This is a big part of the problem, people thinking that what they personally prefer is what is best. It seems to be more problematic with programmers than designers. Even usability experts know that relying on their own ideas is a bad thing without user testing.
The OSS community have managed to build a better browser than IE, but how come they haven't been able to duplicate the Apple GUI experience? Is it just a case of OSS lagging behind commercial companies etc., and soon Linux will be on par with OS X. Or is there more to it than that, such as difference philosophies or lack of people with good a understanding of user psychology and graphic design principles?
Then it looks like there is a big gap in the market for small teams who know graphic design and can code, doesn't it? Hardly a dead-end -- more like an opportunity. Happy Cog, 37signals, and other similar companies seem to be doing well.
I have an idea: grow a few seconds' worth of patience.
But if you're sitting in a meeting with your laptop, you want to be able to wake it up quickly. Otherwise, you have to leave it on the whole time and drain the battery. Same goes for any laptop where use is intermittent. The more responsive you can make the system, the more often you can let it go to sleep and save power. That could be beneficial for device size, battery life, or even carbon footprint if talking about desktop systems or low-use servers.
Sorry, I meant characters in a typeface, not typefaces in a suit. And there sure are a large amount of crap fonts out there. Better off going to a proper font site and buying them individually based on need, rather than buying those bulk ones, unless they come with enough good ones to make the price worth it. The Adobe suites are generally on the better side. Those sets are also generally intended for graphic designers who have many different clients.
But you have overlooked many real world factors. One example is cropping. The other is the end product -- Who is to say that a photographer can't make a large print that requires a person to scan over the entire print, looking at the detail, rather than just focusing on only one point or area of the photo for the entire time they're looking at it. And what about science and commercial uses? And we still are no way near complete in understanding the visual system to the point where we have a full understanding of what makes up the subjective experience of seeing. If you think otherwise, then please post some links, because last time I checked, we had a good understanding of many different parts, but that's not the same thing.
Only 52? There are many more than that in a decent set. There are also only a limited number on notes a musician can play (generally speaking), yet people keep coming up with new ways to play them. I'll give you that type is a much more subtle and restricted art form than music, but the same principle still applies. Style and usage also evolves over time and this is reflected in it.
Are you aware of the fact that expansion of sugar cane (and Ethanol derived from it) is posing a real threat to rain forests in Brazil?
That's a poor reason for not supporting biofuel. It's not like their rain forests weren't already under threat. And the solution to that problem has less to do with biofuel and more to do with politics. Or do you really think that if we overcame our fuel problems, the rain forests would be saved?
BTW. Crops are renewable. Plants can be planed and the soil can also be treated. Even if it's not possible the moment, there is no reason it can't be done. And they sure as hell are more renewable than crude oil.
My impression has been that Ford are actually quite good in quality, but they also make cars overseas. The Focus (as you said) and the Mondeos etc. that get made in the UK are probably quite good. As for the other US cars, the ones that aren't as popular outside the US, they do seem a bit on the cheap side.
It will be difficult to make a "biofuel" engine that won't run just fine on petroleum.
I was under the impression that it could already be done. If not, I'm sure Mercedes can figure out a solution. With all the advancements in engine technology, what is so difficult about this?
The problem is, all that maths and comparisons of electronics to biology doesn't really mean much in the real world. First there is how the digital data is used in producing something, the other part is how our brains process things in the first place, which we don't even fully understand yet. Basically, it makes no sense to compare the two for what you say in your conclusion.
Tell your non-techie friends and family to get a Mac. If you're in iPhoto and use the e-mail option, it re-sizes them to something a bit more sane by default.
As for our ISP situation, it is crap. But 200MB? Sure you're not getting confused with mobile broadband? Because I have a 10GB cap, and it's not exactly a high-end plan.
Interesting, I didn't notice that. But one thing I did notice is that it didn't seem to take into account real world use, things such as at what point does the frequency of the extra power needed to spool up a HDD outweigh any power savings -- laptops are turned on and off a lot more than a desktop, and if the responsiveness is there, then people are going to put their computer to sleep more often to save power. None of that was taken into consideration. So technically, he may be right in some circumstances, but that might not be the way most people use them in the real world.
You also need a good sense of intuition (or whatever you want to call it -- INTP personality, perhaps) so that you can translate technobable into something the clients can understand and vice versa.
This explains why I couldn't find the f*ing feedback page on Google.com -- compared to Apple. I know my feedback probably isn't going to make much of a difference, but at least it gives me a place to constructively vent. Also, Jobs made a good point in the iPhone 2.0 keynote about how Google are really good at their maps and stuff, but lack the "polish" that Apple put on it's products with refined GUIs -- something that many programmers see as something to tack on at the end. Google are very good at building engines, but like many technical-minded engineers, they don't have a clue about design and interface, and how they are just as important. I'll stop now, since I'm clearly off-topic.
Slashdot Mirror
Why exactly is the single menu bar the dumbest idea in the world? Do you have any tests to back that up?
This is a big part of the problem, people thinking that what they personally prefer is what is best. It seems to be more problematic with programmers than designers. Even usability experts know that relying on their own ideas is a bad thing without user testing.
Then I guess you missed the last iPhone keynote.
