The relation to your post was that I was showing another reason why 'ZOMG drones!!!11!!' was stupid.
i get it now
what you say about current use of drones and PTSD of operators thereof is the same thing I've heard/seen
If you're the kind of person who worries about the US Military being heavy-handed you're the kind of person who should absolutely love drones because they produce an order of magnitude fewer civilian casualties then the alternatives.
I agree here too. It's a sign of how muddled this discussion has become in mainstream media that we talked past each other but were sort of being bothered by the same phenomenon.
Drones are an option. Using drones vs another option has effects on factors that we measure and on non-quantitative things...like the PTSD...
Like I said, I agree that they are best in alot of situations.
Besides what we've already mentioned, I also will add that there are liberal media types who have too much cognitive dissonance over the fact that they are not pacifists (and the implications of not being a pacifist). They **want** to be pacifist, and they talk alot about how it would be best if there were no need to escalate militarily...but in the end, they are NOT pacifists...
So these liberal types are in favor of war, just under a more limited set of conditions...
That causes them serious cognitive dissonance.
Look at Rachel Maddow vs Chris Hayes...both "liberal"...both covered the *ZOMG drones* story.
Rachel Maddow did a story where she showed a drone launching a hellfire next to an F-16 launching the same armament and attempted to educate her viewers.
on the flipside, Chris Hayes just flapped like a wet hen about how "military force should be the LAST OPTION" over and over...
but he never said under what conditions they would use that last option...which is the whole point of the discussion....
I think the Maddow view is the predominant view by about a 85% - 15% margin overall in the nation. Most Americans are in agreement over policy when you measure it in human lives...the 15% are the extremes at both ends...
The problem now is that the GOP is a drastic minority but b/c of gaming the system they have attained the power of what a slim minority would have.
our 'total battlefield awareness' means we use multiple data feeds integrated into a 3D battlefield rendering, with all assests renedered in real time as best as possible...
first, we use satellites for what you describe...or high altitude aircraft networked with the battlefield assests...
your counterpoint demonstrates alot of cooll technical knowledge but it doesn't have anything to do with my comment
I disagree. With nukes you will pretty much know who sent it. With drones, you could have a strike in your country and not know who sent the drone, it may even take off within your own country
no, you don't disagree, you don't understand...your "with X you know 1 but with Y you only know 2" is a **false dichotomy**
X and Y are absolutely not equal or congruent...
A 'nuke' could be delivered ON A DRONE (an ICBM is essentially a 'suicide drone') or PILOTED CRAFT
also, you are wrong that 'with nukes you know who sent it'...you know what country an ICBM is launched from, or from what location in the ocean...but that doesn't mean the country approved its launch...
I've had enough of the 'ZOMG drones!!!11!!' from all corners...it's facile and ignorant...
Drones are just a different delivery system for the same armament...usually a hellfire missile. Nothing a 'drone' does can't be done by a piloted craft...or a cruise missile...or a piloted craft converted to a drone
Nuclear weapons **could be launched from a drone**
See how this is comparing apples and baseballs?
Let's all agree to stop the madness! 'drones' are remote-piloted versions of the human piloted vehicles....it's the **armaments** and **who we are shooting at and why** that matter...not the delivery system of the armament!!!
If solar is doing so great then why does it need subsidies?
to put it on a *level playing field* with the oil industry maybe?
to the TFA first: the war in the GOP isn't over 'solar power' it's over **which rich people pull their strings**...the GOP is a bought/sold a-moral quasi-anarchist rhetoric machine...they dont care about the *actual* policy b/c their policy is to *privatize everything in perpetuity*...so no...this 'war' in the GOP is over which rich dudes will dictate their policies to them.
oil oligarchs have been running their playbook for *centuries*...that's not an exaggeration...look at the history of all major oil companies and they are tied to Monarchies (usually Anglo-Saxon or Islamic)
electric/solar energy has been profitable and usable for 100 years...the first electric cars were made in the 1900s!!!
the US government gives ****HUGE TAX BREAKS**** to oil companies...
it's about time we let some competition in the ring...of course it would be better to just end oil company subsidies and tax breaks and guaranteed contracts...but that's not going to get any GOP'er re-elected
disclaimer: i'm a left-leaning libertarian, and I anticipate some respondents might retort: 'all politicians are sell-outs'....That concept is a false dichotomy...all *people* make comprimises...the democrats have systematically and philosophically made better policy choices and are a *functioning party*...not perfect, but saying they are just as bad as the GOP is trolling and will not get a response from me;)
If the W3C would make a byte code standard to access the DOM
I'm not saying they're worthless, far from it, but the W3C has shown themselves incapable of making a proper standard.
