If you want to dumb everything down and remove configurability until nothing scares the 'layman' we might as well just abolish anything that isn't branded Gerber or Fisher Price.
That's why I'm a fan of having multiple applications for doing the same thing, one per target user group. VLC might be the app for computer enthusiasts, and something like QuickTime Player X might be the app for laypeople (QuickTime Player X doesn't even have preferences). Of course that's more work for the developers, but every one can get a usable product.
Note however, that the size of these groups becomes smaller and smaller, the more sophisticated the required knowledge becomes. That's why most companies aim low.
What's the motivation for implementing features that are never used, because they're hidden deep down where they can't be found? They only take up precious development time.
I hope you're not saying that IT people think "more features being better unconditionally", because sane programmers absolutely do NOT believe that
No, I'm just saying that this is the old thinking construct in IT. However, I'm pretty sure that many IT folks would add feature after feature if it weren't for time/money constraints or laziness, thinking that it'd improve the product.
If the options menu had a search feature (like Windows 7's Start menu) then it would be easy to find, wouldn't it?
Yes, as long as the name of that option is known (which isn't a given in general. For example, how's the feature called for removing the black bars of a video?), but in my observations, laypeople aren't that good in filtering out nonrelevant information. They see everything at once, get scared, declare that they don't know how to do it not even noticing that search field there and cry for help (or switch to a simpler application if they're a bit above the norm).
In order to use anything (hardware, software, people, whatever), the user has to have a mental model of the behavior. It doesn't have to describe how the object really works, but it has to be good enough to make predictions of the outcome of the interaction the user is doing. If the object behaves differently to the expectation, or demonstrates that it does more than that, people either have to reconstruct an improved mental model (which takes time they don't want to invest, and could potentially fail), or they give up.
But with computers we can get all the upsides of more features with none of the downsides (at least in software), so it makes no sense. It's like putting less books in a library if you had practically unlimited space and low fetch time.
It's not quite so much of a difference between hardware and software as you think. For example, take a look at the VLC preferences. Note that "advanced options" is unchecked there, the list would actually be longer. Now suppose a layperson would like to set up a HTTP proxy, because their network requires one (note that 99% of the human population would even fail to understand it this far). Where can that be found? It's in Input / Codecs -> Access modules -> HTTP(S) -> HTTP proxy. No way in hell would a layperson be able to find that, and not only because of the techy nomenclature, also because it's way too deep down in the list.
Why are there so many options there? Because vlc implements everything, including the kitchen sink, and so the users are burdened with the task of picking out the set of features they actually want to use. It's comparable to a device with thousands of buttons. The UI in the image linked here requires multiple years of training, which most users don't want to do just for watching a video or listening to internet radio.
You know, this seems like the standard corporate-bashing, 'you're not an IT-guy like me, you'll never 'get it', knee-jerk response...
Oh, but most IT-guys don't get it either. Computing has become mainstream, and it's hard to give up old thinking constructs (like more features being better unconditionally).
The issue with Android is that it doesn't give you an edge over your competition, because the competition is either Apple or some other Android-using company.
For CEOs who decide company policy only by statistics and reports, that looks very bad.
Aerial navigation in WWII barely worked. Bombers routinely had trouble finding their targets.
Yeah. I'm living in a former warzone of WW2 (which isn't that hard to find in Europe), and there are still multiple WW2-bombs found buried in the ground every year here (mentioned in the news every time, because it requires calling a bomb squad), spread all over the country with no apparent pattern. The train station I'm living next to was bombed to dust back then, apparently because it looked like a military target. The small house my parents own now got bombed, the only notable landmark in that area is a large cemetery.
But for that, you'd need communications hardware on the nanobot, which would increase its size significantly. Of course it would be easier to do, de/encoding DNA is equally complicated and thus done by trail-and-error right now.
That's awfully close to how DNA works... Every single nanobot would need to have an algorithmic description of the construction plan of the target device and would need to know how to replicate itself (mitosis). In the end, the bots wouldn't construct the device, they would be the device.
The point back then was to reestablish customer/developer confidence in the platform. The money itself wasn't the point, the point was to tell them that Apple won't go under next week, so it's still ok to buy things from them and develop for their platform. It worked very well, most likely much better than Microsoft had hoped.
The only one where that's true on your list is Keynote:
OSX is a consumer-focused system, while Windows 7 is an enterprise-focused system (that will change with Windows 8, though).
Pages is a basic text layouting application (like Indesign/XPress, but much simpler), Microsoft Word is a professional text processor (like LaTeX).
Numbers is an application for putting numbers in a grid, adding them up and layouting a report with a very limited set of visual representation options, Microsoft Excel is a professional statistics calculation software.
