I don't think those people were saying that because Linux is based on Unix. They more likely said it because the 2 main variaties of GUI for Linux were probably mostly designed by programmers. OS X was not.
Untill Linux gets some real GUI and design experts and do some real usablity testing and research like Apple does--And not just copy others--Linux will not be on Joe's desktop.
In that case then. Win2000 is properly designed in terms of the context menu issue. I have never came across a command that could only be acceced via a right click.
Don't forget. Win has it possable to access anything via the keyboard. So it has to be possable to do things without the right mouse button.
It may be more inconvenient to not use the right mouse button. But that's the same story with macs, unless all you ever do is want contextual menus for links in IE.
Rules are made to be broken by the way. And there is no deffinite reason why one mouse button is better than 2. It's just a guide. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no real understaning of actual usablity.
In cases like Shake. It maybe that designing it to use one mouse button maybe infact decrease usablity as opposed to increase it.
The idea that you need more than one button is a false one, it simply isn't true, and you only think you do because you've been using poorly designed operating systems that make you use absurdly complicated controls (like three button mice when only one is *necessary*.)
But with macs. You have to CTRL + click. IMO, that's more complex. So their goes that argument. Macs are just as bad as PC's in that respect.
Of course. With a lastop, your hands are close to the keyboard anyway. So it's not as bad as a desktop.
The that I find is: The more things open you have at the same time. The more RAM is sucks. Even if thay are only little things. E.G. BBEdit. If you have 20 windows open, all of them are hogging ram (due to the way the window manager works). So an app that would usaly hog under 4MBs now hogs 20MBs. Once you have a couple of browser windows open, a terminal window, couple of finder windows. BBEdit with 20 windows. The RAM runs out fairly quicky. Even though the program data isn't taking up that much at all.
My mum noticed the difference when she saw one. And was almost going to get one. The only reason she didn't was because she didn't like the package that came with it (an HP system), and got the local-built-beige-box system instead.
The avererage user will have just as much chance at appreciating the difference as any geek would. They just don't understand the technical crap, that's all.
Why? Although PNGs seem better in every way. When your making really small, limited pallet images, GIFs always come out smaller (sometimes by half). Maybe it's just Photoshop's way of saving it that adding bloat to it. Who knows. Otherwise I'd be using it all the time for no alpha stuff.
I don't think that's what they meant (although, that would be cool, and you can get IR LEDs, so maybe it's a possibilty in the future). I think they mean you could switch to a different satalite feed, like an IR feed for instance.
Well, also speaking as a freelancing web designer and developer. I can tell you that alot of clients don't understand usability issues (or have any design sence for that matter). They quite oftern don't see what's wrong. I thought I made this point in my first post, maybe was unclear.
As far as they're concerned. They want it to have their information up. And for it to look cool. If the designer can convince them that the site has achived both of these goals, then they're OK with it.
After all, think how many designers there are out their will poor usabilty skills (and poor taste to a lesser extent). Let alone marketing managers and such;)
PSSSSST!!....Hey....I'll let you in on a little secret...
...They probably didn't design the site! They hired someone else to do it! *shock horror*
Please. Don't flame the company for the usability of their web-site. They generaly have no clue of these issues in the first place (which is why they hire someone else to do it). Flame the designer instead.
Making an analogy doesn't make you right you know.
It's so funny how people can just come up with an analogy and look as if they have made a good point.
The things you talk about are not expect to be part of you purchase. The computer and software industry (and 100's of others) is different. It's very common to include packages, related services etc.
No. You shut the hell up. I got a 600Mhz iBook a few months ago. Long before Jaguar was even heard of. I've been putting up with the iBook's slow performance for quite a while. And the only reason I didn't return it was because I was under the missleading impression that perfomance would get much better.
So far, it has hardly increased at all. Jaguar promises to improve speed. But I'm now sceptical of just how much of an improvment it will actually make.
I don't want Jaguar for the new features. I just want the speed boost that my iBook desperatly needs. I shouldn't have to pay for that. I shouldn't have had to put up with it in the first place. Now I'll have to put up with it untill I replace my iBook.
And please....no replys from other iBook users who "run OS X just fine". I'm not the only one bitterly dissapointed with OS X on the iBook. It has been argued to death. Lets just leave it that.
A big bouncy shiny icon that sits at the bottom of the screen and that you only have to click once to run it is though:P
Only if you drag all your apps onto the dock. In which case things can get just a tab crowded.
Re:Burger King is finally going to beat a competit
on
Apple to Unveil .Mac Today
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Your first year for.Mac is $49 - less than $5 a month. Peanuts compared to your dial-up or broadband service.
I'll assume the $10 per month, because the $50 is only for existing users for the first year.
I'm with paradise.net.nz. I get a good dial-up plan that has free web-space, and e-mail. It's NZ$20 per month. That's just under US$10 per month.
Unless you really want the server space and virus protection. It's way too expensive....And most people prolly just use the e-mail.
