I certainly won't argue against the examples that you've provided, as those truly are UI's that underwent destructive "UI improvements". With that being said, I do think that your rant against all designers and usability experts is misplaced. A lot of the time, developers are so intimately familiar with the product and code that it is difficult to discern when something isn't intuitive to a novice user.
Depending on the product, the developer may not even be too familiar with the actual user's job. Take for instance utility power management. There is a whole ecosystem of tools that are used by people who work at big utility companies. A developer on one of these applications is probably intimately familiar with the specific application, but the likelihood is that they've never worked for a power management company. Do they know what the user does during their normal day at work? Do they know what other applications the user uses? How does their application fit into the user's day?
In such cases, you actually have a situation where the developer may make bad decisions in UI design. The developer may not realize that the user doesn't sit in front of their application all day. Rather, the user may use the application for a sub-set of their work, and use information from one application in conjunction with other applications. The developer of the application may think "well, duh, why wouldn't the user know to look under menuX->optionY->wizardZ to do that?" The reality is, the user probably isn't interested in knowing the ins and outs of the application they are using. If the information they are looking for isn't apparently available, then it might as well not exist.
Is this the way things should be? Perhaps not. Perhaps the user should spend their time reading manuals and becoming intimately familiar with the product. However, this isn't the reality. This is where a good design team can come in. A product can deliver everything functionally, but still be considered a failure if the user isn't able to easily accomplish their goals.
I realize I've digressed from the topic at hand, which is the Metro UI (which I really don't like from what I've seen). However, I think it is worth challenging the assumption that developers are the best people responsible for developing UI's.
What bugs me is that there were touchscreen netbooks on the market a year before the iPad, complete with keyboard, for the same price as the original iPad. But then the iPad came out, netbooks went out of style, and now we end up with a market full of devices with limited use that are completely controlled by the manufacturers, instead of real computers that could do everything tablets could and far more, at the same price. And people love it!
Final score: Apple 1, Consumers 0.
Let me make sure that I fully understand what you are saying: before the iPad existed, there were devices that did everything that the iPad does, but did it better. Then the iPad came out. Now consumers had two choices - the netbooks or the iPad. People stopped buying the netbooks and instead bought the iPad.
Somehow, out of this set of events, you are determining the following:
1. People would rather have netbooks than iPads
2. People find netbooks to be more usable than iPads.
3. Somehow the consumer lost.
Maybe you should consider that there is something about the iPad that people actually prefer to the netbooks.
The 4.3"/4.5" displays aren't considered "too big" because of their resolution. They're considered too big because few people want something that big in their pocket or purse. That may seem like a silly fashion-based decision, but there is something to say about a device that slips easily in and out of your pocket and doesn't create an unsightly bulge.
Totally - it sucks having to take my car to the dump every year so that I can buy the new model.
On a more serious note, tech forums are the only place where I'm hearing that it is "embarrassing" not to be seen with the latest version of an Apple device. Go ahead and think that everyone who buys an iPad is a mindless zombie who throws away money year after year for the latest shiny thing, if that is going to somehow make you feel more smug about your tech purchases.
The summary implies that the CD version was identical to the Mastered for iTunes version.
Shepherd compared three digital music files, including a Red Hot Chili Peppers song downloaded in the Mastered for iTunes format with a CD version of the same song, and said there were no differences.
Here is the actual relevant part of the article:
After his comparison of the three digital music files, Shepherd says there was a sonic difference between the Mastered for iTunes waveform and the CD waveform. He says the Mastered for iTunes and AAC-encoded files didn't reveal any differences
There seems to be an assumption that you would need to upgrade. New cars get released every year. Why would I upgrade to the new Honda Civic when the model I bought two years ago is working fine for me?
Apple (and car manufacturers) are going to continue to release new models year after year. Some people are going to immediately get the newest thing (much more so with a relatively inexpensive tablet), but a large member of the user group is going to stick with what they have because it is already working fine for them.
Our tendency is to mistakenly think that this works against Apple. Yes, I'm sure that Apple would love it if everyone who had an iPad 1 or 2 threw it away and bought a 3. However, read your own words - you're saying that you bought version 1 of a device and it is still working out great for you around the time that version 3 comes out. Sounds like you are pretty happy with your purchase. Companies like Apple should be happy about that. It works against them if owners of previous models feel burned when the new version comes out.
Judging from the article's speculations about the iPad 3 (who knows how accurate they are), these are fairly incremental improvements - better battery, better screen resolution, etc. This is similar to what I'd expect with a new car model from year to year.
Only a small segment of the market is going to rush out and buy the latest and greatest. Companies like Apple can succeed by recognizing that and growing a set of repeat buyers out of the remaining field. The fact that consumers aren't feeling burned when new models come out, and feel that old models work fine, makes those consumers more likely to repeat a purchase.
While Win 8 apps won't be directly compatible with Windows Phone 8, Windows Phone manager Joe Belfiore says developers will be able to 'reuse â" by far â" most of their code.'"
