View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
January 24, 2012
Re: [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)
Am 24.01.2012, 13:26 Uhr, schrieb foobar <foo@bar.com>:

> On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 07:09:47 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "foobar" <foo@bar.com> wrote in message  
>> news:gaeafbliswzwkmitpghj@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
>>>
>>> IP can't be evil, it's the basic protocol of the internet ;)
>>> seriously though, the term IP is highly misleading and doesn't have a  
>>> hold in (legal) reality. It's a collection of unrelated laws with  
>>> separate agendas and purposes: copyright, patent, trademarks. Each  
>>> individual law *supposed to* make sense, but at a whole they really  
>>> don't. Yes, it is perfectly legitimate for an  
>>> author/artist/musician/font creator/etc to want to be paid and they  
>>> really should be. it is not hover at all legitimate that a book  
>>> publisher/record company/etc be paid if that business model isn't  
>>> justified anymore in the market place. Forcing those on the market  
>>> when they aren't necessary is the true meaning of evil. I also  
>>> disagree that it's the companies' fault. They simply want to make  
>>> money. That their purpose. The government is the responsible party to  
>>> set the rules for corporations and not vice versa and the US  
>>> government is completely at fault for this huge mess. It's like  
>>> children setting the rule for their parents.
>>
>> I'm not entirely convinced that the US gov isn't effectively a  
>> corporate puppet.
>
> If it is it just proves my point and stuff needs to be done to change  
> the current circumstances. AFAIK the current situation is against the  
> spirit if not the letter of the US constitution which forbids any group  
> from oppressing another (in this case Corporate America vs. the little  
> guy).
>
> There is this phenomena in the US where some people feel that they have  
> the right to be ignorant but they ought to realize that this isn't a  
> core human right and it slowly degrades society in such a way that they  
> lose all other rights and freedoms. People should educate themselves and  
> be responsible for their votes and actually do vote. In my country  
> (Israel) an elections with ~67% of people voting was the lowest  
> percentage ever and usually it's closer to 80%. in the USA it's closer  
> to 50%. That isn't even a majority of the population!
>
> The current situation is directly connected to the ignorance and lack of  
> caring by the people. After all, a democratic government comes from the  
> people and represents the people. Clearly, the citizens of the USA  
> didn't care enough.

You compare a country with two parties with a country with over one  
hundred parties, this can become a long philosophical debate. :D
I'm voting for Moria. It reminds me of Lord of the Rings.
January 24, 2012
Re: [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)
On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 13:00:13 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
> Am 24.01.2012, 13:26 Uhr, schrieb foobar <foo@bar.com>:
>
>> On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 07:09:47 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
>> wrote:
>>> "foobar" <foo@bar.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:gaeafbliswzwkmitpghj@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
>>>>
>>>> IP can't be evil, it's the basic protocol of the internet ;)
>>>> seriously though, the term IP is highly misleading and 
>>>> doesn't have a hold in (legal) reality. It's a collection of 
>>>> unrelated laws with separate agendas and purposes: 
>>>> copyright, patent, trademarks. Each individual law *supposed 
>>>> to* make sense, but at a whole they really don't. Yes, it is 
>>>> perfectly legitimate for an author/artist/musician/font 
>>>> creator/etc to want to be paid and they really should be. it 
>>>> is not hover at all legitimate that a book publisher/record 
>>>> company/etc be paid if that business model isn't justified 
>>>> anymore in the market place. Forcing those on the market 
>>>> when they aren't necessary is the true meaning of evil. I 
>>>> also disagree that it's the companies' fault. They simply 
>>>> want to make money. That their purpose. The government is 
>>>> the responsible party to set the rules for corporations and 
>>>> not vice versa and the US government is completely at fault 
>>>> for this huge mess. It's like children setting the rule for 
>>>> their parents.
>>>
>>> I'm not entirely convinced that the US gov isn't effectively 
>>> a corporate puppet.
>>
>> If it is it just proves my point and stuff needs to be done to 
>> change the current circumstances. AFAIK the current situation 
>> is against the spirit if not the letter of the US constitution 
>> which forbids any group from oppressing another (in this case 
>> Corporate America vs. the little guy).
>>
>> There is this phenomena in the US where some people feel that 
>> they have the right to be ignorant but they ought to realize 
>> that this isn't a core human right and it slowly degrades 
>> society in such a way that they lose all other rights and 
>> freedoms. People should educate themselves and be responsible 
>> for their votes and actually do vote. In my country (Israel) 
>> an elections with ~67% of people voting was the lowest 
>> percentage ever and usually it's closer to 80%. in the USA 
>> it's closer to 50%. That isn't even a majority of the 
>> population!
>>
>> The current situation is directly connected to the ignorance 
>> and lack of caring by the people. After all, a democratic 
>> government comes from the people and represents the people. 
>> Clearly, the citizens of the USA didn't care enough.
>
> You compare a country with two parties with a country with over 
> one hundred parties, this can become a long philosophical 
> debate. :D
> I'm voting for Moria. It reminds me of Lord of the Rings.

