"Oh god. Oh god. Daikatana is great. The game is incredible. Please keep it coming. Oh yes, yes, yes, yes, keep on fragging. Boring medival Japanese plotline, oh god. More, more, more!!!
They probably don't have something marking the end of statements, either, since a real warrior doesn't mind the discomfort of cramming everything on one line.
There might just be something to those rumors of Guido van Russom's batleff collection...
It had a risc processor that was almost four times as a fast as a palm's cisc processor, but responded to user-generated events almost three times as slow. This is probably do to the fact that the linux kernel does not prioritize handling UI events whereas PalmOS does. It is probably also due the fact that PalmOS doesn't try to do serious multi-tasking because something like a PDA really doesn't require it except for a few limited daemon-type things (e.g. alarms, timers, etc). Sure, if it does serious multi-tasking, geeks can run apache on it. But then you have to ask yourself who you're really marketing the product to.
The Agenda did not remotely have any serious human factors involved in the hardware design. Most likely they said "we'll design the hardware first, and worry about the interface later on".
You can clearly see this from the strangely placed buttons and the ultra-slippery metal stylus that is ultra-hard to get a good grip on. Any UI person worth his salt will tell you that you should always come up with how the person is supposed to interface with the software/device before you ever write code/manufacture it. On a PDA, usability issues are amplified several thousand times: On a sit-down desktop, you might have half a day to navigate a poorly designed interface. With a PDA, you might have 20 seconds to get down a damned important phone number.
The Palm, on the other hand, was invented after the designer carried a block of wood around in his pocket for a month, pondering what the PDA should act like. Agenda Computing could have used a good block of wood.
The user interface was badly designed. The calendar on the agenda was nowhere near as good or as clean as the palm's. And where the palm had a global area for looking over the applications (i.e. home), Agenda made it into an application called Launchpad. File managers should have the feel of being a global entity, not an application that has to be started.
Agenda's web site really didn't contain a whole lot of information that was helpful and only contained a few pieces of documentation here and there. There seemed to be this attitude of "if you want help or support or information, check out the agenda community". When you're a company, you just can't say that. Also, Agenda should have put all the developer community apps on their web site. People don't have the patience to follow links.
Agenda prevented reselling, but did not provide things of as great a quality as a reseller might (if at all). For example, if someone were allowed to beef up the consumer IR software, to add a whole bunch of IR codes for various consumer devices, and make it generally easier to use and then sell it as the Ultimate Universal Remote, people would have gotten a kickass remote and Agenda Computing would have still made money of the hardware, which was their original business model anyways
Agenda couldn't really decide who their target market was: end-users who wanted an organizer or linux geeks with a lot of patience and a love for futzing who wanted a cool toy. You always have to know who your market is if you want to succeed in any kind of business.
Re:what if the manuals really ARE an indicator?
on
Macintosh Clustering
·
· Score: 2
Someone once did a study that showed that every dollar spent on usability research saved $100 in tech support costs. What you are saying is true.
The creator of the mac, Jef Raskin, left out additional mouse buttons because of additional user confusion that might ensue. Considering that the mass produced computers of that era the mac was designed in typically had no mouse buttons (because they didn't ship with mice and didn't have GUI's) it was probably a reasonable design decision at the time.
(Shot of IBM's new server standing alone in a server room)
ANNOUNCER: "If you think we're overcompensating for something with our really, really big mainframe running linux..."(Cut to shot of a dozen small servers being carted off) "...You're absolutely right."
You're not the first one to point out of the GUI design shortcomings of KDE in regards to Fitts'Law. I've mentioned several times now on slashdot KDE discussions about how increasing the toolbar button size would give faster mouse access times, and how labeling the toolbar buttons we be even better, because it would make the toolbar button bigger and clarify what action the button is supposed to perform (which isn't usually very well clarified by most tiny ass KDE toolbar icons).
Even after I say in the first paragraph of and every one of these posts "yes, I know you can select an option to label toolbar buttons in KDE, but it isn't done by default, and the majority of desktop end users are going to use the default installed on their machine. Just ask Netscape"
I still get morons saying "You clearly have never used KDE. You can select an option to label toolbar buttons." Remind me to send those folks a pack of Ginko Biloba supplements. Some poster who was most likely a KDE developer who went by the username "Duley" (gee, I wonder who that could be...) retorted "That's what you want. That's not what I want" seemingly incapable of understanding that I'm not talking about my personal preference but about a well established human factors principles that has been proven in usability test after usability test.
