are Mac users that desperate for this functionality that its worth it? To add my two cents here, I doubt many people are "desperate." But given that my MacBookPro is, far and away, the best laptop I've ever owned or used (and in many ways the best piece of any hardware I've ever owned), it's a relatively small price to pay for a great platform that does pretty much anything I can think of needing or wanting to do--and importantly--does it in a well-designed, well-thought-out, organized way that reduces the amount of effort on my part.
It's interesting you mention this. A multidisciplinary project at the University of Florida College of Engineering integrated this idea into a "smart house" project for the elderly:
IMHO the project was ambitious but mostly ridiculous. They jam-packed the house full of interesting ideas, but the student engineers really didn't seem to have a grasp on how little the elderly would actually care for all of the technological "improvements." Anyway, I always thought the microwave idea was kind of cool, though, but I think they were using RFID in the packaging (???!?!) which is just downright wasteful if not plain stupid.
Oh give me a break! Your one example hardly proves some kind of rule. Come on. If I had to give just one counterexample I'd say GTA1 & 2 vs. 3.
Creating a followup without innovating is just pandering to the masses (Hollywood, anyone?). I'm not saying every sequel to everything needs to be a completely different experience. There's never anything wrong with keeping strengths--but I'd challenge every author in any medium to continue to be creative and innovative. If SC2 is just a graphics upgrade I will be sorely disappointed.
I'm serious--are you joking? There is almost NO hierarchy. All the data, and there's a lot of it, is basically on one or two visual layers. It's impossible to get an instant snapshot of the available content sections because the section headers scroll off ("below the fold"), and there's no top level navigation. Section headings are the same size as the body type, so I can't easily discern where sections begin and end (he could have just used separate divs for each section, so there'd be a gutter between colored backgrounds).
You and Nielsen seem to promote this idea that having no sense for design (information OR graphic) somehow actually *increases* usability. I'm all for usability first, fast downloads, etc., but we have to stop and admit that design IS important.
Sure--fair enough, and you're absolutely right. Good tools in the hands of the incapable are a liability at best. I'm just frustrated by the backlash against the tools, and the mis-generalization of a whole group of technologies that gets cast in a bad light by insufferable Luddites.
SERIOUSLY!!! I'm laughing out loud at this. I want to appreciate Nielsen's attitude towards usability, but this is a patently clear example that elements of good design, which some view as "style" or "gloss," are *fundamentally* important (say, graphical hierarchy, graphical differentiation so you can tell at a glance what different sections are, etc etc). This site is a JOKE. Come on, Nielsen.
dynamic community tagging options, dynamic community inbox viewing and sorting How are these "gloss?" Do these kinds of features not add to a site, increasing usability? You don't have to use them if you don't want to -- but don't generalize it out as though no one in their right mind could possibly find them useful or helpful. That's just Web Luddism, something that's downright rampant around here.
I'll grant at any time that usability is the number one priority. But this kind of "backlash" *against* Web 2.0 technologies is misguided, and a kind of hype in itself. Technologies are tools--they can be used to good or bad effect, and you can't generalize about the tool by the sites that happen to use it.
How can Nielsen miss the HUGE advancements in usability that these technologies have granted us? Sites that are designed as applications -- say, gMail -- no longer (as of years ago) have to be restrained by a protocol that was NEVER intended to be used like an application! I swear, I'll never understand why people get all up in arms about technologies that make the web EASIER to use!
This appears to me to be the same kind of argument as "Style vs. Substance! Style is bad, mkay?" Yet in this case it's not even about style, but about tools that enable a far bigger range of usability than previously. What gives?
Not only that, but many (if not most) women have been culturally conditioned the same way, and they may be equally terrified of not "being a woman." It's female emasculation.
This is very true. Reading the Moby Dick excerpt was just downright strange because the line breaks / enjambment imply certain hierarchical emphases. Obviously that's partly the point of what they did -- but I couldn't get over how different it *felt* to read Moby Dick that way. I kept longing for the original paragraphs, which somehow seemed more dignified, more like "literature." I suppose the LiveInk version just looks so much shorter, lending the prose an artificial sense of brevity, and divesting it of its literary "weight."
All subjective and artificial, of course, yet surprising how incredibly ingrained these senses have become. I concluded that I'd happily sacrifice any ostensible speed or efficiency gain for the original paragraphical prose!
The interesting thing about this is that memories are not "stored" in individual cells, but rather in large (potentially vast) patterns of cells. So as cells or links die, the memory degrades (quasi-holographically, it might be argued).
You're a fool. This is basic thought-crime, plain and simple. Do you think he was serious? "Well, not really, but it would be funny if I did." Yeah, he sounds like a serious criminal.
Your attitude is exactly the problem here: judgement, at face-value, of stereotypes of things you've only heard about peripherally, probably from the media in the first place. He wrote what? Guns? Death? Better lock that sum'bitch up. He just ain't normal. You know what, those poets and authors and video game designers and artists ain't normal either, get them people outa my society!
