It's pretty obvious that Apple wants all of what SGI left behind. I don't blame them, it's where they should be. Check it out:
- Transition to UNIXy OS complete
- Xserve has appeared
- Node clusters have appeared
- Xraid
- high-end video editing (Final Cut Pro)
- high-end compositing software (Shake)
- high-end audio production (Logic)
- Maya support
and let's not forget existing pieces:
- QuickTime (now the basis of MPEG-4)
- relationship with Adobe (Photoshop, et. al)
- Avid (just ported Symphony to OS X)
- the other big audio guys (MOTU etc.)
They get that processor situation sorted out come July, they are poised to totally pull it off, too. The slow processor argument is the chief complaint about Apple. Take that away, and they are looking more impressive for content creators than anytime in their history.
(Oh, and incidentally, on a personal note - just my opinion, don't flame me - the above are all reasons why Quark can go to hell.)
Prepress designers know that the Quark/Distiller combo is basically how you get stuff done, for the most part, in recent years. However, Quark is muchos late with their application, and Adobe has yet to mention Distiller for OS X, even though they've ported pretty much everything else.
The rumour mill has it that Adobe is holding back - or possibly has cancelled - Distiller for OS X, just to give InDesign a shot in the arm (which has Distiller-like capabilities built in of course).
Also, it's possible that Adobe is still miffed by any of the following:
- the knifing of Adobe Premiere by Final Cut
- the competition for photo-management via iPhoto (notice no Adobe Album for OS X. Too bad, looks nice.)
- the non-licensing of Display PostScript for OS X (which I believe has been nothing but a good decision for Apple; Quartz is a milestone in 2D graphics display systems, and has many advantages over old-school DP, not the least of which is support for true transparency)
Makes you wonder if Apple is stepping up yet again to fill the void *cough*safari*cough*
Yes, thank God the iMac showed the computing industry that they should focus on style and asthetics over features and functionality. I'm so fucking glad that Dell, IBM, and HP now feel the need to change the form factors of their machines every 3 months, and in the process give me some of the most horrible, badly designed machines ever made. iMac can kiss my ass.
That doesn't make any sense. You blame Apple for the shortcomings of those other companies?
Hey, guess what. There's this supa-cheap knockoff of transluscent housing around the spectacularly lame case of my work PC. It's actually sharp enough to almost cut you when you reach for the CD drive. So fuck you, Apple, for providing an impetus of design that these lacklustre PC manufacturers just could not handle, even while they tried to capitalize on the new craze of coloured computers while not getting it at all.
Computers should look like lamps. At least, flatpanel computers should.
Somebody in the ancient past here on/. made a great point about the CRT iMac once; they said the design was like a shark. It was simply evolved to the most logical, streamlined form given the necessity of the parts contained therein.
The flatpanel iMac really is a stupendous design. I'm the first to pick on the niggles, too: for instance, if the keyboard's legs are extended and located close to the iMac base, the disc tray bumps into it) but those are few and far between. Even the round base, which is the most likely target for the form-over-funtion argument, supplants this by offering the ability to rotate the iMac, thus giving you both a 'side'-mounted drive tray and access to ports...an Apple sales guy hit me with this when they came out. I mentioned that there should be easy-to-reach ports on the side at least, and he picked up the iMac - by the arm, which was also surprising at the time - and rotated it 90 degrees. That was slightly mindblowing.
Anyways. I think the only thing keeping the new iMac shape from becoming as ubiquitous for desktops as the Sony Trinitron black-matte design became for televisions is the fact that Apple won't likely let anyone get even close to that design without suing them for a trade dress violation.
"... leads to incoherent rhetoric..."
The only rhetoric I hear and see all the time are the many euphemisms used by the "DRM industry".
No kidding. While it's been mentioned before it bears repeating: the use of 'stealing' or 'theft' are not appropriate, when describing file copying.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but rather reclaim some of the skewed language the **AAs are using. Saying 'theft' neuters the fact that there is no necessary physical scarcity of the media in question. Theft means that the article is now in the thieves' posession, and out of the hands of the owner. You can argue about how this might be 'theft of right to profit', but it's not theft per se. I'd like it if we (royal 'we') stopped buying into the language propogated by corporate lobbyists.
By the way, piracy is an acceptable term, although I believe there is an understood meaning there, whereby piracy generally refers to those engaged in selling illegal copies of media.
* Warning: Pregnant women, the elderly and children under 10 should avoid prolonged exposure to Ambient Orb.
* Caution: Ambient Orb may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds.
* Ambient Orb contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
* Do not use Ambient Orb on concrete.
Discontinue use of Ambient Orb if any of the following occurs:
* Itching
* Vertigo
* Dizziness
* Tingling in extremities
* Loss of balance or coordination
* Slurred speech
* Temporary blindness
* Profuse sweating
* Heart palpitations
If Ambient Orb begins to smoke, get away immediately. Seek shelter and cover head.
Ambient Orb may stick to certain types of skin.
When not in use, Ambient Orb should be returned to its special container and kept under refrigeration...
