A quarter of US adults say they read no books at all in the past year, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll. The typical person claimed to have read four books in the last year and, excluding those who had not read any books at all, the usual number of books read was seven.
Of those who did read, women and pensioners were most avid readers, and religious works and popular fiction were the top choices. The median figure for books read - with half reading more, half fewer - was nine books for women and five for men. The figures also indicated that those with college degrees read the most, and people aged 50 and over read more than those who are younger.
People from the West and Midwest are more likely to have read at least one book in the past year. Southerners who do read, however, tend to read more books - mostly religious books and romance novels - than people from other regions.
Those who said they never attend religious services read nearly twice as many as those who attend frequently but the Bible and religious works were read by two-thirds in the survey, more than all other categories. Popular fiction, histories, biographies and mysteries were all cited by about half, while one in five read romance novels. Every other genre - including politics, poetry and classical literature - were named by fewer than 5% of readers. More women than men read every major category of books except for history and biography. Industry experts said that confirms their observation that men tend to prefer nonfiction.
There was even some political variety evident, with Democrats and liberals typically reading slightly more books than Republicans and conservatives.
Book sales in the US have been flat in recent years and are expected to stay that way indefinitely. Analysts attribute the listlessness to competition from the internet and other media, the unsteady economy and a well-established industry with limited opportunities for expansion. The publishing business totaled $35.7 billion (26.4 billion) in global sales last year, 3% more than the previous year, according to the Book Industry Study Group, a trade association. About 3.1 billion books were sold, an increase of less than 1%.
I'm not American, but this story reinforces an impression of Americans that I have not been able to shake off. Namely, that there is absolutely no love of the English language among the majority of it's native speakers.
Language is always changing and dynamic, but Americans coin new words simply because they can't be bothered to pick up a dictionary and find a suitable one that already exists. American's love to think they are direct and to the point in the way they communicate (and they are in many ways), but they are also masters of obfuscation. Who else has given us words like collateral damage and downsizing? Call a spade a spade if you ask me, these are dishonest words designed to mitigate the more direct meaning of other perfectly suitable words. A commercial is a commercial but it doesn't sound quite so bad if you can call it an infomercial does it?
When it comes to coining new words and phrases, the technology sector is the worst culprit. The list is endless (and ugly): blogs, blogging, blogosphere, podcast, plogs, folksonomy, captology, thin-slicing. Yes, there's something to be said for words that form a professional vocabulary as part of a profession, but this certainly isn't it.
Are these words conjured up in the spirit of genuine invention or discovery? Or are they created more in the hope (expectation?) that they'll have a better chance of stimulating discussion if they appear to convey something new and original (even when they don't)?
Blogebrity? Another abomination of the English language which is hardly surprising coming from people who work in New Media and the Web where everyone is happy to coin a new term if gets them some attention.
Secondly, I'm not sure if this Blogebrity thing is slightly tongue-in-cheek, but if it isn't, it's enough to put you off the whole phenomenon of blogging for life.
I completely disagree with this report's findings - English is being threatened by the rise of "netspeak" and it emphatically is not due to an evolving online "culture" - it is simply because too many native-English speakers do not care about the English language and have little to no love of it. If you want online evidence of this, what better example than blogs?
The majority of (native-English language) blogs are very badly written, even popular and well-known ones. Given that many bloggers are (according to the BBC) "young, well-educated, net-savvy males with good incomes and college educations", one has to wonder why this is. I don't mind if people read blogs as long as they recognise the casual, "throw-away" style of writing that is common on these sites. By all means emulate that style if you want, but why should we hold this up as a good thing for our writing or reading skills? You can write polished prose with an informal tone of voice without simply writing your thoughts as they tumble out of your head. But writing well is a skill that takes effort.
Few authors seem to spend the time refining or polishing what they post, and given the transitory nature of many blog posts, I have absolutely no problem with that. What I object to is the incessant hype surrounding blogs that is completely disproportionate to their actual influence or importance.