Some people have been using Microsoft's tools for the wrong things, that's why there are so many complaints about their usability. But their target markets as the companies see them is different.
Those aren't the same people. It looks to me like the diplomats of the US embassy are more on the intelligent side compared to the MPAA decision makers.
I just wonder how well Cook is gonna be able to break balls and steer the ship, because from everything I've read he has been more of a supply chain guy.
I think Jonathan Ive is more likely to keep the creative ball going (as he's already been doing for years). He doesn't have to be the CEO in order to do that.
makes the shading on them look different, so it's not all wasted vertices(well, depending on how they calculate the shading).
Uh, nope. Tessellation changes the vertices, while shading is done in the fragment/pixel shader. Those are different stages in the pipeline. The graphics card automatically does linear interpolation of positions, normals, UVs, etc. between the vertices, which is what you want in all cases that I'm aware of.
Your modeller probably has the most basic material applied (for performance), maybe even Gouraud shading, so that's not really a good reference. CryEngine3 uses highly advanced shaders, where things like vertex-independent highlights are a trivial matter.
And that's not even considering the taxes these now highly profitable enterprises (record sales and growth) are returning to the treasury and will be doing so (hopefully) for many years to come.
Considering that large companies don't pay taxes in the US, the direct return on that is probably very low.
I'm not saying that using the oil to build up civilization wasn't the right way to go, I'm saying that it's not the right way for the future, because it's not sustainable.
If there's no progress in moving away from fossil fuel, the earth won't be in a state where our civilization would be possible very soon, so we'd have gained nothing in the long run.
That's a bloody big exception. So what happens if the new technology is not developed at all or even delayed?
Then we're in big trouble.
We just keep on destroying what we have until its gone?
It looks like that's the general plan at the moment. The problem is that on the one hand I'm young enough so I will suffer the consequences of that strategy, but on the other hand too powerless to effect any change. The ones causing the problem right now will mostly have died of old age by then, so they don't care.
While this is true, there's a quickly closing time window where it might be possible to keep that lifestyle while still having a planet to live on, by switching to alternative power sources when they're sufficiently developed.
At one point in the past, stone-based tools allowed humans to improve their lifestyle. As soon as better alternatives were developed, a switch occurred. This isn't any different (except for the irreparable implications of not making the switch soon).
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to dumb everything down and remove configurability until nothing scares the 'layman' we might as well just abolish anything that isn't branded Gerber or Fisher Price.
That's why I'm a fan of having multiple applications for doing the same thing, one per target user group. VLC might be the app for computer enthusiasts, and something like QuickTime Player X might be the app for laypeople (QuickTime Player X doesn't even have preferences). Of course that's more work for the developers, but every one can get a usable product.
Note however, that the size of these groups becomes smaller and smaller, the more sophisticated the required knowledge becomes. That's why most companies aim low.
What's the motivation for implementing features that are never used, because they're hidden deep down where they can't be found? They only take up precious development time.
I hope you're not saying that IT people think "more features being better unconditionally", because sane programmers absolutely do NOT believe that
No, I'm just saying that this is the old thinking construct in IT. However, I'm pretty sure that many IT folks would add feature after feature if it weren't for time/money constraints or laziness, thinking that it'd improve the product.
If the options menu had a search feature (like Windows 7's Start menu) then it would be easy to find, wouldn't it?
Yes, as long as the name of that option is known (which isn't a given in general. For example, how's the feature called for removing the black bars of a video?), but in my observations, laypeople aren't that good in filtering out nonrelevant information. They see everything at once, get scared, declare that they don't know how to do it not even noticing that search field there and cry for help (or switch to a simpler application if they're a bit above the norm).
In order to use anything (hardware, software, people, whatever), the user has to have a mental model of the behavior. It doesn't have to describe how the object really works, but it has to be good enough to make predictions of the outcome of the interaction the user is doing. If the object behaves differently to the expectation, or demonstrates that it does more than that, people either have to reconstruct an improved mental model (which takes time they don't want to invest, and could potentially fail), or they give up.
But with computers we can get all the upsides of more features with none of the downsides (at least in software), so it makes no sense. It's like putting less books in a library if you had practically unlimited space and low fetch time.
It's not quite so much of a difference between hardware and software as you think. For example, take a look at the VLC preferences. Note that "advanced options" is unchecked there, the list would actually be longer. Now suppose a layperson would like to set up a HTTP proxy, because their network requires one (note that 99% of the human population would even fail to understand it this far). Where can that be found? It's in Input / Codecs -> Access modules -> HTTP(S) -> HTTP proxy. No way in hell would a layperson be able to find that, and not only because of the techy nomenclature, also because it's way too deep down in the list.