Failure to do so relieves the makers of Ambient Orb, Wacky Products Incorporated, and its parent company Global Chemical Unlimited, of any and all liability.
Ingredients of Ambient Orb include an unknown glowing substance which fell to Earth, presumably from outer space.
Ambient Orb has been shipped to our troops in Kuwait and is also being dropped by our warplanes on Iraq.
Like, for example: How is it that Apple, while constantly 're-inventing' itself, manages to always occupy the same niche of perception?
Why does the general public think that 5% marketshare is a shameful thing in the computer world?
Why are people threatened to the point of flameage over the simple existence of Mac hardware?
Why does Apple provoke such intense reactions?
They must be one of the most scrutenized companies in the world. And, as everyone knows, the joke is so old its got whiskers: "Sure Apple is going out of business. They'll still be going out of business long after you and I retire."
Is it because MS is the only other mainstream OS provider? I wonder if things would be different, in an alternate universe, where we're buying Atari and Amiga and BeOS boxen.
The probable ideal fuel cell would be able to operate on denatured ethanol (for lower cost) as well as straight vodka... Improvements to allow impurities (eg, Tequila, Whisky) would be even better...
You just invented the best expense-report loophole in history! Huzzah!
I once read about a guy running a webserver at (I believe) University of Texas. He was running this:
Macintosh G3 -> running BeOS, which was running Sheepshaver, which was running Mac OS 8, which was running Virtual PC, which was running Windows NT 4, which was serving his website.
He figured that it had to crash really fucking hard to go through the wall, so to speak, of 3 different operating systems. Sort of a padded cell for IIS.
... was that guy who wrote an app to use the Dock zooming icons as a graphic equalizer for iTunes. It was just so stunningly retarded in execution (hint: you didn't get to use your mouse while it was running... yup, that's what it did).. and yet such a funny idea, I had to give the guy credit.
Plus I think he wrote it in something like 6 hours, while high on Code Red.
I like Konfab too, but I think it probably loses on this one:
2) Adherence to the Mac OS X Human Interface Guidelines -- Does the software comply with, for example, the Aqua layout guidelines, system appearance (including anti-aliased display of text), and correct organization of menus and use of keyboard shortcuts?
It's anti-aliased.... but that's about it. Some of those widgets are like refugees from KPT Bryce. About as non-standard as you get.
I'd like to remind the readership of Slashdot that we are, of course, discussing remarks made by the illustrious Jack Valenti.
You know, that Jack Valenti.
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
"What is fair use? Fair use is not a law. There's nothing in law."
And my fave,
"I sleep each night a little better, a little more confidently, because Lyndon Johnson is my president. "
That's an old one, but sort of illustrates the point. Jack Valenti is a ridiculous dinosaur from the Johnson administration, and he still thinks like a military guy from that era. He's not an idiot, but he is massively self-deluding, and you can count on him to not concede anything he doesn't absolutely have to. Like many old-school execs, Valenti will never totally grasp the fact that scarcity of media is history. He'd rather fight than adapt. Which is a shame - as these types of organizations (MPAA studios, etc.) essentially have a first-shot opportunity when situations like P2P arise, through startup capital and established contracts.
It's rhetoric. He does it to get a rise out of people. It's the Bigger Hammer approach. You can try and yell louder, or you can ignore him.
Join me, friends, in evangelizing the One True Format: RTF!
Let me just put on my Joe User cap here for a sec. I have a rough understanding of what XML is and what it's for (despite the considerable noise). The problem is that what XML is has nothing to do with how users perceive their documents.
Think about that for a second. You can talk about concocting your own schemas, and what the standard is supposed to do, all night. Joe User wants his fucking document to look like how he typed it. He wants to be able to send it to others and have them read it. That's it. If the format (or whatever you want to call the XML implementation) doesn't do that with anything but another copy of (the latest) Word, it is not useless, but very very close.
It's amazing to think that we still have these problems sharing simple documents. It should work like email, by now. We probably have MS to blame for this situation.
So, RTF. Whenever someone sends me a Word doc - even though I can easily strip out the crap with OS X TextEdit - I usually politely ask them to re-send as an RTF. When I tell them its 'just another choice in the little pull-down menu', they are usually happy to do so. I tell them that RTFs will get read on Macs and older PCs more easily, and not loose any formatting (in almost all cases). People understand this and are willing to comply. Only MS fanboys have anything remotely resembling a problem with this.
I mean, I pick up some software every time I walk into Future Shop (Canada's CompUSA). I just plug the 'ol iPod into one of the demo Macs and get After Effects, Office, etc. Very fast, doesn't even cost me a CD-R.
Okay. I agree. The author, in all likelihood, has a kind of psychosomatic disorder.
So, how does this translate to 'crackpot hypochondriac'?
Let me be more specific. I believe that there are a great many common illnesses that are psychosomatic in nature. However, the pain is real. This guy is in pain, its clear to see. He's pursued this untenable solution to his pain for most of his adult life, according to the site. He's endured a fair amount of ridicule for thinking he's 'allergic to the 20th century'.
