>>UI Design is_closer to psychology, anthropology, Comparative Linguistics than Computer Science. It's **extremely subjective** as there isn't something like the perfect "UI", like there isn't any perfect human language or the perfect blueprint for an house. emphasis added
So b/c there is no 'perfect UI' then Usability can't be a 'real' science? So then where is the perfect model of the universe? Because surely by the same standard Physics would have had to produce such a document.
As a scientist, I'm sure you see the logical fallacy of your claim. It is the method, data, and analysis approach that makes research truly 'science' or more in your example of "UI Design" case studies.
Yes it is true, most Usability and Human/Computer Interaction (HCI)studies use only case reports and ordinal data. Yes typically psychology and similar disciplines use that same approach.
However, HCI researchers are becoming closer to true cyberneticists (http://www.colorado.edu/communication/meta-discourses/Papers/App_Papers/McGarry.htm) every day.
Communications, specifically telecommunications, will help us take the analog signal of human intelligence and link it with our digital creations....it is already...quantization bits
True, all Apple phones use apple's OS, but not all app phones use the manufacturer's proprietary OS. It is wrong to compare the iPhone...a DEVICE...with Android...an OPERATING SYSTEM. IF Apple had somehow released its iphone OS as an open source competitor to Android, THEN and ONLY THEN would comparisons between iphone sales and devices that use Android OS sales would be remotely relevant
What is the real question here? Is apple better than google? What? I don't understand the intense need to compare these two entities that are not in direct competition at this time...
(Or maybe you're just better at this game than I am.)
That's gotta be it...I've had alot of mistakes to learn from;) I have loved science my whole life (thanks to my parents) and my mind was CONSTANTLY pushing against what the school/church was teaching about the natural world.
I like people. I like meeting and talking to all kinds of different people, including fundie arch-conservatives, about anything under the sun. Sometimes I just want to BS about sports or music, other times I like defying their expectations and playing their morality against the ideas they support.
When I'm not looking for a fight and I just want to jawbone, I've found my advice above works the best.
so, gimmee something here, how do you discuss geologic events when people seem so driven to think in terms of their own lifespans?
I can help. I am the product of 18 years of Christian fundamentalist education, from Kinder through undergrad.
Focus on the processes and what happened and not on how you got there...say "over time" and just be as general as possible. Really it's sad that it's come to this, but just say "millions/billions of years ago" as little as possible.
The best you can realistically expect from a TRUE creationist is "how do they know that?" and "how does X geological or celestial event affect Y?" and that's OK. It's a *conversation* instead of an argument. I've learned this is 'victory' when dealing with close-minded, under educated people.
The only provider in my area is Comcast. If I don't like Comcast, I am free to not buy their service.
Abstractly, you are right. Technically you can always choose anything. You could choose to put a bullet in your head. Your point proves nothing except that you are probably a troll. But you were modded up, so...
In reality, a good analogy is your plumbing. If the status quo holds, then Comcast will be able to do the equivalent of buying your pipes and regulating when you can shit.
So yeah, you can technically **choose** to not take a shit...asshole
American criminal culture is very image conscious. Look at music videos and movies and you'll get an idea. To 'burgle' something sounds childish, like something a 5th Grader would do to get in trouble. "Billy! I told you not to burgle your pants!"
To burglarize something sounds a bit less childish. Anything with "-ize" on it sounds kinda badass...terrorize, demonize, caramelize (?)...you get the idea.
The whole idea is not go sound like a little bitch.
Your description and vision of the workplace is a totalitarian nightmare, not even the military is as cut and try as you describe.
You allow the boss of a worker to be rule with impudence and sharply criticize a worker who does not think of their employer as a slave owner or overlord.
The fact is, any employee can refuse to do anything, and expect that they will at least get a fair hearing from the boss's boss about why they refuse to carry out a specific task.
Yes, under certain circumstances, like a service worker at a small owner-run restaurant, the boss really is a dictator...but even then there are checks...if a restaurant gets a bad reputation they will not be able to find good help, and after a few iterations of the cycle they'll be headed straight for bankruptcy, i've seen it...when a small business gets a reputation as bad employers the word spreads and employees start to not care if they steal or do a bad job for you...
