The only way to make something simple is to eliminate choice.
Wow. Once again someone who loves spewing aphorisms. I won't even waste my time ripping that one to shreds.
Here's the real topic: can one computer interface be easier to use than another? If the answer is yes, then there is a need for HCI research. What such-and-such said about so-and-so is irrelevant.
When Steve Jobs was at NeXT, some magazine interviewer asked "What would you do if you were running Apple again?" Steve thought for a minute, and answered "I'd milk it for all it's worth."
And that's what's happening today at Apple. There have been a disturbing number of bait-and-switches under Jobs. Mac OS X 10 vs 10.1, iTools vs.Mac, and now, iApps vs iLife Suite. Money, money, money, money, baby!
Pulling the bait-and-switch is NOT essential to doing business, in fact, it's quite illegal. Apple has already lost a suit with a group of G3 Powerbook users who were similarly deceived (Apple claimed that Mac OS X would be 'optimized for the G3 processor'-what a whopper that was).
Yeah, Apple's not forcing me to buy the latest upgrades. As a matter of fact, they are encouraging me NOT to buy them. Just answer this question: if new and exciting upgrades to the iApps justified the cost of system upgrades before, why isn't the OS X pricing dropping now?
And don't give me this "it's worth 5 times that, easily!" Because it sounds a lot like "punish me harder, Apple! PLEASE!"
Are you kidding me? You don't think think that there's a body of research that goes into HCI?
Back in the day, when this dude worked for Apple, they had HCI research going on all the time. Nowadays at Apple, HCI has been replaced by "ego-driven design." I.E. Steve Jobs thinks brushed metal is cool, so it's taking over Quicktime, then iTunes, now the whole OS.
The point of HCI with regards to an OS is to make very complex tasks as simple and consistent as possible. Stating it's "just a matter of preference" is coming at it from the wrong angle. When it's gotten that high-level, it's beyond the HCI people.
For example, if I asked you "what type of door interface do you prefer-a copper knob or a steel one," unless you were neurotic, you probably wouldn't care. When it gets to that point, it's a matter of aesthetics, which is not really the point of HCI.
The HCI people work so you don't have to think about a doorknob, which one you prefer, or why it's there. They decided to put the doorknob there instead of a large sharp hook. If they went with the hook instead, you'd have to put too much thought into opening the door (watch those fingers) and then it would be an HCI issue.
And the underlying assumption with HCI is: There IS a better way to do something. There might not be a Right with a capital R but there is definitely a wrong and even more wrong way to do everything. The point is improvement, and "It works just fine," is damning by faint praise if I ever heard it.
Now I doubt this article has a body of research behind it, but it's not like the guy hasn't spent 20 years or whatever in his field. I think he's entitled to shoot from the hip about it, and I agree with most of what he says, even if it is too nitpicky. You're right about web pundits focusing too much on the negative and enjoying to point out UI missteps just a little too much.
Hiding it doesn't take away the wasted space. Instead, it pops up and pokes you in the ass when you least expect it.
The only way to deal with the Dock is two monitors, with the Dock on the far left..or at least, the only way for me.
Personally I think they should separate the app launching from the task switching. Put the apps to be launched on a Shelf...where is the shelf...ahhgghh I want shelf.
I'm reading a lot of "that's okay, the apps are great" Mac apology here, and as a Mac user, I gotta say that it's a bad attitude to take.
Personally, I chose a Mac because I demanded more out of a computer. You pay more at the start, you pay more for system upgrades, but you get a machine that does exactly what you tell it (for the most part) and doesn't break for no reason.
I found the "yearly OS upgrade" strategy for Mac OS X pretty suspect. And now that the "iApps" are being pruned from the OS, how could they possibly justify $130 per annum?
Mac users, you don't have to take this. I recommend contacting Apple and telling them exactly how you feel about this. The OS price should drop to $50 if they're going to pull this, or there should be free upgrades to the iApps for at least a few years with the price of system software.
Then again, let's not forget the "chilling effect" that iApps have had on competitors. Safari kills MS internet explorer, iPhoto kills Photoshop Elements, etc...maybe charging for them will open up another window of opportunity for companies other than Apple to produce great Mac software. It seems like it's been awhile...