If you're going to hype blogs - essentially, a written medium - why not actually encourage people to improve their writing skills? A skill that will give anyone immeasurable pleasure for the rest of their life. If you say that blogs don't have to meet anyone's expectations except their authors, then fine, I go back to my original point - why are these blogs getting the attention they don't deserve?
I fear blogs will lower our expectations of good writing, not raise them. If you want breadth, depth, quality and variety in writing, switch off your PC and go to your local library. What you'll find there will easily surpass what you can find online (and you're more likely to become a better reader and writer because of it).
Also, new articles in Wikipedia *are* being checked by others (I'm doing that myself, some time), and that *does* include checking for factual accuracy...
But how exactly can you check for factual errors when you have not studied the particular subject in question? Checking facts is not a simple matter of verifying dates. Particularly with historical or political matters, "facts" are often contentious issues. I have been reading some of the articles on the Middle East recently in Wikipedia. I personally feel the NPOV (neutral point of view) is rarely evident in many of these pieces (but the author's biases most certainly are evident).
Since anyone can contribute to Wikipedia, you might ask: why don't I do just that i.e. edit those articles? The reason is that I do not feel qualified to do so - I do not know enough about those topics to write an informed piece about the particular subject. Nevertheless, it's obvious that many of Wikipedia's authors are no more qualified than I.
When I use the word "qualified" I do not mean formal educational credentials, but someone who consults a wide variety of printed and online sources; carefully weighs the various issues and evidence at hand; writes, re-writes and continues to polish their writing paying careful attention to the use of their language and wording.
What is all this meant to illustrate? That writing a well-researched piece on important historical and political issues is an extremely time-consuming and difficult task that involves weighing up the contributions of potentially huge range of sources. Despite the vastness of the Internet, most of the world's knowledge is not online - ever noticed how so many Wikipedia articles use only online references? (Some don't even cite their references at all.)
I like the idea of an open, democratic knowledge-base, free for anyone to contribute. Unfortunately, Wikipedia hasn't eliminated the distortions found in the printed encyclopedias it is meant to replace, merely thrown up its own biases. The question is: how does one attempt to solve this problem of bias? I honestly don't know the answer or if indeed it is solvable.
When we started, I desperately wanted to offer a browsing technique that would model "dialing down" a search in a huge library
Barnes and Noble offer a "Book Browser" feature at their website - they even have a flash demo that demonstrates how to use the feature. It's not a perfect browsing tool, but it does offer you the option of drilling down to a more granular level as you mention. Browsing for books at the Barnes and Noble website is certainly easier than browsing at Amazon.
Do physical bookstores have anything to offer that Amazon doesn't?
Actually, one thing I find easier (and more enjoyable) in a physical bookstore is actually browsing for different titles along a shelf (or shelves). You might be looking for a particular title, but it's always interesting to see what other titles are stacked up next to it. Yes, you can "browse" online, but it feels more cumbersome to me and doesn't match the pleasure of browsing in a real bookstore (or library). What's more, Amazon's website has quite a cluttered feel to it. There are so many bits of information on a single page (including adverts from other vendors), it sometimes feels as if you're being bombarded with the hard sell.
I've ordered many times from Amazon and have no complaints about their customer service. However, they've grown so large (and continue to grow), I do worry about their influence and how they might exert it over other vendors, publishers, writers etc.
And speaking of the hard sell, is the recent "Amazon Theater" a foretaste of things to come? Product-placement taken to a new level i.e. films designed primarily to sell products. Not something to look forward to. How long before we see weblinks on a DVD that take you direct to an Amazon page where you can buy product X as featured in the movie you just watched?
What about videos? Netflix says it believes you're going to enter their rental-by-mail business.
Amazon UK have already started a DVD rental service. Perhaps it's a way for Amazon to test the waters before launching the service in the US?
I don't have a problem with blogs as such, it's the incessant hype surrounding them that puts me off. Some of the extravagant claims made about them (changing the face of journalism) simply don't stand up to scrutiny.
