The new "Mail by Nokia" system is hilariously crappy. They want you to give them the logins to your mail accounts, then they retrieve your email. Why would anyone do this?
Probably for the same reason that people let Gmail do this.
The thing is, web design isn't any more complicated than making a good power point presentation.
PowerPoints are not interactive. They share some concepts with web design, but you could also say they share concepts with laying out a newspaper or posting a floor map in a museum: it needs to look nice and be well-organized so that the viewer walks away with the proper information and message. But making a good web site is quite a bit more complicated than making a good PowerPoint, in concept and in actual production of the thing. And in management.
Then again, you didn't say "GOOD web design"... you just said "web design." In that case, carry on.
You could perhaps clarify your title by changing it to 'Interweb producer'?
Yeah, but then I'd lose the opportunity for a stupid duck joke. Although I might be able to replace it with something about Ted Stevens....
I do some freelance work too, and call myself a "web designer" there, even though I can handle the programming and hosting management too. I just have more fun with the design part.
My title is Web Producer. I didn't pick it, and I sometimes introduce the title with a joke about shooting spider webs from my wrists, or making prosthetic webbed feet for ducks who have lost their paddlers in tragic accidents. It's meant to be "web producer" as a role, like "movie producer" or "music producer", but it sounds stupid. Mainly it means I "do HTML" plus a lot of other digital/interactive design stuff (including programming and database work), and I manage other people who do this stuff.
IMO, there is a difference between a "web designer" and a "web developer" -- the former is closer to a graphic designer and focuses on making stuff pretty, while the latter is closer to a programmer and focuses on making stuff work. In big web studios, there are fleets of "web designers" who create interfaces in heavily-layered Photoshop files, and turn them over to "web developers" who convert them into working web interfaces. It lets people focus on a specific aspect of the process. However, I think something is lost in the process... if possible, a web designer ought to understand the power and limitations of HTML/CSS/etc. Maybe I spent too much time in art school, but I liken it to advanced painters who learn how to make their own paint from pigments/oil/etc., or ceramists who can make their own clay from the raw powders. In a similar vein, I think a web designer should know how to mix their raw materials too: pixels, code, etc.
Vista is the current Windows version whether you like it or not and since you don't like it retailers keep selling PCs with XP installed.
You are defining "current" along the lines of Microsoft's development. However, consumers define "current" along the lines of "what can I buy new in the store today"? If XP is installed, and the computer is not marked "used," then how is it not current?
FTA: Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a lawyer for the customers, said Monday the filing was disappointing in light of the Obama presidential campaign's "unceasing criticism of Bush-era secrecy and promise for more transparency."
Well, Obama did criticise Bush's handling of terrorism, but he also said this: "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the [warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity], but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -- and the liberty -- of the American people."
Apparently one of those "necessary steps" is to continue defending the program.
By that logic, nobody should produce or watch any historically-accurate war-related movies. Why is it OK to kill historically-suggested fictional characters in real virtual wars, but not OK to kill historically-accurate characters in real virtual wars? Call of Duty [wikipedia.org] must be a crime against humanity.
FTA: "For us, the challenge was how do you present the horrors of war in a game that is also entertaining, but also gives people insight into a historical situation in a way that only a video game can provide? Our goal is to give people that insight, of what it's like to be a Marine during that event, what it's like to be a civilian in the city and what it's like to be an insurgent."... "Our opportunity for giving people insight goes up dramatically when we can present people with the dilemmas and the choices that faced these soldiers... It's a chance to really give them a better understanding and empathy."
Seems like this is more of a "real" first-person-shooter: it's not only based on history, it's actually built with living combatants in mind.
Some folks are going to call it tasteless to "present the horrors of war in a game that is also entertaining," but how is it any less tastless than playing a fictional character in such a game??
few things on our planet can resist us, so hell yes, lets use our power to change this rock to a better place for us.
And that is totally valid.
Just don't try to pretend that "saving" the environment is "good" for the planet. Really, we are trying to save our place on the planet. It is selfish. Let's stop pretending that environmentalism is somehow benevolent just because it fits our idea of what we think would be best for the planet.
'Natural' doesn't equate to "OK". If mean sea levels are rising, and continue to rise to the point that a significant fraction of the human population is put at risk and a significant fraction of international economy is put at risk, it's still a problem.
From a purely evolutionary perspective, it really does equate to "OK." The universe changes. Organisms die. Others survive. Get over it. It's only bad if you really think humans are a special part of the universe, rather than what they really are: just one little tiny product of an infinitely random spectacle.
"Hey baby, check out my new touch-sensitive digital pants. Let me see if you're wearing one of those touch-sensitive shirts..." (SLAP!) "OK, I guess it's VERY touch sensitive..."
