menu bar at top of screen OK, they have advantages and drawbacks. Point is, the menu items are easier to get at when they're at the top of the screen: just keep moving up until you crash into the top edge of the desktop. Putting the menus below an empty blue bar means you're wasting screen real estate, and you're giving up the 'top of screen' advantage (even if it's only valid when the application is maximized).
toolbar icons Granted.
GDI No, I was referring to the Windows convention of giving the application an empty window, and nesting document windows inside that. This wastes screen real estate, makes drag-and-drop between applications harder, makes it harder to span an application across multiple monitors (esp. if they have different sizes), and you end up with two sets of close/minimize/maximize controls right next to each other.
Maximize Save As is no substitute for drag&drop: with D&D you have the ability to move an object (an image, a section of text, ie part of a document) from one application to another, or to the desktop.
shortcuts Too many Windows applications still don't use Ctrl-Q and similar shortcuts. What's the point of having conventions if application developers don't follow them? Also, many Windows apps don't allow changing shortcuts.
Anyway, these aren't interface problems, they are your preferences. I do prefer the way these are handled on the Mac, but there's some pretty solid HI research behind them. That doesn't make the Mac the perfect UI (far from it), but on several counts Apple did things right when MS developers seemed to almost get it, but just miss the point.
RSN (I've ordered, service will arrive in a couple of months) I'll have 10/10 Mbit/s, no cap, for E 50/month - and that includes phone and TV. Woo hoo!
I thought my visit to Dodewaard (a 60 MW research reactor) was cool. We stood on the concrete slab that's on top of the reactor vessel, visited the control room, etc. But I bow to your superior experience [insert "we're not worthy" smiley here].
Yeah, right. Why connect your network to the national grid when you can keep it separate, with all the advantages (extra $$$ needed to provide sufficient reserve capacity yourself instead of pooling your resources) that brings.
But I don't see why overhead power lines need to be layed out. Why can't the existing infrastructure be adapted ? What am I missing here ? I assume this refers to "Electrify city streets in..." etc. With overhead power, you can run buses, trucks etc. as trolleys, so they won't need huge (several tons for a truck) battery packs. This may be more efficient.
- Menu bars: they're not at the top of the screen, which makes selecting a menu unnecessarily hard. Compare to the Mac, where the menu bar is at the top, providing a target that's, in effect, infinitely high. - icons: have you ever used Word's toolbars? A bazillion nondescriptive icons crammed together. Not Good. Other applications manage to provide functionality without turning into a Christmas tree. - windows: GDI. 'nuff said. See Mac OS X for the solution. - maximize: the Maximize function plasters the window across the whole screen, making drag-and-drop to the desktop impossible. Again, imitate the Mac.
More: - applications steal the focus way too often. Sod off! I'll get to the alert (or whatever) when I'm good and well ready, ie after I finish whatever I'm doing. See the Mac. - Personalized menus: Bad Bill! Providing users with moving targets and randomly missing menu items is Not Good. Throw option away. - keyboard shortcuts: Alt-F4 is just plain wrong. Use Ctrl-Q instead.
You know why? Because despite all the flaws various "gurus" manage to find in it, the Windows GUI doesn't suck. Cars have had the same interface for the last 90 years or so, and nobody is talking about updating it. No, it's because Microsoft is a. obsessed with backwards compatibility, and b. not interested in innovation. The Windows interface is mediocre at best, but as long as bazillions of people continue to buy Windows, there's no need for MS to change it. Cars are a flawed analogy. The interface for basic functions has only stabilized after decades of experimentation (see the Ford model T). Added functionality (from heaters to satnav) has been added haphazardly and without much standardization at all.
The folder system may be straightforward, but it's not really geared towards making information accessible. Applications like iPhoto and iTunes show that there are ways to order information other than folders. Check Bruce Tognazzini's column for more ideas on improving the UI. The task bar can stand improvement as well. Try running more than 5 applications, and the task bar entries become unreadbly narrow. The Start menu isn't great, either.
The demo is way cool. It'll be interesting to see how this system scales up. Would it work for navigating all the files on a computer (with ~100k files on my system), for instance?
does one of the masters of UI have such a hopeless website? Everything in some inane monospaced font, and on a single page. A specification that relies on the Find command for navigation. Gah.
