think it is amusing to note that there WERE Samsung phones before the iPhone, and there WERE Samsung tablets before the iPad, and you conveniently dismiss the more radical fact that Apple copied tons of elements from existing phones and tablets. Having the phone be one piece and fit in your hand - oooh, too bad that wasn't protected, it was so innovative!
Please mod this up. I am also highly amused by this oversight, and no one seems to ever bring it up.
although certain examples, like sick shrimp running on treadmills, should be an obvious choice for budget cuts...
Why exactly is that obvious? Because it sounds silly? Apparently it didn't actually cost $500k
"The treadmills were just a small part of it, a way to measure how shrimp respond to changes in water quality. Burnett says the first treadmill was built by a colleague from scraps and was basically free, and the second was fancier and cost about $1,000. The senator's report was misleading, says Burnett, "and it suggests that much money was spent on seeing how long a shrimp can run on a treadmill, which was totally out of context." http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139852035/shrimp-on-a-treadmill-the-politics-of-silly-studies
Any benefit from ribbons (which I haven't seen any yet) is lost from me not being able to find stuff.
Having used ribbon office for the last 5 years, I experience the same inability to find things in Open Office or Office 2003. Seems to me that argument is more a function with familiarity than the interface design. It amounts to "I'm familiar with this thing, and I am not familiar with that thing, and therefore that thing is worse in every way."
Look at web browsers and how their interface has become. That sort of thing.
That is a terrible idea. Web browsers are all about displaying content. Word processors are all about creating content. Hiding all the functionality would make it impossible to use. The windows explorer is somewhere in between, but I'd argue there's more file operations going on than otherwise, and hiding all the functionality is not a good idea. If you do want to hide it, just collapse the ribbon.
I am currently working on a Word document that has all the usual bells and whistles: tables, multiple styles, bullets, pictures, drawigs, etc. It is awful.
What kind of work did you do pre-Office 2007? Tables, styles, bibliographics, graphics... all buried in layers and layers of menus. I can preview 10 different styles in Office 2010 without clicking a single button. In 2003 it's 2 clicks for every style. Looking at open office it brings up a little toolbar for editing tables with about 10 options in it. But it's missing a whole lot of functionality I use all the time in Word 2010... where exactly do I find this functionality? Ah maybe the table menu under more layers of menus.
Don't even try to pretend the classic text-based menu is perfectly categorized and anything you need to find is self evident. Let's look at Open Office for instance. Say I want to add a foot note. My options are File | Edit | Insert | Format | Table | Tools | Window | Help. Nothing jumps out at me and screams, "footnote" but maybe I'll try "Insert" since that's the action I want to perform. Ah, there's an option for "Footnote/Endnote"... but not really what I was looking for. Turns out there's a second option for "Footnores/Endnotes" (with an "s") under "Tools".
This tools menu seems to be an odd "Misc" sort of menu. It contains everything from references, to spell checking, to mail wizards, to macros. And then there's that "Table" menu which is always there, even though I hardly am dealing with tables.
The argument "It's hard to find things" does not apply to the ribbon alone. You might think it does because you went through and found everything 10 years ago. But there is as much nonsense going on in a text-based menu. At least with the ribbon it's fully customizable (as of Office 2010).
Further, I don't have to look very far because chances are what I need is within 2 clicks. For example, if I want to set the layout of my page in Open Office to two column, it's 3 clicks (Format->Page->Columns). In Office, it's at most 2. If I'm not satisfied and want to adjust it, in Open Office, it's 2 clicks. For Office it's 1.
Also there is a shortcut for absolutely every function. So no needing to explain "click the icon that sort of looks like..." Just say prest Alt+x+y or whatever the shortcut is.
It also brings many things which were 5+ clicks away to two clicks. Pretty much 80% of the functionality you could need is brought to two clicks. My experience is that because of this, documents from novice type setters are much nicer (correct pagination, styles, footnotes, cross references, bibliography, etc.) simply because they're finding these features (which were always there) and using them.
If there's some option you need so much that two clicks becomes and issue, just pin it to the quick access bar.
There are suggestions for UI design in OSX, but even Apple themselves routinely violate them. There is no more consistency in OSX than there is in Windows.
Really? What are your metrics? Because the link (which I'm guessing you didn't read) provides a convincing argument based on actual user data why the ribbon is a better UI. Let me guess, your argument boils down to "I'm used to doing things a certain way and can't accommodate change in my life."
I think I recall seeing OKC stats on the gender balance. I remember it being fairly equal... now, I don't think they broke it down by age group. Within age brackets it may be skewed.
