Google is obviously trying to communicate to app developers how they wish the Android platform to be. That is as much understanding the marketing of the platform as it is the actual look and feel. Google is providing a little pep talk to the troops, as though Android developers were part of Google itself, sharing in its vision for the Android platform.
Its useful, both from a "now you see what we're trying to do" and a "and this is how to do it" perspective.
Many developers are simply incompetent at UI design, just as many of them are incompetent at threaded asynchronous programming.
With simplified SDKs, these developers still churn out code and put it on the market for others to suffer with. That's not a reflection on the platform, just on the programmer or group involved.
I spend 90% of my Android programming time working on internal applications for database clients and it requires that we take real effort to keep our UIs both usable and responsive in most use cases. Time and effort many people just aren't being paid to provide.
Um, how is that preaching? The whole point of a style guide is to explain your goals, mission even, of how an app on the platform should be designed. Feel free to look up the Apple style guide, or the Gnome one.
Agreed wholeheartedly -- I'm thrilled that Android is available for everything from my printer tablet (by HP) to in-car stereo systems (so pretty) to tiny Samsung and LG inexpensive smart phones to the 4.7" monstrosities that many of us carry around.
I'm glad Android supports multiple resolutions and that if applicable and if a developer so chooses, their app is runnable on all of the above devices. How is this a bad thing except for lazy devs?
I think you infer more than I would from that document. There are some programs with issues, and many without. Having an official style guide is obviously better than not having one, but it will not change the behaviour of publishers that insist on straying from convention.
As for hardware or API fragmentation, this document does nothing to address that that hasn't already been stated in the SDK guide. Developing apps with multiple types of devices in mind has always been an Android reality, has always been documented, and has always been ignored by some developers.
None of this means that Google is admitting to a "huge" problem. Out of the 200+ apps I have installed, I have minor complains about a half dozen and major complaints about 2 or 3.
True, but if someone were going to accept that point, they wouldn't have argued the point he did. Besides, I'm sure anyone who's experienced modern emergency care in most cities in north america would agree that not only is it inefficient cost-wise, but also medically.
So your solution is to force others at gunpoint to do it? I'm all for helping others but making it mandatory is evil. The ends don't justify the means.
Letting your fellow countrymen die on the street from wholly preventable conditions is a worse evil.
As another poster says, you do a disservice to your country by being proud of not yet being as bad as a state like China when you may be headed in that direction. Do yourself a favour and aim the opposite direction in policy if you wish to always be so proud.
As a Canadian watching your system from the outside, I'd be afraid of your politicians too. Our political system behind our public health system is completely different.
You can call it a straw man just like you can claim I'm a jellyfish. But I'm not, and my comment wasn't.
Welcome to reality, deal with it. You can either care for the sick or not. If you choose to care for them, you have to pay for it. If you have to pay for it, you must determine how. If you don't want to have the state pay for the the health of those who cannot afford it themselves, then you've chosen not to care for them.
This question is often asked by ethics departments. You have an ethical obligation to not lie to your patient as a doctor, even when lying to them could actually help their recovery. But you also have an ethical obligation to inform them of the best options available, which may include not telling them the severity of their condition.
Amazingly, there are crackpots in all walks of life. I've never personally heard anyone say his condition is a result of defying God, and I'm from a good old right-wing denomination of Christianity, but I'm sure there are people out there who believe all sorts of stupid things. I've met scientists who are certain of all sorts of strange things, but a crackpot scientist quickly gets dismissed as 'not a scientist' by peers and eliminated from the equation. Being a Christian on the other hand only requires faith, and while some groups do, I don't believe in removing people from that circle if that's how they want to self-identify.
What's sad is when I see people of all stripes debating against public healthcare, forgetting that they're condemning future thinkers or leaders or writers just because they (or their families) can't afford their own healthcare.
And have your master password stolen by the seemingly inevitable trojan keylogger that is on every clueless person's machine.
qft -- stole the words right out of my mouth.
I never, ever, ever log into websites with my own account from anyone else's computer. I have a smart phone with VPN access to anything I need securely.
Assuming the password database is stolen today, would someone be able to compromise your password before you changed it?
No, you never would.
If you use a different password for every site, there's no reason to think that a password change will increase your security at all except in one very specific case: where an attacker has gained control of your account without your knowledge and not changed anything themselves. In this case (the peeping tom hacker?), your changing of a password will then deny them future access until the next hack.
Personally, for 99% of the random websites I visit, I dump a random password into the password field and don't even bother jotting it down; they all have password recovery by E-mail if and when I ever return.
Slashdot Mirror
Feel free but do us all a favour and include your rationale.
I've been using ICS for a few weeks now and quite like it, even though apps designed around the newer SDK version have their menus moved on me.
Google is obviously trying to communicate to app developers how they wish the Android platform to be. That is as much understanding the marketing of the platform as it is the actual look and feel. Google is providing a little pep talk to the troops, as though Android developers were part of Google itself, sharing in its vision for the Android platform.