The enormous hype surrounding blogs doesn't help anyone, least of all bloggers. And let's keep things in perspective with regard to the influence of blogging. Self-absorbed bloggers might think the Web is beginning to revolve around the whole blogging phenomenon, but that simply isn't the case (thank goodness). Here's a snip from a BBC report on blogging:
The number of people reading even the most influential online diarists is tiny - the top political blog receives just 0.0051% of all net visits, according to figures from web influence ranking firm HitWise released this year.
I know many people dislike Microsoft (myself included!), but to be fair to them, they have done a substantial amount of work on accessibility. It's far from perfect, but they are at least taking it seriously, and have done for some years. They have a dedicated accessibility section on their website.
Apple too, seem to be taking it seriously, but it has to be said, this is a fairly recent development for them (no doubt spurred on by the raft of new accessibility laws that have come into effect).
Here's an old article (February 2001) that gives an interesting historical perspective on accessibility on the Mac (no need for Mac fans to get rankled, much has changed, and I did emphasize it gives a good historical perspective).
For cases, have a look at the Antec Sonata. A simple stylish design in smart piano black. Try a search at various online retailers that let buyer's post reviews and you'll find the case to be well-rated.
The Nexus Breeze is also a nice design.
This is a tasteless remark - and should be modded down. (For those who don't know, Paul McCartney's wife, Heather, has a prosthetic leg as a result of being hit by a motorcycle.)
It's highly unlikely they would use MacOS X or Darwin. I doubt they want to be reliant on Apple hardware. Remember, there are PC component manufacturers in China and Korea. It makes sense to create an OS that works with the wide range of PC components already available (or under development) from existing manufacturers. A much better prospect for adoption and growth. Working with Apple will no doubt tie them into certain ageements (or constraints depending on your point of view). I don't think they'll find such a scenario particularly appealing.
The three countries certainly have the expertise to produce an OS, and of course, they understand the intricacies of their own language (and the associated problems of computer support for their languages) better than anyone else.
Why can't Microsoft translate it's software and operating systems so they use the correct spelling for other English-language speaking countries? The UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all use what's often referred to as International English, where spelling differs from U.S. English. Examples: Colour (not color), Favourites (rather than favorites), Network Neighbourhood (rather than neighborhood).
For all their expertise in internationalisation, it seems that Microsoft still can't manage this. Is it a question of cost and convenience? Some of their more specialised software, such as Encarta, has been properly localised, but probably because they promote this heavily as a resource for schools. How many U.S. users would be happy with an operating system and applications that used, say, UK spellings? Not many I'd venture to guess. But it's not just Microsoft, the last time I installed Mandrake Linux, the default install only offered U.S. English.
"...an interface that requires relearning can, at least in a sense, be said to be flawed. Time that has to be spent up front learning a new interface is widely perceived as wasted time. In order to be accepted, interfaces generally have to be incremental improvements on an existing paradigm. Radically new interfaces, no matter how much they improve on existing UIs, are almost certainly doomed to failure."
Another way of looking at this is to ask: will learning the new interface allow me to accomplish tasks with greater ease and in less time than if I continue with the current (or slightly improved) interface?
If we continue to build on top of an already flawed design, we will perpetuate the underlying faults in that design. Of course, if we're so used to certain conventions and practices, we probably won't even see them as flaws, merely the "natural" way to do things (just because it's always been done that way).
I do concede your point though. New interfaces do face an uphill struggle if they radically break with convention. I wouldn't say they are doomed to failure though. We should start thinking of training and program assistance as an integral part of any piece of software. Perhaps it's time to banish the idea that software can be inherently "intuitive". That word is used so often nowadays, it's lost any useful meaning regarding how easy software is to use (or at least I think so!).
Under the section 'Use Clean Layout', the Mac OS X guidelines state:
The Aqua interface of Mac OS X relies on a center-biased, spacious layout of controls and other interface elements. By contrast, Microsoft Windows has a left-biased, more crowded layout.
