However Ribbon's "contextual" system is horrible to user too. People get used to where things are, even more so with computers. That is why static*, normal menus and buttons are good.
* - emphasis mine
The problem with static menus is that you can't actually have static menus if you plan to change anything. Which is decidedly not good. The point of the ribbon control is to allow you to more obviously see the entire menu, presumably so when new features are added they can be easily found along with visual cues as to what they may do. I added Sun's ODF plug-in to Office 2007 and while finding where to interact with a plug-in was non-trivial before, it was obvious where to go.
"There have always been flat screen televisions"
"Margaret Thatcher has always been a former prime minister"
These statements are not a function of one's age, nor are they true as is. Is the author trying to say that we've got a group passing through that is so self-centered that they refuse to acknowledge any event prior to their birth?
I think all the author was trying to convey was:
"Flat screen televisions have been available for their entire lives"
"Margaret Thatcher has been a former prime minister for their entire lives"
I don't really think the author is striving to be ageist for those two issues, just pointing out that some of the major technological advancements us older folks were in awe of when they were introduced, have been available for a incoming freshmen's lives. Also to point out that many of really pivotal figures and organizations central to some of the most powerful nations during the Cold War era have not been in charge for a day of their lives. I certainly don't think that observation is ageist. However, for this point:
"They have never understood the meaning of R.S.V.P."
I think you could have something there.
Not really. I think the point was about Western Europe as a whole. Finland was only invoked as an assumed guideline for pricing in Western Europe. Pointing out the size of one specific country in that region is about as relevant as pointing out that Alaska having a little over 5 times the area and a population density 1/16 that of Finland. The point still holds, cell phone providers in the United States must cover a larger area with fewer customers than Western Europe.
I guess we just differ in what we consider obnoxious. I consider unsolicited offers to install completely unrelated software to be nagging and obnoxious. I don't believe I am alone in thinking that. iTunes on Windows has done this, not just on install, but post install the iTunes updater has made unsolicited offers. Sun's Java Updater routinely offers to install StarOffice, which I find equally annoying and obnoxious for the same reasons.
As to the second point, Apple may be well within their rights to break the Palm Pre synching. No doubt. And, as you conceded, that doesn't make iTunes any less obnoxious to those Palm Pre owners for whom it was broken.
So, I am not sure I can go with your original point. I think finding iTunes obnoxious is not totally indefensible for the above reasons. Therefore, I think calling iTunes obnoxious is not necessarily "holy war talk." This has nothing to do whether or not it is a good media library/player. It can be good at that and still be considered by some to be obnoxious, to my thinking.
I would think that a program that stores and plays music that prompts you to install a new web browser could well be considered obnoxious without that being holy war talk. It presumptuously asks to do more than the user may want it to do, similar to Java prompting to install an office suite. In neither case does it mean the software isn't good at what it is intended to do, but in thinking you would like it to do way more completely unrelated things sure could be called obnoxious.
Further, and even on topic, when its updates render a feature of hardware you own broken, I think that could fairly fall into the obnoxious category. Regardless of whether or not Apple was completely in its rights to prevent the Palm from synching with iTunes, the software update places Palm Pre owners who used the feature squarely in the middle of Apple's quarrel with Palm.
I think that the SEC and most organizations do in fact make a distinction before having every "ordinary" employee subject to the same terms as the CEO. Some include top executives, some don't. But, in determining whose particular actions and circumstances may have considerable effects on stock price, the CEO does, in fact, make the cut.
OK, so the point of the whole stock value was to show you the voting power and financial value controlled by Steve Jobs. I used it to try and illustrate how any employee that influential can't really be considered "ordinary". I consider owning and being able to vote and being able to sell at a moment's notice over 19 times more stock than any other single person quite significant. This is a response to your claim that an "ordinary" employee could have a Steve Jobs-like effect. Just to re-iterate, I don't consider any employee able to do that "ordinary". As a quick FYI, this does not imply I believe that any non-ordinary employee must therefore submit information regarding any serious medical conditions.
OK, my argument is this. You committed a strawman fallacy in your first reply. I consider such logical miscues uninsteresting. That's it. As to your counter claim that it was a slippery slope, I disagree. It was a strawman. A slippery slope would say that disclosing information regarding a CEO's pancreatic cancer and/or liver transplant would lead to every "ordinary" employee having to submit their genetic sequences, hobbies, and personal realationship information. You stated that by the original argument, the genetic sequences, hobbies, and personal realationship information of "ordinary" employees are as important as information regarding the serious health issues of a CEO and should also be submitted. A point no one was arguing. It's an exaggerated and weaker argument that you made up to tear down.