Its useful, both from a "now you see what we're trying to do" and a "and this is how to do it" perspective.
Fix your computer; fonts look fine here in Chrome on Linux.
Many developers are simply incompetent at UI design, just as many of them are incompetent at threaded asynchronous programming.
With simplified SDKs, these developers still churn out code and put it on the market for others to suffer with. That's not a reflection on the platform, just on the programmer or group involved.
I spend 90% of my Android programming time working on internal applications for database clients and it requires that we take real effort to keep our UIs both usable and responsive in most use cases. Time and effort many people just aren't being paid to provide.
Um, how is that preaching? The whole point of a style guide is to explain your goals, mission even, of how an app on the platform should be designed. Feel free to look up the Apple style guide, or the Gnome one.
It happens to me too, you just have to click "search for _originalterm_ instead" to get your original search terms.
Did you even read the guidelines? I did. They apply equally to new and old devices. They even make mention of new and old versions of the API.
Agreed wholeheartedly -- I'm thrilled that Android is available for everything from my printer tablet (by HP) to in-car stereo systems (so pretty) to tiny Samsung and LG inexpensive smart phones to the 4.7" monstrosities that many of us carry around.
I'm glad Android supports multiple resolutions and that if applicable and if a developer so chooses, their app is runnable on all of the above devices. How is this a bad thing except for lazy devs?
I think you infer more than I would from that document. There are some programs with issues, and many without. Having an official style guide is obviously better than not having one, but it will not change the behaviour of publishers that insist on straying from convention.
As for hardware or API fragmentation, this document does nothing to address that that hasn't already been stated in the SDK guide. Developing apps with multiple types of devices in mind has always been an Android reality, has always been documented, and has always been ignored by some developers.
None of this means that Google is admitting to a "huge" problem. Out of the 200+ apps I have installed, I have minor complains about a half dozen and major complaints about 2 or 3.
True, but if someone were going to accept that point, they wouldn't have argued the point he did. Besides, I'm sure anyone who's experienced modern emergency care in most cities in north america would agree that not only is it inefficient cost-wise, but also medically.
can't afford their own healthcare
So your solution is to force others at gunpoint to do it? I'm all for helping others but making it mandatory is evil. The ends don't justify the means.
Letting your fellow countrymen die on the street from wholly preventable conditions is a worse evil.
Well said.
As another poster says, you do a disservice to your country by being proud of not yet being as bad as a state like China when you may be headed in that direction. Do yourself a favour and aim the opposite direction in policy if you wish to always be so proud.
Luckily it seems this case would also fit devices I actually care about, not just ipads.
So you're what, bullying him because that gives you moral superiority? Way to go.
As a Canadian watching your system from the outside, I'd be afraid of your politicians too. Our political system behind our public health system is completely different.
Ahem, I'm Canadian.
Look it up, we live north of you.
We argue about the cost of good healthcare every election, but taking it away from people isn't an option.
You can call it a straw man just like you can claim I'm a jellyfish. But I'm not, and my comment wasn't.
Welcome to reality, deal with it. You can either care for the sick or not. If you choose to care for them, you have to pay for it. If you have to pay for it, you must determine how. If you don't want to have the state pay for the the health of those who cannot afford it themselves, then you've chosen not to care for them.
Next time, present a logical rebuttal.
No, I'm Canadian and decrying your attitude. But feel free to assume something different.
This question is often asked by ethics departments. You have an ethical obligation to not lie to your patient as a doctor, even when lying to them could actually help their recovery. But you also have an ethical obligation to inform them of the best options available, which may include not telling them the severity of their condition.
Amazingly, there are crackpots in all walks of life. I've never personally heard anyone say his condition is a result of defying God, and I'm from a good old right-wing denomination of Christianity, but I'm sure there are people out there who believe all sorts of stupid things. I've met scientists who are certain of all sorts of strange things, but a crackpot scientist quickly gets dismissed as 'not a scientist' by peers and eliminated from the equation. Being a Christian on the other hand only requires faith, and while some groups do, I don't believe in removing people from that circle if that's how they want to self-identify.
What's sad is when I see people of all stripes debating against public healthcare, forgetting that they're condemning future thinkers or leaders or writers just because they (or their families) can't afford their own healthcare.
I do this ... although a mild variation thereof. Its amazingly easy to do, and very inexpensive.
Buy your own vanity domain, its all of $5-$20 a year. Its amazing how infrequently my E-mail address has changed since doing so myself.
qft -- stole the words right out of my mouth.
I never, ever, ever log into websites with my own account from anyone else's computer. I have a smart phone with VPN access to anything I need securely.
*qft = quoted for truth
No, you never would.
If you use a different password for every site, there's no reason to think that a password change will increase your security at all except in one very specific case: where an attacker has gained control of your account without your knowledge and not changed anything themselves. In this case (the peeping tom hacker?), your changing of a password will then deny them future access until the next hack.
Personally, for 99% of the random websites I visit, I dump a random password into the password field and don't even bother jotting it down; they all have password recovery by E-mail if and when I ever return.