The OSS community have managed to build a better browser than IE, but how come they haven't been able to duplicate the Apple GUI experience? Is it just a case of OSS lagging behind commercial companies etc., and soon Linux will be on par with OS X. Or is there more to it than that, such as difference philosophies or lack of people with good a understanding of user psychology and graphic design principles?
Then it looks like there is a big gap in the market for small teams who know graphic design and can code, doesn't it? Hardly a dead-end -- more like an opportunity. Happy Cog, 37signals, and other similar companies seem to be doing well.
I have an idea: grow a few seconds' worth of patience.
But if you're sitting in a meeting with your laptop, you want to be able to wake it up quickly. Otherwise, you have to leave it on the whole time and drain the battery. Same goes for any laptop where use is intermittent. The more responsive you can make the system, the more often you can let it go to sleep and save power. That could be beneficial for device size, battery life, or even carbon footprint if talking about desktop systems or low-use servers.
Are you an in-house designer for some organization, or work in a graphic design studio?
Sorry, I meant characters in a typeface, not typefaces in a suit. And there sure are a large amount of crap fonts out there. Better off going to a proper font site and buying them individually based on need, rather than buying those bulk ones, unless they come with enough good ones to make the price worth it. The Adobe suites are generally on the better side. Those sets are also generally intended for graphic designers who have many different clients.
But you have overlooked many real world factors. One example is cropping. The other is the end product -- Who is to say that a photographer can't make a large print that requires a person to scan over the entire print, looking at the detail, rather than just focusing on only one point or area of the photo for the entire time they're looking at it. And what about science and commercial uses? And we still are no way near complete in understanding the visual system to the point where we have a full understanding of what makes up the subjective experience of seeing. If you think otherwise, then please post some links, because last time I checked, we had a good understanding of many different parts, but that's not the same thing.
Yeah, but that is their minimum, and for only $10 more you get a 3GB plan. But yeah, that still is bad.
Only 52? There are many more than that in a decent set. There are also only a limited number on notes a musician can play (generally speaking), yet people keep coming up with new ways to play them. I'll give you that type is a much more subtle and restricted art form than music, but the same principle still applies. Style and usage also evolves over time and this is reflected in it.
Are you aware of the fact that expansion of sugar cane (and Ethanol derived from it) is posing a real threat to rain forests in Brazil?
That's a poor reason for not supporting biofuel. It's not like their rain forests weren't already under threat. And the solution to that problem has less to do with biofuel and more to do with politics. Or do you really think that if we overcame our fuel problems, the rain forests would be saved?
BTW. Crops are renewable. Plants can be planed and the soil can also be treated. Even if it's not possible the moment, there is no reason it can't be done. And they sure as hell are more renewable than crude oil.
My impression has been that Ford are actually quite good in quality, but they also make cars overseas. The Focus (as you said) and the Mondeos etc. that get made in the UK are probably quite good. As for the other US cars, the ones that aren't as popular outside the US, they do seem a bit on the cheap side.
It will be difficult to make a "biofuel" engine that won't run just fine on petroleum.
I was under the impression that it could already be done. If not, I'm sure Mercedes can figure out a solution. With all the advancements in engine technology, what is so difficult about this?
You can have a discerning eye and still not be a good photographer, BTW.
The problem is, all that maths and comparisons of electronics to biology doesn't really mean much in the real world. First there is how the digital data is used in producing something, the other part is how our brains process things in the first place, which we don't even fully understand yet. Basically, it makes no sense to compare the two for what you say in your conclusion.
Tell your non-techie friends and family to get a Mac. If you're in iPhoto and use the e-mail option, it re-sizes them to something a bit more sane by default.
As for our ISP situation, it is crap. But 200MB? Sure you're not getting confused with mobile broadband? Because I have a 10GB cap, and it's not exactly a high-end plan.
Or a fast shutter speed. Unless you are going to make me look like an idiot with some aerial photography details.
Why wouldn't there be? It's not like designing a typeface is easy.
Have you tried turning your monitor brightness down and made sure the rest of the room is well lit?
Interesting, I didn't notice that. But one thing I did notice is that it didn't seem to take into account real world use, things such as at what point does the frequency of the extra power needed to spool up a HDD outweigh any power savings -- laptops are turned on and off a lot more than a desktop, and if the responsiveness is there, then people are going to put their computer to sleep more often to save power. None of that was taken into consideration. So technically, he may be right in some circumstances, but that might not be the way most people use them in the real world.
You also need a good sense of intuition (or whatever you want to call it -- INTP personality, perhaps) so that you can translate technobable into something the clients can understand and vice versa.
This explains why I couldn't find the f*ing feedback page on Google.com -- compared to Apple. I know my feedback probably isn't going to make much of a difference, but at least it gives me a place to constructively vent. Also, Jobs made a good point in the iPhone 2.0 keynote about how Google are really good at their maps and stuff, but lack the "polish" that Apple put on it's products with refined GUIs -- something that many programmers see as something to tack on at the end. Google are very good at building engines, but like many technical-minded engineers, they don't have a clue about design and interface, and how they are just as important. I'll stop now, since I'm clearly off-topic.
Is that some kind of P2P network?
Illegally taped phones are pretty minor compared to some of the other things they did back then. Google cointelpro, mk-ultra.