I never claimed our system is perfect and for sure we have too 
many parties. OTOH it does show we take active role and we do 
care! :)
Another example would be the social protests that happened this 
summer where 300,000 people physically came to demonstrate in 
Tel-Aviv. No small fit for a country of 7 million.
January 24, 2012
Re: [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:59:46 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:

> "Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message

>> Ever since the industry helpfully stopped labeling switches with "on"  
>> and
>> "off" my usual technique is to flip it back and forth until it goes on.  
>> Is
>> it really progress to change from a system where 99% of the world knows
>> what it means to one where 2% know?
>
> I'd say more like "from 99% to 90%". And those who do know can read it  
> more
> easily, at a further distance, with worse eyesight, in worse lighting
> conditions, at a breifer glance, etc.

This has nothing to do with it.  They could have come up with a *million*  
better choices.

Couple that with the fact that:

a) you usually want something on or off.  If it's already in the desired  
state, you can usually tell without looking at the switch.
b) It's far more mentally taxing to read/understand the symbols, remember  
how they apply to circuits, then determine whether it's on or off, than it  
is to simply start flipping switches until you get the desired result.

I think you'd be better off without *any* symbols, or with only a single  
symbol indicating 'on'.

For my money, the *best* on off switch is the lighted pushbutton, which  
has the two symbols combined.  I know that it's a power button, and if I  
see no light, I know it's off.

And the WORST on/off design ever (mandated by regulation, I believe) is to  
have a light turn *ON* when something is off.  For example, my TV  
helpfully has an LED that turns on when it's off, presumably to let me  
know that it's connected to power.

-Steve
January 24, 2012
Re: [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)
"foobar" <foo@bar.com> wrote in message 
news:teutlxbmxkyzvyrqgyiy@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
>
> There is this phenomena in the US where some people feel that they have 
> the right to be ignorant but they ought to realize that this isn't a core 
> human right and it slowly degrades society in such a way that they lose 
> all other rights and freedoms. People should educate themselves and be 
> responsible for their votes and actually do vote. In my country (Israel) 
> an elections with ~67% of people voting was the lowest percentage ever and 
> usually it's closer to 80%. in the USA it's closer to 50%. That isn't even 
> a majority of the population!
>

I agree that if someobody's *going* to vote, they have a moral 
responsibility to be informed about what it is they're voting on (and the 
biased handwavy-propaganda-with-no-real-information we get bombarded with 
from each side doesn't count). And it's *absolutely* best to be informed and 
then vote.

But real legitimate information (as opposed to non-informational emotional, 
and frankly patronizing, propaganda: And I mean propaganda quite literally) 
is surprisingly difficult to find in this supposedly free country.  The real 
information is essentially hidden by those who prefer us to vote 
emotionally - that way we're more easily swayed. And the US is such a 
goddamn rat race, many people just simply can't afford the time to dig 
through the mountains of bullshit: they're too busy trying to keep the bills 
paid.