Just think about what that must be like. He believes firmly that the world is ignoring his pleas. Which is true, because his pleas are bogus. He doesn't know that. He just gets labelled 'crackpot'. He has no way out, really.
I guess, maybe just a little more sensitivity, guys? He may be nuts, but he's also sick, and I don't see the difference between this and any other mental disorder. If a paranoid schizophrenic thinks the world is after them, we don't (hopefully) decry them as purposefully nuts. We try and help them. If helping this guy find an adobe hut will make him think he's better I say give him an adobe hut.
You're gonna get flamed for knocking Windows and (merely) mentioning Mac in the same post.
Having said that, I don't think there's anything 'Windows-like' about the interface on those prototypes. For one thing... no windows. No mouse, no pointing device at all.
Remember, the fact that Windows and older commercial operating systems crash is an anomaly; mostly having to do with the Frankenstein nature of PCs in general (commodity parts cobbled together). Taken as a whole, operating systems are not supposed to crash. Custom hardware devices that have specifically-designed operating systems, especiallyo realtime ones, tend to be pretty bulletproof. When's the last time you had your Playstation, or Palm Pilot (hmm maybe thats a bad example), or cell phone crash on you? It can happen, but its really rare.
(for those of you about to chime in with 'my cell phone crashed last week', I know it happens, I just said it was rare.)
Back on topic... I want those goggles, dammit! I've been waiting for goggles for years... and I like the idea of the clip-on camera.
We're agreeing so vehemently it sounds like an argument, that seems to happen a lot on slashdot....
Couple of comments, When I have a client that tells me they want a specific font, and sound effects
Clients ask for these kinds of things all the time. I say:
* You can suggest a specific font, but if it's an unusual font, most people will see one of the more common fonts. Some people will override your font completely because they find another font easier to read. Which "normal" font do you want to use as a fallback? Not to mention the discussion of serif vs sans-serif and so on...
* Sound can be highly irritating for many end-users, especially if they aren't expecting it. Virtually no high-profile business websites use sound, so unless there is a domain-specific reason for having sound, I would recommend against it. If there is a good reason for having sound, I would recommend that it not be activated automatically.
All true. I think we agree that bad sound design and bad font choices are just, well, bad. Flash (unfortunately) enables both good and bad media. The thing I think a lot of engineers decry (not you) about Flash is just that... as in, it can do it, and you can't make annoying sound effects with plain HTML, so Flash is bad, which is odd to me. Like blaming C++ for the fact that it can totally lock up a machine, and BASIC can't.
Also, I do think its a shame more sites don't use sound, it can really enhance any experience. You've always got the option to turn it off (at the speaker if nothing else).
As far as fonts, in my experience, those applying their own stylesheets and font settings are pretty rare. They maybe set the point size to 14pt instead of 12, but that's it. Which brings me to another point...
I do have a problem with applying your own stylesheets to other's work. Basically it goes like this: I designed it a specific way, I want it shown that specific way. I've likely fought tooth and nail with the client over certain very specific things, and we have reached a solution visually for these things. To take away those decisions and apply your own arbitrary, un-trained stlyes, while liberating, is a bit wrong. It undermines the work that potentially went into a 'good' design. The only situation I've seen custom user-defined stylesheets work for is blogs; mostly because the bloggers have more or less settled on a unified layout.
I agree, I never said otherwise. But website navigation with flash is usually an abuse of flash - I've certainly never seen an appropriate use of flash in this way.
Okay, well I'll put my money where my mouth is: here is my Flash site. (you'll need the Flash MX plug-in.) It uses its own navigation. You can't use the browser controls, just as you've said. Take a look; maybe it IS an abomination of usability. However, I've never had one complaint about how to use it. It is what I consider a perfectly acceptable sub-navigation for the site. Of course, like I (we both) said earlier, I wouldn't use this for a database of term papers.
Oh by the way, indexing is not a problem.
No, if you provide alternate navigation that isn't flash-based. Most people clueless enough to use flash for navigation are clueless enough to not realise they need to do this. I know of no search engine that parses, or even retrieves, swf files.
Hmm. Not sure to what you're referring; Flash MX can basically mark up (boy does it ever mark up) every last bit of text in your Flash site, in the HTML frame file. And there's robots.txt as well. MX made great strides for usability, which had the side-effect of including a lot more metadata, and therefore exposing a lot more raw functionality, in Flash SWFs. Also note that its a lot harder to program proper navigation in Flash than it is in HTML, not easier; the idea that the 'clueless' are seizing upon Flash for easy website programming is not true. It's like programming everything in JavaScript (ActionScript is almost identical syntactically).
And stylesheets, as cool as they are, cannot compete with absolute sub-pixel vector positioning.
You are merely picking one attribute of flash and claiming that stylesheets cannot compete because of it? Please explain what "absolute sub-pixel vector positioning" means, and why it is useful. Then explain how I can override it in my browser to get the look that I want.