The HTML5 debacle and the WHATWG formation sort of made it official. The W3C buys into the abstraction layer nonsense and perpetuates it to the detriment of our industry. Remember: Web 2.0 was fully embraced by W3C.
HTML5 & CSS3 transforms & canvas elements are still not being fully utilized. There are many simple HTML5/CSS3 only games & animated interactive widgets around the web. That's just the beginning of what they are capable of...
The second part of the equation is to rethink what 'website content' means....most of javascript & flash is for non-task events...things that the user doesn't need in order to do the task...ex: watch a youtube video or posting to a social media site....do we need javascript or flash for that whole interchange to happen?
I started on BBSs too...that and playing around with the AUTOEXEC.BAT file to cause the monitor and text to be the same color...
I just want to point out that using a conspicuous ammount of text art isn't my only problem...I don't punctuate properly (i use 'old American' punctuation style where I just capitalize w/e I think is important like in the Delcaration or Constitution...can also be seen in old newpaper articles), I digress too much,
I make seemingly random breaks in paragraphs
THEN DO IT AGAIN
my spellign is for shit...
bottom line: i'm trying to convey **emotion** with my text...b/c it communicates much more information in the same ammount of text...that and I type fast b/c my mind races when i have a thought so i make mistakes...
if you research emotion from a neurosceince perspective you can see why it *can* be a very valuable method of communication
If after that you STILL think it's a good idea. We shoot you in the head.
I can't stand these 'privacy is dead' or 'privacy is an anomaly' douchebags...we have whatever privacy that we as consumers/voters demand!
I appreciate the finality and certainty of your joke...we really do need to just tell the 'privacy is dead' people to fuck off and die...or w/e language is appropriate for the context;)
'fuck off and die'...we geeks need to start drawing lines for what work we'll do...
imagine a world where tracking people for profit is ****TOO EXPENSIVE**** b/c you have to pay too much to get someone who will do it!
Here is a list of Shneiderman's 8 Golden Rules for anyone who might be interested. It's has been typically used as an introductory 'U/X' concept for years (me personally I introduce. the Law of Cybernetics first).
They've been restated many times since the 80s. From the source(http://faculty.washington.edu/jtenenbg/courses/360/f04/sessions/schneidermanGoldenRules.html)
These rules were obtained from the text Designing the User Interface by Ben Shneiderman.
To improve the usability of an application it is important to have a well designed interface. Shneiderman's "Eight Golden Rules of Interface Design" are a guide to good interaction design.
1 Strive for consistency. Consistent sequences of actions should be required in similar situations; identical terminology should be used in prompts, menus, and help screens; and consistent commands should be employed throughout.
2 Enable frequent users to use shortcuts. As the frequency of use increases, so do the user's desires to reduce the number of interactions and to increase the pace of interaction. Abbreviations, function keys, hidden commands, and macro facilities are very helpful to an expert user.
3 Offer informative feedback. For every operator action, there should be some system feedback. For frequent and minor actions, the response can be modest, while for infrequent and major actions, the response should be more substantial.
4 Design dialog to yield closure. Sequences of actions should be organized into groups with a beginning, middle, and end. The informative feedback at the completion of a group of actions gives the operators the satisfaction of accomplishment, a sense of relief, the signal to drop contingency plans and options from their minds, and an indication that the way is clear to prepare for the next group of actions.
5 Offer simple error handling. As much as possible, design the system so the user cannot make a serious error. If an error is made, the system should be able to detect the error and offer simple, comprehensible mechanisms for handling the error.
6 Permit easy reversal of actions. This feature relieves anxiety, since the user knows that errors can be undone; it thus encourages exploration of unfamiliar options. The units of reversibility may be a single action, a data entry, or a complete group of actions.