And if for that reason, or any other legitimate *or* illigitimate reason, 
when somebody *isn't* informed, it's downright socially irresponsible for 
them to vote (but many do anyway, and that's part of why american elections 
have degenerated into little more than popularity contests).

> The current situation is directly connected to the ignorance and lack of 
> caring by the people. After all, a democratic government comes from the 
> people and represents the people. Clearly, the citizens of the USA didn't 
> care enough.

It's not so much apathy. Mostly, we've just lost faith in politicians (and 
not without reason). Besides, to borrow from South Park, we're usually faced 
with a choice between a giant doucebag and a shit sandwich: We all lose no 
matter how the vote turns out. At the very least, that 50% turnout is a big 
vote for "We need a candidate who doesn't have their head up their ass."
January 24, 2012
Re: [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v8l0jzrdeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:59:46 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
>
>> "Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
>
>>> Ever since the industry helpfully stopped labeling switches with "on" 
>>> and
>>> "off" my usual technique is to flip it back and forth until it goes on. 
>>> Is
>>> it really progress to change from a system where 99% of the world knows
>>> what it means to one where 2% know?
>>
>> I'd say more like "from 99% to 90%". And those who do know can read it 
>> more
>> easily, at a further distance, with worse eyesight, in worse lighting
>> conditions, at a breifer glance, etc.
>
> This has nothing to do with it.  They could have come up with a *million* 
> better choices.
>
> Couple that with the fact that:
>
> a) you usually want something on or off.  If it's already in the desired 
> state, you can usually tell without looking at the switch.
> b) It's far more mentally taxing to read/understand the symbols, remember 
> how they apply to circuits, then determine whether it's on or off, than it 
> is to simply start flipping switches until you get the desired result.
>

So symbols are bad because they chose the wrong symbol?

> I think you'd be better off without *any* symbols, or with only a single 
> symbol indicating 'on'.
>

I think we'll have to disagree on it...

> For my money, the *best* on off switch is the lighted pushbutton, which 
> has the two symbols combined.  I know that it's a power button, and if I 
> see no light, I know it's off.
>

Until the light burns out (granted, less of an issue with LEDs).

Also, I *hate* how thanks to modern electronics *everything* in the goddamn 
room has to be lit up like a fucking tree. And they keep making the damn 
things brighter, and brighter, and BRIGHTER...Shit, the light on the USB HDD 
enclosue I just got is so bright it genuinely *hurts* my eyes just to look 
at it. I had to tape tiny pieces of paper over it just to make it tolerable. 
And it's still brighter than I'd like. But I don't want to totally obscure 
it because then I can't see when it's active.

I want *less* lights. Much, much *much* less. Not more.

> And the WORST on/off design ever (mandated by regulation, I believe) is to 
> have a light turn *ON* when something is off.  For example, my TV 
> helpfully has an LED that turns on when it's off, presumably to let me 
> know that it's connected to power.
>

I *HATE* those "off" lights. I've started to just tape over the fucking 
things with black electrical tape.
January 24, 2012
Re: [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)
"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message 
news:jfnf2r$913$1@digitalmars.com...
> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:op.v8l0jzrdeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:59:46 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
>>
>> This has nothing to do with it.  They could have come up with a *million* 
>> better choices.
>>
>> Couple that with the fact that:
>>
>> a) you usually want something on or off.  If it's already in the desired 
>> state, you can usually tell without looking at the switch.
>> b) It's far more mentally taxing to read/understand the symbols, remember 
>> how they apply to circuits, then determine whether it's on or off, than 
>> it is to simply start flipping switches until you get the desired result.
>>
>
> So symbols are bad because they chose the wrong symbol?
>

I put "So symbols are bad because they chose the wrong symbol?" after the 
wrong quote. I meant it in response to "This has nothing to do with it. 
They could have come up with a *million* better choices."
January 24, 2012
Re: [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v8l0jzrdeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
>
> a) you usually want something on or off.  If it's already in the desired 
> state, you can usually tell without looking at the switch.
> b) It's far more mentally taxing to read/understand the symbols, remember 
> how they apply to circuits, then determine whether it's on or off, than it 
> is to simply start flipping switches until you get the desired result.
>

How in the world does the presence of symbols on the switch prevent you from 
doing it that way?
January 24, 2012
Re: [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)
On 1/24/2012 3:30 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> I *HATE* those "off" lights. I've started to just tape over the fucking
> things with black electrical tape.