See, a straw man isn't very strong. It's much easier to tear apart than a real man. Similar to that, a real argument is much harder to tear apart than a really exaggerated and weak one that you make up. That's why they call the fallacy the "strawman" fallacy.
To address your final fallacy, the ad hominem you stuck in there at the end, I will just say that I find it uninteresting to argue against someone on points they never made. That no one made. That no one would make. Because no one would agree with it. That's just putting words into someone's mouth and then "exposing" what an idiotic opinion they have. How insufferably condescending, don't you think?
See, here we go again with the fallacies. This time, with Jonathan Ive, you use a red herring. Now, he isn't exactly an "ordinary" employee since he is the Senior Vice President of Industrial Design for Apple and reports directly to Steve Jobs. But, I was saying all serious health issues for an influential CEO like Steve Jobs are important to the shareholders. To accurately disprove this you need to find me an influential CEO whose serious health issues are not important.
The CEO is different because he or she is the Chief Executive Officer. There is usually only one of those. And, as the title may or may not imply to you, he or she is the officer chiefly in charge of the execution of company policies and practices. That sounds pretty important to me. Further, the SEC wants to know the compensation for chief officers and top executives. These are a matter of public record. They consider that these top executives and chief officers ARE different from ordinary employees. I tend to think they are right about this.
Right now Steve Jobs holds about 5.5 million shares of Apple stock. That's a shade over 19 times larger than any other individual (person) shareholder. At the current value ($137.1368) that's $760,622,541.4968 he has in company stock. When he took over as CEO in July 1997, AAPL stock was trading at $4.375 per share. I wouldn't call anyone who could have a similar effect on their company an "ordinary" employee.
Also, wanting to know about serious health issues is not exactly the same as wanting to know all about someone's hobbies or personal realtionships. The risks of someone diagnosed with pancreatic cancer dying are not remotely the same as the risks of dying from hang gliding.
I hope that may give some insight as to how you committed the strawman fallacy earlier and this time tried to use a red herring. Better luck next time.
By that argument we should probably require all employees of any publicly traded company to make their genetic sequence available publicly, plus briefs about any potentially dangerous hobbies they may have. Better throw in data about their relationships too. Nothing impairs performance like trouble at home.
And by that argument strawman isn't a fallacy. Equating someone wanting to know about the serious health issues concerning a very key and influential CEO, like, y'know, those that require a liver transplant, to requiring all employees to submit their genetic sequence, hobbies, and relationship information is exactly that.
The funniest thing about large companies using web-apps for internal software is that most of them produce web-apps which depend on technology which is not truly cross-platform (Active-X, using a certain JVM, depending on a certain browser, etc), thus removing most of the business benefit of using a web application in the first place.
Your experience may be different from mine, but the driving motivation behind using web applications for internal software has nothing to do with being cross platform but rather to do with ease of deployment. The business has a pretty tight control over what platforms are being used, they don't need to cater to any platform they haven't put in place. The real business benefit is not having to send out IT people to update each and every client machine for every update to the software.
The good thing about java is that when the api changes you still have the option of running older JREs. I'm not sure if that's the case with the net framework.
The.NET Framework is similar to the JRE is this regard. You can target a build to use whichever version of the.NET Runtime you choose. That is, if your application targets the.NET Framework 2.0, it will work wherever the.NET 2.0 Runtime is installed, regardless of any changes made in the.NET Framework 3.5.
As far as the underlying Windows API changes, a motivation for the.NET Framework is to abstract development away from the OS API. It's similar to the approach used with Java, although primarily implemented for abstracting from the various versions of Windows rather than any OS.
Great links. For those who have censorship concerns, as can be seen on her Policies and Activities page, she supports the Safer Internet Programme. Their mission "aims at empowering and protecting children and young people online by awareness raising initiatives and by fighting illegal and harmful online content and conduct."
You have indeed found another flaw found in my comparison. It would be great for the Mac Pro's value if that DDR3 RAM would make up the $1300 difference. Unfortunately it can be had for well under $450/GB. Basically it will come out to costing, at most, exactly the same as I originally quoted. Or less. Coupled with the savings on the CPU, the "Ferrari" you referred to is looking more and more like a new chassis dropped on the same old Ford Focus. But that Ferrari logo sure is sweet.
