January 17, 2011
In February of 2009, almost two years ago, I posted a thorough rubbishing of Lotus Notes.
Recently, I downloaded the current version to see what changed. The list:
- The installer has a prettier background
- There's more installation options, like Symphony. Thank god. Dunno what I'd do if my groupware client didn't offer to install a complete office suite. (the discriptions are still tautological masterpieces)
- In addition to setting Notes as the default client, it now asks me if I want to "preload" notes. How the FUCK do you load code into memory before you load code into memory. Someone needs to be presmacked upside the haid.
- Thank god I told you not to be the default email program in the Install, otherwise, you asking me wouldn't have made sense.
- A perfectly valid and correctly installed GoDaddy cert is not, according to Notes
- THEY CLEANED UP THE MENUS! NO MORE COPYRIGHT SYMBOL! THANK YOU MASSIVE IBM USER INTERFACE GROUP!
Yeah. that's about it. The rest is still applicable. Almost two years later.| Comments ()
January 13, 2011
He said it for me
What Peter said. Double.Comments ()
January 12, 2011
Two short ones
Two takeaways from yesterday:
- Want a Verizon phone that doesn't come loaded down with shit like Vcast that you can't remove unless you jailbreak it? Get an iPhone. Yeah. That non-open proprietary eeeeeevil draconian phone. That's what happens when you have a company that gives a fuck about its work.
- Google is dropping h.264 because it's NOT OPEN but keeping Flash support. At this point, all that's left for Google to do to prove its fans are far more of a cult than the worst MacMac is for Eric Schmidt to actually shit into his hand and make a Googletard eat it while smiling, or for Sergey, Larry, and Eric to walk through the audience at their next I/O conference, slapping attendees in the face with their dicks, while the attendees justify it because Google is open and our only defense against Microsoft, Oracle, and Apple and well, in a war, can you really complain about getting dick-slapped?
Cue Googletards fellating Dowdellhead and reciting his mantra about how Flash is really open, and that closed up DRM shit is really not closed, because Google says Flash is open in 3...2...1...| Comments ()
January 7, 2011
Why Twitter 2.0's UI sucks
No, this has fuck all do to with the HIG. It has to do with using the goddamned thing.
Also, let's be clear, there are parts of Twitter I like. Page up/Page down. Tweetie is goddamned annoying about keyboards. It's like they don't exist for it and everyone lives in this stupid assed mouse only world except for typing the tweet.
No, the reason I hate the Twitter UI, (CRAIG HOCKENBERRY, I HAVE MONEY FOR A REVAMPED TWITTERIFFIC! SAVE ME OBI-CHOCK, YOU'RE MY ONLY HOPE!) is because it fucking fails at what it cannot afford to: making the application usable. First, whomever did the UI review for this needs to be poked in the fucking eyes. I'm serious. Not in a way that causes blindness or even temporary damage. But they need to have their vision temporarily impaired, and then try to use their fucking clever UI. Like the window control widgets. Let's compare. Tweetie:
The new widgets are smaller. Smaller is harder to hit. That's a fact, and it's one that Loren Brichter is, I hope, aware of. (Or maybe not. What's worse, ignorance or not caring?) Even worse, they're hard to see. The contrast between them and the surrounding area is crap. So you have barely not-black buttons that are small, on a not-black background. It's not like they get better when you hover over them:
If they at least popped out when you hovered over them, that would be a help. See, here's the thing: Making things hard to see not only tortures the customers who have decent/normal vision, but if you have bad vision, even corrected? This shit is unusable. The reason for making things like window widgets stand out from the background isn't based on twee theory. It's a requirement if you want to make your application usable across the entire range of sighted customers. This "oooh, black is so cooool, we'll make everything like that" crapola is just that. Making people have to work hard just to see shit isn't cool, it's stupid. But we aren't done.