I don't care about yahoo or hotmail. Just because someone else does it. Doesn't make it OK. When I got my iBook. I was under the impression that I also got my iTools with it. They were part of my purchase IMHO.
I imagine that it would be possable have it so that braking is automaticly applied in the event of any electric failure.
Giving that this is an electric car. If you short out the motor, it will act as a brake.
I imagine you could wire it up so that it was shorted by default, and that it would require power to "release" it. Can someone with a clue in electrical engineering tell me if this is possable?
Off-topicish: BTW, can anyone explain exactly how regerative braking works? If acted just like a generator, you wouldn't get much braking. If you shorted the motor out. It isn't regenerative. Does it just short out the motor more oftern the more you press the brakes in the same way it applies power more oftern when you accellerate?
*sight* This is GM. I think things like unsprung weight would have taken into account. They have been making car for a while you know.
Don't forget. This chassis has 4 motors. Electric motors aren't that big in the first place. These will prolly be 1/4 the size. If they incorporate them into the wheel rims, then that would also reduce the weight of the motor. As for damaging the motors. Electric motors can take a lot of abuse because of their simple design.
As for handling. It may have more unsprung weight that a normal car. But that chassis looks like it has a CG (center of gravity) lower than a F1 racing car. Once the body goes on, I imagine it would have a lower CG than your average sedan that's for sure.
Go out into the real world and see how many people get it. I got it immediatly. But out of about 20 people I know (friends, flatmates, family), realisticly only 5 on them would probably get it.
Besides, making conclusions like that based on just one thing they said is silly.
Acctualy. On second thoughts, and after looking around a bit more. It does seem as colapsable.
But I still think it's silly. The only point of this would be to save space. But I find that most PDA's aren't too tall or wide....But too thick.
I imagine that this colapable design would add to the thickness of the PDA, even if it is only slightly thicker.
Re:A picture is worth a thousand words.
on
New Palm Pictures?
·
· Score: 1
You need to learn more about digital imaging and JPG compression I think.
I don't see how that square part means it's fake. If so, why on just that button and not on all the GUI elements? If they were faking a screen, they would normaly just paste the screen on to the PDA anyway. Your giving the impression that they faked one or 2 GUI elements.
Any photo will look like a fake if you think it is and start to analyis it in detail.
Really? It looked like 160x160 to me... If Palm went 320^2 I'd be happier about that than the collapsing desing, though both are cool.
By the looks of it. It, it prolly doesn't colapes. I imagin that it would just be to complex to do something like that to make it worth it.
I'm also pretty sure it's 320x320. The text looks too smooth for 160x160. However. I will still never buy it because it doesn't have a virtual graffiti area.
I really like the screen on the new Sony, but it's too big with all it's other stuff (keyboard, mp3 stuff, space for camera etc).
The other thing is that you can't colapes the virtual gaffiti area unless the application supports it (which was very few when I played with it....not even the standard Palm apps!).
This is due to Palm OS. And now that Palm OS 5 has specs for 320x320 res screens. I'm not sure if they've made it better for other resolutions to work at. Of course. A properly designed OS shouldn't be resolution specific. But I can't get my hopes up for Palm doing anything properly anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think those people were saying that because Linux is based on Unix. They more likely said it because the 2 main variaties of GUI for Linux were probably mostly designed by programmers. OS X was not.
Untill Linux gets some real GUI and design experts and do some real usablity testing and research like Apple does--And not just copy others--Linux will not be on Joe's desktop.
Don't forget. Win has it possable to access anything via the keyboard. So it has to be possable to do things without the right mouse button.
It may be more inconvenient to not use the right mouse button. But that's the same story with macs, unless all you ever do is want contextual menus for links in IE.
Rules are made to be broken by the way. And there is no deffinite reason why one mouse button is better than 2. It's just a guide. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no real understaning of actual usablity.
In cases like Shake. It maybe that designing it to use one mouse button maybe infact decrease usablity as opposed to increase it.
But with macs. You have to CTRL + click. IMO, that's more complex. So their goes that argument. Macs are just as bad as PC's in that respect.
Of course. With a lastop, your hands are close to the keyboard anyway. So it's not as bad as a desktop.
The that I find is: The more things open you have at the same time. The more RAM is sucks. Even if thay are only little things. E.G. BBEdit. If you have 20 windows open, all of them are hogging ram (due to the way the window manager works). So an app that would usaly hog under 4MBs now hogs 20MBs.
Once you have a couple of browser windows open, a terminal window, couple of finder windows. BBEdit with 20 windows. The RAM runs out fairly quicky. Even though the program data isn't taking up that much at all.
The avererage user will have just as much chance at appreciating the difference as any geek would. They just don't understand the technical crap, that's all.
Why? Although PNGs seem better in every way. When your making really small, limited pallet images, GIFs always come out smaller (sometimes by half).
Maybe it's just Photoshop's way of saving it that adding bloat to it. Who knows.
Otherwise I'd be using it all the time for no alpha stuff.
I don't think that's what they meant (although, that would be cool, and you can get IR LEDs, so maybe it's a possibilty in the future). I think they mean you could switch to a different satalite feed, like an IR feed for instance.