In a book called "The Non-Designer's Design Book", author Robin Williams explains some of the principles of visual layout from the field of graphic design. On the topic of alignment, Williams states that items aligned on a page create a strong cohesive unit. An "invisible line" gives order and organization to the elements on the page. She goes on to add that a centred alignment is the most common alignment that beginners use, and often creates a sedate, ordinary, and frankly quite dull appearance.
The book contains many before-and-after designs where the alignment of elements is modified. Most of the improvements arise from moving elements with a centred alignment to a flush-left or flush-right alignment. Williams doesn't say you should avoid a centred alignment altogether, but does add "...please try very hard to break away from a centered alignment unless you are consciously tring to create a more formal, sedate (often dull?) presentation."
In fairness to Apple, some of the examples they show in their guidelines demonstrate that their recommendation for a center alignment works by making elements next to each other (such as labels and their controls) flush with the "invisible line" that separates them (as in the sample application preferences dialog). Perhaps the best way of looking at Apple's recommendation is to appreciate that non-centred alignments are not an inferior alternative to centred layouts, and may in fact offer an improvement in dialog design.
Adobe promote PDF as an all-round solution for both printing and online reading. But anyone who wants a lightweight, cross-platform document format for online display should choose HTML.
Although PDFs can contain features like bookmarks and hyperlinks, these simply aid navigation through the document, they don't make reading a PDF any easier on the eye (admittedly, Adobe have developed their own on-screen anti-aliasing technology called CoolType which improves font display on LCD screens).
The simple fact is: HTML is a more accessible format for online display. With a well-designed HTML page, users can enlarge text and have it reflow around graphics etc. All you can do with the majority of current PDFs is zoom in to a page (and then scroll awkwardly left and right if the page doesn't fit on the screen). Version 5 of Acrobat now has the facility to allow text reflow and re-sizing. But taking advantage of this feature means giving up some of the layout certainty that attracts many document designers in the first place! What this really demonstrates is that one size does not fit all!
Paper and online reading habits are different and they need different approaches. The current PDF solution may work well for printing documents, but works poorly as an online medium. Consider that every decent book on HTML states that designing for the page and designing for the screen are quite different, so how can a faithful reproduction of a printed page be appropriate for online viewing?
Although HTML and stylesheets do not match the precise layout control that PDFs provide, it seems to me they represent a much better way forward for cross-platform document creation.
Slashdot Mirror
One in four Americans read no books last year
Wednesday August 22, 2007
A quarter of US adults say they read no books at all in the past year, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll. The typical person claimed to have read four books in the last year and, excluding those who had not read any books at all, the usual number of books read was seven.
Of those who did read, women and pensioners were most avid readers, and religious works and popular fiction were the top choices. The median figure for books read - with half reading more, half fewer - was nine books for women and five for men. The figures also indicated that those with college degrees read the most, and people aged 50 and over read more than those who are younger.
People from the West and Midwest are more likely to have read at least one book in the past year. Southerners who do read, however, tend to read more books - mostly religious books and romance novels - than people from other regions.
Those who said they never attend religious services read nearly twice as many as those who attend frequently but the Bible and religious works were read by two-thirds in the survey, more than all other categories. Popular fiction, histories, biographies and mysteries were all cited by about half, while one in five read romance novels. Every other genre - including politics, poetry and classical literature - were named by fewer than 5% of readers. More women than men read every major category of books except for history and biography. Industry experts said that confirms their observation that men tend to prefer nonfiction.
There was even some political variety evident, with Democrats and liberals typically reading slightly more books than Republicans and conservatives.
Book sales in the US have been flat in recent years and are expected to stay that way indefinitely. Analysts attribute the listlessness to competition from the internet and other media, the unsteady economy and a well-established industry with limited opportunities for expansion. The publishing business totaled $35.7 billion (26.4 billion) in global sales last year, 3% more than the previous year, according to the Book Industry Study Group, a trade association. About 3.1 billion books were sold, an increase of less than 1%.
I'm not American, but this story reinforces an impression of Americans that I have not been able to shake off. Namely, that there is absolutely no love of the English language among the majority of it's native speakers.