Consequences have actions, and there is a proper way to handle greivances...people like you perpetuate the boss as slave owner mentality...stop it! demand fair treatment!
I'd say your perspective represents what most Americans think about the issue.
I really think either a national system similar to California or flat legalization of marijuana is inevitable and will happen as soon as an *reliable* instant test for 'intoxication' can be developed. (don't talk to me about the marijuana 'breathalizers'...they can detect smoke in the mouth from over a day past use...)
It's a simple issue of accontability...if i'm high and I crash my car into yours then I am culpable b/c I was under the influence, just like drunk driving. Once we can do an instant test to see how "stoned" someone is with some sense of normalization, it will be legalized.
I know the comparison to alchohol breathalizers is problematic for some b/c it can be wrong...but it's something and I'm glad we use them. If weed were legalized, I'd be happy to regulate my usage to stay under a legal limit when driving...arbitrary as that limit may be.
I'll start off with this: I've used most drugs at least once and marijuana and quite a bit (used to work at a head shop), though now I'm straight edge for reasons that have nothing to do with my drug use.
I am completely in favor of decriminalizing marijuana and LSD use
I agree wholeheartedly with just one caveat, lets substitute Psilocibin mushrooms (magic mushrooms) for LSD. It provides the same basic effect (there's nothing that happens on labratory made hallucenogens that doesn't happen on 'shrooms) but it is natural and controllable.
When using 'shrooms you always know they are pharmacologically safe (relatively speaking) but LSD, even if it was legalized, is too unstable to be used widely, IMHO.
I've known more than a few people who took too much acid and experienced permanent brain damage. With shrooms I have not seen any long term physiological problems.
thank you...because in january I will be starting grad school for my MS in Information and Communication Sciences at a midwestern state university and one of the workgroups i'm going to be part of will be doing WiMax stuff...
if i ever make any real money off the idea i'll kick down an appropriate ammount for you
a plan to offer free, pornography-free wireless Internet service to all Americans
To address concerns about the filter, the FCC is proposing that adults could opt out and access all Internet sites.
Yeah, just type in your social security number and your password...
Age verification = no privacy...on a government network at least...
I really can't imagine a more effective way for the government to track and monitor the activities of its citizens. Which is bad. Normally I would love the idea, even if it had to be offered at slower speeds, but unless we make it open, with NO AGE VERIFICATION or anything of that sort we're just asking for 1984...
The constant struggle between the new guys to get some of the neat stuff they saw in uni into the mix and the old guys who think it's all a bunch of nonsense will in the right balance lead to a happy medium.
false dichotomy...older people do not have to be 'set in their ways' and young people do not have to be full of nonsense ideas...it's fallacy to think so.
the best team is one with a range of experience and abilities all devoted to accomplishing a task or goal. people who are 'stuck in their ways' no matter what age are a drag on a work group or creative team. what's most important is that ego and self promotion are set aside by all
now, if you argue that the 'old and stubborn vs. young and nonsense' is the status quo, I agree. my point is, we should strive to move beyond those limitations.
Since this comment was made by ValuJet, I'm going to
false equivalence...one commenter does not equal a big DC think tank...the CATO Institute is an influential (in some circles) organization that often does disingenuous intellectual stunts for the GOP...to put it in/. terms: they're like evil Vulcans to the GOP's United Federation of Planets...making quasi-intellectual arguments that support blatantly pro-corporate/anti-freedom policies
the paper bends over backwards to make such a specific, unnatural definition of 'net-neutrality' and then sets up straw man arguments against it
ISP's want to charge people more for the same bandwidth, in artificial 'tiers' of service that go against the entire notion of the public/private partnership that is the internet...
And it's not fair that after your decades of able public service, your buddies on K Street are all filthy rich while you make a tenth of what they do
I can definitely understand why a public servant would think that...that's why I advocate paying all of them alot more.
How about somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 million a year for president? Can you name one single more important job in America (or hell the world)? CEO's make hundreds of millions of dollars...we need to adequately compensate the President so that other, lower ranks can be raised (no one in the gov't can make more than the prez)
Everyone from president on down to your local cop and teach should make more...even your E-1 (lowest rank) military need a healthy (50% plus much better tuition assistance at least) raise.