Personally, I loved PSO when it first came out. No one even came close to doing what Sega did on the console front in early 2001. I played it rampantly for the first few months, enjoying a good mix-it-up with friends both real and online. The combat was simple, but the communication was great, especially the cards you could design.
However, I didn't buy the "version 2 add-on" because the game was $40, then $5 a month (I have no problem paying a monthly fee, but I shouldn't have to pay premium game prices AND a monthly fee).
In addition to that, player killing/hacking became a pretty serious problem, and SEGA responded by restricting people from backing up their VMU savefiles. Not good.
Playing by yourself makes you realize the other limitations of the game-only 2 or 3 classes are worth playing, magic users are too weak, and androids are too damn boring to play with.
So I guess it's a good thing they're trying something new...but really, a card game? That's totally lame-it's a poor use of interactivity, and even a poor use of video gaming per se.
Instead of this turn-based, static, quasi-interactive sequel, I was wishing for:
-Expanded action engine giving a wider range of moves, maybe some street-fighter type control. They started this with the timing-based 3-hit combos in the old game.
-Greater number of levels and/or map maker.
-Better puzzles: something more indepth than "everyone stand on one button, and the door will open." They could have done something that required timing between 2 or more characters.
-Custom weapons. In addition to finding weapons, you would find stuff like "copper," "ruby," etc and put them together to make certain weapons. Depending on your class, level, etc you would come up with different stuff. Maybe there would be certain ingredients that you had to trade to get in order to build the best weapon. They could also add fun cosmetic stuff, like the ability to "tag" your weapon with a creator code and short string describing it.
Maybe we will see something like that in a later PSO. As for this one, it doesn't seem like my bag, baby. SEGA is in a real slump lately-Super Monkey Ball 2 was probably the last original game worth a crap they've come out with, and it's been a year and a half! That is the bite!
Even if Rockstar doesn't want to bother with the costs associated with porting and publishing, why don't they sell the code to someone else? It would make money among those of us who don't want to fork out several hundred dollars in the form of a new console, new controllers, memory cards, etc just to play GTA.
Forget that "it's not financially viable" bullshit. GTA would make money. Tony Hawk made money on the Dreamcast and even the N64 (where Tony Hawk 2 was released just months before the Gamecube).
The problem is, Rockstar is just too fucking greedy. They take bribes out the ass from Sony to keep GTA PS2-only, while taking bribes from Microsoft to port the game over to Xbox. Way to go, Rockstar...you found a clause in your contract that lets you screw everybody. And take all their money.
Wait, all of a sudden, I don't want GTA anymore at all. Fuck those asstards for taking an old idea and humping it dry, then demanding bribes just to put it on their platform. They think they're hot shit now? Shit, there's plenty of imitators out there- I'll just buy True Crime or Simpsons Hit & Run for Gamecube and get the same experience. But first, I'm gonna get really drunk and pee all over the GTA Vice City logo at EBGames. Fuck you Rockstar, I hope Santa shits in your stocking!
I don't think Alan Funt reads this board very often, so your remarks will probably fall on deaf ears. But thanks for sharing anyway!
Re:There's still something that separates us
on
We Are All Nerds Now
·
· Score: 1
There's that passive aggressiveness I talked about! Although you posted without your name, it's just gonna make the inevitable swirly that much worse when I do find you.
And you'd better have some major jack for lunch money too...I want some Christmas Ho-Ho's!
There's still something that separates us
on
We Are All Nerds Now
·
· Score: 5, Funny
While we might be consuming the same media, there are still some things that distinguish a true nerd:
1)Superiority complex
Don't worry, you're still smarter than everyone. You knew about Spider-Man back when it was a crappy 80's cartoon!
2)Poor hygiene
"I don't want to waste my time primping and preening," says the nerd. "It's societal bullshit!" You're like Rosa Parks, except the bus is the underwear you've been wearing for the last 3 days. Keep it up, faithful nerd...you shall overcome!