I get other people saying "the point of KDE is to be familiar to windows users, not to follow Fitts' Law".
I get other people who just shut their ears, their eyes, and their minds and label me a troll for daring to suggest the KDE UI has any shortcomings that might be improved.
I'm not really suprised by this. The linux community in general is extraordinarily hostile towards HCI people. There's this idea of "well, you don't write code. Your input is far less worthy than ours. All you really do is needlessly criticize other people's work."
Gee, I wonder why linux has been having so much trouble getting onto the desktop...
Judging by Woz's previous projects...
on
Woz's New Startup
·
· Score: 2
We'll have a PDA/universal remote with awesome floppy controller drivers that can locate pay phones within 30 feet and allow it's user to make free calls by emitting a 2600Hz tone.
Usually when you see posters on post offices, they feature people who steal valuable resources from citizens or cause them irreperable harm. Usually these people are regarded as being extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all costs
I'd like a peripheral that plugs into the X-Box and serves up a piping hot loaf after a hard game of Halo. If Microsoft can make a paperclip talk, they can certainly make a game box that produces fresh baked goods.
One day, you will be able to buy a DVD that forces you to sit through 15 minutes of previews and advertisements before you get to your movie. And it will be illegal to own a DVD player that will simply skip that crap and let you view the flick. It's coming, folks, it's coming.
It's not just coincidence that having the menu appear below the pointer is a lot faster, or that buttons along the edge are faster to access because you can't overshoot. This phenomena is an example of Fitts' Law (check out usability guru Bruce Tognazinni's article here ). One of the ways that GNUstep truly thrashes KDE usability-wise is that the GNUstep environment has really large buttons often with text right under the icon. By the nature of their size, these buttons can be accessed with a mouse far faster than the really tiny toolbar buttons you often see in other desktop environments. The labels for the buttons also give a clear indication as to what action the button performs; there is no need for the user to try and decipher what a particular icon stands for.
KDE, on the other hand, blindly copies microsoft's system of extremely tiny, unlabelled toolbar buttons that have extremely slow mouse access times and extremely small and cryptic icons whose true nature can only be discovered by either clicking on the toolbar button and possibly performing a destructive task or painstakingly holding the mouse over the toolbar button for several unbearable seconds to get the tooltip. "But Microsoft spends zillions of dollars on usability research" some say. And they spend tens of zillions on security research with results just as good. Microsoft is by far the most frequent inductee into the user interface hall of shame , and such windows UI shennanigans as multi-level tabs, window in window MDI, and Window XP/2000's dynamic menus have been frequently and harshly criticized in the UI design community. "But Windows users coming to Linux will be familiar with lots of really tiny, confusing, toolbar buttons with slow access times" they say. Windows users are certainly familiar with the Blue Screen of Death--maybe we should put stuff in the linux kernel to make it crash so they'll feel right at home.
Yes, I know that there are options in KDE to have icons and text appear together. But this is not done by default. And probably 90% of users end up using the default which is installed with their application/OS. If you don't believe me, just ask Netscape. In the cold, hard reality of end-user desktop UI design, not doing something by default is really the same thing as not doing it.
I challenge the KDE Usability project to, by default, give KDE have large, labelled toolbar buttons that are fast to access and easy to understand. They of course don't have to take this challenge; some people would prefer linux not to get on the desktop.
Geeks generally reserve the word "crash" for a program/OS kernel doing something naughty in memory and brining execution of instructions to a grinding halt (and thus requiring a restart/reboot).
Most end users in my experience, when they use the word crash, refer to problems that cannot be fixed with a reboot, problems like their hard drive going south, the network connection being down, or most often, Windows getting corrupted in some way that prevents them from doing their valuable work no matter how many times they reboot. There is such tremendous fear of their computer being permanently screwed up that anything that can be fixed with a simple reboot simply viewed as a minor annoyance.
End users do complain about defective products, but they generally do it an a more passive and general way: they say "I hate computers" and try to do as little with their computers as possible. And they stop buying neat computer gadgets. And then the tech sector as a whole starts losing money and multi-billion dollar tech companies start laying off programmers. And you ultimately end up with the really big mess we have today.
The 9/11 news frenzy *is* a marathon
on
New Years Marathons
·
· Score: 2, Flamebait
Three months ago, we had a large, multi-channel
"let's see planes crashing into buildings" marathon and people jumping to their deaths" marathon.