I'm a liberal, but that doesn't mean I hate the free market. The free market is a reality of our system and it only makes sense to use that to our advantage.
If all public servants made significantly more money, we would have a renaissance in those seeking employment.
I can speak from personal and second hand experience that many, many talented and service minded people forgo public service because with things like student loans, etc. it just isn't a financially solvent path.
This idea has plenty of historical president...the Mandarins in China for example.
It's all about incentives...we should REWARD those who desire to serve...pay 'em what they're worth
Look, I knew about his books, etc. but I just never thought much about them. By the time I started studying comm theory there were many other more well developed takes on types of channels and technology. I do credit McLuhan with being one of the first to emphasize how different types of channels and developments in technology affect the message.
That's right, I said the type of channel effects the message. If you think that contradicts GP's (me) post then you are mistaken. I said the channel doesn't *fundamentally* change. Of course the channel by which we communicate alters things...but not at a fundamental level of meaning.
Also, this is a stupid argument, started by a stupid quotation that survives b/c it's so eminently quotable.
Of course the message matters...and of course the channel matters...THE BOTH MATTER! ex: the message "i'll be over at 8" matters to the receiver...but the channel...whether it be txt msg, email, or phone is immaterial to the needs of the receiver of the message...as long as she gets the message
to a communication theorist studying land-line phone usage vs. cell phone usage, the content doesn't matter...but that's not the context the quotation is used in most frequently.
again...they both matter, and the medium (channel) is NOT the message...the message is the fucking message...
I'm a grad student in communications (information and communication technology, MS...;) and I've never, ever heard a proper development of that all too often quoted phrase "the medium is the message"
ex: if I use a telephone to call my friend to tell her I'm coming over...in the context of that quote, is "telephone" the message? no!
the quotation is useless as far as understanding communications...but thanks for perpetuating it, it gives me an opportunity to talk about comm theory
technology doesn't fundamentally change communication (whether it be words, pictures, video, or audio). It may change the style and method of delivery (the 'channel' and 'code') but the content of what is being communicated does not change.
'web 2.0' is a nothing term. some try to pin it down with a technical definition that is usually along the lines of 'web pages that automatically refresh' or somesuch, but the fact is, its usage is so broad that any effort to make it a useful, defined term is pointless. once marketing people and Time magazine got ahold of it, it was finished...
Obama's administration is going to re-open the channels of communication between the exec. branch and the populace. They will do so using all technology CURRENTLY AVAILABLE including YouTube and Facebook. FDR did the same thing with his fireside chats.
Obama isn't doing anything particularly novel...but having an executive who actually communicates effectively with his constituents IS going to be very different from what we've had!
Gore won in 2000. He won Broward Co., he won Florida, and he won the popular vote. Re-thugs stole the election by not allowing the re-counts. That is a completely different scenario than the landslide that happened this year. No one can dispute Obama's victory.
good link, but if you read it, unless your are 65 or older you need a birth certificate, and that isn't free to get.
So no, it's not 'free' like voter suppression people are trying to make it out to be...it's only 'free' if you have your birth certificate or are older than 65.
The Indiana law (i live here, remember) is to suppress voters plain and simple.
Neither Obama nor McCain will be a decent president
First, you're wrong. Obama will make an good president and (i'm loathe to admit) McCain wouldn't have been the WORST person...ex: Palin, Huckabee, Romney, Guilianni.
Second, just because your little 'independent' self doesn't particularly favor either candidate, it's foolish to think that they are the same. Obama and McCain differ GREATLY on several policy issues, and you need to man (or woman) up and pick the best possible person on the ballot.
Quit yer bitching and go pull the lever for the lesser of two evils.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey Sal, you said:
>>UI Design is_closer to psychology, anthropology, Comparative Linguistics than Computer Science. It's **extremely subjective** as there isn't something like the perfect "UI", like there isn't any perfect human language or the perfect blueprint for an house. emphasis added
So b/c there is no 'perfect UI' then Usability can't be a 'real' science? So then where is the perfect model of the universe? Because surely by the same standard Physics would have had to produce such a document.
As a scientist, I'm sure you see the logical fallacy of your claim. It is the method, data, and analysis approach that makes research truly 'science' or more in your example of "UI Design" case studies.
