what? For me this isn't an arts v. science thing many of the people here are making it out to be. The best interfaces are those that involve graphic designers (seriously, Susan Kare's a genius) and nerds. You need design AND implementation to pull things off. The gobbledygook I've seen in e-books? That's obviously some kind of script that fugged up its conversion -- that's a fault of implementation. Tables and pictures that are supposed to show up in proximity to each other, but don't in e-books? That's a fault of design. The data's there, but it needs better presentation.

    We all just have to, you know, get along.

  90. Idiotic article summary by aka1nas · · Score: 1

    The majority of ebooks are poorly formatted because the publisher didn't keep an actual digital copy on hand for anything made before the last 3 years and had an intern OCR a paperback and maybe do some cursory typo fixing at best. "Programmers" don't generally make ebooks normally, the article was about a specific case where an individual book was packaged as a stand-alone ipad app.

  91. Knowing What You Do Not Know by Artagel · · Score: 1

    We went through this with the butterfly ballots in Florida. People who thought they knew how to design ballots did not actually know how to design ballots. The idea that design only affects how pretty something is is wrong. Apple succeeds in large part because its designs make the products enjoyable to use. There are some people who can handle the entire chain of abilities, but that is not by and large how the economy works. And the bosses have to know this also. Arguably you should cut functionality before design, because without design functionality often becomes inaccessible (that is to say, non-functional). What good is a book if you get a headache reading it?

  92. There Are Two Extremes Here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and we've seen both. The first is that most developers who write great efficient code usually suck at UI design. They don't know how to make something truly aesthetically pleasing from an artistic perspective. For them, an eBook is just data. If the story is there in monotype font with no antialiasing and no aesthetic flow of the text itself, they've done their job. On the other hand, how many of you remember the "multimedia CDs" of the 90s where a band would release a new album that would typically contain some sort of Shockwave application for Windows or Mac? Some of them were pretty close rivals to the album sleeve art of previous decades. Only they added interactivity beyond just looking at or displaying the thing.

    How many of you remember that most of those things were a steaming pile when it came to code? I dissected a few (as well as DVD menus and even DVDs) and found that while the art might look beautiful, there is usually no regard for wasting resources. This is something that coders are driven insane by. You might see the same super large video file duplicated three times in different directories instead of just referencing a single one. The same with graphical content.

    eBook designers should strike a balance between providing an aesthetic experience that is at least equivalent to the finest printed books, and as efficient as the most spare Perl script. Good luck finding people who can master both. They are out there, but they're rare.

  93. Analogies of this in other industries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Getting a programmer or even a lead developer to do the UI and usability design work on a software project is like getting a bricklayer or chief builder to do the architecture, interior design, and landscaping on a construction project.

    Sure, you might get something that is functional and works as required but it won't be that aesthetically pleasing. You're more likely to end up with inconsistencies all over the place, particularly if there is more than one person allowed to make individual design decisions on various components. Things will seem disjoint and it is unlikely there will be a coherent theme. Carrying out basic functions will sometimes feel uncomfortable or just won't flow. You are also likely to end up with a mismatch of approaches that are out of date/popular in the previous decade(s).

    It doesn't make sense! I can't think of many people or organisations that would think of spending several hundred thousand (even million) dollars on a construction project without having some sort of architect/designer involved and yet people do this every day in the software industry. It doesn't make sense!

    Giving someone a set of basic design tools and telling them that it is part of their job requirement that they have to produce product designs doesn't mean they are going to be any good at it. It's like giving some electrical installation tools to a carpenter or a plumber and telling them to go and wire up the new house you're building - you'll end up with a bodgy job. It may also stress out the person you ask to do the job because they know/feel that this is not their specialty and they might internalise their concerns about what they end up producing.

    Show some respect to users/customers and to your own organisation. Set your design quality standards a bit higher and get a specialist in to do the job. It might cost a bit more but you'll get it back many times over in the value of the fine work they produce.

  94. What would Donald Knuth do... by BigMike · · Score: 1

    If I recall TeX lore correctly, Knuth took a sidetrack to develop a system that would render his books the way he wanted the material to be presented. Today, you can't read his books on an e-reader ... unless you find that giant PDF with rendered graphics of every page.

    E-readers will be mature when Knuth will sell you his books in e-reader form.

  95. A similar argument by uniquegeek · · Score: 1

    Linux Journal's graphic designers haven't figured out that the multiple columns, etc. of print doesn't work in ebook. I wonder how long it will take them to figure it out.

    Considering how pdf can be used on many different devices with different size screens and different ratios, that's got to be a relatively new area of study. On the other hand, pretty much anything would be better than four columns of skinny text.

  96. Generalize much? by gtada · · Score: 1

    Jesus, a lot of generalizing going on. Not all programmers are aesthetically challenged, and not all designers care only about the looks. I know many GOOD UI designers with proper training, and they have a very rigorous process they employ to ensure the usability of their projects. I also know many programmers who intuitively understand good usability for the less technically-minded. Saying all UI designers are useless because Unity's UI sucks is like saying all programmers are incompetent because Windows ME sucks.

