That's the problem with most criticisms of Adobe products. People who aren't designers don't use them they way they were intended to be used. It's like watching a novice carpenter complain that his saw is an awful hammer.
You can use Flash for non-web delivered content. That's another reason that the death of Flash is conflated. People don't understand all of its uses. It's not just for making dumb games, non-compliant web pages, and bad adverts. It's also used for sophisticated simulations and software training, for example, usually delivered in a training package of stand alone content via a learning management system.
Flash isn't going away. It is the primary tool for highly interactive software simulation and training development. It's also the de facto standard output for rapid e-learning development tools. People without any programming skills can turn screen captures into interactive training. The tools that do this prefer.swf output because the tweening allows for small file sizes and realistic simulation of screen activity (without requiring full motion video). It also allows for customization after the fact in Flash.
The other reason it isn't going away is because it will most likely produce HTML5 compliant output in future versions.
I use all the Adobe tools (production suite and creative sweet at work). Illustrator is one of their finest. Perhaps you were thinking of Premiere Pro (on a windows box) or perhaps Robohelp (worst program ever)?
The problem with Adobe is that most of their software was acquired from other vendors and they've been scrambling to make them all "adobe-like".
Flash - macromedia Illustrator - Aldus Dreamweaver - macromedia (and before that GoLive acquired from GoLive's "cyberstudio" Robohelp - Blue sky (or something) Framemaker - aldus?
In any case, Photoshop is their finest work, and it's theirs. They've tried to make other programs act like Photoshop when they don't need to, or can't. Having different key combos for the same action can be frustrating to new users, but unifying them would be frustrating to existing users. It's a tough balance.
Not to be rude, but I find those people who don't understand a staple feature like "adjustment layers" are the same people who rip Adobe products, unjustly.
The main problem with Adobe products right now is trying to get them all standardized. They work very nicely together, but since most of them all came from the purchase of other companies, it has taken Adobe a long time to unify them (with more work to go).
Premiere + After Effects + Photoshop + Illustrator + Dreamweaver is a fine production combination. Sure, you can piece together a whole bunch of the best things from multiple other vendors, but you aren't going to have the nice workflow like you get with the above.
User interface design is not a science, you say? Is that why the University of Texas (and pretty much every other state college in America) grants a BS/MS in Information Science for people who study UI design?
Don't confuse artsy flash designer guy with an engineer of human interface design. Those are two very different skill sets.
As a training development manager for a software company, I can tell you that you've described a gap in training. There's nothing inherently wrong with your assumptions or design, other than the users need training.
If your interfaces were non-standard, but you assumed that they were 'easy to figure out' but then your crowd couldn't, then yeah, you are to blame. In this case, though, you've described the text-book "training deficiency" needs analysis.
If you are testing your own code, you're doing it wrong.
You said it best:
It is so boring and un-stimulating that I usually skip it entirely, pass the testing off to someone else...
My work has an entire department of software test engineers, many of whom can't write a line of code (non-automated testing, obviously). The best testers we have are the ones who think like users and aren't biased by their inner-geekness.
I'm pretty sure authors don't proof their own work, so why would it be different for people who write thousands of lines of hard to read text on a computer screen for 8-12 hours a day?
If it was consumer focused, this feature would be advertised as a selling point on cell phones. Turns out it's not for several reasons. One is that, in my opinion, commercial radio sucks.
But this is slashdot. Queue up the "my iRiver is better than an iPod because it has an FM tuner" in 3...2...1...
I'd like to do that too, but the different sites sometimes don't allow you. For example, my online classes require a number, but special characters are not allowed. My bank requires THREE numbers and 1 special character. My utility company requires 2 special and 2 numbers....it's harder just remembering the rules of the various sites than it is the password itself!
Not even allowed to bring a stick in the building, regardless if it has software on it or not. What makes that rule extraordinarily stupid is that we all have cell phones, and I even charge mine off the USB port. But hey, I'm not using an illegal USB stick!
Mod you up a million. How many people start with an uppercase letter and put 1! at the end of every password just to make sure they have at least 1 number and 1 special character?
I'll give it a look (for the house). I can't use that at work, which is where I have about 18 different accounts, each with seemingly different password requirements.
Hi I'm Random Joe on slashdot, and I know MORE about vehicle suspension than those fine engineers at BMW!
Yes, I like how some of the most respected automotive engineers are ridiculed on slashdot as "snake oil" salesmen. As if the engineers have ANYTHING at all to do with sales.