Yes it is true, most Usability and Human/Computer Interaction (HCI)studies use only case reports and ordinal data. Yes typically psychology and similar disciplines use that same approach.
However, HCI researchers are becoming closer to true cyberneticists (http://www.colorado.edu/communication/meta-discourses/Papers/App_Papers/McGarry.htm) every day.
Communications, specifically telecommunications, will help us take the analog signal of human intelligence and link it with our digital creations....it is already...quantization bits
OS != phone brand!!!
apples/oranges...OS/phone brand
True, all Apple phones use apple's OS, but not all app phones use the manufacturer's proprietary OS. It is wrong to compare the iPhone...a DEVICE...with Android...an OPERATING SYSTEM. IF Apple had somehow released its iphone OS as an open source competitor to Android, THEN and ONLY THEN would comparisons between iphone sales and devices that use Android OS sales would be remotely relevant
What is the real question here? Is apple better than google? What? I don't understand the intense need to compare these two entities that are not in direct competition at this time...
(Or maybe you're just better at this game than I am.)
That's gotta be it...I've had alot of mistakes to learn from ;) I have loved science my whole life (thanks to my parents) and my mind was CONSTANTLY pushing against what the school/church was teaching about the natural world.
I like people. I like meeting and talking to all kinds of different people, including fundie arch-conservatives, about anything under the sun. Sometimes I just want to BS about sports or music, other times I like defying their expectations and playing their morality against the ideas they support.
When I'm not looking for a fight and I just want to jawbone, I've found my advice above works the best.
You're confusing the device and the brand.
Economy of scale. Arguably, the Windows OS brought the PC into a large number of homes, spurring the sale of workstations/PCs in ever higher numbers.
Smaller PCs and consumer demand created the economy of scale. Bill Gates or Windows didn't "bring" the PC anywhere, just just made software.
But agree with you here:
Hence, computers got cheaper because we were buying more of them.
Yes, it was *computers* not the OS they were running. If anything, it's the microchip that took the computer from the lab to the living room.
so, gimmee something here, how do you discuss geologic events when people seem so driven to think in terms of their own lifespans?
I can help. I am the product of 18 years of Christian fundamentalist education, from Kinder through undergrad.
Focus on the processes and what happened and not on how you got there...say "over time" and just be as general as possible. Really it's sad that it's come to this, but just say "millions/billions of years ago" as little as possible.
The best you can realistically expect from a TRUE creationist is "how do they know that?" and "how does X geological or celestial event affect Y?" and that's OK. It's a *conversation* instead of an argument. I've learned this is 'victory' when dealing with close-minded, under educated people.
Technically, we still can.
The only provider in my area is Comcast. If I don't like Comcast, I am free to not buy their service.
Abstractly, you are right. Technically you can always choose anything. You could choose to put a bullet in your head. Your point proves nothing except that you are probably a troll. But you were modded up, so...
In reality, a good analogy is your plumbing. If the status quo holds, then Comcast will be able to do the equivalent of buying your pipes and regulating when you can shit.
So yeah, you can technically **choose** to not take a shit...asshole
Some more background on burgle:
American criminal culture is very image conscious. Look at music videos and movies and you'll get an idea. To 'burgle' something sounds childish, like something a 5th Grader would do to get in trouble. "Billy! I told you not to burgle your pants!"
To burglarize something sounds a bit less childish. Anything with "-ize" on it sounds kinda badass...terrorize, demonize, caramelize (?)...you get the idea.
The whole idea is not go sound like a little bitch.
Your description and vision of the workplace is a totalitarian nightmare, not even the military is as cut and try as you describe.
You allow the boss of a worker to be rule with impudence and sharply criticize a worker who does not think of their employer as a slave owner or overlord.
The fact is, any employee can refuse to do anything, and expect that they will at least get a fair hearing from the boss's boss about why they refuse to carry out a specific task.
Yes, under certain circumstances, like a service worker at a small owner-run restaurant, the boss really is a dictator...but even then there are checks...if a restaurant gets a bad reputation they will not be able to find good help, and after a few iterations of the cycle they'll be headed straight for bankruptcy, i've seen it...when a small business gets a reputation as bad employers the word spreads and employees start to not care if they steal or do a bad job for you...