3)Passive aggressiveness
You'd rather take crap from your boss and call him a "PHB" on some internet message board than to straighten him out once and for all! Instead of suggesting your own methods of getting work done, you sulk and try to invent ways to sabotage his ideas.
4)Fanatical Collecting!
You can't relate to most people, but things...things are easy. Whether it's Battlefield Earth action figures or indie rock 12 inches, don't kid yourself-you're still a fucking nerd.
And the rest of us will be waiting patiently for you outside the boy's bathroom, ready to deal out the wedgies, score with the ladies, or become transparently evil characters in your 800-page self published web fanfic about Dracula meeting the Ninja Turtles. Rest easy, nerds. Your position in history is safe.
They are making all the right people mad, just like the Sex Pistols and some certain colonists before them (Boston Tea Party anyone?).
The question is, will anyone remember SCO in 5 years to mention them in the same breath as innovators like Samuel Adams and Sid Vicious? Or are they doomed to VH1 "Where are they now" type obscurity. I would hope for the former, because there is no question that what they are doing is important, and needs to be remembered.
Mod this man down all you want, he's right. Apple stopped caring about the Human Interface Guidelines when Jobs took over. Now Jobs "ego driven design" has produced such UI missteps as Quicktime 4 and the waste of space called the Dock.
Mac OS X's GUI also seems to go through some pretty significant changes with every iteration...there doesn't seem to be any underlying framework the choices made.
Expose is a great though, don't get me wrong. I feel Mac OS X is "the worst OS around, after all the other ones" to paraphrase Mr. Churchill..
I don't know about older iBooks, but my sister has already managed to destroy her iBook G4 after two weeks of use. She dropped it from a whopping distance of 4 feet, which completely shattered the LCD screen.
Actually you're wrong, Sony's older laptops have i.Link ports that are capped at 200Mbps per second and only work with DV cameras. Imagine my surprise when I tried to get my external FW DVD-R to work with one...
Leave it to Sony to bring "standard" interfaces into goofy, needlessly proprietary crap!
Motorola execs were not happy. Jobs response? 'It will be great in 2 years when we won't be using you!'
You wanna provide a link to back that quote up? Somehow I doubt it-if Jobs could hold his tongue against the CEO of Quark, who said that Apple was no longer needed, then I think he could hold his own (at least publicly) with the idiots at Motorola.
Thus Jobs's hot headded comment to Motorola cost Apple PPC preformance and Apple had to kill the promised public continuation of the NeXTSTEP product on X86.
Thus you put two and two together to get thirteen. Apple killed "Red Box" because they realized that they could no longer compete directly with Microsoft, and they wanted to keep Office on the Mac platform. It had nothing to do with Motorola.
Meanwhile, the comment 'in 2 years we are dropping you' stayed with Motorola, and they positioned the chip to work better in the remaining 95% of the market.
95% of WHAT MARKET? I hope you're not going to say embedded...embedded market is 8 times the size of the desktop market, true...but Motorola has sold almost 80% of its G4's to GUESS WHO...Apple! And because Motorola can't "get it up" at all with the G4, many in the embedded market (such as Cisco) are looking to PowerPC(IBM) or MIPS based solutions. TiVO recently switched from PPC to MIPS, and they're hardly alone.
Thus the "Motorola designs the G4 as an embedded CPU to the detriment of desktop performance" argument ignores the fact that the G4 is no longer competitive in the embedded market either. Moto's arcane fab, poor management, and brain-drain of engineering talent are the reasons.
A company does NOT choose to lose hundreds of millions of dollars because of a personal vendetta with its best customer. Step back from that argument and think about it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but semantical games won't save you. The only way you can make a door "ajar" is to leave it open, but that doesn't really make sense!
Instead you argue that any field which has controversy is simply based upon random, doodah notions! There it is! Tell me that makes sense!
Then tell me I need to take some sedatives and go to sleep. because I do!
The only way to make something simple is to eliminate choice.
Wow. Once again someone who loves spewing aphorisms. I won't even waste my time ripping that one to shreds.
Here's the real topic: can one computer interface be easier to use than another? If the answer is yes, then there is a need for HCI research. What such-and-such said about so-and-so is irrelevant.
