Perhaps "scale" wasn't the best word. I'm not talking about resolution or anything so petty. I'm talking about using the limitations of the iPhone to work out what the actual important content is for your site and then use that as the basis for the site no matter where it's being shown. As a designer, you should be asking yourself "if this isn't important enough to make it to the iPhone version, why have I got it on the "real" version of the site. It's the principle of throwing stuff away until it no longer works, then putting the last thing back in.
A good example is the new Engadget site. It's a little sparse on the iPhone, but it's actually way easier to use than the monstrosity that is now their home page in a desktop browser.
Just to nitpick, Vimeo works perfectly on iPhone and, in fact, has an iPhone optimised interface.
As an aside, more people should develop their site to work on an iPhone first, then scale it up. It forces you to decide what it *actually* important on the site. If it isn't needed on iPhone, why is it needed on the full version?
And then threaten to close those kitchens when there's the possibility they might have to provide benefits to same sex partners in accordance with proposed law. In other words, using their "good works" as a stick to enforce their religious beliefs into the law. Moral, my arse.
You don't sign a license agreement saying you won't put the engine in another car. Now, you can argue whether or not license agreements are fair or not and you can work your ass off to get the law changed so that you actually own the software you buy instead of just licensing it (good luck with that), but at the minute the law is on Apple's side.
Please explain to me why I am a fool for buying the system that best enables me to do my work? I have, at various times, primarily used Windows, Linux and OSX and, currently, OSX is the system that works best for me. Considering the price differences amount to a couple of hours pay yet the productivity gains amount to more than that every month, wouldn't I be a fool *not* to use it?
I think the UK is pretty well sorted since we have no "influencing" borders to persuade us to change. Any idea why an island would have decided it would be worth the effort to make the transition?
Hmm, interesting. I would love to see the outrage if the UK tried to close all the roads for a weekend:)
It would also be interesting to see the increase in number of accidents, particularly with everyone having the steering wheel on the wrong side, not to mention the issue with all the headlights shining in oncoming drivers eyes.
Don't most big companies have a policy of ignoring any letters that are suggestions, to stop people suing the company for royalties if they implement a similar idea?
I'd like to know the difference between a site emailing you the new password and the site emailing you a link to reset your password (in both cases assuming you have forgotten the original one). In either case if someone intercepts the email they can achieve the same effect. I suppose that a reset link at least gives you a chance that you'll be there before an eavesdropper and the link is one use?
Or are you explicitly talking about the site emailing your existing password, which means they are storing it in either plaintext or reversible hash?
If you listen to the same music over and over and over, then there's not much incentive. If you're the sort of person constantly on the lookout for something new to listen to then you get, essentially, unlimited new music for the price of only a single album each month. Sure, you could use Last.fm, but if you're an "album listener", Last.fm is horrible.
It is classified as a tax, but, since it isn't collected for the government it technically isn't one. The government doesn't handle or distribute the funding. For complicated reasons the money goes into the government account and the exact amount is then "voted" on as the amount to give to the BBC who then allocate as they see fit. It is a rigmarole to keep the BBC accountable.
Technically, the BBC is neither government owned nor taxpayer funded. Of course, by law if you operate any equipment capable of receiving broadcast material you have to pay the license fee, but the government doesn't handle or distribute the funding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbc#Governance
As an interesting aside, you can use the BBC iPlayer to watch previously shown material without a license, but you can't watch the live stream without one. As long as you watch everything an hour later you're good.
I wish people would stop insisting marriage is a church thing. The church had no interest in marriage until the Council of Trent in the mid sixteenth century where they suddenly realised that by deciding a marriage couldn't be recognised unless it was sanctioned and carried out by the church they could turn what had previously been a mostly business proposal into a nice little money spinner.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps "scale" wasn't the best word. I'm not talking about resolution or anything so petty. I'm talking about using the limitations of the iPhone to work out what the actual important content is for your site and then use that as the basis for the site no matter where it's being shown. As a designer, you should be asking yourself "if this isn't important enough to make it to the iPhone version, why have I got it on the "real" version of the site. It's the principle of throwing stuff away until it no longer works, then putting the last thing back in.
A good example is the new Engadget site. It's a little sparse on the iPhone, but it's actually way easier to use than the monstrosity that is now their home page in a desktop browser.