Back in 1971 or so, a book came out that was the complete idiot's guide to 
repairing a Volkswagon. The best advice in there was to someone that had the 
battery fault light glowing faintly. He had the charging system checked out, and 
all was fine. But the glowing light kept bugging the guy. The "solution" was to 
paint a thin layer of fingernail polish over the light, so you couldn't see the 
glow but could see it if it came on fully.
January 25, 2012
Re: [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:30:45 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:

> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:op.v8l0jzrdeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:59:46 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
>>
>>> "Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> Ever since the industry helpfully stopped labeling switches with "on"
>>>> and
>>>> "off" my usual technique is to flip it back and forth until it goes  
>>>> on.
>>>> Is
>>>> it really progress to change from a system where 99% of the world  
>>>> knows
>>>> what it means to one where 2% know?
>>>
>>> I'd say more like "from 99% to 90%". And those who do know can read it
>>> more
>>> easily, at a further distance, with worse eyesight, in worse lighting
>>> conditions, at a breifer glance, etc.
>>
>> This has nothing to do with it.  They could have come up with a  
>> *million*
>> better choices.
>>
>
> So symbols are bad because they chose the wrong symbol?

No, in a weird way I was saying the opposite -- the symbols they chose  
were a bad choice, not the fact that they chose symbols. I've seen much  
better on/off symbols than O and |.  If you have no idea what that means  
in EE terms, then you are just associating on/off with what seems like  
random symbols.  Even a single dot on the "on" side is 10 times better.

>> I think you'd be better off without *any* symbols, or with only a single
>> symbol indicating 'on'.
>>
>
> I think we'll have to disagree on it...

I just stayed in a hotel this past weekend, where the bedside lamp had  
those same O and | symbols.  When I wanted to turn the light on or off, do  
you really think I spent a single microsecond contemplating or  
interpreting what those symbols mean?  Fuck no!  I just flipped the  
switch!  If the switches had no symbols I would get the same result.  The  
symbols added 0 benefit to the switch.

>
>> For my money, the *best* on off switch is the lighted pushbutton, which
>> has the two symbols combined.  I know that it's a power button, and if I
>> see no light, I know it's off.
>>
>
> Until the light burns out (granted, less of an issue with LEDs).

I'm thinking in terms of my PC, I have a pushbutton to turn it on.  When  
it's off, the button is dim, when it's on the button is lit.  How much  
more obvious/simple can you get?

> Also, I *hate* how thanks to modern electronics *everything* in the  
> goddamn
> room has to be lit up like a fucking tree. And they keep making the damn
> things brighter, and brighter, and BRIGHTER...Shit, the light on the USB  
> HDD
> enclosue I just got is so bright it genuinely *hurts* my eyes just to  
> look
> at it.

Such things should be tucked away, but it does not need to be extra  
bright, I agree there.  Some simple common sense would work here.  If it's  
something that's normally not needed for diagnostics, put it internal, but  
visible through a vent or something.  Make it possible to see, but not  
intrusive.

I find a large lack of common sense in most designs today.  You may hate  
to hear it, but the company that usually gets this right is Apple :)  My  
palm phone had an LED that flashed telling me "hey I have a signal  
still!"  My iPhone which is on and working gives me no indication until I  
try to use it that it is still on and connected.  Which is exactly the  
time I need to know.  Who fucking cares if it lost a signal while sitting  
on the table not being used?

> I had to tape tiny pieces of paper over it just to make it tolerable.
> And it's still brighter than I'd like. But I don't want to totally  
> obscure
> it because then I can't see when it's active.
>
> I want *less* lights. Much, much *much* less. Not more.