Oooh I could pick on a lot more than that.:)
Flash is all vector-based. The sizes and positions of things in Flash can be specified to a single decimal place of a pixel (i.e. 10.3, 14.9, etc.). This offers advantages for both resolution-independance as well as animation quality. Adobe After Effects, a raster-based animation program, also offers this feature. Think of it as a Nyquist Theorem kind of thing; higher resoltions from the source result in better looking images and motion. Not to mention superior antialiasing of text and vector edges. (Now, if you want to disable it, right-click on a Flash movie and choose anything but 'highest quality', then try and read some text. *shudder*)
Flash graphics are better than the usual hodgepodge of GIFs and JPEGs. They make more sense for the web, and they are much smaller. I can say this because Flash can also incorporate the best raster-based web graphics formats (JPEG, PNG) with its own vectors.
Not to mention, as a web designer, I have far less problems debugging a Flash site between browsers, as the plug-in is more consistent than the HTML engine.
Which plug-in? You know there's more than one, right?
The Flash plug-in. I think there is also a combination Shockwave (Director)/Flash plug-in. They both behave identically on Windows and Mac browsers. That's what I mean. I don't have to debug things in Flash because they 'look right' on one browser and not the other.
Now, don't get me wrong, I basically agree with everything you're saying. It just bugs me when people (not you) blame Flash for being flexible and powerful. They should blame people who suck instead.
Flash as navigation? It allows you to completely destroy the usability of the site. Middle click to open in a new window? Gone. Right click to select "open in new tab"? Gone. Tab through links? Gone (or possibly there if somebody using flash has a clue, unlikely). Typeahead finding a link? Gone.
You're right, but for a particular instance. See, I suspect you are a technical person (coder, engineer, or possibly researcher, or all 3. whatever). You spend a great deal of time searching on the web, which is what a lot of people do. You like your standard tools for searching and arranging your information. Flash sites disable many of these tools.
Problem with this is, that Flash site should either A) not exist as a Flash site, or B) you're forcing a site to do what it doesn't want to do.
A Flash site with its own interface is just dandy for certain applications, mostly those having to do with marketing, or presentation, or conceptual visualization. Remember that Flash is just a clever animation, like Director was; it is essentially linear, with stops-and-starts, and GOTOs.
Besides, I would argue that I have found at least as many HTML sites abusing JavaScript and bad design in their navigation as Flash sites. Flash just has the capacity to do more damage. The pwoer of Flash is not a flaw.
When I have a client that tells me they want a specific font, and sound effects, and a 3d spin-around of their new shoe (for example), I say Flash every time. It's the best choice. It's a commerical, a glossy interactive brochure. It can look like any damn thing it wants.
If it was a site for weekend trips, for example, thats a PHP site with little Flash demos that launch in windows. That way you get Flash presentations (what its meant for), with searchable, right-clickable, parsable HTML content in the right framework.
My point is, don't blame the tech, and don't blame Flash for crappy navigation. It has it's place; it belongs in exploratory interfaces, not useful ones. This is of course not to say that exploratory != useful, but in situations where one wants to immerse themselves and casually browse a rich experience with sound, the right fonts, and a generally superior (depending...) experience, Flash is great.
If its something like Slashdot, or the Beeb, or SourceForge (heh, can you imagine?).. not so much.
Oh by the way, indexing is not a problem. And stylesheets, as cool as they are, cannot compete with absolute sub-pixel vector positioning. Not to mention, as a web designer, I have far less problems debugging a Flash site between browsers, as the plug-in is more consistent than the HTML engine.
... and what's more, the pointing device needs to change as well.
As far as I see it, it's very simple: 2D screen, 2D pointer = 2D interface. That's the best construct as this is hardware-limited.
Likewise, 3D interface = 3D display + 3D pointer. It's no good doing a 2.5D interface.
I keep an avid watch on new interface developments, but I note with some alarm these screenshots that pop up. Alan Kay is a genius, safe to say, as is Jef Raskin. However, having a look at a screenshot for Croquet, or worse, THE, is a distinctly underwhelming sensation. THE in particular looks particularly un-humane. I understand all the theory - it just doesn't seem to pan out on first impressions.
The ideal future interface will be a successful blending of the old-school methods with some radical rethinking. We can't toss things like toolbars just yet, as there is a whole world of commerical apps that will need to be at least a little similar in operation.
Thanks for your response, indirectly through CmdrTaco's response to my original post. Imagine my surprise to see you posting here, and modded at 1 no less. You posted 2 hours ago. That makes me wonder.
Anyways,
I'm responding mainly because you are the only one who seems to have read my original intention correctly; I really was just sort of wondering aloud if they'd install a shell-checker for paying subscribers, and possibly keep the dupes down. My attempt to forestall an impression of hostility towards Slashdot didn't really work out - evidenced by Taco's response of 'this ain't CNN' to which I was originally horrified.
Not at the denial of the request, but that Taco possibly thought I liked to read CNN, which I abhor.