Just to nitpick, Vimeo works perfectly on iPhone and, in fact, has an iPhone optimised interface.
As an aside, more people should develop their site to work on an iPhone first, then scale it up. It forces you to decide what it *actually* important on the site. If it isn't needed on iPhone, why is it needed on the full version?
Because we're tidier?
Opera was also not free at the time.
Yes, Apple's campus is not Jerhico, buglers would have little effect.
And people ask what the point of having the monarchy around is.
And then threaten to close those kitchens when there's the possibility they might have to provide benefits to same sex partners in accordance with proposed law. In other words, using their "good works" as a stick to enforce their religious beliefs into the law. Moral, my arse.
But this story is in the Daily Mail. Since I don't believe anything they say maybe Russia *hasn't* denied it?
You don't sign a license agreement saying you won't put the engine in another car. Now, you can argue whether or not license agreements are fair or not and you can work your ass off to get the law changed so that you actually own the software you buy instead of just licensing it (good luck with that), but at the minute the law is on Apple's side.
Every other company also makes 5% margin compared to Apple's 30%*, Should Apple also cut their margins to be with the cool crowd?
*figures pulled from ass, but not far from reality.
Please explain to me why I am a fool for buying the system that best enables me to do my work? I have, at various times, primarily used Windows, Linux and OSX and, currently, OSX is the system that works best for me. Considering the price differences amount to a couple of hours pay yet the productivity gains amount to more than that every month, wouldn't I be a fool *not* to use it?
I think the UK is pretty well sorted since we have no "influencing" borders to persuade us to change. Any idea why an island would have decided it would be worth the effort to make the transition?
Hmm, interesting. I would love to see the outrage if the UK tried to close all the roads for a weekend :)
It would also be interesting to see the increase in number of accidents, particularly with everyone having the steering wheel on the wrong side, not to mention the issue with all the headlights shining in oncoming drivers eyes.
Am I the only one that sees an issue where cars drive on the left and trucks and buses drive on the right?
Being in the UK my Google Voice account is pretty much useless, but doesn't GV render the changing number issue moot?
Don't most big companies have a policy of ignoring any letters that are suggestions, to stop people suing the company for royalties if they implement a similar idea?
Mogambo!
I'd go with Betty. But I'd be thinking about Wilma.
I'm so not a maths geek, but why is this useful other than being able to say "hey, we found the first trillion congruent numbers"?
I know that certain branches are useful for cryptography purposes, but what awesomeness does this let us do?
I'd like to know the difference between a site emailing you the new password and the site emailing you a link to reset your password (in both cases assuming you have forgotten the original one). In either case if someone intercepts the email they can achieve the same effect. I suppose that a reset link at least gives you a chance that you'll be there before an eavesdropper and the link is one use?
Or are you explicitly talking about the site emailing your existing password, which means they are storing it in either plaintext or reversible hash?
If you think Wil Shipley is making "probably about $5 a month from their software" you've clearly never heard of him.
Put it this way, he's currently selling his super charged Lotus pending delivery of his Tesla roadster.
If you listen to the same music over and over and over, then there's not much incentive. If you're the sort of person constantly on the lookout for something new to listen to then you get, essentially, unlimited new music for the price of only a single album each month. Sure, you could use Last.fm, but if you're an "album listener", Last.fm is horrible.
It is classified as a tax, but, since it isn't collected for the government it technically isn't one. The government doesn't handle or distribute the funding. For complicated reasons the money goes into the government account and the exact amount is then "voted" on as the amount to give to the BBC who then allocate as they see fit. It is a rigmarole to keep the BBC accountable.
Technically, the BBC is neither government owned nor taxpayer funded. Of course, by law if you operate any equipment capable of receiving broadcast material you have to pay the license fee, but the government doesn't handle or distribute the funding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbc#Governance
As an interesting aside, you can use the BBC iPlayer to watch previously shown material without a license, but you can't watch the live stream without one. As long as you watch everything an hour later you're good.
I wish people would stop insisting marriage is a church thing. The church had no interest in marriage until the Council of Trent in the mid sixteenth century where they suddenly realised that by deciding a marriage couldn't be recognised unless it was sanctioned and carried out by the church they could turn what had previously been a mostly business proposal into a nice little money spinner.