For the last two months, we've had a large multi-channel "All things violent in Afghanistan" marathon."
In Tsutomu Shimomura's book Takedown (about the hunting and capturing of Kevin Mitnick), Shimomura describes how a snow plow would constantly sever wires running between the trailer he had his computer in and the data center next door. His solution was to wrap super strong kevlar cable around the the vulnerable data cable. This solution worked a little too well-- the snow plow caught the kevlar cable, and indeed it did not break and neither did the data cable; instead the snow plow ended up pulling off the entire side of the trailer the kevlar cable was attached to!
Most technology companies have had a terrible record over the last 20 years when it comes to designing technology for easy, efficient usage. I seriously doubt that in three years things will be any different, because that requires changing the attitudes of the people who design technology and changing the way they think about their designs. It's a lot easier for technology to change and evolve than it is for people to change and evolve.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet they saw that episode of DS9 too. With a little hard work, I'm sure us earthlings can reach Cardassia in about a week, too.
"Oh god. Oh god. Daikatana is great. The game is incredible. Please keep it coming. Oh yes, yes, yes, yes, keep on fragging. Boring medival Japanese plotline, oh god. More, more, more!!!
Good Salad."
See, it's quite easy to fake a good game review.
I thought the U.S. government has already patented using the Internet to spy on Australians.
The perfect name for a web pad powered by free software: the StayFree Pad.
Unfortunately I think there might be a few too many copyright issues involved.
They should create desktops that "just happen" to use a linux kernel.
They probably don't have something marking the end of statements, either, since a real warrior doesn't mind the discomfort of cramming everything on one line.
There might just be something to those rumors of Guido van Russom's batleff collection...
The Palm, on the other hand, was invented after the designer carried a block of wood around in his pocket for a month, pondering what the PDA should act like. Agenda Computing could have used a good block of wood.
Someone once did a study that showed that every dollar spent on usability research saved $100 in tech support costs. What you are saying is true.
The creator of the mac, Jef Raskin, left out additional mouse buttons because of additional user confusion that might ensue. Considering that the mass produced computers of that era the mac was designed in typically had no mouse buttons (because they didn't ship with mice and didn't have GUI's) it was probably a reasonable design decision at the time.
If you made it a big bigger, painted it green and put a net in the middle, you'd never need Pong again.
First we had clear Pespi.
Then we had clear deodorant.
Saturday Night introduced us to clear gravvy.
Like clear concrete was that far behind?
(Shot of IBM's new server standing alone in a server room)
ANNOUNCER: "If you think we're overcompensating for something with our really, really big mainframe running linux..."(Cut to shot of a dozen small servers being carted off) "...You're absolutely right."
You're not the first one to point out of the GUI design shortcomings of KDE in regards to Fitts'Law. I've mentioned several times now on slashdot KDE discussions about how increasing the toolbar button size would give faster mouse access times, and how labeling the toolbar buttons we be even better, because it would make the toolbar button bigger and clarify what action the button is supposed to perform (which isn't usually very well clarified by most tiny ass KDE toolbar icons).
Even after I say in the first paragraph of and every one of these posts "yes, I know you can select an option to label toolbar buttons in KDE, but it isn't done by default, and the majority of desktop end users are going to use the default installed on their machine. Just ask Netscape"
I still get morons saying "You clearly have never used KDE. You can select an option to label toolbar buttons." Remind me to send those folks a pack of Ginko Biloba supplements. Some poster who was most likely a KDE developer who went by the username "Duley" (gee, I wonder who that could be...) retorted "That's what you want. That's not what I want" seemingly incapable of understanding that I'm not talking about my personal preference but about a well established human factors principles that has been proven in usability test after usability test.
I get other people saying "the point of KDE is to be familiar to windows users, not to follow Fitts' Law".
I get other people who just shut their ears, their eyes, and their minds and label me a troll for daring to suggest the KDE UI has any shortcomings that might be improved.
I'm not really suprised by this. The linux community in general is extraordinarily hostile towards HCI people. There's this idea of "well, you don't write code. Your input is far less worthy than ours. All you really do is needlessly criticize other people's work."
Gee, I wonder why linux has been having so much trouble getting onto the desktop...
We'll have a PDA/universal remote with awesome floppy controller drivers that can locate pay phones within 30 feet and allow it's user to make free calls by emitting a 2600Hz tone.
Usually when you see posters on post offices, they feature people who steal valuable resources from citizens or cause them irreperable harm. Usually these people are regarded as being extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all costs
I'd say that adequately pegs XP.