FYI: the Guardian.co.uk site claims to get more than 25 million unique visitors each month, for a total of 228 million page views (or "impressions"). Or maybe it's 14 million unique visitors and 94 million page views -- that page has charts which claim both sets of numbers. Maybe if they could decide exactly how many people visited their site, they could find ways of maximize revenue.
If you were a frequent Guardian reader, could you pay a small fee to have an ad-free interface?
If the New York Times or your local paper are going out of busienss because you and I are finding our news on Google News then either we should pay or Google should pay.
I'd agree, except that Google does not actually produce news, or even reprint other people's articles. "Finding our news on Google News" means that we are being directed to the New York Times or your local paper. Those papers BENEFIT from Google's links.
There aren't even any advertisements on Google News. The Guardian seems to have at least two big ads on every article page (though, thankfully, not the home page).
So, the money quote from the Guardian's statement is this: "The argument has traditionally been that search engines and aggregators provide players like guardian.co.uk with traffic in return for the use of our content, and this is enough to make the relationship symbiotic and equal.... However, there is a vast over-supply in the market of advertising inventory, and yields have come under severe downward pressure. As a result, the value of the traffic generated by search engines and aggregators has reduced significantly."
In other words, if Google stopped sending traffic to the Guardian's web site, their ad revenue would go up!
Err... wait.
Did anybody think this through before going public?
Ah, yes! They want to explore "new models" that "require fair acknowledgement of the value that our content creates, both on our own site (through advertising) and 'at the edges' in the world of search and aggregation." In other words, they want to tell another company, which offers a free service, how to run that free service, so it better supports their ad-driven service! OK, that makes much more sense.
In a visual-based puzzle game like Bejeweled (or any of the zillion color-matching games out there) all the game pieces are already high contrast. You see a field of 5 or 6 different colored pieces, not thousands or millions of colors, like most modern FPS games provide. Hence, the game doesn't train you to look for the small contrast differences.
So... you're saying they should make a super-low-contrast version of Bejeweled and it might have a related effect on vision?
Slashdot Mirror
The new "Mail by Nokia" system is hilariously crappy. They want you to give them the logins to your mail accounts, then they retrieve your email. Why would anyone do this?
Probably for the same reason that people let Gmail do this.
I took some brakes for the toilet
Incidentally, how fast were you going on the toilet?
How long did it take them to come up with the acronym "Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill"?
The thing is, web design isn't any more complicated than making a good power point presentation.
PowerPoints are not interactive. They share some concepts with web design, but you could also say they share concepts with laying out a newspaper or posting a floor map in a museum: it needs to look nice and be well-organized so that the viewer walks away with the proper information and message. But making a good web site is quite a bit more complicated than making a good PowerPoint, in concept and in actual production of the thing. And in management.
Then again, you didn't say "GOOD web design"... you just said "web design." In that case, carry on.
You could perhaps clarify your title by changing it to 'Interweb producer'?
Yeah, but then I'd lose the opportunity for a stupid duck joke. Although I might be able to replace it with something about Ted Stevens....
I do some freelance work too, and call myself a "web designer" there, even though I can handle the programming and hosting management too. I just have more fun with the design part.
My title is Web Producer. I didn't pick it, and I sometimes introduce the title with a joke about shooting spider webs from my wrists, or making prosthetic webbed feet for ducks who have lost their paddlers in tragic accidents. It's meant to be "web producer" as a role, like "movie producer" or "music producer", but it sounds stupid. Mainly it means I "do HTML" plus a lot of other digital/interactive design stuff (including programming and database work), and I manage other people who do this stuff.
IMO, there is a difference between a "web designer" and a "web developer" -- the former is closer to a graphic designer and focuses on making stuff pretty, while the latter is closer to a programmer and focuses on making stuff work. In big web studios, there are fleets of "web designers" who create interfaces in heavily-layered Photoshop files, and turn them over to "web developers" who convert them into working web interfaces. It lets people focus on a specific aspect of the process. However, I think something is lost in the process... if possible, a web designer ought to understand the power and limitations of HTML/CSS/etc. Maybe I spent too much time in art school, but I liken it to advanced painters who learn how to make their own paint from pigments/oil/etc., or ceramists who can make their own clay from the raw powders. In a similar vein, I think a web designer should know how to mix their raw materials too: pixels, code, etc.
That's my ideal, anyway.
Vista is the current Windows version whether you like it or not and since you don't like it retailers keep selling PCs with XP installed.
You are defining "current" along the lines of Microsoft's development. However, consumers define "current" along the lines of "what can I buy new in the store today"? If XP is installed, and the computer is not marked "used," then how is it not current?
FTA: Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a lawyer for the customers, said Monday the filing was disappointing in light of the Obama presidential campaign's "unceasing criticism of Bush-era secrecy and promise for more transparency."