But you have to admit, it is universal that when a light is on, you know  
something is "on."  It's hard to misinterpret (except for those cursed off  
lights).

>> And the WORST on/off design ever (mandated by regulation, I believe) is  
>> to
>> have a light turn *ON* when something is off.  For example, my TV
>> helpfully has an LED that turns on when it's off, presumably to let me
>> know that it's connected to power.
>>
>
> I *HATE* those "off" lights. I've started to just tape over the fucking
> things with black electrical tape.

Me too :)  We have a TV in the bedroom where the light was so bright, my  
wife couldn't sleep.  So I taped over it.

My new TV has a much dimmer light, but it's still there.  You can  
configure the light to turn off when it's on, but you can't configure it  
to be off all the time.  Again, I think genius politicians who know much  
better than me how to keep my family safe have decided this for me...

-Steve
January 25, 2012
Re: [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)
On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 23:17:15 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
> "foobar" <foo@bar.com> wrote in message 
> news:teutlxbmxkyzvyrqgyiy@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
>>
>> There is this phenomena in the US where some people feel that 
>> they have the right to be ignorant but they ought to realize 
>> that this isn't a core human right and it slowly degrades 
>> society in such a way that they lose all other rights and 
>> freedoms. People should educate themselves and be responsible 
>> for their votes and actually do vote. In my country (Israel) 
>> an elections with ~67% of people voting was the lowest 
>> percentage ever and usually it's closer to 80%. in the USA 
>> it's closer to 50%. That isn't even a majority of the 
>> population!
>>
>
> I agree that if someobody's *going* to vote, they have a moral 
> responsibility to be informed about what it is they're voting 
> on (and the biased handwavy-propaganda-with-no-real-information 
> we get bombarded with from each side doesn't count). And it's 
> *absolutely* best to be informed and then vote.
>
> But real legitimate information (as opposed to 
> non-informational emotional, and frankly patronizing, 
> propaganda: And I mean propaganda quite literally) is 
> surprisingly difficult to find in this supposedly free country. 
> The real information is essentially hidden by those who prefer 
> us to vote emotionally - that way we're more easily swayed. And 
> the US is such a goddamn rat race, many people just simply 
> can't afford the time to dig through the mountains of bullshit: 
> they're too busy trying to keep the bills paid.
>
> And if for that reason, or any other legitimate *or* 
> illigitimate reason, when somebody *isn't* informed, it's 
> downright socially irresponsible for them to vote (but many do 
> anyway, and that's part of why american elections have 
> degenerated into little more than popularity contests).
>
>> The current situation is directly connected to the ignorance 
>> and lack of caring by the people. After all, a democratic 
>> government comes from the people and represents the people. 
>> Clearly, the citizens of the USA didn't care enough.
>
> It's not so much apathy. Mostly, we've just lost faith in 
> politicians (and not without reason). Besides, to borrow from 
> South Park, we're usually faced with a choice between a giant 
> doucebag and a shit sandwich: We all lose no matter how the 
> vote turns out. At the very least, that 50% turnout is a big 
> vote for "We need a candidate who doesn't have their head up 
> their ass."

All I can offer is my local experience and the common sense that 
if you ain't gonna fix your problem yourself no one else would do 
it for you (and yes, I do realize that's hard, takes time, money, 
effort, determination, etc while you still have to pay those 
bills)
In our local political system when people aren't pleased with 
current parties they just start new ones. Granted that this isn't 
perfect and has many problems  and we have way too many parties 
*but* on the other side, it also means that some parties lose 
relevance and disappear while new ones emerge. Hence it's more 
dynamic and can adapt better to change. I think this general 
pattern can be applied in various degrees to many EU countries. A 
good example would be the pirate party in Sweden. This is like 
Kirk's solution for the Kobayashi Maru scenario :)

In that sense, I don't subscribe to the notion that the only 
option is to select between two kinds of smelly shit cause you 
are left with shit in your hands no matter what and that is 
clearly not the definition of democracy.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home