This happened to me in high school (luckily before Columbine, etc.). I wrote honestly and expressively, even downright poetically, and almost got expelled. Did I do it for attention? Did this kid do it for attention? Maybe, in one way or another. But you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. The point is that thoughts and feelings ARE NOT WRONG. We are to be held responsible for our ACTIONS, and even then with proved intent.
I suppose you imagine yourself free of all "psychiatric problems," perfect emotional normalcy, etc, and are therefore free to judge and execute those that don't appear up to your standard. Have a nice life, man. I just hope I never meet you.
I have to agree. This quote from TFA in particular drives me crazy:
"The Mac itself, the nature of the Mac, how it works and how it looks, is actually more conducive to the creative mindset."
Nothing infuriates me more than this single, completely mistaken idea that there are people who, unlike "most" people, have some magical inborn gift of creativity, where in fact ANYONE can be creative. It's only this attitude that propagates an otherwise completely artificial division between "normals" and "creatives." I am a graphic and interactive designer at a small Manhattan design firm, and I witness this bullshit attitude EVERYWHERE. "Oh, that's a creative's job. I wouldn't know what that means." It's willful ignorance, just like any other kind of willful ignorance, and it goes both ways. Ever had to deal with a web designer who has no freaking idea how web pages even work? It's because they buy into this insane notion that there's a division between creativity and "everything else."
And thanks to this all-pervading, quasi-classist attitude, the cult of mac has grown up around these supposed "creatives." Ever heard of "the creative class?" The fact that someone came up with that idea blows my mind! Designers and technicians alike need to realize that the only thing keeping this sensibility afloat is common belief. Those that don't believe they are capable of creativity ought to give some time and thought to it, and those that believe they are "a creative" need to learn that they are not defined by their job title.
If walking around Williamsburg is any way to judge, wearing big-ass headphones is the new micro-club. But I'd prefer anything to those shitty-ass white buds.
The accelerator is designed to smash together protons, a kind of sub-atomic particle, at near light speed.
"Pro-ton? Now whut on earth is a pro-ton? Some kinda sub-atomic particle? Gaw-damn, what are we doin' paying those hare-brained scientists to look at pro-tons for?"
I hate to think of how this kind of a mix up just convinces certain people even more of their anti-science prejudices.:(
My point was that focusing solely on production (any and all segments) does not constitute a book about filmmaking. It constitutes a book on film production. Anyone can learn how to plan, stage, light, shoot, etc.; it takes an altogether different mindset to actually come up with a film. Too many "filmmaking" books leave out the crucial fact that you need an idea or *gasp* a story.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for this post. Well said.
That being said, $80 still irks me!
It's interesting you mention this. A multidisciplinary project at the University of Florida College of Engineering integrated this idea into a "smart house" project for the elderly:
http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2003news/smarthouse.htm
IMHO the project was ambitious but mostly ridiculous. They jam-packed the house full of interesting ideas, but the student engineers really didn't seem to have a grasp on how little the elderly would actually care for all of the technological "improvements." Anyway, I always thought the microwave idea was kind of cool, though, but I think they were using RFID in the packaging (???!?!) which is just downright wasteful if not plain stupid.
Oh give me a break! Your one example hardly proves some kind of rule. Come on. If I had to give just one counterexample I'd say GTA1 & 2 vs. 3.
Creating a followup without innovating is just pandering to the masses (Hollywood, anyone?). I'm not saying every sequel to everything needs to be a completely different experience. There's never anything wrong with keeping strengths--but I'd challenge every author in any medium to continue to be creative and innovative. If SC2 is just a graphics upgrade I will be sorely disappointed.
n/t
I'm serious--are you joking? There is almost NO hierarchy. All the data, and there's a lot of it, is basically on one or two visual layers. It's impossible to get an instant snapshot of the available content sections because the section headers scroll off ("below the fold"), and there's no top level navigation. Section headings are the same size as the body type, so I can't easily discern where sections begin and end (he could have just used separate divs for each section, so there'd be a gutter between colored backgrounds).
You and Nielsen seem to promote this idea that having no sense for design (information OR graphic) somehow actually *increases* usability. I'm all for usability first, fast downloads, etc., but we have to stop and admit that design IS important.
Sure--fair enough, and you're absolutely right. Good tools in the hands of the incapable are a liability at best. I'm just frustrated by the backlash against the tools, and the mis-generalization of a whole group of technologies that gets cast in a bad light by insufferable Luddites.
SERIOUSLY!!! I'm laughing out loud at this. I want to appreciate Nielsen's attitude towards usability, but this is a patently clear example that elements of good design, which some view as "style" or "gloss," are *fundamentally* important (say, graphical hierarchy, graphical differentiation so you can tell at a glance what different sections are, etc etc). This site is a JOKE. Come on, Nielsen.
I'll grant at any time that usability is the number one priority. But this kind of "backlash" *against* Web 2.0 technologies is misguided, and a kind of hype in itself. Technologies are tools--they can be used to good or bad effect, and you can't generalize about the tool by the sites that happen to use it.