My theory, at least according to what I've seen on OKC, is that men are generally just more creepy. If you are a woman on the site, and you are even remotely attractive, then you will get tons of messages with no substance. I've seen these first had from the girls I met. Most of them are "hey what's up." Some cut right to the chase along the lines of "I want to do you." Others are more clever and much longer, but obviously form letters. They'll say something like "I read your profile entirely and I think we share some of the same interests" etc, but really offer no specifics. These are usually from older men. Then general though seems to be throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.
However, I found if you are attractive (not to be vain but for the purposes of this discussion it serves to note that I am) AND you write a nice polite or interesting message, you will almost always get a reply. Even from girls who "reply selectively." Actually especially so because these are the more attractive girls who receive more junk mail. But if you aren't attractive you may get a reply but the chances for a date are very slim anyway. This is according to the girls I met on the site.
It started because I read the statistics blog and wanted to try an experiment... I wanted to see if I could land dates by simply doing everything the statistics suggested would work. At first I stuck to what the script, but in the end I realized it's just a matter of not being a creeper. After I actually met some girls in person we had good laughs about the kind of people out there. Looking at the messages, they're all pretty much as creepy as possible, and any remotely cordial message that shows some legitimate interest in the profile will typically get a response.
Online dating can be a lot of fun, especially for people like us who are stuck in male dominated professions. But there's a big gap between people who use online dating because they can't meet anyone, and people who need online dating because they lack any social graces. Unfortunately, it's hard to tell the difference until you meet someone. I've got some pretty awful stories. Also I found the biggest lie people tell is in the pictures they choose. If you're thinking about doing online dating, Skype with the girl first to avoid wasting your time.
Must be the crowd you run in. Most of the people I've seen either don't know what they're doing with them, are going to use it as a basic internet/ebook reader, or are going to flip on ebay/craigslist for $200. A lot of them also seem to be people who never bought an iPad because it was too expensive or never really figured out why they needed one. I expect to see a steady state of these things on ebay for a while to come as soon as people realize they actually don't need the damn things.
Slashdot Mirror
think it is amusing to note that there WERE Samsung phones before the iPhone, and there WERE Samsung tablets before the iPad, and you conveniently dismiss the more radical fact that Apple copied tons of elements from existing phones and tablets. Having the phone be one piece and fit in your hand - oooh, too bad that wasn't protected, it was so innovative!
Please mod this up. I am also highly amused by this oversight, and no one seems to ever bring it up.
Because Apple registered the design in Europe in the mid-90s
Can you be more specific about this? I'm having trouble finding more information on Google.
Noob Saw? http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_426/12498615863939y3.jpg
although certain examples, like sick shrimp running on treadmills, should be an obvious choice for budget cuts...
Why exactly is that obvious? Because it sounds silly? Apparently it didn't actually cost $500k
"The treadmills were just a small part of it, a way to measure how shrimp respond to changes in water quality. Burnett says the first treadmill was built by a colleague from scraps and was basically free, and the second was fancier and cost about $1,000. The senator's report was misleading, says Burnett, "and it suggests that much money was spent on seeing how long a shrimp can run on a treadmill, which was totally out of context." http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139852035/shrimp-on-a-treadmill-the-politics-of-silly-studies
idioms are a bitch
What they're trying, desperately I might add, is to bring developers to Windows, to work on it's platform.
Because Windows is just starving for developers
I'm not for anything else in particular. Love trying new things. Just against Eclipse.
I think you mean "zealous"
Because pydev is for Eclipse and Eclipse makes me want to blow my brains out?
"pull no punches" not "spare no punches"
Any benefit from ribbons (which I haven't seen any yet) is lost from me not being able to find stuff.
Having used ribbon office for the last 5 years, I experience the same inability to find things in Open Office or Office 2003. Seems to me that argument is more a function with familiarity than the interface design. It amounts to "I'm familiar with this thing, and I am not familiar with that thing, and therefore that thing is worse in every way."
Look at web browsers and how their interface has become. That sort of thing.
That is a terrible idea. Web browsers are all about displaying content. Word processors are all about creating content. Hiding all the functionality would make it impossible to use. The windows explorer is somewhere in between, but I'd argue there's more file operations going on than otherwise, and hiding all the functionality is not a good idea. If you do want to hide it, just collapse the ribbon.
I am currently working on a Word document that has all the usual bells and whistles: tables, multiple styles, bullets, pictures, drawigs, etc. It is awful.
What kind of work did you do pre-Office 2007? Tables, styles, bibliographics, graphics... all buried in layers and layers of menus. I can preview 10 different styles in Office 2010 without clicking a single button. In 2003 it's 2 clicks for every style. Looking at open office it brings up a little toolbar for editing tables with about 10 options in it. But it's missing a whole lot of functionality I use all the time in Word 2010... where exactly do I find this functionality? Ah maybe the table menu under more layers of menus.