7 Support internal locus of control. Experienced operators strongly desire the sense that they are in charge of the system and that the system responds to their actions. Design the system to make users the initiators of actions rather than the responders.
8 Reduce short-term memory load. The limitation of human information processing in short-term memory requires that displays be kept simple, multiple page displays be consolidated, window-motion frequency be reduced, and sufficient training time be allotted for codes, mnemonics, and sequences of actions.
The police are just a rebadged Military force, your Military force is used as the class bully on a world wise scale, and here you guys are complaining about
They don't take blood, but they do the rest and it is 100% involuntary
They do this in the US as well, having a set-up sobriety checkpoint. It varies by state but Indiana and Ohio both would do it...mostly in college towns for football games or holidays like Halloween.
Usually it's just a breathalyzer but if you get close enough to see it, it's too late to turn around...they strategically place the checkpoints to catch potential dodgers on the way back.
Not optional.
Of course "driving is a privilidge' but from a libertarian standpoint, how much is it really? it is **government regulation** any way you slice it...for some that is always the wrong policy...
I don't know how I feel about mandatory sobriety checkpoints...IMHO there are more important things for the cops to be doing (organized crime in the US is out of control)...I dont see them as much of a deterrant to drunk driving
for someone that says they used to teach about the subject.
here's why you can know I am not making up my credentials...I really have done the work I claim
there are volumes of research that have already been done about *buttons* however you want to define the concept
also, why research *where* to put a button with that funciton? you should **let the user have the option** to have the button or where to locate it! as for where to put the button by default, by necessity it has to be on the edge somewhere, after that, since almost all languages read from right to left, virtually all users (except those that read hebrew as their primary language) would **expect** to see the 'start' button on the **left side of the screen**
You absolutely do not need to do anything more than a **simple literature review** and apply some basic technical design theory...that's to arrive at 'either top or bottom of left edge'
so that's two fairly similar options...from there let the design team decide!!!
*and of course let the user have the option to change the location at will or remove completely*
I'm not claiming Shneiderman is the magic bullet to all design questions, or that his design conceptualizations are fundamental to the industry...he made significant positive contributions...but his concepts are too linguistic-based 'make X more visible' sometimes & marketing people just have their way with it...
One of Shneiderman's major contributions, starting in the early 1980s, was formalizing a way to academically analyze all the research in computing across disciplines about things like 'how to design a good button'
Designing the User Interface is a current text written by him that is used in 100s of universities nationwide & globally. (btw don't pick him apart to me...i have my quibbles...) He ends up with very linguistic-based heuristics mostly, but if you combine his ideas with more formal language from true cyberneticists like Claude Shannon and Norbert Weiner then you can get some highly quantifiable data...
But regardless...Shneiderman's concepts are industry standard...how they are applied in the lab...well that's up to the researcher!
All of what M$ did with their 'Start' button was covered by Shneiderman in the 80s & continued to refine iteritively since then...
Microsoft does actually do some good human factors development......spent a lot of dough to come up with the Start button in Windows 95, and defended it well, only to trash it in Windows 8. That makes me think they do good research, but have lousy management.
this is madness...
M$ is horrible at 'human factors design'. I used to be an adjunct prof. teaching Human/Computer Interaction. Consistently, when a big company tried to integrate 'U/X' or 'human factors design' (the 90s version of U/X) it becomes abstraction layer hell burdening resources w/ architecture the user turns off immediately after setup after purchase. ex: Clippy
You mention the 'Start button' and the ridiculous money they spent to make it. Great example...like the Xbox One controller from TFA, it shows ***exactly*** why M$ design is awful.
***IT WAS A BUTTON THAT OPENED A PANE OF OTHER PROGAM ICONS****
the idea that making a button would require **any R/D at all** is insane...
Now let's talk about User Testing.
I've lead research projects examining internet technology and usability in several different contexts, from filming users on an iphone, doing all-device monitoring where a resarcher follows the subject all day and diaries what tech they interact with, testing the effectiveness of Bush-mandated abstanence-only website educadtion in Indiana, to simple likert scale user surverys
As a scientist, concerned about proper use of the scientific method & accurately contextualizing non-quantifiable factors, I have to say ****most user testing done in the industry is absolutely worthless****
TFA, Clippy, the fucking 'Start button', 'Metro'....it's all was obviously developed with the dumbest, most reductive user research available.