If AOL ate Red Hat, would they swallow them or would they just spit them back out?
I'd like a peripheral that plugs into the X-Box and serves up a piping hot loaf after a hard game of Halo. If Microsoft can make a paperclip talk, they can certainly make a game box that produces fresh baked goods.
One day, you will be able to buy a DVD that forces you to sit through 15 minutes of previews and advertisements before you get to your movie. And it will be illegal to own a DVD player that will simply skip that crap and let you view the flick. It's coming, folks, it's coming.
It's not just coincidence that having the menu appear below the pointer is a lot faster, or that buttons along the edge are faster to access because you can't overshoot. This phenomena is an example of Fitts' Law (check out usability guru Bruce Tognazinni's article here ). One of the ways that GNUstep truly thrashes KDE usability-wise is that the GNUstep environment has really large buttons often with text right under the icon. By the nature of their size, these buttons can be accessed with a mouse far faster than the really tiny toolbar buttons you often see in other desktop environments. The labels for the buttons also give a clear indication as to what action the button performs; there is no need for the user to try and decipher what a particular icon stands for.
KDE, on the other hand, blindly copies microsoft's system of extremely tiny, unlabelled toolbar buttons that have extremely slow mouse access times and extremely small and cryptic icons whose true nature can only be discovered by either clicking on the toolbar button and possibly performing a destructive task or painstakingly holding the mouse over the toolbar button for several unbearable seconds to get the tooltip. "But Microsoft spends zillions of dollars on usability research" some say. And they spend tens of zillions on security research with results just as good. Microsoft is by far the most frequent inductee into the user interface hall of shame , and such windows UI shennanigans as multi-level tabs, window in window MDI, and Window XP/2000's dynamic menus have been frequently and harshly criticized in the UI design community. "But Windows users coming to Linux will be familiar with lots of really tiny, confusing, toolbar buttons with slow access times" they say. Windows users are certainly familiar with the Blue Screen of Death--maybe we should put stuff in the linux kernel to make it crash so they'll feel right at home. Yes, I know that there are options in KDE to have icons and text appear together. But this is not done by default. And probably 90% of users end up using the default which is installed with their application/OS. If you don't believe me, just ask Netscape. In the cold, hard reality of end-user desktop UI design, not doing something by default is really the same thing as not doing it.
I challenge the KDE Usability project to, by default, give KDE have large, labelled toolbar buttons that are fast to access and easy to understand. They of course don't have to take this challenge; some people would prefer linux not to get on the desktop.
Geeks generally reserve the word "crash" for a program/OS kernel doing something naughty in memory and brining execution of instructions to a grinding halt (and thus requiring a restart/reboot).
Most end users in my experience, when they use the word crash, refer to problems that cannot be fixed with a reboot, problems like their hard drive going south, the network connection being down, or most often, Windows getting corrupted in some way that prevents them from doing their valuable work no matter how many times they reboot. There is such tremendous fear of their computer being permanently screwed up that anything that can be fixed with a simple reboot simply viewed as a minor annoyance.
End users do complain about defective products, but they generally do it an a more passive and general way: they say "I hate computers" and try to do as little with their computers as possible. And they stop buying neat computer gadgets. And then the tech sector as a whole starts losing money and multi-billion dollar tech companies start laying off programmers. And you ultimately end up with the really big mess we have today.
-
Three months ago, we had a large, multi-channel
"let's see planes crashing into buildings" marathon and people jumping to their deaths" marathon.
-
For the last two months, we've had a large multi-channel "All things violent in Afghanistan" marathon."
Frankly, I'm all marathoned out.The parrot has voomed
Random Anecdote:
In Tsutomu Shimomura's book Takedown (about the hunting and capturing of Kevin Mitnick), Shimomura describes how a snow plow would constantly sever wires running between the trailer he had his computer in and the data center next door. His solution was to wrap super strong kevlar cable around the the vulnerable data cable. This solution worked a little too well-- the snow plow caught the kevlar cable, and indeed it did not break and neither did the data cable; instead the snow plow ended up pulling off the entire side of the trailer the kevlar cable was attached to!
Most technology companies have had a terrible record over the last 20 years when it comes to designing technology for easy, efficient usage. I seriously doubt that in three years things will be any different, because that requires changing the attitudes of the people who design technology and changing the way they think about their designs. It's a lot easier for technology to change and evolve than it is for people to change and evolve.
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2000/5/office_jesus.htm l