You're totally right, I got the wrong CPU. As a software developer I am well used to getting things completely wrong the first time. Newegg doesn't have the 5504, who knew? Per Techiestop, you can actually get the CPU for $13 less. For that kind of coin, you may be able to get a grande mocha-choca half-caff-skinny late from Starbucks. w00t.
No kidding.
The Mac Pro spec as priced out on newegg:
Western Digital Caviar 640GB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive $69.99 Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem 2.66GHz Quad-Core Processor $288.99 EVGA 01G-P3-N959-TR GeForce 9500 GT 1GB Video Card $69.99 ASUS P6T Deluxe Motherboard $289.99 LG 22X DVD±R DVD Burner Black SATA $22.99 LIAN LI PC-60USB B2 Silver Aluminum Case $119.99 G.SKILL Value 1GB 184-Pin DDR SDRAM $29.99 ea x 3 = $89.97 Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 64-bit $179.99 Rosewill RG530-2 530W Power Supply $54.99
Subtotal: $1,186.89
This list may not include incidental things e.g. thermal compound, the exact same number of USB ports, but I think is a fair line by line comparison. Noting that the prices on the Mac Pro will not get better with time, although the above price will. The markup is about 100%. For this item, I am just not buying any argument that if you compare line by line that Apple products are reasonably priced. Literally.
There are some pretty significant differences between the two technologies actually. While there are analogous tool types available for both, the implementations of each are quite different. Certainly enough for a difference to be noticed. Just in terms of windowing toolkits, WPF and WinForms are quite different from Swing and SWT.
Microsoft's control of the CLR has upsides and downsides. It does allow them to very quickly add new features to the framework. However, this tight control leads to complications with alternative compatible runtimes.
Java has the JCP, which is also has it's benefits and drawbacks. While open and transparent, changes are made quite slowly. However, this openness, coupled with now being open source, allows for viable alternative runtimes with no concern over patent infringement.
I'm not quite sure what there is to fail to understand or be annoyed by. Computing is a finite thing. Therefore, there is simply no "best" solution to all problems. Compromises must always be made and they are going to serve one end to the detriment of another.
I agree that nothing bars C# form running on a JVM, but I am not falling for a common fallacy either. I never said that the generics implementation would make it impossible. Just far from straightforward. Combined with all of the other differences e.g. framework, lambda expressions, unsafe code and so forth would make it at the very least extremely difficult.
That should be: class MyClass<T> where T : new() {
public T GetNew() { return new T(); } } I didn't think of the HTML formatting not liking the <T> bit
Java has already been made to run on.NET. I wonder if it'd really be that hard to get standardized C# running on the JVM?
The longer answer is that for anything written targeting the.NET Framework (Mono or otherwise) version 2.0 and beyond, it would extremely difficult if not flat out impossible. The first thing that comes to mind is the runtime erasure of the type parameter(s) for Java's generics. This does not exist in.NET and that has some significant implications. There would simply be no straightforward way to get the following C# class to work in the Java Runtime: class MyClass where T : new()
{
public T GetNew() { return new T(); }
}
I'm sorry but are you suggesting that Microsoft has no option for attracting PHP/MySQL talent but to spend 45 billion dollars? Are you an out of work PHP/MySQL developer?
I'm not sure why this is interesting. Which language? With C++ projects VS does, as someone else posted, add some pretty flaky things. If you are referring to C#, just look right fast at the generics implementations in C# and Java and tell me they are no different.
I'm not sure I entirely agree. Form or attractiveness in design should be neither trivial nor an afterthought. One of the design principles companies like Apple leverage quite often is the Aesthetic-Usability effect. It states that users will find that a more attractive design more usable in spite of whether it actually is or not. I don't mean to draw out extensive commentary on Apple but a good example might be iPods and iPhones. The inability of the owner to easily change the battery could be viewed as a significant detriment to usability in terms of functionality, i.e. form over function. However, the resulting attractiveness of the sleek design mitigates this concern for many, if not most, users and may even be considered by some as a false positive. Some might cite "at least the battery never falls out" or "the battery is do good that it doesn't need replacing" even though a better functional design would incorporate a superior battery that doesn't slip but can be replaced by the user.