When Steve Jobs was at NeXT, some magazine interviewer asked "What would you do if you were running Apple again?" Steve thought for a minute, and answered "I'd milk it for all it's worth."
.Mac, and now, iApps vs iLife Suite. Money, money, money, money, baby!
And that's what's happening today at Apple. There have been a disturbing number of bait-and-switches under Jobs. Mac OS X 10 vs 10.1, iTools vs
Pulling the bait-and-switch is NOT essential to doing business, in fact, it's quite illegal. Apple has already lost a suit with a group of G3 Powerbook users who were similarly deceived (Apple claimed that Mac OS X would be 'optimized for the G3 processor'-what a whopper that was).
Yeah, Apple's not forcing me to buy the latest upgrades. As a matter of fact, they are encouraging me NOT to buy them. Just answer this question: if new and exciting upgrades to the iApps justified the cost of system upgrades before, why isn't the OS X pricing dropping now?
And don't give me this "it's worth 5 times that, easily!" Because it sounds a lot like "punish me harder, Apple! PLEASE!"
Are you kidding me? You don't think think that there's a body of research that goes into HCI?
Back in the day, when this dude worked for Apple, they had HCI research going on all the time. Nowadays at Apple, HCI has been replaced by "ego-driven design." I.E. Steve Jobs thinks brushed metal is cool, so it's taking over Quicktime, then iTunes, now the whole OS.
The point of HCI with regards to an OS is to make very complex tasks as simple and consistent as possible. Stating it's "just a matter of preference" is coming at it from the wrong angle. When it's gotten that high-level, it's beyond the HCI people.
For example, if I asked you "what type of door interface do you prefer-a copper knob or a steel one," unless you were neurotic, you probably wouldn't care. When it gets to that point, it's a matter of aesthetics, which is not really the point of HCI.
The HCI people work so you don't have to think about a doorknob, which one you prefer, or why it's there. They decided to put the doorknob there instead of a large sharp hook. If they went with the hook instead, you'd have to put too much thought into opening the door (watch those fingers) and then it would be an HCI issue.
And the underlying assumption with HCI is: There IS a better way to do something. There might not be a Right with a capital R but there is definitely a wrong and even more wrong way to do everything. The point is improvement, and "It works just fine," is damning by faint praise if I ever heard it.
Now I doubt this article has a body of research behind it, but it's not like the guy hasn't spent 20 years or whatever in his field. I think he's entitled to shoot from the hip about it, and I agree with most of what he says, even if it is too nitpicky. You're right about web pundits focusing too much on the negative and enjoying to point out UI missteps just a little too much.
Hiding it doesn't take away the wasted space. Instead, it pops up and pokes you in the ass when you least expect it.
The only way to deal with the Dock is two monitors, with the Dock on the far left..or at least, the only way for me.
Personally I think they should separate the app launching from the task switching. Put the apps to be launched on a Shelf...where is the shelf...ahhgghh I want shelf.
I'm reading a lot of "that's okay, the apps are great" Mac apology here, and as a Mac user, I gotta say that it's a bad attitude to take.
Personally, I chose a Mac because I demanded more out of a computer. You pay more at the start, you pay more for system upgrades, but you get a machine that does exactly what you tell it (for the most part) and doesn't break for no reason.
I found the "yearly OS upgrade" strategy for Mac OS X pretty suspect. And now that the "iApps" are being pruned from the OS, how could they possibly justify $130 per annum?
Mac users, you don't have to take this. I recommend contacting Apple and telling them exactly how you feel about this. The OS price should drop to $50 if they're going to pull this, or there should be free upgrades to the iApps for at least a few years with the price of system software.
Then again, let's not forget the "chilling effect" that iApps have had on competitors. Safari kills MS internet explorer, iPhoto kills Photoshop Elements, etc...maybe charging for them will open up another window of opportunity for companies other than Apple to produce great Mac software. It seems like it's been awhile...
Personally, I loved PSO when it first came out. No one even came close to doing what Sega did on the console front in early 2001. I played it rampantly for the first few months, enjoying a good mix-it-up with friends both real and online. The combat was simple, but the communication was great, especially the cards you could design.