I love the domain of 'U/X'...the border between user and machine...it's challenging b/c it requires professional-level knowledge of both techinical and wholly-non technical information. It's the *future of design*...a cybernetic perspective...
But this is horseshit...I have to say 'human computer interaction' or people think I have a Marketing degree!!!!!
In defense of individual M$ designers who did nothing more than go to work and try to make the best product, fighting M$'s organizaitonal tendencies, fighting ass-kisser colleagues...for **THEM** I can acknowledge that their research wasnt wholly worthless as the data could be re-examined & tendencies observed. Also, I can acknowledge that in some parts of M$'s crap like Clippy I can see that *someone* on the team was putting the user's needs first.
just about every idea is, or was stolen from another company, or several companies
I wanted to address this b/c there is an important distinction to make...however I don't have any argument against your greater point
Regarding ideas & the stealing thereof...you are right in a sense, but I make a distinction between *borrowing* & *stealing*
B.B. King did a commercial for some dumb credit card (AmEx? can't find it on youtube) back in the early 2000's and he said something to the effect of, "My advice to young musicians today is, if you love music, find what you like and listen to as much as you can of it, then learn to play an instrument, and then if you want to write your own songs, go ahead and borrow a little"
All the greatest creative types can list (usually with affection) their list of influences
Same goes for internet sites.
facebook.com was (and still is) *better* than any alternative from an everyday user perspective...there's no honor in their title, but they get it nonetheless
I don't begrudge Zuck & Co for borrowing ideas from other sites at the time. Hell **WE ALL KNEW IF SOMEONE DID IT RIGHT IT WOULD BE HUGE** Credit them for having the coding chops to make a functional system and the discipline to *keep ads away*...they did that part right.
Zuckerberg & friends had wealthy parents to support them in the weird interim between starting the site > getting users > monetization. The way Zuck punked the Winklevoss'ses's is kinda funny but morally, ethically, and legally wrong, but they had their settlement.
No, today, what makes Zuckerberg and facebook.com awful isnt a stolen idea like Snapchat was stolen from its creator. Instead, Zuckerberg is evil b/c he has perpetuated the business philosophy that tech must profit from users **by taking their privacy for profit** and **bottlenecking features**
Facebook.com's IPO says explicitly that any legislation or policy that gives users control over their data is a threat to business profits. That's it in black and white.
How is it that he developed the app, if it was publicly presented by somebody else?
hey, AC...it's actually really, really easy for one person to develop something and another 'publicly present' it;)
it happens every day in the tech industry
the link shows alot more than what you listed...it shows the other two acknowledging the truth that the one guy had the idea for the messages disappearing...
you ignore that, which is the crux of the whole thing...b/c the disappearing messages is **the only reason anyone uses Snapchaat**
people use Snapchat b/c it disappears...everyone acknowledges on paper it was the one person's idea...end of story
as far as 'publicly presenting'...that and two bits and you have a quarter....'publicly presenting' is **exactly** the bullshit hype language that people use to justify huge stakes in things they did not make or contribute to intellectually
the two frat-bro's class project doesn't mean shit...for my MS in Information & Communication Science I made proposals and projects for all kinds of app concepts...doesn't mean I can sue anyone
in court these things become pretty black and white...at least when there are text messages that say it literally word for word;)
Our nation **has never done this on a Federal level**
Yes, I agree that whoever hired the contractors is an idiot and ***should be reprimanded or fired***....the IT work of the Obamacare website was on par with the IT work needed to wire up a very large school district with an intranet and they paid way too much for bullshit...but that's an implementation mistake by procurement...which can and does happen in **any** system govt or private sector
but the only "problem" with Obamacare is that it doesn't have PUBLIC OPTION
Slashdot Mirror
i get it now
what you say about current use of drones and PTSD of operators thereof is the same thing I've heard/seen
I agree here too. It's a sign of how muddled this discussion has become in mainstream media that we talked past each other but were sort of being bothered by the same phenomenon.
Drones are an option. Using drones vs another option has effects on factors that we measure and on non-quantitative things...like the PTSD...