Why are there so many options there? Because vlc implements everything, including the kitchen sink, and so the users are burdened with the task of picking out the set of features they actually want to use. It's comparable to a device with thousands of buttons. The UI in the image linked here requires multiple years of training, which most users don't want to do just for watching a video or listening to internet radio.
Are you referring to Mojave, where Microsoft proved that Vista is much better than XP? :)
I'm sure those studies help a lot.
You know, this seems like the standard corporate-bashing, 'you're not an IT-guy like me, you'll never 'get it', knee-jerk response...
Oh, but most IT-guys don't get it either. Computing has become mainstream, and it's hard to give up old thinking constructs (like more features being better unconditionally).
Yes, but you can't measure "good UI" in an Excel diagram, thus that's outside the thought space of CEOs.
The issue with Android is that it doesn't give you an edge over your competition, because the competition is either Apple or some other Android-using company.
For CEOs who decide company policy only by statistics and reports, that looks very bad.
Aerial navigation in WWII barely worked. Bombers routinely had trouble finding their targets.
Yeah. I'm living in a former warzone of WW2 (which isn't that hard to find in Europe), and there are still multiple WW2-bombs found buried in the ground every year here (mentioned in the news every time, because it requires calling a bomb squad), spread all over the country with no apparent pattern. The train station I'm living next to was bombed to dust back then, apparently because it looked like a military target. The small house my parents own now got bombed, the only notable landmark in that area is a large cemetery.
Unfortunately, the leaked cables won't help shedding light on this, for obvious reasons.
But for that, you'd need communications hardware on the nanobot, which would increase its size significantly. Of course it would be easier to do, de/encoding DNA is equally complicated and thus done by trail-and-error right now.
That's awfully close to how DNA works... Every single nanobot would need to have an algorithmic description of the construction plan of the target device and would need to know how to replicate itself (mitosis). In the end, the bots wouldn't construct the device, they would be the device.
I didn't want to imply that they're performing equally well, just that they're trying to do the same thing (with a different approach though).
Ok, maybe I should have used "tries to be" instead of "is" ;)
The point back then was to reestablish customer/developer confidence in the platform. The money itself wasn't the point, the point was to tell them that Apple won't go under next week, so it's still ok to buy things from them and develop for their platform. It worked very well, most likely much better than Microsoft had hoped.
The only one where that's true on your list is Keynote:
Some people have been using Microsoft's tools for the wrong things, that's why there are so many complaints about their usability. But their target markets as the companies see them is different.
Those aren't the same people. It looks to me like the diplomats of the US embassy are more on the intelligent side compared to the MPAA decision makers.
I just wonder how well Cook is gonna be able to break balls and steer the ship, because from everything I've read he has been more of a supply chain guy.
I think Jonathan Ive is more likely to keep the creative ball going (as he's already been doing for years). He doesn't have to be the CEO in order to do that.
makes the shading on them look different, so it's not all wasted vertices(well, depending on how they calculate the shading).
Uh, nope. Tessellation changes the vertices, while shading is done in the fragment/pixel shader. Those are different stages in the pipeline. The graphics card automatically does linear interpolation of positions, normals, UVs, etc. between the vertices, which is what you want in all cases that I'm aware of.
Your modeller probably has the most basic material applied (for performance), maybe even Gouraud shading, so that's not really a good reference. CryEngine3 uses highly advanced shaders, where things like vertex-independent highlights are a trivial matter.
And that's not even considering the taxes these now highly profitable enterprises (record sales and growth) are returning to the treasury and will be doing so (hopefully) for many years to come.
Considering that large companies don't pay taxes in the US, the direct return on that is probably very low.
I'm not saying that using the oil to build up civilization wasn't the right way to go, I'm saying that it's not the right way for the future, because it's not sustainable.
If there's no progress in moving away from fossil fuel, the earth won't be in a state where our civilization would be possible very soon, so we'd have gained nothing in the long run.
whoops.
The planet was perfectly habitable a few hundred years ago. It just wasn't as convenient.
That's a bloody big exception. So what happens if the new technology is not developed at all or even delayed?
Then we're in big trouble.
We just keep on destroying what we have until its gone?
It looks like that's the general plan at the moment. The problem is that on the one hand I'm young enough so I will suffer the consequences of that strategy, but on the other hand too powerless to effect any change. The ones causing the problem right now will mostly have died of old age by then, so they don't care.
While this is true, there's a quickly closing time window where it might be possible to keep that lifestyle while still having a planet to live on, by switching to alternative power sources when they're sufficiently developed.
At one point in the past, stone-based tools allowed humans to improve their lifestyle. As soon as better alternatives were developed, a switch occurred. This isn't any different (except for the irreparable implications of not making the switch soon).