Language is always changing and dynamic, but Americans coin new words simply because they can't be bothered to pick up a dictionary and find a suitable one that already exists. American's love to think they are direct and to the point in the way they communicate (and they are in many ways), but they are also masters of obfuscation. Who else has given us words like collateral damage and downsizing? Call a spade a spade if you ask me, these are dishonest words designed to mitigate the more direct meaning of other perfectly suitable words. A commercial is a commercial but it doesn't sound quite so bad if you can call it an infomercial does it?
When it comes to coining new words and phrases, the technology sector is the worst culprit. The list is endless (and ugly): blogs, blogging, blogosphere, podcast, plogs, folksonomy, captology, thin-slicing. Yes, there's something to be said for words that form a professional vocabulary as part of a profession, but this certainly isn't it.
Are these words conjured up in the spirit of genuine invention or discovery? Or are they created more in the hope (expectation?) that they'll have a better chance of stimulating discussion if they appear to convey something new and original (even when they don't)?
Blogebrity? Another abomination of the English language which is hardly surprising coming from people who work in New Media and the Web where everyone is happy to coin a new term if gets them some attention.
Secondly, I'm not sure if this Blogebrity thing is slightly tongue-in-cheek, but if it isn't, it's enough to put you off the whole phenomenon of blogging for life.
I completely disagree with this report's findings - English is being threatened by the rise of "netspeak" and it emphatically is not due to an evolving online "culture" - it is simply because too many native-English speakers do not care about the English language and have little to no love of it. If you want online evidence of this, what better example than blogs?
The majority of (native-English language) blogs are very badly written, even popular and well-known ones. Given that many bloggers are (according to the BBC) "young, well-educated, net-savvy males with good incomes and college educations", one has to wonder why this is. I don't mind if people read blogs as long as they recognise the casual, "throw-away" style of writing that is common on these sites. By all means emulate that style if you want, but why should we hold this up as a good thing for our writing or reading skills? You can write polished prose with an informal tone of voice without simply writing your thoughts as they tumble out of your head. But writing well is a skill that takes effort.
Few authors seem to spend the time refining or polishing what they post, and given the transitory nature of many blog posts, I have absolutely no problem with that. What I object to is the incessant hype surrounding blogs that is completely disproportionate to their actual influence or importance.
If you're going to hype blogs - essentially, a written medium - why not actually encourage people to improve their writing skills? A skill that will give anyone immeasurable pleasure for the rest of their life. If you say that blogs don't have to meet anyone's expectations except their authors, then fine, I go back to my original point - why are these blogs getting the attention they don't deserve?
I fear blogs will lower our expectations of good writing, not raise them. If you want breadth, depth, quality and variety in writing, switch off your PC and go to your local library. What you'll find there will easily surpass what you can find online (and you're more likely to become a better reader and writer because of it).
But how exactly can you check for factual errors when you have not studied the particular subject in question? Checking facts is not a simple matter of verifying dates. Particularly with historical or political matters, "facts" are often contentious issues. I have been reading some of the articles on the Middle East recently in Wikipedia. I personally feel the NPOV (neutral point of view) is rarely evident in many of these pieces (but the author's biases most certainly are evident).
Since anyone can contribute to Wikipedia, you might ask: why don't I do just that i.e. edit those articles? The reason is that I do not feel qualified to do so - I do not know enough about those topics to write an informed piece about the particular subject. Nevertheless, it's obvious that many of Wikipedia's authors are no more qualified than I.
When I use the word "qualified" I do not mean formal educational credentials, but someone who consults a wide variety of printed and online sources; carefully weighs the various issues and evidence at hand; writes, re-writes and continues to polish their writing paying careful attention to the use of their language and wording.
What is all this meant to illustrate? That writing a well-researched piece on important historical and political issues is an extremely time-consuming and difficult task that involves weighing up the contributions of potentially huge range of sources. Despite the vastness of the Internet, most of the world's knowledge is not online - ever noticed how so many Wikipedia articles use only online references? (Some don't even cite their references at all.)