I like Slashdot the way it is. Which is to say, its free, and usually has some interesting content on any given day (I would say the same of Ars Technica). I also feel that I add value to Slashdot, in the manner of participating and regularly moderating. I try to do what they're asking, and I enjoy the discussion. Paying is a whole other thing.
Sorry for the length of this, it's just a thread that has mystified me. My suggestion at this point would be that a Slashdot membership possibly come with a free licenced copy of a leading web browser with inline form spellchecking, such as OmniWeb, until such time that Slashdot sees its way to providing that feature. Or - no, much better - possibly do an Apple-like scheme, where paying readers get the spellchecked versions, and the ability to view them full-screen. That's it.
Slashdot Mirror
For maximum persecution, of course. It's the ultimate statement of geek martyrdom.
Run your neo-hippy operating system on neo-yuppie hardware. I love it!
(i'm joking. sorta.)
No fair, Cyberdog doesn't count.
- Transition to UNIXy OS complete
- Xserve has appeared
- Node clusters have appeared
- Xraid
- high-end video editing (Final Cut Pro)
- high-end compositing software (Shake)
- high-end audio production (Logic)
- Maya support
and let's not forget existing pieces:
- QuickTime (now the basis of MPEG-4)
- relationship with Adobe (Photoshop, et. al)
- Avid (just ported Symphony to OS X)
- the other big audio guys (MOTU etc.)
They get that processor situation sorted out come July, they are poised to totally pull it off, too. The slow processor argument is the chief complaint about Apple. Take that away, and they are looking more impressive for content creators than anytime in their history.
(Oh, and incidentally, on a personal note - just my opinion, don't flame me - the above are all reasons why Quark can go to hell.)
Prepress designers know that the Quark/Distiller combo is basically how you get stuff done, for the most part, in recent years. However, Quark is muchos late with their application, and Adobe has yet to mention Distiller for OS X, even though they've ported pretty much everything else.
The rumour mill has it that Adobe is holding back - or possibly has cancelled - Distiller for OS X, just to give InDesign a shot in the arm (which has Distiller-like capabilities built in of course).
Also, it's possible that Adobe is still miffed by any of the following:
- the knifing of Adobe Premiere by Final Cut
- the competition for photo-management via iPhoto (notice no Adobe Album for OS X. Too bad, looks nice.)
- the non-licensing of Display PostScript for OS X (which I believe has been nothing but a good decision for Apple; Quartz is a milestone in 2D graphics display systems, and has many advantages over old-school DP, not the least of which is support for true transparency)
Makes you wonder if Apple is stepping up yet again to fill the void *cough*safari*cough*
That doesn't make any sense. You blame Apple for the shortcomings of those other companies?
Hey, guess what. There's this supa-cheap knockoff of transluscent housing around the spectacularly lame case of my work PC. It's actually sharp enough to almost cut you when you reach for the CD drive. So fuck you, Apple, for providing an impetus of design that these lacklustre PC manufacturers just could not handle, even while they tried to capitalize on the new craze of coloured computers while not getting it at all.
Somebody in the ancient past here on /. made a great point about the CRT iMac once; they said the design was like a shark. It was simply evolved to the most logical, streamlined form given the necessity of the parts contained therein.
The flatpanel iMac really is a stupendous design. I'm the first to pick on the niggles, too: for instance, if the keyboard's legs are extended and located close to the iMac base, the disc tray bumps into it) but those are few and far between. Even the round base, which is the most likely target for the form-over-funtion argument, supplants this by offering the ability to rotate the iMac, thus giving you both a 'side'-mounted drive tray and access to ports...an Apple sales guy hit me with this when they came out. I mentioned that there should be easy-to-reach ports on the side at least, and he picked up the iMac - by the arm, which was also surprising at the time - and rotated it 90 degrees. That was slightly mindblowing.
Anyways. I think the only thing keeping the new iMac shape from becoming as ubiquitous for desktops as the Sony Trinitron black-matte design became for televisions is the fact that Apple won't likely let anyone get even close to that design without suing them for a trade dress violation.
The only rhetoric I hear and see all the time are the many euphemisms used by the "DRM industry".
No kidding. While it's been mentioned before it bears repeating: the use of 'stealing' or 'theft' are not appropriate, when describing file copying.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but rather reclaim some of the skewed language the **AAs are using. Saying 'theft' neuters the fact that there is no necessary physical scarcity of the media in question. Theft means that the article is now in the thieves' posession, and out of the hands of the owner. You can argue about how this might be 'theft of right to profit', but it's not theft per se. I'd like it if we (royal 'we') stopped buying into the language propogated by corporate lobbyists.
By the way, piracy is an acceptable term, although I believe there is an understood meaning there, whereby piracy generally refers to those engaged in selling illegal copies of media.
-only $14.95-
* Warning: Pregnant women, the elderly and children under 10 should avoid prolonged exposure to Ambient Orb.
* Caution: Ambient Orb may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds.
* Ambient Orb contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
* Do not use Ambient Orb on concrete.
