It’s a balance any designer with a brief to design an effective, engaging experience has to strike: “You want people to spend money on your game and you want them to spend time in it, but there comes a point where that can become detrimental to what’s good for them and what’s healthy for them.”
If you're wondering whether or not your UI is good or bad for the user's mental health, the problem is that your design has already gone off the rails and into unethical territory.
You're not designing a UI to be good or effective, you're designing it to be manipulative. Worrying about whether that manipulation is good or bad for your users is merely distracting you from the root problem.
This thing called human nature means that yes, it absolutely does.
This thing called empirical evidence says no, it doesn't. At least, it hasn't done so in subcommunities that have tried it.
The reason that there is a greater amount of abuse online than in person has nothing to do with anonymity. It's because you're interacting with a machine rather than with anything resembling a person. Our monkey brains have real trouble internalizing that the text-on-screen we're interacting with is actually, really, truly, a human being.
Musk is a visionary in every sense of the word. The thing about being a visionary is that its a double-edged sword.
Visionaries tend to completely buy into really crazy notions that are usually completely wrong. But, every so often, one of their crazy notions turns out to be right.
Look, a polar bear or a shark are not "intelligent" in the sense we think of intelligence
They aren't?? How are you defining "intelligence"?
This, by the way, is the primary reason why discussions about AI are primarily navel-gazing exercises: we haven't even defined what "intelligence" actually is -- and not for a lack of trying.
Expert opinions only carry more weight than the average Joe's opinion when they are speaking on the topics that they are experts in.
Musk and Hawking are not experts in AI, and their opinion is roughly as weighty as any other intelligent layman. Which is to say, not very weighty.
If you want meaningful opinions on physics, then it's hard to do better than Hawkings. If you want meaningful opinions on AI, you should talk to the AI guys.
The point I was trying to make was not BS. It was that there is a great demand for software engineers if you look at organizations that are not software engineering companies, and are not in the usual places people think of (Silicon Valley, Seattle, etc.)
I am contractually restrained from giving specific details about the specific companies I am familiar with, but it would be pointless anyway. I've given plenty of useful guideposts for seeking these jobs out: look off the beaten path, be willing to relocate, and inquire with reputable placement agencies. If you do the latter, be sure to tell them that you're willing to work outside of urban areas. They generally have problems finding qualified engineers willing to work outside of cities and would be thrilled to know that you are.
If that's not enough to get you going, and you need a direct job lead from a stranger on the internet, then perhaps your first step should be to refine your job-hunting skills.
That's not what I was referring to as a "con job".
The con job is that EME is being sold as if it's eliminating plugins or the need to run proprietary software in order to do streaming. It actually does neither.
But, to the points you made, I would argue that it does nothing to "keep the PC relevant". This is only about HTML. It is, indeed, an attempt to further the idea that the browser should be your one stop for all things online -- but that's a goal that I think is highly misguided to begin with.
Adding this to HTML does not impact the ability to stream media on desktops one way or the other. It's only about doing so within a browser -- and even within the browser, it's not necessary to accomplish the goal of steaming media.
I'm actually not sure what benefit it brings to users at all. It looks to me like it only brings risk and cost. The benefits for major corporations are obvious, though.
Now that big telecom got its ugly mitts on it, you have to pay a minimum of 50.00 a month for a connection.
Back around 1990, I was paying $30/mo to access the internet. In today's dollars, that's about $60. If you can get internet service for $50, you're spending less than I was back then.
But most of the people visiting my house just use the open wifi anyhow -- no configuration is needed for that at all. The only ones who need certs are the ones who need to interact with my servers, and that's a tiny number of people, all of whom are technically proficient.
My main problem with Ubuntu is that I find it very difficult to make it work properly on several of my machines. I also dislike Ubuntu's choices for settings and default apps, so I end up having to spend a lot of time rejigging Ubuntu installs to make them usable for me, and even then I tend to have stability issues.
I generally use vanilla Debian, since that nearly always works acceptably "out of the box".
We've gone far past diminishing returns for screens.
Yes. The real underlying issue is that phones are commodity objects now. Within a given price point, all phones are functionally pretty much the same as all other phones.
So the only thing left to compete on is the stupid, barely meaningful stuff.
Frankly I could give a shit about how pretty the iPhone looks. I'd gladly swap out the expensive industrial design to save money.
Me too, emphatically. But all that means is that I'm not in the market that Apple is wanting to target.
I think what they have done with the status bar is a decent design decision.
My problem with it is that it reduces the size of the notification bar by half, and then cuts that half in half again. This seriously reduces the utility of the bar, as well as simply looking bad.
Judging by the design decisions being made in the computer industry over the last few years, there seems to be an awful lot of designers who think that bad design is the hallmark of good design. It's the curse of the UX crowd.
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA:
It’s a balance any designer with a brief to design an effective, engaging experience has to strike: “You want people to spend money on your game and you want them to spend time in it, but there comes a point where that can become detrimental to what’s good for them and what’s healthy for them.”
If you're wondering whether or not your UI is good or bad for the user's mental health, the problem is that your design has already gone off the rails and into unethical territory.
You're not designing a UI to be good or effective, you're designing it to be manipulative. Worrying about whether that manipulation is good or bad for your users is merely distracting you from the root problem.
Who else is one doing design for?
In an ever-increasing amount of software, the impression that I get is that the interface was designed for the designer. Certainly not for the user.
Didn't improve my productivity over the old tool-bars (except where they fixed bugs).
The ribbon is a great example of truly terrible UI design. It didn't improve my productivity, it decreased it. To this day, it remains a speed bump.
I wouldn't mind more user-friendly design in the current day.