Further, to speak to the article at hand, my favorite design book and the one from which I drew this principle is Universal Principles of Design. It details 100 principles, each on two pages, one a text description and the other a graphic illustrating the principle. Another interesting example is that users find applications that use desaturated colors to be more user friendly and associate saturated colors with being more professional.
Slashdot Mirror
However Ribbon's "contextual" system is horrible to user too. People get used to where things are, even more so with computers. That is why static *, normal menus and buttons are good.
* - emphasis mine
The problem with static menus is that you can't actually have static menus if you plan to change anything. Which is decidedly not good. The point of the ribbon control is to allow you to more obviously see the entire menu, presumably so when new features are added they can be easily found along with visual cues as to what they may do. I added Sun's ODF plug-in to Office 2007 and while finding where to interact with a plug-in was non-trivial before, it was obvious where to go.
"There have always been flat screen televisions"
"Margaret Thatcher has always been a former prime minister"
These statements are not a function of one's age, nor are they true as is. Is the author trying to say that we've got a group passing through that is so self-centered that they refuse to acknowledge any event prior to their birth?
I think all the author was trying to convey was:
"Flat screen televisions have been available for their entire lives"
"Margaret Thatcher has been a former prime minister for their entire lives"
I don't really think the author is striving to be ageist for those two issues, just pointing out that some of the major technological advancements us older folks were in awe of when they were introduced, have been available for a incoming freshmen's lives. Also to point out that many of really pivotal figures and organizations central to some of the most powerful nations during the Cold War era have not been in charge for a day of their lives. I certainly don't think that observation is ageist. However, for this point:
"They have never understood the meaning of R.S.V.P."
I think you could have something there.
Not really. I think the point was about Western Europe as a whole. Finland was only invoked as an assumed guideline for pricing in Western Europe. Pointing out the size of one specific country in that region is about as relevant as pointing out that Alaska having a little over 5 times the area and a population density 1/16 that of Finland. The point still holds, cell phone providers in the United States must cover a larger area with fewer customers than Western Europe.
I guess we just differ in what we consider obnoxious. I consider unsolicited offers to install completely unrelated software to be nagging and obnoxious. I don't believe I am alone in thinking that. iTunes on Windows has done this, not just on install, but post install the iTunes updater has made unsolicited offers. Sun's Java Updater routinely offers to install StarOffice, which I find equally annoying and obnoxious for the same reasons.
As to the second point, Apple may be well within their rights to break the Palm Pre synching. No doubt. And, as you conceded, that doesn't make iTunes any less obnoxious to those Palm Pre owners for whom it was broken.
So, I am not sure I can go with your original point. I think finding iTunes obnoxious is not totally indefensible for the above reasons. Therefore, I think calling iTunes obnoxious is not necessarily "holy war talk." This has nothing to do whether or not it is a good media library/player. It can be good at that and still be considered by some to be obnoxious, to my thinking.
I would think that a program that stores and plays music that prompts you to install a new web browser could well be considered obnoxious without that being holy war talk. It presumptuously asks to do more than the user may want it to do, similar to Java prompting to install an office suite. In neither case does it mean the software isn't good at what it is intended to do, but in thinking you would like it to do way more completely unrelated things sure could be called obnoxious.
Further, and even on topic, when its updates render a feature of hardware you own broken, I think that could fairly fall into the obnoxious category. Regardless of whether or not Apple was completely in its rights to prevent the Palm from synching with iTunes, the software update places Palm Pre owners who used the feature squarely in the middle of Apple's quarrel with Palm.
I think that the SEC and most organizations do in fact make a distinction before having every "ordinary" employee subject to the same terms as the CEO. Some include top executives, some don't. But, in determining whose particular actions and circumstances may have considerable effects on stock price, the CEO does, in fact, make the cut.
OK, so the point of the whole stock value was to show you the voting power and financial value controlled by Steve Jobs. I used it to try and illustrate how any employee that influential can't really be considered "ordinary". I consider owning and being able to vote and being able to sell at a moment's notice over 19 times more stock than any other single person quite significant. This is a response to your claim that an "ordinary" employee could have a Steve Jobs-like effect. Just to re-iterate, I don't consider any employee able to do that "ordinary". As a quick FYI, this does not imply I believe that any non-ordinary employee must therefore submit information regarding any serious medical conditions.