Like I said, I agree that they are best in alot of situations.
Besides what we've already mentioned, I also will add that there are liberal media types who have too much cognitive dissonance over the fact that they are not pacifists (and the implications of not being a pacifist). They **want** to be pacifist, and they talk alot about how it would be best if there were no need to escalate militarily...but in the end, they are NOT pacifists...
So these liberal types are in favor of war, just under a more limited set of conditions...
That causes them serious cognitive dissonance.
Look at Rachel Maddow vs Chris Hayes...both "liberal"...both covered the *ZOMG drones* story.
Rachel Maddow did a story where she showed a drone launching a hellfire next to an F-16 launching the same armament and attempted to educate her viewers.
on the flipside, Chris Hayes just flapped like a wet hen about how "military force should be the LAST OPTION" over and over...
but he never said under what conditions they would use that last option...which is the whole point of the discussion....
I think the Maddow view is the predominant view by about a 85% - 15% margin overall in the nation. Most Americans are in agreement over policy when you measure it in human lives...the 15% are the extremes at both ends...
The problem now is that the GOP is a drastic minority but b/c of gaming the system they have attained the power of what a slim minority would have.
as if we do that, ever...
our 'total battlefield awareness' means we use multiple data feeds integrated into a 3D battlefield rendering, with all assests renedered in real time as best as possible...
first, we use satellites for what you describe...or high altitude aircraft networked with the battlefield assests...
your counterpoint demonstrates alot of cooll technical knowledge but it doesn't have anything to do with my comment
no, you don't disagree, you don't understand...your "with X you know 1 but with Y you only know 2" is a **false dichotomy**
X and Y are absolutely not equal or congruent...
A 'nuke' could be delivered ON A DRONE (an ICBM is essentially a 'suicide drone') or PILOTED CRAFT
also, you are wrong that 'with nukes you know who sent it'...you know what country an ICBM is launched from, or from what location in the ocean...but that doesn't mean the country approved its launch...
'nukes' are not at all comparable to drones
I've had enough of the 'ZOMG drones!!!11!!' from all corners...it's facile and ignorant...
Drones are just a different delivery system for the same armament...usually a hellfire missile. Nothing a 'drone' does can't be done by a piloted craft...or a cruise missile...or a piloted craft converted to a drone
Nuclear weapons **could be launched from a drone**
See how this is comparing apples and baseballs?
Let's all agree to stop the madness! 'drones' are remote-piloted versions of the human piloted vehicles....it's the **armaments** and **who we are shooting at and why** that matter...not the delivery system of the armament!!!
to put it on a *level playing field* with the oil industry maybe?
to the TFA first: the war in the GOP isn't over 'solar power' it's over **which rich people pull their strings**...the GOP is a bought/sold a-moral quasi-anarchist rhetoric machine...they dont care about the *actual* policy b/c their policy is to *privatize everything in perpetuity*...so no...this 'war' in the GOP is over which rich dudes will dictate their policies to them.
oil oligarchs have been running their playbook for *centuries*...that's not an exaggeration...look at the history of all major oil companies and they are tied to Monarchies (usually Anglo-Saxon or Islamic)
electric/solar energy has been profitable and usable for 100 years...the first electric cars were made in the 1900s!!!
the US government gives ****HUGE TAX BREAKS**** to oil companies...
it's about time we let some competition in the ring...of course it would be better to just end oil company subsidies and tax breaks and guaranteed contracts...but that's not going to get any GOP'er re-elected
disclaimer: i'm a left-leaning libertarian, and I anticipate some respondents might retort: 'all politicians are sell-outs'....That concept is a false dichotomy...all *people* make comprimises...the democrats have systematically and philosophically made better policy choices and are a *functioning party*...not perfect, but saying they are just as bad as the GOP is trolling and will not get a response from me ;)
I'm not saying they're worthless, far from it, but the W3C has shown themselves incapable of making a proper standard.
The HTML5 debacle and the WHATWG formation sort of made it official. The W3C buys into the abstraction layer nonsense and perpetuates it to the detriment of our industry. Remember: Web 2.0 was fully embraced by W3C.
