While I haven't read this particular Head First book, I have nothing but praise for the rest of the series.
The 'Learner's Guide' is exactly right; they explain everything they do clearly, they make the examples and exercises fun and easy to understand, not only on what to do, but why to do it. The books are graphically appealing and funny (and it's not just nerd humor), which makes them easy to read, but at the same time they don't sacrifice information, or simplify it beyond understanding.
Sight unseen, I would recommend this book, the same way I do their other ones.
Being Pretty, in this case, is just icing on the great usability cake. A Good Thing, but not enough by itself.
Interestingly Donald Norman makes an aregument in his book Emotional Design that people find things that are pretty easier to use. There was a study with ATMs where they arranged the buttons in different was and found that the ones people thought looked better were also the ones people found easier to use.
At work we have a phone number that connects to a modem. It's in the building, we just don't know where (though we've come to suspect it's sealed between the second and third floors) or what it's for. Our boss wants to stop paying for it, but doesn't want to disconect it until we know what it is.
I heard an interview with a woman who was trapped on one of the trains the was bombed. She sounded so unflapped and one of the things she mentioned was that nobody panicked. I think that's why the fatalities are so low, because in most other places there would have been a stampede after an event like this.
No matter how efficient it is, mindless consumption is only effective at depleating resources.
You're right. More people using less resources will probaly still result in more resoures being used. How would you suggest we solve this, killing off people? Or maybe mass steralization, that's always been popular. Why not send people into space?
Would you say that we have had less of an impact on the planet since the 1960's?
Yes, I would, at least of an individual. Modern cars are more fuel efficent than cars in 1960. Electricity is generated more cleanly and manufacturing is less wasteful. On mass yes we do consume more now than we did in the 1960s and with better technology we are able to harvest resources more quickly, however if our individual consumption trends down and we can keep control on the number of individuals (see my above point) then we will start to reduce our impact.
I'm sure the Earth would breath a sigh of relief if we went back to fighting with sharpened sticks and living out of caves.
Okay, you first.
Let me get this straight, we are suposed to want to colonize space to save the species from self-destruction... and somehow this is magically going to help prevent it? If we want to reduce our impact on the planet, we need to stick right here and work on it. Not run away into space and hope the technology "trickle down" will fix the problems for the people who are left behind.
What a weird idea that working to prevent a problem might actually help solve that problem.
Innovation comes about when people are trying to solve a problem. There is some technical innovation in relation to reducing the amount of resources we use, as I stated above, but at the end of the day in a lot of cases it's still cheaper to polute than not. What really produces inovation is usually war or as I said nation/civilzation wide projects such as the space race and these both have an opprotunity to make a profit.
We can't uninvent the technology we have, so our only option is to improve it. A massive space project will help make more improvements than sitting around and waiting for the problem to solve itself.
Saving the humans or not is one thing, but consider the fact that any form of interplanetary (or intersolar) flight will require vast amounts of energy to sustain the humans.
A space program would naturally require humans to develop the kind of technology that uses resources very efficently.
Also consider that the space race in the 1960s gave rise to a lot of new technology, a new space race now would serve to create a lot of new technology, that would also be usefull to reduce humanity's impact on the planet.
I agree that things should be simple, but that doesn't necessarily mean that only one button is all you need.
If there were buttons on each side of the mouse for example you could 'pinch' windows to move them, or maybe 'flick' them to see what's underneath.
Maybe a new mouse design would allow for more inovative and simple UIs?
But the really important thing is not how many buttons a mouse has, it's this: No more round mice! I'd at least like to be able to tell where my mouse is faceing!
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, and on a further note:
When the hell was the last time you flicked a switch to install something!
Just ask the Czechs
currently work with an Oracle developer who is studying Latin
Hmmm, I think I just figured out a lot more about why Oracle makes my head hurt sometimes
While I haven't read this particular Head First book, I have nothing but praise for the rest of the series.
The 'Learner's Guide' is exactly right; they explain everything they do clearly, they make the examples and exercises fun and easy to understand, not only on what to do, but why to do it. The books are graphically appealing and funny (and it's not just nerd humor), which makes them easy to read, but at the same time they don't sacrifice information, or simplify it beyond understanding.
Sight unseen, I would recommend this book, the same way I do their other ones.