1. Interface design We haven't seen a quantum leap since 1984 (Macintosh). Even Apple isn't doing any 'pure' research in this area anymore, and for now is too busy tinkering with OS X to think about real breakthroughs in how we interact with computers. Current metaphors like the desktop are showing their age, and are less and less suitable for dealing with the huge amounts of information our computers hold now. 2. Reliable computing This is covered in part by the 'dependable systems' challenge. I'll add my 2c: Losing information due to power loss/crashing is trivial to prevent (autosave, keystroke logs etc.), yet this prevention still isn't included with OS X or Windows. This is about 10 years overdue. An application crash shouldn't be able to bring down the OS. Granted, we're better off than 10 years ago, but VMS-like uptimes are still too rare. 3. Keeping up with Moore Processor speed has seen huge increases. Other parts of the computer haven't kept up, with busses on the motherboard routinely running at 1/10 the speed of the processor. Cache techniques notwithstanding, this means huge inefficiencies. It's like using a garden hose to fill a lake. Permanent storage (harddisks etc.) speed in particular is lagging.
Essentially the only thing holding it back Since the mullahs have the final say in just about every decision, that's one big "only thing". A bit like saying "the only thing holding me inside this pricon cell is that steel door".
The building society that owns my apartment (and ~60k more) is rolling out a glassfibre network right now. 10 Mbit/s up/down speed, plus TV and telephone, all for the price of 2 Mbit/s ADSL. Yay! building society (in Dutch, though)
Slashdot Mirror
menu bar at top of screen
OK, they have advantages and drawbacks. Point is, the menu items are easier to get at when they're at the top of the screen: just keep moving up until you crash into the top edge of the desktop. Putting the menus below an empty blue bar means you're wasting screen real estate, and you're giving up the 'top of screen' advantage (even if it's only valid when the application is maximized).
toolbar icons
Granted.
GDI
No, I was referring to the Windows convention of giving the application an empty window, and nesting document windows inside that. This wastes screen real estate, makes drag-and-drop between applications harder, makes it harder to span an application across multiple monitors (esp. if they have different sizes), and you end up with two sets of close/minimize/maximize controls right next to each other.
Maximize
Save As is no substitute for drag&drop: with D&D you have the ability to move an object (an image, a section of text, ie part of a document) from one application to another, or to the desktop.
shortcuts
Too many Windows applications still don't use Ctrl-Q and similar shortcuts. What's the point of having conventions if application developers don't follow them? Also, many Windows apps don't allow changing shortcuts.
Anyway, these aren't interface problems, they are your preferences.
I do prefer the way these are handled on the Mac, but there's some pretty solid HI research behind them. That doesn't make the Mac the perfect UI (far from it), but on several counts Apple did things right when MS developers seemed to almost get it, but just miss the point.
Fewer drive bays than a Dell, no PCI. Lame.
RSN (I've ordered, service will arrive in a couple of months) I'll have 10/10 Mbit/s, no cap, for E 50/month - and that includes phone and TV. Woo hoo!
Ah, but will he still respect himself in the morning?
Please, no. Inevitably, some moron would want to build a grue, and you know what *that* leads to...
It seems to me though they've done less to protect the plants from physical attack from ground level.
What would you do? Surround the installation with an army camp, and have perimeter guards with machine-gun nests and tanks?
I thought my visit to Dodewaard (a 60 MW research reactor) was cool. We stood on the concrete slab that's on top of the reactor vessel, visited the control room, etc. But I bow to your superior experience [insert "we're not worthy" smiley here].
Yeah, right. Why connect your network to the national grid when you can keep it separate, with all the advantages (extra $$$ needed to provide sufficient reserve capacity yourself instead of pooling your resources) that brings.
But I don't see why overhead power lines need to be layed out. Why can't the existing infrastructure be adapted ? What am I missing here ?
I assume this refers to "Electrify city streets in..." etc.
With overhead power, you can run buses, trucks etc. as trolleys, so they won't need huge (several tons for a truck) battery packs. This may be more efficient.
I want 1.7 billion digits of Pi on the wall .