Discontinue use of Ambient Orb if any of the following occurs:
* Itching
* Vertigo
* Dizziness
* Tingling in extremities
* Loss of balance or coordination
* Slurred speech
* Temporary blindness
* Profuse sweating
* Heart palpitations
If Ambient Orb begins to smoke, get away immediately. Seek shelter and cover head.
Ambient Orb may stick to certain types of skin.
When not in use, Ambient Orb should be returned to its special container and kept under refrigeration...
Failure to do so relieves the makers of Ambient Orb, Wacky Products Incorporated, and its parent company Global Chemical Unlimited, of any and all liability.
Ingredients of Ambient Orb include an unknown glowing substance which fell to Earth, presumably from outer space.
Ambient Orb has been shipped to our troops in Kuwait and is also being dropped by our warplanes on Iraq.
Do not taunt Ambient Orb.
Ambient Orb comes with a lifetime guarantee.
Ambient Orb.
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!
Why does the general public think that 5% marketshare is a shameful thing in the computer world?
Why are people threatened to the point of flameage over the simple existence of Mac hardware?
Why does Apple provoke such intense reactions?
They must be one of the most scrutenized companies in the world. And, as everyone knows, the joke is so old its got whiskers: "Sure Apple is going out of business. They'll still be going out of business long after you and I retire."
Is it because MS is the only other mainstream OS provider? I wonder if things would be different, in an alternate universe, where we're buying Atari and Amiga and BeOS boxen.
Perhaps these fuel cells will power my freakish dual-headed laptop for more than 18 minutes.
You just invented the best expense-report loophole in history! Huzzah!
Macintosh G3 -> running BeOS, which was running Sheepshaver, which was running Mac OS 8, which was running Virtual PC, which was running Windows NT 4, which was serving his website.
He figured that it had to crash really fucking hard to go through the wall, so to speak, of 3 different operating systems. Sort of a padded cell for IIS.
I know lots of people in Toronto who already say this. I think it got popular at the ad agencies.
For a second, I thought you were actually quoting Bush's autobiography.
Plus I think he wrote it in something like 6 hours, while high on Code Red.
2) Adherence to the Mac OS X Human Interface Guidelines -- Does the software comply with, for example, the Aqua layout guidelines, system appearance (including anti-aliased display of text), and correct organization of menus and use of keyboard shortcuts?
It's anti-aliased.... but that's about it. Some of those widgets are like refugees from KPT Bryce. About as non-standard as you get.
However, it might win on point 4 (innovation).
You know, that Jack Valenti.
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
"What is fair use? Fair use is not a law. There's nothing in law."
And my fave,
"I sleep each night a little better, a little more confidently, because Lyndon Johnson is my president. "
That's an old one, but sort of illustrates the point. Jack Valenti is a ridiculous dinosaur from the Johnson administration, and he still thinks like a military guy from that era. He's not an idiot, but he is massively self-deluding, and you can count on him to not concede anything he doesn't absolutely have to. Like many old-school execs, Valenti will never totally grasp the fact that scarcity of media is history. He'd rather fight than adapt. Which is a shame - as these types of organizations (MPAA studios, etc.) essentially have a first-shot opportunity when situations like P2P arise, through startup capital and established contracts.
It's rhetoric. He does it to get a rise out of people. It's the Bigger Hammer approach. You can try and yell louder, or you can ignore him.
Let me just put on my Joe User cap here for a sec. I have a rough understanding of what XML is and what it's for (despite the considerable noise). The problem is that what XML is has nothing to do with how users perceive their documents.
Think about that for a second. You can talk about concocting your own schemas, and what the standard is supposed to do, all night. Joe User wants his fucking document to look like how he typed it. He wants to be able to send it to others and have them read it. That's it. If the format (or whatever you want to call the XML implementation) doesn't do that with anything but another copy of (the latest) Word, it is not useless, but very very close.
It's amazing to think that we still have these problems sharing simple documents. It should work like email, by now. We probably have MS to blame for this situation.
So, RTF. Whenever someone sends me a Word doc - even though I can easily strip out the crap with OS X TextEdit - I usually politely ask them to re-send as an RTF. When I tell them its 'just another choice in the little pull-down menu', they are usually happy to do so. I tell them that RTFs will get read on Macs and older PCs more easily, and not loose any formatting (in almost all cases). People understand this and are willing to comply. Only MS fanboys have anything remotely resembling a problem with this.
Okay. I agree. The author, in all likelihood, has a kind of psychosomatic disorder.
So, how does this translate to 'crackpot hypochondriac'?
Let me be more specific. I believe that there are a great many common illnesses that are psychosomatic in nature. However, the pain is real. This guy is in pain, its clear to see. He's pursued this untenable solution to his pain for most of his adult life, according to the site. He's endured a fair amount of ridicule for thinking he's 'allergic to the 20th century'.
Just think about what that must be like. He believes firmly that the world is ignoring his pleas. Which is true, because his pleas are bogus. He doesn't know that. He just gets labelled 'crackpot'. He has no way out, really.