Will they be able to reuse their Windows 7 Phone code, or was that a dead end?
So shouldn't we see this with all of the other app stores? As is often pointed out on slashdot, iPhones only make up a increasingly small portion of smartphones. The availability of competing app stores should be able to show that the author is correct. While customers of Apple's app store may expect their apps to be free, surely this isn't the expectation for customers of the Google and Amazon app stores...
Nobody claims Macs are immune to trojans, as they rely on the user to fall for social engineering. I hope you're not posting on/. while not aware of the difference between a virus and a trojan.
You do have an interesting point here. A purely anecdotal account from last night while hanging out with a group of non-technical friends:
Friend 1 - what is Google+ again?
Friend 2 - I'm not really sure.
Friend 3 - Yeah, I don't know, but it is almost impossible to get an account
Friend 2 - (smugly) I got an invite from Ray last week.
Friend 1 - Oooh, what can you do?
Friend 2 - I don't know, I logged in and couldn't find anyone else I know.
Friend 2 and 3 - I want an invite! How can I get an invite?
What difference does it make whether you natively use the phone to get on the net or use another device to connect to the phone to get on the net? the same source of data is still the phone regardless.
who'd want one of those whore-bags for girlfriend or wife?, not the majority of men I know. That's a niche market, those who want the "public rag" type of woman
Good point - people only add wives/girlfriends to their friend lists.
The drive for higher resolution is driven in part by the demands of 3D content.
Too bad there isn't a huge demand from the users for this high resolution demanding 3D content.
Also, some see streaming higher resolution content to the home as a way to make up for declining DVD sales.
How does this make up for declining DVD sales? When I buy a DVD or BlueRay it costs between $10-$30. Am I going to be paying anywhere near this much for streaming high definition content? I have an Apple TV today where I can "rent" HD movies for somewhere along the lines of $4. I've done this twice, because renting regular resolution DVD's and low-quality streaming from Netflix is just fine with me. It would be nice if the quality was better, but I'm definitely not going to shell out much cash for it.
Somebody being evil means that they're likely to be evil in whatever they do; someone doing evil means they may have made a rare mistake and will fix it, or perhaps they're blind to the evilness of that one particular area.
It also means they'll kill two virgins every full moon.
In all seriousness, which fairytail's rules are you operating by?
For one thing, Google+ is associated with a free service that people already use. People who don't buy into the iTunes ecosystem don't use iTunes Ping.
Isn't iTunes a free service that people already use? I realize that many people here dislike iTunes for one reason or another, but to insinuate that it isn't one of the most heavily used music players is ludicrous.
Now, I have over 150, with 5-10 people joining a day.
I love this about the comments on slashdot. Rewind 2 months and comments look like this:
Facebook is stupid. People have 200 friends on their friend list. There is no way that people have 200 friends, they just add whoever. It is all just a popularity contest.
Now, after Google+ is introduced, I have seen numerous quotes like this:
I have 200 friends on Google+ and it is growing every day!!!!!
Please don't mistake me for defending Facebook or ragging on Google+, but some consistency would be nice...
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that you can mirror your iPad to your AppleTV and use any app that you want.
I certainly won't argue against the examples that you've provided, as those truly are UI's that underwent destructive "UI improvements". With that being said, I do think that your rant against all designers and usability experts is misplaced. A lot of the time, developers are so intimately familiar with the product and code that it is difficult to discern when something isn't intuitive to a novice user.
Depending on the product, the developer may not even be too familiar with the actual user's job. Take for instance utility power management. There is a whole ecosystem of tools that are used by people who work at big utility companies. A developer on one of these applications is probably intimately familiar with the specific application, but the likelihood is that they've never worked for a power management company. Do they know what the user does during their normal day at work? Do they know what other applications the user uses? How does their application fit into the user's day?
In such cases, you actually have a situation where the developer may make bad decisions in UI design. The developer may not realize that the user doesn't sit in front of their application all day. Rather, the user may use the application for a sub-set of their work, and use information from one application in conjunction with other applications. The developer of the application may think "well, duh, why wouldn't the user know to look under menuX->optionY->wizardZ to do that?" The reality is, the user probably isn't interested in knowing the ins and outs of the application they are using. If the information they are looking for isn't apparently available, then it might as well not exist.
Is this the way things should be? Perhaps not. Perhaps the user should spend their time reading manuals and becoming intimately familiar with the product. However, this isn't the reality. This is where a good design team can come in. A product can deliver everything functionally, but still be considered a failure if the user isn't able to easily accomplish their goals.
I realize I've digressed from the topic at hand, which is the Metro UI (which I really don't like from what I've seen). However, I think it is worth challenging the assumption that developers are the best people responsible for developing UI's.
Let me make sure that I fully understand what you are saying: before the iPad existed, there were devices that did everything that the iPad does, but did it better. Then the iPad came out. Now consumers had two choices - the netbooks or the iPad. People stopped buying the netbooks and instead bought the iPad.
