If you're serious, then your idea of rating people according to some measure and denying people who score low is outrageous.
Why would you so blatantly misrepresent what someone said? All CWuestefeld said is that if you don't know that much about politics, don't vote. Or does that somehow equate to denying someone the right to vote in your mind?
I've moved on from Opera. It took them forever to implement basic usability features such as text box spell-check, and inline password remember/find in page. They also removed great features such as one click bookmarking. Their widgets used to be great, one hot-key and they'd all pop-up on screen like on OSX. Now you have to basically manage each one individually with multiple clicks and they clutter your taskbar like crazy. Meanwhile they focus on low value features like Unite. In the default install, it takes several clicks just to get to your list of bookmarks (ignoring hotkeys or custimization, from a business perspective this is bad.)
These aren't just flukes, it seems to be a pattern in their priorities that has shifted in the past few years. Away from low friction usability and innovative features to something a bit more convoluted. Opera used to be top of the pack in usability, even for non-power users. But now for some reason they lost their edge. And aside from this reddit AMA, it seems to be very difficult to have a discussion with them about changes to the browser. They have a suggestions forum but it seems to be mostly ignored, at least in terms of feedback.
Well yes. Microsoft is often said to have problems with teams competing internally (pointlessly), or just not working together. However, that's a management choice that can come from the top. If there's one thing a "Chief Software Architect" should do, it's make sure all software teams are in the habit of communicating and collaborating whenever possible. It doesn't seam like that happened here.
I think the right thing to do is recognize the extremely high cost of communication and collaboration and weigh that against the benefit.
Almost every manager I've known assumes that the cost of communication or collaboration is near zero while the cost of development is extremely high. Often, the cost of duplication development effort is lower than the cost of adding another communication and collaboration channel.
My favorite iTunes feature insanity: When you listen to a song in the "Music" section of iTunes, you have a "pause" button; when you are listening and browsing iTunes store, the "pause" button inexplicably and detrimentally becomes "stop", so you have to re-navigate to "music" just to pause a song. Never mind that "stop" functionality is essentially pointless in digital music players anyway, if you are unfortunate enough to accidentally stop the song/podcast, you have to re-navigate to the Music section and manually restart the file and navigate to the right portion, only if you happen to know where that is.
* Yes I know you can right click on the song area and pause there. This is about UI design, not whether or not I can figure out how to pause a song.
It changes to a Stop button because when you press Play again it will start playing the currently visible playlist/screen rather than the previous playlist.
So let's say the Play button works the way you want it to:
- You start playing a playlist. The Play button turns into a pause button
- You navigate to a different playlist. The pause button does not change to a Stop button.
- Push this pause button. The music "pauses" and the button changes to a Play button.
- Now push the Play button. What happens? Does it resume the previous playlist? Or does it start playing the currently visible playlist?
Anyway, I use the Play/Pause button on my keyboard.
1. You can't press play again, it's just faded out.
2. What other playlist? I'm in the iTunes store. I haven't given any indication that I want to or even could specify another playlist to play.
2. That's exactly how it should work anyway. If I want to change the playlist, that's a different kind of event altogether from just pausing. Having one UI element try and control both is confusing. In this case, a dedicated stop button would actually be useful, as that could distinguish between pausing the current playlist and stopping it altogether. But removing relevant pause functionality just because you're in a different program section? Pointless.
There's nothing there to play because "pause" irrationally became "stop" for no apparent reason (remember there's no playlist in sight), and the user accidentally pressed it. There's no reason for it to be this way.
Why shouldn't the play button apply to songs, especially when it was played individually and not as a playlist? Seems like the type of thing a music player should do.
The Previous, Play, and Next buttons apply to the screen you are currently viewing. They work just the same in the store as they do on any other iTunes screen.
The way they work is exactly the problem. Considering there's a lot you can do in iTunes, it makes more sense to have the control buttons apply to items independent of where you're browsing, as for example, Windows Media Player. The current behavior is confusing and pointless.
None of those are contradictory to the idea of control consistency throughout iTunes, why would they be? In fact, deliberately selecting something and choosing specifically what to do with it fits perfectly with the "Have the control buttons control items you select or can only be one other possible item" method.
If the behavior isn't confusing, then why does it stop the track, but not let you restart it, even though there's nothing else to control? That is perfectly described as pointless and confusing.
> None of those are contradictory to the idea of control consistency throughout iTunes
Of course not. That's how iTunes already works, and iTunes is already consistent.
However, those things are contrary to your suggestion: "it makes more sense to have the control buttons apply to items independent of where you're browsing".
Look, it's clear you haven't really thought things through. You just need to learn how iTunes works. (You also need to learn how to reply to the correct comment)
It's very easy: The playback controls "always" apply to the playlist you are viewing. If you want to get back to the currently-playing playlist, click the little back-arrow in the right-hand side of the main display. You can't get more consistent than that.