I like the idea of an open, democratic knowledge-base, free for anyone to contribute. Unfortunately, Wikipedia hasn't eliminated the distortions found in the printed encyclopedias it is meant to replace, merely thrown up its own biases. The question is: how does one attempt to solve this problem of bias? I honestly don't know the answer or if indeed it is solvable.
When we started, I desperately wanted to offer a browsing technique that would model "dialing down" a search in a huge library
Barnes and Noble offer a "Book Browser" feature at their website - they even have a flash demo that demonstrates how to use the feature. It's not a perfect browsing tool, but it does offer you the option of drilling down to a more granular level as you mention. Browsing for books at the Barnes and Noble website is certainly easier than browsing at Amazon.Do physical bookstores have anything to offer that Amazon doesn't?
Actually, one thing I find easier (and more enjoyable) in a physical bookstore is actually browsing for different titles along a shelf (or shelves). You might be looking for a particular title, but it's always interesting to see what other titles are stacked up next to it. Yes, you can "browse" online, but it feels more cumbersome to me and doesn't match the pleasure of browsing in a real bookstore (or library). What's more, Amazon's website has quite a cluttered feel to it. There are so many bits of information on a single page (including adverts from other vendors), it sometimes feels as if you're being bombarded with the hard sell.
I've ordered many times from Amazon and have no complaints about their customer service. However, they've grown so large (and continue to grow), I do worry about their influence and how they might exert it over other vendors, publishers, writers etc.
And speaking of the hard sell, is the recent "Amazon Theater" a foretaste of things to come? Product-placement taken to a new level i.e. films designed primarily to sell products. Not something to look forward to. How long before we see weblinks on a DVD that take you direct to an Amazon page where you can buy product X as featured in the movie you just watched?
What about videos? Netflix says it believes you're going to enter their rental-by-mail business.
Amazon UK have already started a DVD rental service. Perhaps it's a way for Amazon to test the waters before launching the service in the US?
I don't have a problem with blogs as such, it's the incessant hype surrounding them that puts me off. Some of the extravagant claims made about them (changing the face of journalism) simply don't stand up to scrutiny.
The enormous hype surrounding blogs doesn't help anyone, least of all bloggers. And let's keep things in perspective with regard to the influence of blogging. Self-absorbed bloggers might think the Web is beginning to revolve around the whole blogging phenomenon, but that simply isn't the case (thank goodness). Here's a snip from a BBC report on blogging:
Here's the full BBC article (which is a lot more positive than you might think from the above quote): The Year in Issues: Role of the blog.
"most of them just get a bunch of untrue gossip and sensasionalist trivia"
Isn't this already true for the American "real press"?
Yes, and not much different from a great many blogs either.
I know many people dislike Microsoft (myself included!), but to be fair to them, they have done a substantial amount of work on accessibility. It's far from perfect, but they are at least taking it seriously, and have done for some years. They have a dedicated accessibility section on their website.
Apple too, seem to be taking it seriously, but it has to be said, this is a fairly recent development for them (no doubt spurred on by the raft of new accessibility laws that have come into effect).
Here's an old article (February 2001) that gives an interesting historical perspective on accessibility on the Mac (no need for Mac fans to get rankled, much has changed, and I did emphasize it gives a good historical perspective).
For cases, have a look at the Antec Sonata. A simple stylish design in smart piano black. Try a search at various online retailers that let buyer's post reviews and you'll find the case to be well-rated. The Nexus Breeze is also a nice design.
This is a tasteless remark - and should be modded down. (For those who don't know, Paul McCartney's wife, Heather, has a prosthetic leg as a result of being hit by a motorcycle.)
It's highly unlikely they would use MacOS X or Darwin. I doubt they want to be reliant on Apple hardware. Remember, there are PC component manufacturers in China and Korea. It makes sense to create an OS that works with the wide range of PC components already available (or under development) from existing manufacturers. A much better prospect for adoption and growth. Working with Apple will no doubt tie them into certain ageements (or constraints depending on your point of view). I don't think they'll find such a scenario particularly appealing.