Somehow, out of this set of events, you are determining the following:
1. People would rather have netbooks than iPads
2. People find netbooks to be more usable than iPads.
3. Somehow the consumer lost.
Maybe you should consider that there is something about the iPad that people actually prefer to the netbooks.
The 4.3"/4.5" displays aren't considered "too big" because of their resolution. They're considered too big because few people want something that big in their pocket or purse. That may seem like a silly fashion-based decision, but there is something to say about a device that slips easily in and out of your pocket and doesn't create an unsightly bulge.
Totally - it sucks having to take my car to the dump every year so that I can buy the new model.
On a more serious note, tech forums are the only place where I'm hearing that it is "embarrassing" not to be seen with the latest version of an Apple device. Go ahead and think that everyone who buys an iPad is a mindless zombie who throws away money year after year for the latest shiny thing, if that is going to somehow make you feel more smug about your tech purchases.
Here is the actual relevant part of the article:
In other words, a set of behaviors that you just made up on your own are incredibly annoying to you?
Facebook sharing has been integrated into iPhoto for some time and is nothing like what you describe.
Begun, the phone wars have.
There seems to be an assumption that you would need to upgrade. New cars get released every year. Why would I upgrade to the new Honda Civic when the model I bought two years ago is working fine for me?
Apple (and car manufacturers) are going to continue to release new models year after year. Some people are going to immediately get the newest thing (much more so with a relatively inexpensive tablet), but a large member of the user group is going to stick with what they have because it is already working fine for them.
Our tendency is to mistakenly think that this works against Apple. Yes, I'm sure that Apple would love it if everyone who had an iPad 1 or 2 threw it away and bought a 3. However, read your own words - you're saying that you bought version 1 of a device and it is still working out great for you around the time that version 3 comes out. Sounds like you are pretty happy with your purchase. Companies like Apple should be happy about that. It works against them if owners of previous models feel burned when the new version comes out.
Judging from the article's speculations about the iPad 3 (who knows how accurate they are), these are fairly incremental improvements - better battery, better screen resolution, etc. This is similar to what I'd expect with a new car model from year to year.
Only a small segment of the market is going to rush out and buy the latest and greatest. Companies like Apple can succeed by recognizing that and growing a set of repeat buyers out of the remaining field. The fact that consumers aren't feeling burned when new models come out, and feel that old models work fine, makes those consumers more likely to repeat a purchase.
Will they be able to reuse their Windows 7 Phone code, or was that a dead end?
So shouldn't we see this with all of the other app stores? As is often pointed out on slashdot, iPhones only make up a increasingly small portion of smartphones. The availability of competing app stores should be able to show that the author is correct. While customers of Apple's app store may expect their apps to be free, surely this isn't the expectation for customers of the Google and Amazon app stores...
Nobody claims Macs are immune to trojans, as they rely on the user to fall for social engineering. I hope you're not posting on /. while not aware of the difference between a virus and a trojan.
Interesting. Google only takes 30%. What percentage does Apple take with iTunes?
A review on Amazon's Kindle tablet page is a sure sign that the tide is turning!
Which phones do you recommend then that aren't sold in China?
I'm sure that he meant open surface
You do have an interesting point here. A purely anecdotal account from last night while hanging out with a group of non-technical friends:
Friend 1 - what is Google+ again?
Friend 2 - I'm not really sure.
Friend 3 - Yeah, I don't know, but it is almost impossible to get an account
Friend 2 - (smugly) I got an invite from Ray last week.
Friend 1 - Oooh, what can you do?
Friend 2 - I don't know, I logged in and couldn't find anyone else I know.
Friend 2 and 3 - I want an invite! How can I get an invite?
You are aware they charge for text messaging...
Good point - people only add wives/girlfriends to their friend lists.
Compared to just plugging it into your computer, that doesn't 'just work'.
Too bad there isn't a huge demand from the users for this high resolution demanding 3D content.
How does this make up for declining DVD sales? When I buy a DVD or BlueRay it costs between $10-$30. Am I going to be paying anywhere near this much for streaming high definition content? I have an Apple TV today where I can "rent" HD movies for somewhere along the lines of $4. I've done this twice, because renting regular resolution DVD's and low-quality streaming from Netflix is just fine with me. It would be nice if the quality was better, but I'm definitely not going to shell out much cash for it.
It also means they'll kill two virgins every full moon.
In all seriousness, which fairytail's rules are you operating by?
Isn't iTunes a free service that people already use? I realize that many people here dislike iTunes for one reason or another, but to insinuate that it isn't one of the most heavily used music players is ludicrous.
I love this about the comments on slashdot. Rewind 2 months and comments look like this:
Now, after Google+ is introduced, I have seen numerous quotes like this:
Please don't mistake me for defending Facebook or ragging on Google+, but some consistency would be nice...
There should be a law that if food is going to be marketed as Habanero, it should at least be hotter than eating a raw jalapeno.