  97. Programmers aren't; Books are just broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call me crazy. Call me boring. Call me stupid, if you please but I just don't get it. To me, a book needs only text, and the ability to send \n to the device. A book, is, has, and should be, plain text. I can't stand the ebook formats. Far too cluttered with crap like linked TOCs and pictures bordering the page. Normally, if I want to read a book digitally, I'll just grab the latest text dump from some dude on $P2P_NETWORK. At least then, I can read it through anything I want. Better yet, all the formatting is left to whatever program I chose to read it.

  98. I've got to call you on this by dbIII · · Score: 1

    As I've seen since using CAD from the days when you selected icons on a tablet instead of a screen - there is no instantly clear way to present the options of any drawing program with a reasonable degree of functionality even if it's just 2D. Blender apparently has a very good interface for what it does and even Gimp makes sense once you understand that the "everything in a single window" of photoshop etc loses it's usefulness with multiple workspaces or even multiple screens.

  99. I don't care by kikito · · Score: 1

    The .mobi format comes with a very usable default design. There is no need to hire a designer for a kindle title.

    If a programmer uses "programmer quotes" instead of “typographical quotes”, no one aside from designers will notice.

  100. prejudice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do people assume programmers have poor aesthetic taste because they are programmers? An ordinary program has as much taste ad the next Joe.. which isn't much. But it's not hard to find a programmer with a background in webdesign. Even if we many not crank out master piece over art, mismatch and mis-alignment are our mortal enemies.

  101. Two Extremes... by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    ...and we've seen both. First is that most developers who write great efficient code usually suck at UI design. They don't know how to make something truly aesthetically pleasing from an artistic perspective. Some can, but it's a rare bird. For the rest, an eBook is just data. If the story is there in monotype font with no antialiasing and no aesthetic flow of the text itself, they've done their job. On the other hand, how many of you remember the "multimedia CDs" of the 90s where a band would release a new album that would typically contain some sort of Shockwave application for Windows or Mac? Some of them were pretty close rivals to the album sleeve art of previous decades. Only they added interactivity beyond just looking at or displaying the thing.

    How many of you remember that most of those things were a steaming pile when it came to code? I dissected a few (as well as DVD menus and even DVDs) and found that while the art might look beautiful, there is usually no regard for wasting resources. This is something that coders are driven insane by. You might see the same super large video file duplicated three times in different directories instead of just referencing a single one. The same with graphical content.

    eBook designers should strike a balance between providing an aesthetic experience that is at least equivalent to the finest printed books, and as efficient as the most spare Perl script. Good luck finding people who can master both. They are out there, but they're rare.

    (This comment is an altered repost of something I accidentally posted anonymously yesterday.)

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  102. Fully Agree by akc · · Score: 1

    I fully agree with you. I was the same, so I converted over to KDE4. Then I spent a long time working out how to use facilities like multiple desktops and multiple activities under KDE4. I work in different areas at different times of the day, and the KDE activities approach seemed ideal.

    But the practical reality of it was that I just got in a mess.

    What I did realise then - how good Gnome3 is. I've gone back to it and now I find the older interfaces limiting.

    Things that are really good
    1) I run with multiple screens - having my secondary screen remain in place when I switch workspaces is fabulous. I can put an important source document on display and then work in the different other documents each in its own workspace, surrounded by the support applications I need for that part of the work
    2) Growing an shrinking Workspaces automatically. As I start getting too complicated (too many windows to work on comfortably in one workspace, I through some stuff to another workspace.
    3) Minimising by flicking my wrist (and moving the mouse to the top left hand corner) - and getting a dynamically visual view of applications. I often work and watch MythTV in the evenings, and being able to here something important about to happen on the TV when I am working on an overlaid window, that flick allows me to immediately watch the action on the TV

    I do have criticisms though. It was insane to make Suspend the default option closing down - I want power off (I know there is an extension that does this - these aren't yet just available as Debian packages). There seems to be bugs that can hang the closedown process if you cancel it half way through. I can't find my apps very easily - seems to be very particular about having .desktop files in the right place. Often I can install some thing in Debian and I can't find the app.

  103. Re:Easy tasks should be easy, hard should be possi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's an old, well-honored principle in Unix that explains why it's hard to design a good GUI, a good language, a good interface set or even a good command-line interface: Easy tasks should be easy, hard tasks should at least be possible.

    Absolutely true as far as it goes, but this principle fails to account for the mass appeal and commercial success of Apple's approach to UI design. Taking iOS as the prime example of Apple's approach, it seems to be: everything doable must be simple, and what cannot be done simply will be impossible. So the hard design choices are in choosing what will be allowed, and the corollary is enforcement of consistency across applications. Whereas the "easy tasks should be easy" principle alone leads to something like GNOME.