I guess, maybe just a little more sensitivity, guys? He may be nuts, but he's also sick, and I don't see the difference between this and any other mental disorder. If a paranoid schizophrenic thinks the world is after them, we don't (hopefully) decry them as purposefully nuts. We try and help them. If helping this guy find an adobe hut will make him think he's better I say give him an adobe hut.
Having said that, I don't think there's anything 'Windows-like' about the interface on those prototypes. For one thing... no windows. No mouse, no pointing device at all.
Remember, the fact that Windows and older commercial operating systems crash is an anomaly; mostly having to do with the Frankenstein nature of PCs in general (commodity parts cobbled together). Taken as a whole, operating systems are not supposed to crash. Custom hardware devices that have specifically-designed operating systems, especiallyo realtime ones, tend to be pretty bulletproof. When's the last time you had your Playstation, or Palm Pilot (hmm maybe thats a bad example), or cell phone crash on you? It can happen, but its really rare.
(for those of you about to chime in with 'my cell phone crashed last week', I know it happens, I just said it was rare.)
Back on topic... I want those goggles, dammit! I've been waiting for goggles for years... and I like the idea of the clip-on camera.
Couple of comments,
When I have a client that tells me they want a specific font, and sound effects
Clients ask for these kinds of things all the time. I say:
* You can suggest a specific font, but if it's an unusual font, most people will see one of the more common fonts. Some people will override your font completely because they find another font easier to read. Which "normal" font do you want to use as a fallback? Not to mention the discussion of serif vs sans-serif and so on...
* Sound can be highly irritating for many end-users, especially if they aren't expecting it. Virtually no high-profile business websites use sound, so unless there is a domain-specific reason for having sound, I would recommend against it. If there is a good reason for having sound, I would recommend that it not be activated automatically.
All true. I think we agree that bad sound design and bad font choices are just, well, bad. Flash (unfortunately) enables both good and bad media. The thing I think a lot of engineers decry (not you) about Flash is just that... as in, it can do it, and you can't make annoying sound effects with plain HTML, so Flash is bad, which is odd to me. Like blaming C++ for the fact that it can totally lock up a machine, and BASIC can't.
Also, I do think its a shame more sites don't use sound, it can really enhance any experience. You've always got the option to turn it off (at the speaker if nothing else). As far as fonts, in my experience, those applying their own stylesheets and font settings are pretty rare. They maybe set the point size to 14pt instead of 12, but that's it. Which brings me to another point...
I do have a problem with applying your own stylesheets to other's work. Basically it goes like this: I designed it a specific way, I want it shown that specific way. I've likely fought tooth and nail with the client over certain very specific things, and we have reached a solution visually for these things. To take away those decisions and apply your own arbitrary, un-trained stlyes, while liberating, is a bit wrong. It undermines the work that potentially went into a 'good' design. The only situation I've seen custom user-defined stylesheets work for is blogs; mostly because the bloggers have more or less settled on a unified layout.
I agree, I never said otherwise. But website navigation with flash is usually an abuse of flash - I've certainly never seen an appropriate use of flash in this way.
Okay, well I'll put my money where my mouth is: here is my Flash site. (you'll need the Flash MX plug-in.) It uses its own navigation. You can't use the browser controls, just as you've said. Take a look; maybe it IS an abomination of usability. However, I've never had one complaint about how to use it. It is what I consider a perfectly acceptable sub-navigation for the site. Of course, like I (we both) said earlier, I wouldn't use this for a database of term papers.
Oh by the way, indexing is not a problem.
No, if you provide alternate navigation that isn't flash-based. Most people clueless enough to use flash for navigation are clueless enough to not realise they need to do this. I know of no search engine that parses, or even retrieves, swf files.
Hmm. Not sure to what you're referring; Flash MX can basically mark up (boy does it ever mark up) every last bit of text in your Flash site, in the HTML frame file. And there's robots.txt as well. MX made great strides for usability, which had the side-effect of including a lot more metadata, and therefore exposing a lot more raw functionality, in Flash SWFs. Also note that its a lot harder to program proper navigation in Flash than it is in HTML, not easier; the idea that the 'clueless' are seizing upon Flash for easy website programming is not true. It's like programming everything in JavaScript (ActionScript is almost identical syntactically).
And stylesheets, as cool as they are, cannot compete with absolute sub-pixel vector positioning.
You are merely picking one attribute of flash and claiming that stylesheets cannot compete because of it? Please explain what "absolute sub-pixel vector positioning" means, and why it is useful. Then explain how I can override it in my browser to get the look that I want.
Oooh I could pick on a lot more than that. :)
Flash is all vector-based. The sizes and positions of things in Flash can be specified to a single decimal place of a pixel (i.e. 10.3, 14.9, etc.). This offers advantages for both resolution-independance as well as animation quality. Adobe After Effects, a raster-based animation program, also offers this feature. Think of it as a Nyquist Theorem kind of thing; higher resoltions from the source result in better looking images and motion. Not to mention superior antialiasing of text and vector edges. (Now, if you want to disable it, right-click on a Flash movie and choose anything but 'highest quality', then try and read some text. *shudder*)
Flash graphics are better than the usual hodgepodge of GIFs and JPEGs. They make more sense for the web, and they are much smaller. I can say this because Flash can also incorporate the best raster-based web graphics formats (JPEG, PNG) with its own vectors.