Consequences have actions, and there is a proper way to handle greivances...people like you perpetuate the boss as slave owner mentality...stop it! demand fair treatment!
Parent is making a false dichotomy.
This statement implies that the iPhone is rife with security issues. What are the security issues of the iPhone? What are the proven threats?
I'm a section editor at a small, but well connected site (www.stereosubversion.com) that does music and movie reviews and features.
we have about 200,000 users a month and we are looking to expand our advertising
i would really appreciate any recommendations for ad provider companies, as it seems you have alot of experience in this area
feel free to email me at jeffersonhuxley@gmail.com
thanks!
I'd say your perspective represents what most Americans think about the issue.
I really think either a national system similar to California or flat legalization of marijuana is inevitable and will happen as soon as an *reliable* instant test for 'intoxication' can be developed. (don't talk to me about the marijuana 'breathalizers'...they can detect smoke in the mouth from over a day past use...)
It's a simple issue of accontability...if i'm high and I crash my car into yours then I am culpable b/c I was under the influence, just like drunk driving. Once we can do an instant test to see how "stoned" someone is with some sense of normalization, it will be legalized.
I know the comparison to alchohol breathalizers is problematic for some b/c it can be wrong...but it's something and I'm glad we use them. If weed were legalized, I'd be happy to regulate my usage to stay under a legal limit when driving...arbitrary as that limit may be.
I'll start off with this: I've used most drugs at least once and marijuana and quite a bit (used to work at a head shop), though now I'm straight edge for reasons that have nothing to do with my drug use.
I agree wholeheartedly with just one caveat, lets substitute Psilocibin mushrooms (magic mushrooms) for LSD. It provides the same basic effect (there's nothing that happens on labratory made hallucenogens that doesn't happen on 'shrooms) but it is natural and controllable.
When using 'shrooms you always know they are pharmacologically safe (relatively speaking) but LSD, even if it was legalized, is too unstable to be used widely, IMHO.
I've known more than a few people who took too much acid and experienced permanent brain damage. With shrooms I have not seen any long term physiological problems.
so..."don't take the brown acid"
and for the love of God...legalize marijuana
i love the solar/wind power substation idea!
thank you...because in january I will be starting grad school for my MS in Information and Communication Sciences at a midwestern state university and one of the workgroups i'm going to be part of will be doing WiMax stuff...
if i ever make any real money off the idea i'll kick down an appropriate ammount for you
from TFA:
Yeah, just type in your social security number and your password...
Age verification = no privacy...on a government network at least...
I really can't imagine a more effective way for the government to track and monitor the activities of its citizens. Which is bad. Normally I would love the idea, even if it had to be offered at slower speeds, but unless we make it open, with NO AGE VERIFICATION or anything of that sort we're just asking for 1984...
false dichotomy...older people do not have to be 'set in their ways' and young people do not have to be full of nonsense ideas...it's fallacy to think so.
the best team is one with a range of experience and abilities all devoted to accomplishing a task or goal. people who are 'stuck in their ways' no matter what age are a drag on a work group or creative team. what's most important is that ego and self promotion are set aside by all
now, if you argue that the 'old and stubborn vs. young and nonsense' is the status quo, I agree. my point is, we should strive to move beyond those limitations.
false equivalence...one commenter does not equal a big DC think tank...the CATO Institute is an influential (in some circles) organization that often does disingenuous intellectual stunts for the GOP...to put it in /. terms: they're like evil Vulcans to the GOP's United Federation of Planets...making quasi-intellectual arguments that support blatantly pro-corporate/anti-freedom policies
the paper bends over backwards to make such a specific, unnatural definition of 'net-neutrality' and then sets up straw man arguments against it
ISP's want to charge people more for the same bandwidth, in artificial 'tiers' of service that go against the entire notion of the public/private partnership that is the internet...
I can definitely understand why a public servant would think that...that's why I advocate paying all of them alot more.
How about somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 million a year for president? Can you name one single more important job in America (or hell the world)? CEO's make hundreds of millions of dollars...we need to adequately compensate the President so that other, lower ranks can be raised (no one in the gov't can make more than the prez)
Everyone from president on down to your local cop and teach should make more...even your E-1 (lowest rank) military need a healthy (50% plus much better tuition assistance at least) raise.