HTML5 & CSS3 transforms & canvas elements are still not being fully utilized. There are many simple HTML5/CSS3 only games & animated interactive widgets around the web. That's just the beginning of what they are capable of...
The second part of the equation is to rethink what 'website content' means....most of javascript & flash is for non-task events...things that the user doesn't need in order to do the task...ex: watch a youtube video or posting to a social media site....do we need javascript or flash for that whole interchange to happen?
I started on BBSs too...that and playing around with the AUTOEXEC.BAT file to cause the monitor and text to be the same color ...
I just want to point out that using a conspicuous ammount of text art isn't my only problem...I don't punctuate properly (i use 'old American' punctuation style where I just capitalize w/e I think is important like in the Delcaration or Constitution...can also be seen in old newpaper articles), I digress too much,
I make seemingly random breaks in paragraphs
THEN DO IT AGAIN
my spellign is for shit ...
bottom line: i'm trying to convey **emotion** with my text...b/c it communicates much more information in the same ammount of text...that and I type fast b/c my mind races when i have a thought so i make mistakes...
if you research emotion from a neurosceince perspective you can see why it *can* be a very valuable method of communication
n/t
I can't stand these 'privacy is dead' or 'privacy is an anomaly' douchebags...we have whatever privacy that we as consumers/voters demand!
I appreciate the finality and certainty of your joke...we really do need to just tell the 'privacy is dead' people to fuck off and die...or w/e language is appropriate for the context ;)
'fuck off and die'...we geeks need to start drawing lines for what work we'll do...
imagine a world where tracking people for profit is ****TOO EXPENSIVE**** b/c you have to pay too much to get someone who will do it!
Here is a list of Shneiderman's 8 Golden Rules for anyone who might be interested. It's has been typically used as an introductory 'U/X' concept for years (me personally I introduce. the Law of Cybernetics first).
They've been restated many times since the 80s. From the source(http://faculty.washington.edu/jtenenbg/courses/360/f04/sessions/schneidermanGoldenRules.html)
These rules were obtained from the text Designing the User Interface by Ben Shneiderman.
To improve the usability of an application it is important to have a well designed interface. Shneiderman's "Eight Golden Rules of Interface Design" are a guide to good interaction design.
1 Strive for consistency.
Consistent sequences of actions should be required in similar situations; identical terminology should be used in prompts, menus, and help screens; and consistent commands should be employed throughout.
2 Enable frequent users to use shortcuts.
As the frequency of use increases, so do the user's desires to reduce the number of interactions and to increase the pace of interaction. Abbreviations, function keys, hidden commands, and macro facilities are very helpful to an expert user.
3 Offer informative feedback.
For every operator action, there should be some system feedback. For frequent and minor actions, the response can be modest, while for infrequent and major actions, the response should be more substantial.
4 Design dialog to yield closure.
Sequences of actions should be organized into groups with a beginning, middle, and end. The informative feedback at the completion of a group of actions gives the operators the satisfaction of accomplishment, a sense of relief, the signal to drop contingency plans and options from their minds, and an indication that the way is clear to prepare for the next group of actions.
5 Offer simple error handling.
As much as possible, design the system so the user cannot make a serious error. If an error is made, the system should be able to detect the error and offer simple, comprehensible mechanisms for handling the error.
6 Permit easy reversal of actions.
This feature relieves anxiety, since the user knows that errors can be undone; it thus encourages exploration of unfamiliar options. The units of reversibility may be a single action, a data entry, or a complete group of actions.
7 Support internal locus of control.
Experienced operators strongly desire the sense that they are in charge of the system and that the system responds to their actions. Design the system to make users the initiators of actions rather than the responders.
8 Reduce short-term memory load.
The limitation of human information processing in short-term memory requires that displays be kept simple, multiple page displays be consolidated, window-motion frequency be reduced, and sufficient training time be allotted for codes, mnemonics, and sequences of actions.
thanks for the info!
see title
They do this in the US as well, having a set-up sobriety checkpoint. It varies by state but Indiana and Ohio both would do it...mostly in college towns for football games or holidays like Halloween.
Usually it's just a breathalyzer but if you get close enough to see it, it's too late to turn around...they strategically place the checkpoints to catch potential dodgers on the way back.