- Menu bars: they're not at the top of the screen, which makes selecting a menu unnecessarily hard. Compare to the Mac, where the menu bar is at the top, providing a target that's, in effect, infinitely high.
- icons: have you ever used Word's toolbars? A bazillion nondescriptive icons crammed together. Not Good. Other applications manage to provide functionality without turning into a Christmas tree.
- windows: GDI. 'nuff said. See Mac OS X for the solution.
- maximize: the Maximize function plasters the window across the whole screen, making drag-and-drop to the desktop impossible. Again, imitate the Mac.
More:
- applications steal the focus way too often. Sod off! I'll get to the alert (or whatever) when I'm good and well ready, ie after I finish whatever I'm doing. See the Mac.
- Personalized menus: Bad Bill! Providing users with moving targets and randomly missing menu items is Not Good. Throw option away.
- keyboard shortcuts: Alt-F4 is just plain wrong. Use Ctrl-Q instead.
The list goes on...
You know why? Because despite all the flaws various "gurus" manage to find in it, the Windows GUI doesn't suck. Cars have had the same interface for the last 90 years or so, and nobody is talking about updating it.
No, it's because Microsoft is a. obsessed with backwards compatibility, and b. not interested in innovation.
The Windows interface is mediocre at best, but as long as bazillions of people continue to buy Windows, there's no need for MS to change it.
Cars are a flawed analogy. The interface for basic functions has only stabilized after decades of experimentation (see the Ford model T). Added functionality (from heaters to satnav) has been added haphazardly and without much standardization at all.
Odd. I wouldn't have guessed that from reading the page.
So instead of clicking a link, I'll have to copy and paste it. Three times the work. Great.
Yes, it can get much more efficient than Windows.
The folder system may be straightforward, but it's not really geared towards making information accessible. Applications like iPhoto and iTunes show that there are ways to order information other than folders.
Check Bruce Tognazzini's column for more ideas on improving the UI.
The task bar can stand improvement as well. Try running more than 5 applications, and the task bar entries become unreadbly narrow. The Start menu isn't great, either.
No, it wasn't. The Mac was very much a team effort.
The demo is way cool. It'll be interesting to see how this system scales up. Would it work for navigating all the files on a computer (with ~100k files on my system), for instance?
does one of the masters of UI have such a hopeless website? Everything in some inane monospaced font, and on a single page. A specification that relies on the Find command for navigation. Gah.
Blame a totalitarian state and the Cultural Revolution.
1. Interface design
We haven't seen a quantum leap since 1984 (Macintosh). Even Apple isn't doing any 'pure' research in this area anymore, and for now is too busy tinkering with OS X to think about real breakthroughs in how we interact with computers.
Current metaphors like the desktop are showing their age, and are less and less suitable for dealing with the huge amounts of information our computers hold now.
2. Reliable computing
This is covered in part by the 'dependable systems' challenge. I'll add my 2c:
Losing information due to power loss/crashing is trivial to prevent (autosave, keystroke logs etc.), yet this prevention still isn't included with OS X or Windows. This is about 10 years overdue.
An application crash shouldn't be able to bring down the OS. Granted, we're better off than 10 years ago, but VMS-like uptimes are still too rare.
3. Keeping up with Moore
Processor speed has seen huge increases. Other parts of the computer haven't kept up, with busses on the motherboard routinely running at 1/10 the speed of the processor. Cache techniques notwithstanding, this means huge inefficiencies. It's like using a garden hose to fill a lake.
Permanent storage (harddisks etc.) speed in particular is lagging.
Essentially the only thing holding it back
Since the mullahs have the final say in just about every decision, that's one big "only thing". A bit like saying "the only thing holding me inside this pricon cell is that steel door".
The building society that owns my apartment (and ~60k more) is rolling out a glassfibre network right now. 10 Mbit/s up/down speed, plus TV and telephone, all for the price of 2 Mbit/s ADSL. Yay!
building society (in Dutch, though)
And in Soviet Russia, ISNA reads you
And don't forget His opinion on publicizing a gift.
the section just before the demo, Steve's buildup to the 1984 video.
Found in the server logs, last entry before the server went up in smoke:
###user:/.###All your bandwidth are belong to us!###