I'm a liberal, but that doesn't mean I hate the free market. The free market is a reality of our system and it only makes sense to use that to our advantage.
If all public servants made significantly more money, we would have a renaissance in those seeking employment.
I can speak from personal and second hand experience that many, many talented and service minded people forgo public service because with things like student loans, etc. it just isn't a financially solvent path.
This idea has plenty of historical president...the Mandarins in China for example.
It's all about incentives...we should REWARD those who desire to serve...pay 'em what they're worth
well, I still enjoy talking about it...
i'm going to be having alot of conversations like this in grad school (i just started) so at least for my part your comment was beneficial
Look, I knew about his books, etc. but I just never thought much about them. By the time I started studying comm theory there were many other more well developed takes on types of channels and technology. I do credit McLuhan with being one of the first to emphasize how different types of channels and developments in technology affect the message.
That's right, I said the type of channel effects the message. If you think that contradicts GP's (me) post then you are mistaken. I said the channel doesn't *fundamentally* change. Of course the channel by which we communicate alters things...but not at a fundamental level of meaning.
Also, this is a stupid argument, started by a stupid quotation that survives b/c it's so eminently quotable.
Of course the message matters...and of course the channel matters...THE BOTH MATTER! ex: the message "i'll be over at 8" matters to the receiver...but the channel...whether it be txt msg, email, or phone is immaterial to the needs of the receiver of the message...as long as she gets the message
to a communication theorist studying land-line phone usage vs. cell phone usage, the content doesn't matter...but that's not the context the quotation is used in most frequently.
again...they both matter, and the medium (channel) is NOT the message...the message is the fucking message...
I'm a grad student in communications (information and communication technology, MS...;) and I've never, ever heard a proper development of that all too often quoted phrase "the medium is the message"
ex: if I use a telephone to call my friend to tell her I'm coming over...in the context of that quote, is "telephone" the message? no!
the quotation is useless as far as understanding communications...but thanks for perpetuating it, it gives me an opportunity to talk about comm theory
to add a little comm theory to your point...
technology doesn't fundamentally change communication (whether it be words, pictures, video, or audio). It may change the style and method of delivery (the 'channel' and 'code') but the content of what is being communicated does not change.
'web 2.0' is a nothing term. some try to pin it down with a technical definition that is usually along the lines of 'web pages that automatically refresh' or somesuch, but the fact is, its usage is so broad that any effort to make it a useful, defined term is pointless. once marketing people and Time magazine got ahold of it, it was finished...
Obama's administration is going to re-open the channels of communication between the exec. branch and the populace. They will do so using all technology CURRENTLY AVAILABLE including YouTube and Facebook. FDR did the same thing with his fireside chats.
Obama isn't doing anything particularly novel...but having an executive who actually communicates effectively with his constituents IS going to be very different from what we've had!
Gore won in 2000. He won Broward Co., he won Florida, and he won the popular vote. Re-thugs stole the election by not allowing the re-counts. That is a completely different scenario than the landslide that happened this year. No one can dispute Obama's victory.
Ok, are you the type that will not support any candidate that isn't yourself? Seriously, you're not on the ballot.
You can't be equally opposed to both candidates. That is impossible, b/c the candidates themselves have such different views on policy.
If you are a full on anarchist, you could still say Obama was the better choice. A neo-nazi would be most benefited by a McCain-Palin administration.
Please tell me, who would YOU put on the ballot?
good link, but if you read it, unless your are 65 or older you need a birth certificate, and that isn't free to get.
So no, it's not 'free' like voter suppression people are trying to make it out to be...it's only 'free' if you have your birth certificate or are older than 65.
The Indiana law (i live here, remember) is to suppress voters plain and simple.
First, you're wrong. Obama will make an good president and (i'm loathe to admit) McCain wouldn't have been the WORST person...ex: Palin, Huckabee, Romney, Guilianni.
Second, just because your little 'independent' self doesn't particularly favor either candidate, it's foolish to think that they are the same. Obama and McCain differ GREATLY on several policy issues, and you need to man (or woman) up and pick the best possible person on the ballot.
Quit yer bitching and go pull the lever for the lesser of two evils.