Not optional.
Of course "driving is a privilidge' but from a libertarian standpoint, how much is it really? it is **government regulation** any way you slice it...for some that is always the wrong policy...
I don't know how I feel about mandatory sobriety checkpoints...IMHO there are more important things for the cops to be doing (organized crime in the US is out of control)...I dont see them as much of a deterrant to drunk driving
here's why you can know I am not making up my credentials...I really have done the work I claim
there are volumes of research that have already been done about *buttons* however you want to define the concept
also, why research *where* to put a button with that funciton? you should **let the user have the option** to have the button or where to locate it! as for where to put the button by default, by necessity it has to be on the edge somewhere, after that, since almost all languages read from right to left, virtually all users (except those that read hebrew as their primary language) would **expect** to see the 'start' button on the **left side of the screen**
You absolutely do not need to do anything more than a **simple literature review** and apply some basic technical design theory...that's to arrive at 'either top or bottom of left edge'
so that's two fairly similar options...from there let the design team decide!!!
*and of course let the user have the option to change the location at will or remove completely*
back to your question about 'buttons'......Ben Shneiderman's work is industry-standard here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Shneiderman
Here's a link his University page: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~ben/
I'm not claiming Shneiderman is the magic bullet to all design questions, or that his design conceptualizations are fundamental to the industry...he made significant positive contributions...but his concepts are too linguistic-based 'make X more visible' sometimes & marketing people just have their way with it...
One of Shneiderman's major contributions, starting in the early 1980s, was formalizing a way to academically analyze all the research in computing across disciplines about things like 'how to design a good button'
Designing the User Interface is a current text written by him that is used in 100s of universities nationwide & globally. (btw don't pick him apart to me...i have my quibbles...) He ends up with very linguistic-based heuristics mostly, but if you combine his ideas with more formal language from true cyberneticists like Claude Shannon and Norbert Weiner then you can get some highly quantifiable data...
But regardless...Shneiderman's concepts are industry standard...how they are applied in the lab...well that's up to the researcher!
All of what M$ did with their 'Start' button was covered by Shneiderman in the 80s & continued to refine iteritively since then...
this is madness...
M$ is horrible at 'human factors design'. I used to be an adjunct prof. teaching Human/Computer Interaction. Consistently, when a big company tried to integrate 'U/X' or 'human factors design' (the 90s version of U/X) it becomes abstraction layer hell burdening resources w/ architecture the user turns off immediately after setup after purchase. ex: Clippy
You mention the 'Start button' and the ridiculous money they spent to make it. Great example...like the Xbox One controller from TFA, it shows ***exactly*** why M$ design is awful.
***IT WAS A BUTTON THAT OPENED A PANE OF OTHER PROGAM ICONS****
the idea that making a button would require **any R/D at all** is insane...
Now let's talk about User Testing.
I've lead research projects examining internet technology and usability in several different contexts, from filming users on an iphone, doing all-device monitoring where a resarcher follows the subject all day and diaries what tech they interact with, testing the effectiveness of Bush-mandated abstanence-only website educadtion in Indiana, to simple likert scale user surverys
As a scientist, concerned about proper use of the scientific method & accurately contextualizing non-quantifiable factors, I have to say ****most user testing done in the industry is absolutely worthless****
TFA, Clippy, the fucking 'Start button', 'Metro'....it's all was obviously developed with the dumbest, most reductive user research available.
I love the domain of 'U/X'...the border between user and machine...it's challenging b/c it requires professional-level knowledge of both techinical and wholly-non technical information. It's the *future of design*...a cybernetic perspective...
But this is horseshit...I have to say 'human computer interaction' or people think I have a Marketing degree!!!!!
In defense of individual M$ designers who did nothing more than go to work and try to make the best product, fighting M$'s organizaitonal tendencies, fighting ass-kisser colleagues...for **THEM** I can acknowledge that their research wasnt wholly worthless as the data could be re-examined & tendencies observed. Also, I can acknowledge that in some parts of M$'s crap like Clippy I can see that *someone* on the team was putting the user's needs first.
howso?
FISA courts are there exactly for this right? Are you assuming the government is up to something or can you be specific?