OK, my argument is this. You committed a strawman fallacy in your first reply. I consider such logical miscues uninsteresting. That's it. As to your counter claim that it was a slippery slope, I disagree. It was a strawman. A slippery slope would say that disclosing information regarding a CEO's pancreatic cancer and/or liver transplant would lead to every "ordinary" employee having to submit their genetic sequences, hobbies, and personal realationship information. You stated that by the original argument , the genetic sequences, hobbies, and personal realationship information of "ordinary" employees are as important as information regarding the serious health issues of a CEO and should also be submitted. A point no one was arguing. It's an exaggerated and weaker argument that you made up to tear down.
See, a straw man isn't very strong. It's much easier to tear apart than a real man. Similar to that, a real argument is much harder to tear apart than a really exaggerated and weak one that you make up. That's why they call the fallacy the "strawman" fallacy.
To address your final fallacy, the ad hominem you stuck in there at the end, I will just say that I find it uninteresting to argue against someone on points they never made. That no one made. That no one would make. Because no one would agree with it. That's just putting words into someone's mouth and then "exposing" what an idiotic opinion they have. How insufferably condescending, don't you think?
See, here we go again with the fallacies. This time, with Jonathan Ive, you use a red herring. Now, he isn't exactly an "ordinary" employee since he is the Senior Vice President of Industrial Design for Apple and reports directly to Steve Jobs. But, I was saying all serious health issues for an influential CEO like Steve Jobs are important to the shareholders. To accurately disprove this you need to find me an influential CEO whose serious health issues are not important.
The CEO is different because he or she is the Chief Executive Officer. There is usually only one of those. And, as the title may or may not imply to you, he or she is the officer chiefly in charge of the execution of company policies and practices. That sounds pretty important to me. Further, the SEC wants to know the compensation for chief officers and top executives. These are a matter of public record. They consider that these top executives and chief officers ARE different from ordinary employees. I tend to think they are right about this.
Right now Steve Jobs holds about 5.5 million shares of Apple stock. That's a shade over 19 times larger than any other individual (person) shareholder. At the current value ($137.1368) that's $760,622,541.4968 he has in company stock. When he took over as CEO in July 1997, AAPL stock was trading at $4.375 per share. I wouldn't call anyone who could have a similar effect on their company an "ordinary" employee.
Also, wanting to know about serious health issues is not exactly the same as wanting to know all about someone's hobbies or personal realtionships. The risks of someone diagnosed with pancreatic cancer dying are not remotely the same as the risks of dying from hang gliding.
I hope that may give some insight as to how you committed the strawman fallacy earlier and this time tried to use a red herring. Better luck next time.
By that argument we should probably require all employees of any publicly traded company to make their genetic sequence available publicly, plus briefs about any potentially dangerous hobbies they may have. Better throw in data about their relationships too. Nothing impairs performance like trouble at home.
And by that argument strawman isn't a fallacy. Equating someone wanting to know about the serious health issues concerning a very key and influential CEO, like, y'know, those that require a liver transplant, to requiring all employees to submit their genetic sequence, hobbies, and relationship information is exactly that.
The funniest thing about large companies using web-apps for internal software is that most of them produce web-apps which depend on technology which is not truly cross-platform (Active-X, using a certain JVM, depending on a certain browser, etc), thus removing most of the business benefit of using a web application in the first place.
Your experience may be different from mine, but the driving motivation behind using web applications for internal software has nothing to do with being cross platform but rather to do with ease of deployment. The business has a pretty tight control over what platforms are being used, they don't need to cater to any platform they haven't put in place. The real business benefit is not having to send out IT people to update each and every client machine for every update to the software.
The good thing about java is that when the api changes you still have the option of running older JREs. I'm not sure if that's the case with the net framework.
The .NET Framework is similar to the JRE is this regard. You can target a build to use whichever version of the .NET Runtime you choose. That is, if your application targets the .NET Framework 2.0, it will work wherever the .NET 2.0 Runtime is installed, regardless of any changes made in the .NET Framework 3.5.
.NET Framework is to abstract development away from the OS API. It's similar to the approach used with Java, although primarily implemented for abstracting from the various versions of Windows rather than any OS.
As far as the underlying Windows API changes, a motivation for the
Great links. For those who have censorship concerns, as can be seen on her Policies and Activities page, she supports the Safer Internet Programme. Their mission "aims at empowering and protecting children and young people online by awareness raising initiatives and by fighting illegal and harmful online content and conduct."