You can also click the "Now Playing" window and that will also give you controls for the current playlist.
>Of course not. That's how iTunes already works, and iTunes is already consistent.
What's consistent about arbitrarily removing 'pause' functionality when not necessary? That is not consistent, and it's poor usability.
> However, those things are contrary to your suggestion:
No. Browsing around non-playlist-determining sections of iTunes does not imply I want to change or stop a playlist/track. So why remove the pause function, if the only reason to do that is so you can start a new playlist?
>It's very easy: The playback controls "always" apply to the playlist you are viewing.
Which is of no use to anyone if they aren't viewing a play list at all. Really, this was established in my very first comment. It's the iTunes store. There is no playlist to play other than the one I selected to play in the first place. Why exactly prevent me from pausing, when there's just no reason that would be helpful. You still haven't answered this.
> It's very easy.
Multiple clicks/mouse positionings are never easier than just one. Never.
> Look, it's clear you haven't really thought things through. You just need to learn how iTunes works.
That's sort of pointless to claim. You haven't proven anything, so such grand pronouncements as to someones general comprehension of the issue are useless to everyone. I suggest you prove your point with a specific argument, instead of making unsupported assertions, basically that amounts to "You're just wrong." That's never really a help to a discussion.
>(You also need to learn how to reply to the correct comment)
And no, I already know which comment to reply to, but the link simply wasn't there. I suppose you think, as with the iTunes issue, that software always works perfectly.
>The main playback controls apply to the content in the main window.
First of all, that's wrong. You are able to stop a track in the iTunes store, so you can control media items from other areas of the program while browsing. You just can't pause, even though there are no new playlists to start in the iTunes store. So since you can't do anything with the stop/play button other than control the current track in the iTunes store, there remains a lack of explanation as to why I can't just pause a simple track while browsing iTunes.
Again, to simplify, the issue really is just this: "why can't there be pause functionality in iTunes store? What would it prevent? Why would it be better to keep just the 'stop' function?" If you can't answer that then you have no argument.
> What's consistent about arbitrarily removing 'pause' functionality
There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about it.
I've lost track of how many times this has been repeated: The main playback controls apply to the content in the main window. It only seems arbitrary because you don't understand how iTunes works. I've offered suggestions in good faith, but you clearly aren't willing to listen.
Sure, most of those plants can be cheaper to buy than grow, if you treat your garden shop clerk as a used car salesman and let him connive you into buying every unnecessary over marketed garden gadget in the shop. But really, most plants will just require a shovel, trowel, cheap fertilizer, and a bit of time. Wheat and others are obvious exceptions, because their actual value is so low it's easy for any expense to exceed the benefit. Wheat also benefits hugely from mechanization, but the initial costs are high. It's basically an oddball. Potatoes don't fit that pattern, just buy seed potatoes once, then let a few grow "eyes", cut them off, throw them in the ground and weed them a bit. Done.
Don't worry, 68k assembly is easier to read than x86 assembly. This code is nicely structured and heavily commented. Don Knuth called Atkinson's QuickDraw and MacPaint code some of the best ever written.
Of course, if I'd actually read the code before linking to it, I'd have realized that this file doesn't really answer avgarrison's question because the algorithm is in DrawArc.a (see Luc's post earlier in this thread for an archive with the rest of the files).
This is a motivational article. And a good one with great specific tips on how to optimize your workload. But obviously wrong in that natural talent has little to no effect on skill. But of course you have to say that in a motivational "working hard gets results" gist type article.
The same reason why people use facebook and don't just email their friends/family anymore. Having it all organized and separated from other activities is a huge benefit. I don't think too many people actually worry (or even know it's an issue) about the photos being stored on 3rd party servers being compromised.
In truth I think a service like this is more about not having your family and colleagues being able to easily snoop in on your private life, not about giving you iron clad privacy. Or any level of social separation that you want which Facebook doesn't allow easily. Within that assumption, the fact that for example, photos of you can be posted outside that circle of trust, is just a necessary risk if you want to stay connected with your friends when most probably use social networking like facebook/etc.
Your family is part of your private life more or less by definition
Your family is part of one of your private lives. Having others can be healthy. Depending on your relationship with your family, very healthy.
And, yes, you still have to make sure that your stuff posted online passes the New York Times test: If it turns up as front page news you have to be able to survive. That said: The advantage of a social network with loudly stated privacy norms is that (a) people will be told not to share outside the list, (b) you can control which friends are on the list and hopefully keep the untrustworthy ones out; (c) when people cut-and-paste anyway, despite your precautions, they can be properly ostracized, which (one might hope) will teach them some manners.
Why would you so blatantly misrepresent what someone said? All CWuestefeld said is that if you don't know that much about politics, don't vote. Or does that somehow equate to denying someone the right to vote in your mind?