Well, Obama did criticise Bush's handling of terrorism, but he also said this: "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the [warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity], but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -- and the liberty -- of the American people."
Apparently one of those "necessary steps" is to continue defending the program.
Blast, I ruined that comment. Retake:
By that logic, nobody should produce or watch any historically-accurate war-related movies. Why is it OK to kill historically-suggested fictional characters in real virtual wars, but not OK to kill historically-accurate characters in real virtual wars? Call of Duty [wikipedia.org] must be a crime against humanity.
By that logic, nobody should produce or watch any war-related movies -- and Call of Duty is a crime against humanity.
FTA: "For us, the challenge was how do you present the horrors of war in a game that is also entertaining, but also gives people insight into a historical situation in a way that only a video game can provide? Our goal is to give people that insight, of what it's like to be a Marine during that event, what it's like to be a civilian in the city and what it's like to be an insurgent." ... "Our opportunity for giving people insight goes up dramatically when we can present people with the dilemmas and the choices that faced these soldiers... It's a chance to really give them a better understanding and empathy."
Seems like this is more of a "real" first-person-shooter: it's not only based on history, it's actually built with living combatants in mind.
Some folks are going to call it tasteless to "present the horrors of war in a game that is also entertaining," but how is it any less tastless than playing a fictional character in such a game??
You'll notice that major bookstores don't sell used books, only new ones.
...and you'll notice that major bookstores are a dying breed.
Well, there were a couple of problems with the submission...
Sorry about that. Badly summarized, I admit.
few things on our planet can resist us, so hell yes, lets use our power to change this rock to a better place for us.
And that is totally valid.
Just don't try to pretend that "saving" the environment is "good" for the planet. Really, we are trying to save our place on the planet. It is selfish. Let's stop pretending that environmentalism is somehow benevolent just because it fits our idea of what we think would be best for the planet.
'Natural' doesn't equate to "OK". If mean sea levels are rising, and continue to rise to the point that a significant fraction of the human population is put at risk and a significant fraction of international economy is put at risk, it's still a problem.
From a purely evolutionary perspective, it really does equate to "OK." The universe changes. Organisms die. Others survive. Get over it. It's only bad if you really think humans are a special part of the universe, rather than what they really are: just one little tiny product of an infinitely random spectacle.
Thank you, that was the funniest thing I've read in awhile.
Exactly. Think about clothing...
"Hey baby, check out my new touch-sensitive digital pants. Let me see if you're wearing one of those touch-sensitive shirts..." (SLAP!) "OK, I guess it's VERY touch sensitive..."
FYI: the Guardian.co.uk site claims to get more than 25 million unique visitors each month, for a total of 228 million page views (or "impressions"). Or maybe it's 14 million unique visitors and 94 million page views -- that page has charts which claim both sets of numbers. Maybe if they could decide exactly how many people visited their site, they could find ways of maximize revenue.
If you were a frequent Guardian reader, could you pay a small fee to have an ad-free interface?
If the New York Times or your local paper are going out of busienss because you and I are finding our news on Google News then either we should pay or Google should pay.
I'd agree, except that Google does not actually produce news, or even reprint other people's articles. "Finding our news on Google News" means that we are being directed to the New York Times or your local paper. Those papers BENEFIT from Google's links.
There aren't even any advertisements on Google News. The Guardian seems to have at least two big ads on every article page (though, thankfully, not the home page).
So, the money quote from the Guardian's statement is this: "The argument has traditionally been that search engines and aggregators provide players like guardian.co.uk with traffic in return for the use of our content, and this is enough to make the relationship symbiotic and equal.... However, there is a vast over-supply in the market of advertising inventory, and yields have come under severe downward pressure. As a result, the value of the traffic generated by search engines and aggregators has reduced significantly."
In other words, if Google stopped sending traffic to the Guardian's web site, their ad revenue would go up!
Err... wait.
Did anybody think this through before going public?
Ah, yes! They want to explore "new models" that "require fair acknowledgement of the value that our content creates, both on our own site (through advertising) and 'at the edges' in the world of search and aggregation." In other words, they want to tell another company, which offers a free service, how to run that free service, so it better supports their ad-driven service! OK, that makes much more sense.
Unfortunately, people are idiots
So you're saying kids are idiots? Think of the children! Why do you hate them? Are you a pedophile?
You mean, you'd rather not play at all, then get paid to play Sims?
So... you're saying they should make a super-low-contrast version of Bejeweled and it might have a related effect on vision?
If I had done it, I'd probably still be sharing a cell with Bubba.
"still"?
How is Bubba doing these days, anyway?
I prefer this report, which says a lot more than the Wall Street Journal.