However, I didn't buy the "version 2 add-on" because the game was $40, then $5 a month (I have no problem paying a monthly fee, but I shouldn't have to pay premium game prices AND a monthly fee).
In addition to that, player killing/hacking became a pretty serious problem, and SEGA responded by restricting people from backing up their VMU savefiles. Not good.
Playing by yourself makes you realize the other limitations of the game-only 2 or 3 classes are worth playing, magic users are too weak, and androids are too damn boring to play with.
So I guess it's a good thing they're trying something new...but really, a card game? That's totally lame-it's a poor use of interactivity, and even a poor use of video gaming per se.
Instead of this turn-based, static, quasi-interactive sequel, I was wishing for:
-Expanded action engine giving a wider range of moves, maybe some street-fighter type control. They started this with the timing-based 3-hit combos in the old game.
-Greater number of levels and/or map maker.
-Better puzzles: something more indepth than "everyone stand on one button, and the door will open." They could have done something that required timing between 2 or more characters.
-Custom weapons. In addition to finding weapons, you would find stuff like "copper," "ruby," etc and put them together to make certain weapons. Depending on your class, level, etc you would come up with different stuff. Maybe there would be certain ingredients that you had to trade to get in order to build the best weapon. They could also add fun cosmetic stuff, like the ability to "tag" your weapon with a creator code and short string describing it.
Maybe we will see something like that in a later PSO. As for this one, it doesn't seem like my bag, baby. SEGA is in a real slump lately-Super Monkey Ball 2 was probably the last original game worth a crap they've come out with, and it's been a year and a half! That is the bite!
San Andreas is supposed to be San Fransisco.
Touche! Back to your corners, ladies and gentlemen!
What do they use those chips for? Microwaves and stuff? Toaster ovens?
Even if Rockstar doesn't want to bother with the costs associated with porting and publishing, why don't they sell the code to someone else? It would make money among those of us who don't want to fork out several hundred dollars in the form of a new console, new controllers, memory cards, etc just to play GTA.
Forget that "it's not financially viable" bullshit. GTA would make money. Tony Hawk made money on the Dreamcast and even the N64 (where Tony Hawk 2 was released just months before the Gamecube).
The problem is, Rockstar is just too fucking greedy. They take bribes out the ass from Sony to keep GTA PS2-only, while taking bribes from Microsoft to port the game over to Xbox. Way to go, Rockstar...you found a clause in your contract that lets you screw everybody. And take all their money.
Wait, all of a sudden, I don't want GTA anymore at all. Fuck those asstards for taking an old idea and humping it dry, then demanding bribes just to put it on their platform. They think they're hot shit now? Shit, there's plenty of imitators out there- I'll just buy True Crime or Simpsons Hit & Run for Gamecube and get the same experience. But first, I'm gonna get really drunk and pee all over the GTA Vice City logo at EBGames. Fuck you Rockstar, I hope Santa shits in your stocking!
I don't think Alan Funt reads this board very often, so your remarks will probably fall on deaf ears. But thanks for sharing anyway!
There's that passive aggressiveness I talked about! Although you posted without your name, it's just gonna make the inevitable swirly that much worse when I do find you.
And you'd better have some major jack for lunch money too...I want some Christmas Ho-Ho's!
While we might be consuming the same media, there are still some things that distinguish a true nerd:
1)Superiority complex
Don't worry, you're still smarter than everyone. You knew about Spider-Man back when it was a crappy 80's cartoon!
2)Poor hygiene
"I don't want to waste my time primping and preening," says the nerd. "It's societal bullshit!" You're like Rosa Parks, except the bus is the underwear you've been wearing for the last 3 days. Keep it up, faithful nerd...you shall overcome!
3)Passive aggressiveness
You'd rather take crap from your boss and call him a "PHB" on some internet message board than to straighten him out once and for all! Instead of suggesting your own methods of getting work done, you sulk and try to invent ways to sabotage his ideas.
4)Fanatical Collecting!
You can't relate to most people, but things...things are easy. Whether it's Battlefield Earth action figures or indie rock 12 inches, don't kid yourself-you're still a fucking nerd.