Well, like everything engineering, there are tradeoffs. NASCAR guys usually increase negative camber the steeper the track is banked in the corners. But some tracks that are the steepest banked, also have the longest straightaways (Talladega, for example), so gains made in the turns are lost in straight line speed. Of course, straight line speed loss is countered by other things (like drafting). And then there are tracks like Darlington/Pocono/Richmond, et. al. with completely asymmetrical ends requiring a compromise in the setup.
Sofa-on-wheels won't go away until we stop buying American cars. No, seriously. Aside from a few nice Ford products of UK heritage, GM and Chrysler make big fluffy cloud cars, mostly because people here keep buying them.
Nothing has to apply in real life. However, cognitive studies show that being able to apply something you are learning to real life improves cognition. This is especially true for adolescents trying to learn difficult concepts like trig or calculus.
Some people teach or learn better in constructivist or behaviorist models, but I prefer cognitive learning models.
Intellectual training is great...for students who are intellectual. For the majority of students, that's a waste of time, however.
Wait, no! You see, we actually agree! My entire point is that you should only be arrested for drunk driving when you are: 1) drunk, and 2) driving. Not when you've had 2 beers and are driving, not when your BAC is some arbitrary level set by cops, but when your driving is impaired enough by alcohol that you become a hazard to those around you.
My whole point is that 2 beers shouldn't be the definition of "legally drunk". I in NO WAY condone driving while intoxicated. I do, however, condone having a beer or two with your buddies over a meal then driving home.
How can you think that BAC rates are not arbitrary when different jurisdictions have different allowable BAC levels? Why are you drunk in some states at.08, but not until.1 in others? It is also arbitrary because different people are affected differently when they have the same BAC levels. According to your linked chart, why don't we make it illegal to drive at.05 BAC, since there's obviously more risk than.00 BAC? See, it's all arbitrary.
Don't get me wrong, I am not sticking up for any drunk drivers out there. I've never driven drunk, nor do I hang out with people who get arrested for drunk driving. I merely question the legal definition and posit that it, like most things law-enforcement, is set artificially low in the name of public safety and revenue generation.
RIDICULING stewbacca for an offense he didn't commit IS libel/slander. You can't call me a child molester or a drunk driver until I'm convicted as such.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the problem with most criticisms of Adobe products. People who aren't designers don't use them they way they were intended to be used. It's like watching a novice carpenter complain that his saw is an awful hammer.
You can use Flash for non-web delivered content. That's another reason that the death of Flash is conflated. People don't understand all of its uses. It's not just for making dumb games, non-compliant web pages, and bad adverts. It's also used for sophisticated simulations and software training, for example, usually delivered in a training package of stand alone content via a learning management system.
Flash isn't going away. It is the primary tool for highly interactive software simulation and training development. It's also the de facto standard output for rapid e-learning development tools. People without any programming skills can turn screen captures into interactive training. The tools that do this prefer .swf output because the tweening allows for small file sizes and realistic simulation of screen activity (without requiring full motion video). It also allows for customization after the fact in Flash.
The other reason it isn't going away is because it will most likely produce HTML5 compliant output in future versions.
I use all the Adobe tools (production suite and creative sweet at work). Illustrator is one of their finest. Perhaps you were thinking of Premiere Pro (on a windows box) or perhaps Robohelp (worst program ever)?
The problem with Adobe is that most of their software was acquired from other vendors and they've been scrambling to make them all "adobe-like".
Flash - macromedia
Illustrator - Aldus
Dreamweaver - macromedia (and before that GoLive acquired from GoLive's "cyberstudio"
Robohelp - Blue sky (or something)
Framemaker - aldus?
In any case, Photoshop is their finest work, and it's theirs. They've tried to make other programs act like Photoshop when they don't need to, or can't. Having different key combos for the same action can be frustrating to new users, but unifying them would be frustrating to existing users. It's a tough balance.
Not to be rude, but I find those people who don't understand a staple feature like "adjustment layers" are the same people who rip Adobe products, unjustly.
The main problem with Adobe products right now is trying to get them all standardized. They work very nicely together, but since most of them all came from the purchase of other companies, it has taken Adobe a long time to unify them (with more work to go).
Premiere + After Effects + Photoshop + Illustrator + Dreamweaver is a fine production combination. Sure, you can piece together a whole bunch of the best things from multiple other vendors, but you aren't going to have the nice workflow like you get with the above.
User interface design is not a science, you say? Is that why the University of Texas (and pretty much every other state college in America) grants a BS/MS in Information Science for people who study UI design?
Don't confuse artsy flash designer guy with an engineer of human interface design. Those are two very different skill sets.
As a training development manager for a software company, I can tell you that you've described a gap in training. There's nothing inherently wrong with your assumptions or design, other than the users need training.