How can Nielsen miss the HUGE advancements in usability that these technologies have granted us? Sites that are designed as applications -- say, gMail -- no longer (as of years ago) have to be restrained by a protocol that was NEVER intended to be used like an application! I swear, I'll never understand why people get all up in arms about technologies that make the web EASIER to use!
This appears to me to be the same kind of argument as "Style vs. Substance! Style is bad, mkay?" Yet in this case it's not even about style, but about tools that enable a far bigger range of usability than previously. What gives?
ATTN: Editors: You can't start a story headline with "3D Model of Breast" and have it be about cancer, instead. It's just not fair!
Not only that, but many (if not most) women have been culturally conditioned the same way, and they may be equally terrified of not "being a woman." It's female emasculation.
There are actually a lot of cheap optical theremins for sale, too. A lot easier to build than the classic style.
This is very true. Reading the Moby Dick excerpt was just downright strange because the line breaks / enjambment imply certain hierarchical emphases. Obviously that's partly the point of what they did -- but I couldn't get over how different it *felt* to read Moby Dick that way. I kept longing for the original paragraphs, which somehow seemed more dignified, more like "literature." I suppose the LiveInk version just looks so much shorter, lending the prose an artificial sense of brevity, and divesting it of its literary "weight."
All subjective and artificial, of course, yet surprising how incredibly ingrained these senses have become. I concluded that I'd happily sacrifice any ostensible speed or efficiency gain for the original paragraphical prose!
I thought the term was "shrinkage" or "shrink?"
And yes--I would like to see what they'd say about changing one's mind at the register, it's a good point!
The interesting thing about this is that memories are not "stored" in individual cells, but rather in large (potentially vast) patterns of cells. So as cells or links die, the memory degrades (quasi-holographically, it might be argued).
You're a fool. This is basic thought-crime, plain and simple. Do you think he was serious? "Well, not really, but it would be funny if I did." Yeah, he sounds like a serious criminal.
Your attitude is exactly the problem here: judgement, at face-value, of stereotypes of things you've only heard about peripherally, probably from the media in the first place. He wrote what? Guns? Death? Better lock that sum'bitch up. He just ain't normal. You know what, those poets and authors and video game designers and artists ain't normal either, get them people outa my society!
This happened to me in high school (luckily before Columbine, etc.). I wrote honestly and expressively, even downright poetically, and almost got expelled. Did I do it for attention? Did this kid do it for attention? Maybe, in one way or another. But you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. The point is that thoughts and feelings ARE NOT WRONG. We are to be held responsible for our ACTIONS, and even then with proved intent.
I suppose you imagine yourself free of all "psychiatric problems," perfect emotional normalcy, etc, and are therefore free to judge and execute those that don't appear up to your standard. Have a nice life, man. I just hope I never meet you.
"The Mac itself, the nature of the Mac, how it works and how it looks, is actually more conducive to the creative mindset."
Nothing infuriates me more than this single, completely mistaken idea that there are people who, unlike "most" people, have some magical inborn gift of creativity, where in fact ANYONE can be creative. It's only this attitude that propagates an otherwise completely artificial division between "normals" and "creatives." I am a graphic and interactive designer at a small Manhattan design firm, and I witness this bullshit attitude EVERYWHERE. "Oh, that's a creative's job. I wouldn't know what that means." It's willful ignorance, just like any other kind of willful ignorance, and it goes both ways. Ever had to deal with a web designer who has no freaking idea how web pages even work? It's because they buy into this insane notion that there's a division between creativity and "everything else."
And thanks to this all-pervading, quasi-classist attitude, the cult of mac has grown up around these supposed "creatives." Ever heard of "the creative class?" The fact that someone came up with that idea blows my mind! Designers and technicians alike need to realize that the only thing keeping this sensibility afloat is common belief. Those that don't believe they are capable of creativity ought to give some time and thought to it, and those that believe they are "a creative" need to learn that they are not defined by their job title.
I'm with you. I know how you feel, and I want to see that happen before I die, too.
OK, checking out your links ... AAAAGGH!!! WTF!! http://www.thznetwork.org/wordpress/wp-content/gal leries/THz-Images/images/stmmwave.avi/ WHY!!!!!!!
Yeah, that's how I read it at first, too ^_^
If walking around Williamsburg is any way to judge, wearing big-ass headphones is the new micro-club. But I'd prefer anything to those shitty-ass white buds.
These structures are where I get the raw material for my Polycyclic Aroma Therapy (PAT) sessions.
"Pro-ton? Now whut on earth is a pro-ton? Some kinda sub-atomic particle? Gaw-damn, what are we doin' paying those hare-brained scientists to look at pro-tons for?"
I hate to think of how this kind of a mix up just convinces certain people even more of their anti-science prejudices.
My point was that focusing solely on production (any and all segments) does not constitute a book about filmmaking. It constitutes a book on film production. Anyone can learn how to plan, stage, light, shoot, etc.; it takes an altogether different mindset to actually come up with a film. Too many "filmmaking" books leave out the crucial fact that you need an idea or *gasp* a story.