Not to mention, as a web designer, I have far less problems debugging a Flash site between browsers, as the plug-in is more consistent than the HTML engine.
Which plug-in? You know there's more than one, right?
The Flash plug-in. I think there is also a combination Shockwave (Director)/Flash plug-in. They both behave identically on Windows and Mac browsers. That's what I mean. I don't have to debug things in Flash because they 'look right' on one browser and not the other.
Now, don't get me wrong, I basically agree with everything you're saying. It just bugs me when people (not you) blame Flash for being flexible and powerful. They should blame people who suck instead.
Flash as navigation? It allows you to completely destroy the usability of the site. Middle click to open in a new window? Gone. Right click to select "open in new tab"? Gone. Tab through links? Gone (or possibly there if somebody using flash has a clue, unlikely). Typeahead finding a link? Gone.
You're right, but for a particular instance. See, I suspect you are a technical person (coder, engineer, or possibly researcher, or all 3. whatever). You spend a great deal of time searching on the web, which is what a lot of people do. You like your standard tools for searching and arranging your information. Flash sites disable many of these tools.
Problem with this is, that Flash site should either A) not exist as a Flash site, or B) you're forcing a site to do what it doesn't want to do.
A Flash site with its own interface is just dandy for certain applications, mostly those having to do with marketing, or presentation, or conceptual visualization. Remember that Flash is just a clever animation, like Director was; it is essentially linear, with stops-and-starts, and GOTOs.
Besides, I would argue that I have found at least as many HTML sites abusing JavaScript and bad design in their navigation as Flash sites. Flash just has the capacity to do more damage. The pwoer of Flash is not a flaw.
When I have a client that tells me they want a specific font, and sound effects, and a 3d spin-around of their new shoe (for example), I say Flash every time. It's the best choice. It's a commerical, a glossy interactive brochure. It can look like any damn thing it wants.
If it was a site for weekend trips, for example, thats a PHP site with little Flash demos that launch in windows. That way you get Flash presentations (what its meant for), with searchable, right-clickable, parsable HTML content in the right framework.
My point is, don't blame the tech, and don't blame Flash for crappy navigation. It has it's place; it belongs in exploratory interfaces, not useful ones. This is of course not to say that exploratory != useful, but in situations where one wants to immerse themselves and casually browse a rich experience with sound, the right fonts, and a generally superior (depending...) experience, Flash is great.
If its something like Slashdot, or the Beeb, or SourceForge (heh, can you imagine?).. not so much.
Oh by the way, indexing is not a problem. And stylesheets, as cool as they are, cannot compete with absolute sub-pixel vector positioning. Not to mention, as a web designer, I have far less problems debugging a Flash site between browsers, as the plug-in is more consistent than the HTML engine.
As far as I see it, it's very simple: 2D screen, 2D pointer = 2D interface. That's the best construct as this is hardware-limited.
Likewise, 3D interface = 3D display + 3D pointer. It's no good doing a 2.5D interface.
I keep an avid watch on new interface developments, but I note with some alarm these screenshots that pop up. Alan Kay is a genius, safe to say, as is Jef Raskin. However, having a look at a screenshot for Croquet, or worse, THE, is a distinctly underwhelming sensation. THE in particular looks particularly un-humane. I understand all the theory - it just doesn't seem to pan out on first impressions.
The ideal future interface will be a successful blending of the old-school methods with some radical rethinking. We can't toss things like toolbars just yet, as there is a whole world of commerical apps that will need to be at least a little similar in operation.
Thanks for your response, indirectly through CmdrTaco's response to my original post. Imagine my surprise to see you posting here, and modded at 1 no less. You posted 2 hours ago. That makes me wonder.
Anyways,
I'm responding mainly because you are the only one who seems to have read my original intention correctly; I really was just sort of wondering aloud if they'd install a shell-checker for paying subscribers, and possibly keep the dupes down. My attempt to forestall an impression of hostility towards Slashdot didn't really work out - evidenced by Taco's response of 'this ain't CNN' to which I was originally horrified. Not at the denial of the request, but that Taco possibly thought I liked to read CNN, which I abhor.
I like Slashdot the way it is. Which is to say, its free, and usually has some interesting content on any given day (I would say the same of Ars Technica). I also feel that I add value to Slashdot, in the manner of participating and regularly moderating. I try to do what they're asking, and I enjoy the discussion. Paying is a whole other thing.
Sorry for the length of this, it's just a thread that has mystified me. My suggestion at this point would be that a Slashdot membership possibly come with a free licenced copy of a leading web browser with inline form spellchecking, such as OmniWeb, until such time that Slashdot sees its way to providing that feature. Or - no, much better - possibly do an Apple-like scheme, where paying readers get the spellchecked versions, and the ability to view them full-screen. That's it.