You have indeed found another flaw found in my comparison. It would be great for the Mac Pro's value if that DDR3 RAM would make up the $1300 difference. Unfortunately it can be had for well under $450/GB. Basically it will come out to costing, at most, exactly the same as I originally quoted. Or less. Coupled with the savings on the CPU, the "Ferrari" you referred to is looking more and more like a new chassis dropped on the same old Ford Focus. But that Ferrari logo sure is sweet.
You're totally right, I got the wrong CPU. As a software developer I am well used to getting things completely wrong the first time. Newegg doesn't have the 5504, who knew? Per Techiestop, you can actually get the CPU for $13 less. For that kind of coin, you may be able to get a grande mocha-choca half-caff-skinny late from Starbucks. w00t.
The Mac Pro spec as priced out on newegg:
This list may not include incidental things e.g. thermal compound, the exact same number of USB ports, but I think is a fair line by line comparison. Noting that the prices on the Mac Pro will not get better with time, although the above price will. The markup is about 100%. For this item, I am just not buying any argument that if you compare line by line that Apple products are reasonably priced. Literally.
There are some pretty significant differences between the two technologies actually. While there are analogous tool types available for both, the implementations of each are quite different. Certainly enough for a difference to be noticed. Just in terms of windowing toolkits, WPF and WinForms are quite different from Swing and SWT. Microsoft's control of the CLR has upsides and downsides. It does allow them to very quickly add new features to the framework. However, this tight control leads to complications with alternative compatible runtimes. Java has the JCP, which is also has it's benefits and drawbacks. While open and transparent, changes are made quite slowly. However, this openness, coupled with now being open source, allows for viable alternative runtimes with no concern over patent infringement. I'm not quite sure what there is to fail to understand or be annoyed by. Computing is a finite thing. Therefore, there is simply no "best" solution to all problems. Compromises must always be made and they are going to serve one end to the detriment of another.
I agree that nothing bars C# form running on a JVM, but I am not falling for a common fallacy either. I never said that the generics implementation would make it impossible. Just far from straightforward. Combined with all of the other differences e.g. framework, lambda expressions, unsafe code and so forth would make it at the very least extremely difficult.
That should be:
class MyClass<T> where T : new()
{
public T GetNew() { return new T(); }
}
I didn't think of the HTML formatting not liking the <T> bit
Java has already been made to run on .NET. I wonder if it'd really be that hard to get standardized C# running on the JVM?
The longer answer is that for anything written targeting the .NET Framework (Mono or otherwise) version 2.0 and beyond, it would extremely difficult if not flat out impossible. The first thing that comes to mind is the runtime erasure of the type parameter(s) for Java's generics. This does not exist in .NET and that has some significant implications. There would simply be no straightforward way to get the following C# class to work in the Java Runtime:
class MyClass where T : new()
{
public T GetNew() { return new T(); }
}
what is best in life.
Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web. Not the internet. In spite of what iPhone commercials claim, they are not equivalent.
I'm sorry but are you suggesting that Microsoft has no option for attracting PHP/MySQL talent but to spend 45 billion dollars? Are you an out of work PHP/MySQL developer?
I'm not sure why this is interesting. Which language? With C++ projects VS does, as someone else posted, add some pretty flaky things. If you are referring to C#, just look right fast at the generics implementations in C# and Java and tell me they are no different.
...it smelled like burnt almond cookies?
I'm not sure I entirely agree. Form or attractiveness in design should be neither trivial nor an afterthought. One of the design principles companies like Apple leverage quite often is the Aesthetic-Usability effect. It states that users will find that a more attractive design more usable in spite of whether it actually is or not. I don't mean to draw out extensive commentary on Apple but a good example might be iPods and iPhones. The inability of the owner to easily change the battery could be viewed as a significant detriment to usability in terms of functionality, i.e. form over function. However, the resulting attractiveness of the sleek design mitigates this concern for many, if not most, users and may even be considered by some as a false positive. Some might cite "at least the battery never falls out" or "the battery is do good that it doesn't need replacing" even though a better functional design would incorporate a superior battery that doesn't slip but can be replaced by the user.
Further, to speak to the article at hand, my favorite design book and the one from which I drew this principle is Universal Principles of Design. It details 100 principles, each on two pages, one a text description and the other a graphic illustrating the principle. Another interesting example is that users find applications that use desaturated colors to be more user friendly and associate saturated colors with being more professional.