And the rest of us will be waiting patiently for you outside the boy's bathroom, ready to deal out the wedgies, score with the ladies, or become transparently evil characters in your 800-page self published web fanfic about Dracula meeting the Ninja Turtles. Rest easy, nerds. Your position in history is safe.
Tell me, spirits, are these h4x0rz that must be, or shades of what might be?
They are making all the right people mad, just like the Sex Pistols and some certain colonists before them (Boston Tea Party anyone?).
The question is, will anyone remember SCO in 5 years to mention them in the same breath as innovators like Samuel Adams and Sid Vicious? Or are they doomed to VH1 "Where are they now" type obscurity. I would hope for the former, because there is no question that what they are doing is important, and needs to be remembered.
Mod this man down all you want, he's right. Apple stopped caring about the Human Interface Guidelines when Jobs took over. Now Jobs "ego driven design" has produced such UI missteps as Quicktime 4 and the waste of space called the Dock.
Mac OS X's GUI also seems to go through some pretty significant changes with every iteration...there doesn't seem to be any underlying framework the choices made.
Expose is a great though, don't get me wrong. I feel Mac OS X is "the worst OS around, after all the other ones" to paraphrase Mr. Churchill..
I don't know about older iBooks, but my sister has already managed to destroy her iBook G4 after two weeks of use. She dropped it from a whopping distance of 4 feet, which completely shattered the LCD screen.
Don't tell that to Rockstar games!
He said "I spray paint without proper ventilation"
NO AIR AT ALL.
I said wow man, blow my skirt up, and hitch me to your wagon!
If I have *one* peice of advice that will help you get more more, respect and more oppertunities with the opposite sex....
Let me guess...it's "spell like a third-grader whose first language was Armenian".
JC Penny no-iron slacks and no-iron shits, with some really comfortable ECHO shoes and a decent Seiko watch are just fine.
No-iron shits! Why, I used to spend an extra hour every morning just ironing my shit! The wife is gonna LOVE this.
Actually you're wrong, Sony's older laptops have i.Link ports that are capped at 200Mbps per second and only work with DV cameras. Imagine my surprise when I tried to get my external FW DVD-R to work with one...
Leave it to Sony to bring "standard" interfaces into goofy, needlessly proprietary crap!
from someone developing their game in DirectX, thereby making it Windows-only?
Let's let gamers decide which game runs for what system...as they did with 3dfx. No need to whine about it here.
It turns out you can do the same thing better, for less money.
how do you keep a turkey in suspense?
Motorola execs were not happy. Jobs response? 'It will be great in 2 years when we won't be using you!'
You wanna provide a link to back that quote up? Somehow I doubt it-if Jobs could hold his tongue against the CEO of Quark, who said that Apple was no longer needed, then I think he could hold his own (at least publicly) with the idiots at Motorola.
Thus Jobs's hot headded comment to Motorola cost Apple PPC preformance and Apple had to kill the promised public continuation of the NeXTSTEP product on X86.
Thus you put two and two together to get thirteen. Apple killed "Red Box" because they realized that they could no longer compete directly with Microsoft, and they wanted to keep Office on the Mac platform. It had nothing to do with Motorola.
Meanwhile, the comment 'in 2 years we are dropping you' stayed with Motorola, and they positioned the chip to work better in the remaining 95% of the market.
95% of WHAT MARKET? I hope you're not going to say embedded...embedded market is 8 times the size of the desktop market, true...but Motorola has sold almost 80% of its G4's to GUESS WHO...Apple! And because Motorola can't "get it up" at all with the G4, many in the embedded market (such as Cisco) are looking to PowerPC(IBM) or MIPS based solutions. TiVO recently switched from PPC to MIPS, and they're hardly alone.
Thus the "Motorola designs the G4 as an embedded CPU to the detriment of desktop performance" argument ignores the fact that the G4 is no longer competitive in the embedded market either. Moto's arcane fab, poor management, and brain-drain of engineering talent are the reasons.
A company does NOT choose to lose hundreds of millions of dollars because of a personal vendetta with its best customer. Step back from that argument and think about it.