In my book, a perfectly designed UI is one that lets me do what I want to do without me noticing the UI at all.
Note that this isn't an endorsement of the current trend of "minimalism" -- which largely accomplishes the opposite of remaining invisible.
This thing called human nature means that yes, it absolutely does.
This thing called empirical evidence says no, it doesn't. At least, it hasn't done so in subcommunities that have tried it.
The reason that there is a greater amount of abuse online than in person has nothing to do with anonymity. It's because you're interacting with a machine rather than with anything resembling a person. Our monkey brains have real trouble internalizing that the text-on-screen we're interacting with is actually, really, truly, a human being.
Musk is a visionary in every sense of the word. The thing about being a visionary is that its a double-edged sword.
Visionaries tend to completely buy into really crazy notions that are usually completely wrong. But, every so often, one of their crazy notions turns out to be right.
I fail to see how trying to be cautious about something makes it irresponsible.
It doesn't. However, exaggerating the danger of something is.
Look, a polar bear or a shark are not "intelligent" in the sense we think of intelligence
They aren't?? How are you defining "intelligence"?
This, by the way, is the primary reason why discussions about AI are primarily navel-gazing exercises: we haven't even defined what "intelligence" actually is -- and not for a lack of trying.
Expert opinions only carry more weight than the average Joe's opinion when they are speaking on the topics that they are experts in.
Musk and Hawking are not experts in AI, and their opinion is roughly as weighty as any other intelligent layman. Which is to say, not very weighty.
If you want meaningful opinions on physics, then it's hard to do better than Hawkings. If you want meaningful opinions on AI, you should talk to the AI guys.
The point I was trying to make was not BS. It was that there is a great demand for software engineers if you look at organizations that are not software engineering companies, and are not in the usual places people think of (Silicon Valley, Seattle, etc.)
I am contractually restrained from giving specific details about the specific companies I am familiar with, but it would be pointless anyway. I've given plenty of useful guideposts for seeking these jobs out: look off the beaten path, be willing to relocate, and inquire with reputable placement agencies. If you do the latter, be sure to tell them that you're willing to work outside of urban areas. They generally have problems finding qualified engineers willing to work outside of cities and would be thrilled to know that you are.
If that's not enough to get you going, and you need a direct job lead from a stranger on the internet, then perhaps your first step should be to refine your job-hunting skills.
That's not what I was referring to as a "con job".
The con job is that EME is being sold as if it's eliminating plugins or the need to run proprietary software in order to do streaming. It actually does neither.
But, to the points you made, I would argue that it does nothing to "keep the PC relevant". This is only about HTML. It is, indeed, an attempt to further the idea that the browser should be your one stop for all things online -- but that's a goal that I think is highly misguided to begin with.
Adding this to HTML does not impact the ability to stream media on desktops one way or the other. It's only about doing so within a browser -- and even within the browser, it's not necessary to accomplish the goal of steaming media.
I'm actually not sure what benefit it brings to users at all. It looks to me like it only brings risk and cost. The benefits for major corporations are obvious, though.
Now that big telecom got its ugly mitts on it, you have to pay a minimum of 50.00 a month for a connection.
Back around 1990, I was paying $30/mo to access the internet. In today's dollars, that's about $60. If you can get internet service for $50, you're spending less than I was back then.
The internet started sucking when it became big business, when it became "serious," when it was somehow important to trust it.
This.
Commercialization of the internet transformed internet culture into something very different, and worse.
While yes it would be a good thing to prevent bullying
Removing anonymity does not reduce the amount of abuse online.
It's never been any trouble for me.
But most of the people visiting my house just use the open wifi anyhow -- no configuration is needed for that at all. The only ones who need certs are the ones who need to interact with my servers, and that's a tiny number of people, all of whom are technically proficient.
I never hear anyone call them iSheep or mindless fanbois.
You are very lucky to have managed to avoid the generation-spanning flamewar between the Ford fanboys and the Chevy fanboys!
My main problem with Ubuntu is that I find it very difficult to make it work properly on several of my machines. I also dislike Ubuntu's choices for settings and default apps, so I end up having to spend a lot of time rejigging Ubuntu installs to make them usable for me, and even then I tend to have stability issues.
I generally use vanilla Debian, since that nearly always works acceptably "out of the box".
And why should we care?
I care about this for the same reason I care about the headphone jack: I fear that other manufacturers will copy this shit from Apple.
You get the big top bezel no matter what. The only question is whether or not the top edge of the display is cut in half by the bezel.
Don't judge all of Linux by Ubuntu. Personally, I think Ubuntu is not a good distro at all.
We've gone far past diminishing returns for screens.
Yes. The real underlying issue is that phones are commodity objects now. Within a given price point, all phones are functionally pretty much the same as all other phones.
So the only thing left to compete on is the stupid, barely meaningful stuff.
Frankly I could give a shit about how pretty the iPhone looks. I'd gladly swap out the expensive industrial design to save money.
Me too, emphatically. But all that means is that I'm not in the market that Apple is wanting to target.
The article is very much gushing.
"Gushing" doesn't mean, or even imply, that the facts stated are incorrect. It means that the facts are presented with a certain editorial tone.
I think what they have done with the status bar is a decent design decision.
My problem with it is that it reduces the size of the notification bar by half, and then cuts that half in half again. This seriously reduces the utility of the bar, as well as simply looking bad.
Removing the headphone jack is about waterproofing.
Why couldn't Apple figure out how to make a waterproof device with a headphone jack? Other devices have been managing it for years.
Judging by the design decisions being made in the computer industry over the last few years, there seems to be an awful lot of designers who think that bad design is the hallmark of good design. It's the curse of the UX crowd.