I'm talking **current policy**
then lets agree to end this thread
It was 3 people then 2 of them tried to screw 1 of them by rewriting history and saying it was 2 the whole time not 3
the two screwed the **third guy** out of his work
the link is full of several points...links to other stories as well...
read harder you moron
that's what you're doing w/ your 'progressivism'
you're a sell-out....a bandwagon jumper....
this conversation is over, i'm not interested in talking to a black hole
i'm down with single payer system for sure
I wanted to address this b/c there is an important distinction to make...however I don't have any argument against your greater point
Regarding ideas & the stealing thereof...you are right in a sense, but I make a distinction between *borrowing* & *stealing*
B.B. King did a commercial for some dumb credit card (AmEx? can't find it on youtube) back in the early 2000's and he said something to the effect of, "My advice to young musicians today is, if you love music, find what you like and listen to as much as you can of it, then learn to play an instrument, and then if you want to write your own songs, go ahead and borrow a little"
All the greatest creative types can list (usually with affection) their list of influences
Same goes for internet sites.
facebook.com was (and still is) *better* than any alternative from an everyday user perspective...there's no honor in their title, but they get it nonetheless
I don't begrudge Zuck & Co for borrowing ideas from other sites at the time. Hell **WE ALL KNEW IF SOMEONE DID IT RIGHT IT WOULD BE HUGE** Credit them for having the coding chops to make a functional system and the discipline to *keep ads away*...they did that part right.
Zuckerberg & friends had wealthy parents to support them in the weird interim between starting the site > getting users > monetization. The way Zuck punked the Winklevoss'ses's is kinda funny but morally, ethically, and legally wrong, but they had their settlement.
No, today, what makes Zuckerberg and facebook.com awful isnt a stolen idea like Snapchat was stolen from its creator. Instead, Zuckerberg is evil b/c he has perpetuated the business philosophy that tech must profit from users **by taking their privacy for profit** and **bottlenecking features**
Facebook.com's IPO says explicitly that any legislation or policy that gives users control over their data is a threat to business profits. That's it in black and white.
Zuckerberg is the new Gates.
Snapchat was stolen.
hey, AC...it's actually really, really easy for one person to develop something and another 'publicly present' it ;)
it happens every day in the tech industry
the link shows alot more than what you listed...it shows the other two acknowledging the truth that the one guy had the idea for the messages disappearing...
you ignore that, which is the crux of the whole thing...b/c the disappearing messages is **the only reason anyone uses Snapchaat**
people use Snapchat b/c it disappears...everyone acknowledges on paper it was the one person's idea...end of story
as far as 'publicly presenting'...that and two bits and you have a quarter....'publicly presenting' is **exactly** the bullshit hype language that people use to justify huge stakes in things they did not make or contribute to intellectually
+1 Insightful on the "government has the keys" point...
here it is: law enforcement & NSA must have the ability to access anything, given proper rights & proceedures
no one can make successful counter-point...all arguments are arguments over ***under what conditions*** the LE/NSA can access the information
Yahoo is doing absolutely nothing other than PR 'damage control' by manipulating the facts with this news.
Yahoo will give up **anyone's** data as fast as humanly possible when asked by a legal authority and this news changes nothing about that.
the speed at which LE/NSA can access our data under legal order is simply a **question of IT engineering**
it's all on the link I provided...
the guy invented the app
the two frat-bro's class project doesn't mean shit...for my MS in Information & Communication Science I made proposals and projects for all kinds of app concepts...doesn't mean I can sue anyone
in court these things become pretty black and white...at least when there are text messages that say it literally word for word ;)
seriously, identify specifically the 'failure'
Politics aside, project Obamacare is hurting b/c it does not have a **public option**
Otherwise, the 'rollout' is about what could be expected...want proof?
Proof: Compare Obamacare to Romneycare's rollout
Our nation **has never done this on a Federal level**
Yes, I agree that whoever hired the contractors is an idiot and ***should be reprimanded or fired***....the IT work of the Obamacare website was on par with the IT work needed to wire up a very large school district with an intranet and they paid way too much for bullshit...but that's an implementation mistake by procurement...which can and does happen in **any** system govt or private sector
but the only "problem" with Obamacare is that it doesn't have PUBLIC OPTION