Being Pretty, in this case, is just icing on the great usability cake. A Good Thing, but not enough by itself.
Interestingly Donald Norman makes an aregument in his book Emotional Design that people find things that are pretty easier to use. There was a study with ATMs where they arranged the buttons in different was and found that the ones people thought looked better were also the ones people found easier to use.
Maybe someone was trying to slashdot this guy to death?
Nah, you don't make that much money by spending on crap software. I'm sure Bill's is pirated. He is the smart one after all.
Don't laugh!
At work we have a phone number that connects to a modem. It's in the building, we just don't know where (though we've come to suspect it's sealed between the second and third floors) or what it's for. Our boss wants to stop paying for it, but doesn't want to disconect it until we know what it is.
Or go out and listen to the all the talented people who can't get record deals because they don't produce exactly the same stuff as everyone else!
Same deal with movies. Don't like what's going on, then go watch a play.
I heard an interview with a woman who was trapped on one of the trains the was bombed. She sounded so unflapped and one of the things she mentioned was that nobody panicked. I think that's why the fatalities are so low, because in most other places there would have been a stampede after an event like this.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corperation has a map with their story here: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/07/07/ london-subway050707.html .
Shining Tears brings me to tears (PS2). Out of an hour of play time, nearly 20 minutes will be spend on some type of loading screen.
And Warm too!
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooo
That's crazy
I mean, why would they have called it Super Mario World when they mean Super Mario Brothers 4. The letters are all different!
And yet, I see more Microsoft adds here than anywhere else (granded I don't really go anywhere else, but still . . .)
What was wrong with the red and blue cardboard glasses?
The disks don't worry me half so much as where it looks like you have to plug things in!
True enough, but it's easeir to swallow when you didn't pay for the privalage of having your system catch on fire.
The man whose ideas are really leading the neo-cons is Leo Strauss. His idea was that people should always be ruled by a secret elite.
Mindless consumption?
No matter how efficient it is, mindless consumption is only effective at depleating resources.
You're right. More people using less resources will probaly still result in more resoures being used. How would you suggest we solve this, killing off people? Or maybe mass steralization, that's always been popular. Why not send people into space?
Would you say that we have had less of an impact on the planet since the 1960's?
Yes, I would, at least of an individual. Modern cars are more fuel efficent than cars in 1960. Electricity is generated more cleanly and manufacturing is less wasteful. On mass yes we do consume more now than we did in the 1960s and with better technology we are able to harvest resources more quickly, however if our individual consumption trends down and we can keep control on the number of individuals (see my above point) then we will start to reduce our impact.
I'm sure the Earth would breath a sigh of relief if we went back to fighting with sharpened sticks and living out of caves.
Okay, you first.Let me get this straight, we are suposed to want to colonize space to save the species from self-destruction... and somehow this is magically going to help prevent it? If we want to reduce our impact on the planet, we need to stick right here and work on it. Not run away into space and hope the technology "trickle down" will fix the problems for the people who are left behind.
What a weird idea that working to prevent a problem might actually help solve that problem.
Innovation comes about when people are trying to solve a problem. There is some technical innovation in relation to reducing the amount of resources we use, as I stated above, but at the end of the day in a lot of cases it's still cheaper to polute than not. What really produces inovation is usually war or as I said nation/civilzation wide projects such as the space race and these both have an opprotunity to make a profit.
We can't uninvent the technology we have, so our only option is to improve it. A massive space project will help make more improvements than sitting around and waiting for the problem to solve itself.
Saving the humans or not is one thing, but consider the fact that any form of interplanetary (or intersolar) flight will require vast amounts of energy to sustain the humans.
A space program would naturally require humans to develop the kind of technology that uses resources very efficently.
Also consider that the space race in the 1960s gave rise to a lot of new technology, a new space race now would serve to create a lot of new technology, that would also be usefull to reduce humanity's impact on the planet.
I agree that things should be simple, but that doesn't necessarily mean that only one button is all you need.
If there were buttons on each side of the mouse for example you could 'pinch' windows to move them, or maybe 'flick' them to see what's underneath.
Maybe a new mouse design would allow for more inovative and simple UIs?
But the really important thing is not how many buttons a mouse has, it's this: No more round mice! I'd at least like to be able to tell where my mouse is faceing!