Yeah...lucky we have the Land Transport Safty Authority (or whatever you USers and UKers have) to stop that sort stuff.
But once you step inside...
I thought I made this point in my first post, maybe was unclear.
As far as they're concerned. They want it to have their information up. And for it to look cool.
If the designer can convince them that the site has achived both of these goals, then they're OK with it.
After all, think how many designers there are out their will poor usabilty skills (and poor taste to a lesser extent). Let alone marketing managers and such ;)
Please. Don't flame the company for the usability of their web-site. They generaly have no clue of these issues in the first place (which is why they hire someone else to do it). Flame the designer instead.
It's so funny how people can just come up with an analogy and look as if they have made a good point.
The things you talk about are not expect to be part of you purchase. The computer and software industry (and 100's of others) is different. It's very common to include packages, related services etc.
So far, it has hardly increased at all. Jaguar promises to improve speed. But I'm now sceptical of just how much of an improvment it will actually make.
I don't want Jaguar for the new features. I just want the speed boost that my iBook desperatly needs. I shouldn't have to pay for that. I shouldn't have had to put up with it in the first place. Now I'll have to put up with it untill I replace my iBook.
And please....no replys from other iBook users who "run OS X just fine". I'm not the only one bitterly dissapointed with OS X on the iBook. It has been argued to death. Lets just leave it that.
Only if you drag all your apps onto the dock. In which case things can get just a tab crowded.
I'll assume the $10 per month, because the $50 is only for existing users for the first year.
I'm with paradise.net.nz. I get a good dial-up plan that has free web-space, and e-mail. It's NZ$20 per month. That's just under US$10 per month.
Unless you really want the server space and virus protection. It's way too expensive....And most people prolly just use the e-mail.
I don't care about yahoo or hotmail. Just because someone else does it. Doesn't make it OK. When I got my iBook. I was under the impression that I also got my iTools with it. They were part of my purchase IMHO.
Giving that this is an electric car. If you short out the motor, it will act as a brake.
I imagine you could wire it up so that it was shorted by default, and that it would require power to "release" it.
Can someone with a clue in electrical engineering tell me if this is possable?
Off-topicish: BTW, can anyone explain exactly how regerative braking works? If acted just like a generator, you wouldn't get much braking. If you shorted the motor out. It isn't regenerative.
Does it just short out the motor more oftern the more you press the brakes in the same way it applies power more oftern when you accellerate?
*sight* This is GM. I think things like unsprung weight would have taken into account.
They have been making car for a while you know.
Don't forget. This chassis has 4 motors. Electric motors aren't that big in the first place. These will prolly be 1/4 the size. If they incorporate them into the wheel rims, then that would also reduce the weight of the motor.
As for damaging the motors. Electric motors can take a lot of abuse because of their simple design.
As for handling. It may have more unsprung weight that a normal car. But that chassis looks like it has a CG (center of gravity) lower than a F1 racing car. Once the body goes on, I imagine it would have a lower CG than your average sedan that's for sure.
Well... If you going by Apple products today, and not yesteryear. The cows would be plain white, with maybe a chrome cow bell. ;)
Go out into the real world and see how many people get it. I got it immediatly. But out of about 20 people I know (friends, flatmates, family), realisticly only 5 on them would probably get it.
Besides, making conclusions like that based on just one thing they said is silly.
But I still think it's silly. The only point of this would be to save space. But I find that most PDA's aren't too tall or wide....But too thick.
I imagine that this colapable design would add to the thickness of the PDA, even if it is only slightly thicker.
I don't see how that square part means it's fake. If so, why on just that button and not on all the GUI elements? If they were faking a screen, they would normaly just paste the screen on to the PDA anyway. Your giving the impression that they faked one or 2 GUI elements.
Any photo will look like a fake if you think it is and start to analyis it in detail.
By the looks of it. It, it prolly doesn't colapes. I imagin that it would just be to complex to do something like that to make it worth it.
I'm also pretty sure it's 320x320. The text looks too smooth for 160x160. However. I will still never buy it because it doesn't have a virtual graffiti area.
I really like the screen on the new Sony, but it's too big with all it's other stuff (keyboard, mp3 stuff, space for camera etc).
The other thing is that you can't colapes the virtual gaffiti area unless the application supports it (which was very few when I played with it....not even the standard Palm apps!).
This is due to Palm OS. And now that Palm OS 5 has specs for 320x320 res screens. I'm not sure if they've made it better for other resolutions to work at. Of course. A properly designed OS shouldn't be resolution specific. But I can't get my hopes up for Palm doing anything properly anymore.
You forgot one of these!
Of course, there are the rumors that the new iMac will have a 17" LCD, but it will probably only be bummped up to 1290x864.
There seems to be more of a demand of larger LCDs, and not much demand for increased resolution (relative/DPI). Which is a bit of a bummer.
Can someone please explain how that works?
But the whole "IE is just offering more, aswell as standards" goes out the door becuse IE still doesn't support the standards properly anyway.