If your interfaces were non-standard, but you assumed that they were 'easy to figure out' but then your crowd couldn't, then yeah, you are to blame. In this case, though, you've described the text-book "training deficiency" needs analysis.
If you are testing your own code, you're doing it wrong.
You said it best:
It is so boring and un-stimulating that I usually skip it entirely, pass the testing off to someone else...
My work has an entire department of software test engineers, many of whom can't write a line of code (non-automated testing, obviously). The best testers we have are the ones who think like users and aren't biased by their inner-geekness.
I'm pretty sure authors don't proof their own work, so why would it be different for people who write thousands of lines of hard to read text on a computer screen for 8-12 hours a day?
If it was consumer focused, this feature would be advertised as a selling point on cell phones. Turns out it's not for several reasons. One is that, in my opinion, commercial radio sucks.
But this is slashdot. Queue up the "my iRiver is better than an iPod because it has an FM tuner" in 3...2...1...
I'd like to do that too, but the different sites sometimes don't allow you. For example, my online classes require a number, but special characters are not allowed. My bank requires THREE numbers and 1 special character. My utility company requires 2 special and 2 numbers....it's harder just remembering the rules of the various sites than it is the password itself!
Not even allowed to bring a stick in the building, regardless if it has software on it or not. What makes that rule extraordinarily stupid is that we all have cell phones, and I even charge mine off the USB port. But hey, I'm not using an illegal USB stick!
Mod you up a million. How many people start with an uppercase letter and put 1! at the end of every password just to make sure they have at least 1 number and 1 special character?
Sounds just like Army Knowledge Online (AKO).
I'll give it a look (for the house). I can't use that at work, which is where I have about 18 different accounts, each with seemingly different password requirements.
I'd use the same password for everything if they all had the same basic requirements.
Hi I'm Random Joe on slashdot, and I know MORE about vehicle suspension than those fine engineers at BMW!
Yes, I like how some of the most respected automotive engineers are ridiculed on slashdot as "snake oil" salesmen. As if the engineers have ANYTHING at all to do with sales.
Monday-morning engineering at its finest!
Well, like everything engineering, there are tradeoffs. NASCAR guys usually increase negative camber the steeper the track is banked in the corners. But some tracks that are the steepest banked, also have the longest straightaways (Talladega, for example), so gains made in the turns are lost in straight line speed. Of course, straight line speed loss is countered by other things (like drafting). And then there are tracks like Darlington/Pocono/Richmond, et. al. with completely asymmetrical ends requiring a compromise in the setup.
Which is also why you never see 600+ mph cars turning, or stopping using anything short of parachutes.
Sofa-on-wheels won't go away until we stop buying American cars. No, seriously. Aside from a few nice Ford products of UK heritage, GM and Chrysler make big fluffy cloud cars, mostly because people here keep buying them.
Nothing has to apply in real life. However, cognitive studies show that being able to apply something you are learning to real life improves cognition. This is especially true for adolescents trying to learn difficult concepts like trig or calculus.
Some people teach or learn better in constructivist or behaviorist models, but I prefer cognitive learning models.
Intellectual training is great...for students who are intellectual. For the majority of students, that's a waste of time, however.
is that at me or at maillemaker? In either case, neither of us are trolling, as far as I can tell.
Wait, no! You see, we actually agree! My entire point is that you should only be arrested for drunk driving when you are: 1) drunk, and 2) driving. Not when you've had 2 beers and are driving, not when your BAC is some arbitrary level set by cops, but when your driving is impaired enough by alcohol that you become a hazard to those around you.
My whole point is that 2 beers shouldn't be the definition of "legally drunk". I in NO WAY condone driving while intoxicated. I do, however, condone having a beer or two with your buddies over a meal then driving home.
How can you think that BAC rates are not arbitrary when different jurisdictions have different allowable BAC levels? Why are you drunk in some states at .08, but not until .1 in others? It is also arbitrary because different people are affected differently when they have the same BAC levels. According to your linked chart, why don't we make it illegal to drive at .05 BAC, since there's obviously more risk than .00 BAC? See, it's all arbitrary.
Don't get me wrong, I am not sticking up for any drunk drivers out there. I've never driven drunk, nor do I hang out with people who get arrested for drunk driving. I merely question the legal definition and posit that it, like most things law-enforcement, is set artificially low in the name of public safety and revenue generation.
So that Joe Blow doesn't become a danger to society?
RIDICULING stewbacca for an offense he didn't commit IS libel/slander. You can't call me a child molester or a drunk driver until I'm convicted as such.