Let's take a look at the differences in the kinds of tweets. First, Tweetie:
the difference is clear. Now, it's not perfect. For example, people who are colorblind, (which I am not) might have issues with this, so allowing the customer to change the background color should be an option. It's not, and that kind of sucks. But it is still at least a solid attempt. I like that, because if I'm looking for @-mentions, i can zoom up and down the list, and they jump out at me. Now, Twitter:
Same problem. Almost no difference, so you lose the discoverability of Tweetie. Not a HIG issue. (Well, to be honest, I've not read the HIG in years. So fuck if I know what it thinks, nor do I particularly care.) So now, my ability to easily find an @mention without having to change viewing modes is fucking dead. Thanks guys. Thanks for making me have to do more work for the same results. Also, the fonts, while not smaller in Twitter, don't stand out as well from the background as they do in Tweetie. But I think we've established that the chances of any thought, whatsoever given to people without perfect eyesight are pretty much zero. We're also not done. What about notifying me about Tweets in accounts? Tweetie:
That's awesome. It's clear. Light blue dots, nice big ones on a black background. Contrast fucking win. In this case, color doesn't matter. Look, sans color:
That's a good notification system. Also, the positioning. While there's no guideline, it's something that a Tweetie user will quickly realize has meaning. The horizontal position of a dot in an inactive account tells you what kind of tweets are unread. Simple, clear, and ratfucked in Twitter:
Once again, shit is small, and harder to see. Let's see what happens sans color:
Well holy fuck, they don't get any worse. Amazing. But they're still smaller, and the orientation changed. You get no additional functionality from this, in fact, it makes it harder for existing Tweetie users, but I guess the day the did that was "Everything must be vertical" day. That shit is right up there with all the "IT MUST BE DIFFERENT" bullshit Microsoft did in Vista. Fucking w00t.
We're still not done. What about when you see a tweet from someone you aren't following, and you decide you want to follow them. Well, in Tweetie, this was well laid out:
Everything you need right there. Easy to find, all close to each other. Simple. The gear icon is the Mac OS X "Hey, settings and shit live here" button. Oooh, what happens when I click. Since it's right there with everything else, discoverability is high. Now, Twitter:
Why is that image so big? Because instead of keeping a logical, nicely arranged design, they put the fucking follow button AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WINDOW. WHY? What possible functional/usable improvement does this bring? If you wanted a more explicit follow button, why put it a million fucking miles away? I actually missed this, because it was so out of my range of vision. It's something that could be good (make following easier) implemented in a crappy way (completely away from everything else that applies.) Yes, that is the size I use Tweetie, and used Twitter at. That's my normal environment. Tweetie works the same regardless of window size. Twitter? Yeah, fail.
There's other stuff, but I'm done at this point. Again, this isn't about HIG purity, it's about vision, seeing and functionality. I don't mind the iOS influence, I mind that the fucking application is harder to use and that things I need to easily see are now hard to see. It's just a shit UI on levels that UIs should be shit on. And no, I don't give a fuck that it's free. Free is not cheap enough to deal with this crap. Page up/Page down is not enough. Nothing is enough to put up with such a thoughtless UI.| Comments ()
January 2, 2011
Not dealing with reality
I don't think anyone is going to be able to have a truly sane discussion about Android vs. iOS until one critical, reality-distorting myth is put to death: The myth that Android phones are Google phones.
Folks, there's been one Google phone. One. If you don't have a Nexus One, you don't have a Google phone. You have a <CARRIERNAME> <HARDWAREMANUFACTURER> <MODEL> running <modifiedversionofAndroidrelease>. The only thing Google has to do with those devices is that last part. They put out a version release and associated reference materials for each Android release. But you're not running that, are you? Not unless you've jailbroken/rooted your device you aren't. You're running a modified version that <CARRIERNAME> told <HARDWAREMANUFACTURER> to put on the <MODEL> you bought.
Google's not making the hardware. For the overly pedantic, Google's not even paying Foxconn who is actually making pretty much everything. Google's not doing the mods for every carrier and every hardware manufacturer. As long as the carriers and hardware people and anyone else in the chain complies with what has to be a really loose contract, Google doesn't give a fuck about you or your phone other than useful statistics for propaganda purposes. When Google says "we" had so many activations? No. Google had fuck all nothing. Verizon, T-Mobile, O2, and AT&T had n activations, not Google.
Verizon wants to not allow you to install Google search on your Android? Fuck, Google doesn't care, they got what they wanted out of it. Some hardware manufacturer wants to install firmware that auto-de-roots your phone and restores the crap it came with? Google don't care. They got their money and eyeballs. Google doesn't give a rat's ass how badly the carriers and hardware people fuck you over. They do not care about you. Stop pretending they do. I imagine if a carrier tried to dick with the Nexus One, they might care, because that is actually a Google phone. But if you think Google is going to do shit to Samsung if they make it so you can only install applications on the Tab or some other device from the Samsung store, or the Verizon store or the O2 store, you are fucking delusional.
Other than Android reference releases, Google has fuck all to do with your phone. So when you compare your "Google" Android with an iOS device, unless it's a Nexus One do be a dear and tell us the carrier, hardware maker and model? That way we know what you're actually running, as opposed to the mythical Google Phone you want to think you're running. It's important, because otherwise, we're comparing a real thing to a mythical thing, and the mythical thing always wins.| Comments ()