The three countries certainly have the expertise to produce an OS, and of course, they understand the intricacies of their own language (and the associated problems of computer support for their languages) better than anyone else.
Why can't Microsoft translate it's software and operating systems so they use the correct spelling for other English-language speaking countries? The UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all use what's often referred to as International English, where spelling differs from U.S. English. Examples: Colour (not color), Favourites (rather than favorites), Network Neighbourhood (rather than neighborhood).
For all their expertise in internationalisation, it seems that Microsoft still can't manage this. Is it a question of cost and convenience? Some of their more specialised software, such as Encarta, has been properly localised, but probably because they promote this heavily as a resource for schools. How many U.S. users would be happy with an operating system and applications that used, say, UK spellings? Not many I'd venture to guess. But it's not just Microsoft, the last time I installed Mandrake Linux, the default install only offered U.S. English.
Hayzeus originally wrote:
Another way of looking at this is to ask: will learning the new interface allow me to accomplish tasks with greater ease and in less time than if I continue with the current (or slightly improved) interface?
If we continue to build on top of an already flawed design, we will perpetuate the underlying faults in that design. Of course, if we're so used to certain conventions and practices, we probably won't even see them as flaws, merely the "natural" way to do things (just because it's always been done that way).
I do concede your point though. New interfaces do face an uphill struggle if they radically break with convention. I wouldn't say they are doomed to failure though. We should start thinking of training and program assistance as an integral part of any piece of software. Perhaps it's time to banish the idea that software can be inherently "intuitive". That word is used so often nowadays, it's lost any useful meaning regarding how easy software is to use (or at least I think so!).
Under the section 'Use Clean Layout', the Mac OS X guidelines state:
In a book called "The Non-Designer's Design Book", author Robin Williams explains some of the principles of visual layout from the field of graphic design. On the topic of alignment, Williams states that items aligned on a page create a strong cohesive unit. An "invisible line" gives order and organization to the elements on the page. She goes on to add that a centred alignment is the most common alignment that beginners use, and often creates a sedate, ordinary, and frankly quite dull appearance.
The book contains many before-and-after designs where the alignment of elements is modified. Most of the improvements arise from moving elements with a centred alignment to a flush-left or flush-right alignment. Williams doesn't say you should avoid a centred alignment altogether, but does add "...please try very hard to break away from a centered alignment unless you are consciously tring to create a more formal, sedate (often dull?) presentation."
In fairness to Apple, some of the examples they show in their guidelines demonstrate that their recommendation for a center alignment works by making elements next to each other (such as labels and their controls) flush with the "invisible line" that separates them (as in the sample application preferences dialog). Perhaps the best way of looking at Apple's recommendation is to appreciate that non-centred alignments are not an inferior alternative to centred layouts, and may in fact offer an improvement in dialog design.
Adobe promote PDF as an all-round solution for both printing and online reading. But anyone who wants a lightweight, cross-platform document format for online display should choose HTML.
Although PDFs can contain features like bookmarks and hyperlinks, these simply aid navigation through the document, they don't make reading a PDF any easier on the eye (admittedly, Adobe have developed their own on-screen anti-aliasing technology called CoolType which improves font display on LCD screens).
The simple fact is: HTML is a more accessible format for online display. With a well-designed HTML page, users can enlarge text and have it reflow around graphics etc. All you can do with the majority of current PDFs is zoom in to a page (and then scroll awkwardly left and right if the page doesn't fit on the screen). Version 5 of Acrobat now has the facility to allow text reflow and re-sizing. But taking advantage of this feature means giving up some of the layout certainty that attracts many document designers in the first place! What this really demonstrates is that one size does not fit all!
Paper and online reading habits are different and they need different approaches. The current PDF solution may work well for printing documents, but works poorly as an online medium. Consider that every decent book on HTML states that designing for the page and designing for the screen are quite different, so how can a faithful reproduction of a printed page be appropriate for online viewing?
Although HTML and stylesheets do not match the precise layout control that PDFs provide, it seems to me they represent a much better way forward for cross-platform document creation.