Don't even try to pretend the classic text-based menu is perfectly categorized and anything you need to find is self evident. Let's look at Open Office for instance. Say I want to add a foot note. My options are File | Edit | Insert | Format | Table | Tools | Window | Help. Nothing jumps out at me and screams, "footnote" but maybe I'll try "Insert" since that's the action I want to perform. Ah, there's an option for "Footnote/Endnote"... but not really what I was looking for. Turns out there's a second option for "Footnores/Endnotes" (with an "s") under "Tools".
This tools menu seems to be an odd "Misc" sort of menu. It contains everything from references, to spell checking, to mail wizards, to macros. And then there's that "Table" menu which is always there, even though I hardly am dealing with tables.
The argument "It's hard to find things" does not apply to the ribbon alone. You might think it does because you went through and found everything 10 years ago. But there is as much nonsense going on in a text-based menu. At least with the ribbon it's fully customizable (as of Office 2010).
Further, I don't have to look very far because chances are what I need is within 2 clicks. For example, if I want to set the layout of my page in Open Office to two column, it's 3 clicks (Format->Page->Columns). In Office, it's at most 2. If I'm not satisfied and want to adjust it, in Open Office, it's 2 clicks. For Office it's 1.
Also there is a shortcut for absolutely every function. So no needing to explain "click the icon that sort of looks like..." Just say prest Alt+x+y or whatever the shortcut is.
Uh, get a bigger monitor? Office 2010 probably cost more than a monitor, so if you can afford that you can afford some more resolution.
It also brings many things which were 5+ clicks away to two clicks. Pretty much 80% of the functionality you could need is brought to two clicks. My experience is that because of this, documents from novice type setters are much nicer (correct pagination, styles, footnotes, cross references, bibliography, etc.) simply because they're finding these features (which were always there) and using them.
If there's some option you need so much that two clicks becomes and issue, just pin it to the quick access bar.
Wait... so you don't even use windows? Why are you even commenting in this story? Ah, trolling of course.
The most streamlined W8 layout would have the ribbon collapsed.
changes that almost everyone hates.
everyone, of course meaning you and the three people in your office you talked to about it, right?
There are suggestions for UI design in OSX, but even Apple themselves routinely violate them. There is no more consistency in OSX than there is in Windows.
Really? What are your metrics? Because the link (which I'm guessing you didn't read) provides a convincing argument based on actual user data why the ribbon is a better UI. Let me guess, your argument boils down to "I'm used to doing things a certain way and can't accommodate change in my life."
This is more to the point. Unless the girl is really into smarts (she's not), if there's no physical attraction what's the point?
I think I recall seeing OKC stats on the gender balance. I remember it being fairly equal... now, I don't think they broke it down by age group. Within age brackets it may be skewed.
My theory, at least according to what I've seen on OKC, is that men are generally just more creepy. If you are a woman on the site, and you are even remotely attractive, then you will get tons of messages with no substance. I've seen these first had from the girls I met. Most of them are "hey what's up." Some cut right to the chase along the lines of "I want to do you." Others are more clever and much longer, but obviously form letters. They'll say something like "I read your profile entirely and I think we share some of the same interests" etc, but really offer no specifics. These are usually from older men. Then general though seems to be throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.
However, I found if you are attractive (not to be vain but for the purposes of this discussion it serves to note that I am) AND you write a nice polite or interesting message, you will almost always get a reply. Even from girls who "reply selectively." Actually especially so because these are the more attractive girls who receive more junk mail. But if you aren't attractive you may get a reply but the chances for a date are very slim anyway. This is according to the girls I met on the site.
It started because I read the statistics blog and wanted to try an experiment... I wanted to see if I could land dates by simply doing everything the statistics suggested would work. At first I stuck to what the script, but in the end I realized it's just a matter of not being a creeper. After I actually met some girls in person we had good laughs about the kind of people out there. Looking at the messages, they're all pretty much as creepy as possible, and any remotely cordial message that shows some legitimate interest in the profile will typically get a response.
Online dating can be a lot of fun, especially for people like us who are stuck in male dominated professions. But there's a big gap between people who use online dating because they can't meet anyone, and people who need online dating because they lack any social graces. Unfortunately, it's hard to tell the difference until you meet someone. I've got some pretty awful stories. Also I found the biggest lie people tell is in the pictures they choose. If you're thinking about doing online dating, Skype with the girl first to avoid wasting your time.
Must be the crowd you run in. Most of the people I've seen either don't know what they're doing with them, are going to use it as a basic internet/ebook reader, or are going to flip on ebay/craigslist for $200. A lot of them also seem to be people who never bought an iPad because it was too expensive or never really figured out why they needed one. I expect to see a steady state of these things on ebay for a while to come as soon as people realize they actually don't need the damn things.