I would guess it'll be ridiculously inconvenient if simply mousing over the images turned them modal with 2 second transitions.
268 karma · joined June 6, 2010
[We can argue the pureness of the demo after that till the end of time though.]
1. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker
2. Click the "Innovation" link in the ToC on the right
3. Click the "Entertainment" link (you can just see it) under the "Innovation" one.
4. Click the back button.
5. Observe how you're not taken back to Hacker News.
Maybe the browser should automatically pop all "#<identifier>"s associated with a URL from its history stack if a user reaches the original URL again (via backs or clicking some in-page link, doesn't matter); I don't know. But I honestly consider this a browser implementation problem, not a web developer problem. I think anything we've been doing till now has been to mitigate this and we shouldn't have to.
Similarly, if you enable a lightbox and your page goes behind a modal image, hitting back will behave exactly the way it should, i.e. take you back to your previous state.
I'll go one step further and say that a lightbox implementation that doesn't do this should be considered broken since it breaks user expectations. This does raise the question of judging a user's intent when he presses the back/forward button while there is something modal on his screen, but let's save that for some other time.
1. They didn't create their processor: I admit, I'm not really into the hardware side of Apple, but really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A4 credits Apple as the designer of the processor (and Samsung as the manufacturer). Yes, they collaborated with another company (Samsung) and bought a third one (Instrinsity) to own the talent, but that's not the point. That's like saying EA didn't make its games because they bought other studios. Apple wanted to make their own processor, so it collaborated with the companies it couldn't/didn't want to buy, and bought the companies it could. The result is that A4 has an 'Apple' name and only Apple gets to use it. What is "though they managed to brand it" supposed to mean anyway?
2. By create, I assume you mean 'designed'. Nobody will argue that Apple didn't manufacture it. So can you tell me who did design the first retina display? And which phone first used it? (I understand that 'retina display' is just a branding of a very high resolution display, but for the sake of brevity, we'll call it 'retina display').
3. Yes, they're a software company. Yes, Samsung and LG are suppliers of their hardware. But Apple is the one putting those components together in a tight and neat little package that looks beautiful on the outside, and is powerful on the inside. Look at Samsung and LGs own phones. Why are losing share if they're so good at what they do? Apple is the architect, Samsung/LG the workers. Who deserves the credit?
---
Apple did what it does best - sell you a product. Not parts; product. Apple always sells you a product. So instead of looking at each part and saying that Apple hasn't innovated there, look at the product as a whole and see what Apple has created that no-one else did.
Secondly, as an Industrial Design graduate, I believe Ive has more of a functional knowledge of subjects like strength of materials. The rest is just experiential from working with industrial engineers and others at Apple. For example, what you hear him saying in the iPhone commercial about the manufacturing is experiential knowledge. His job is to design the form. It's the people under him who give him the best materials based on his requirements.
A good way to understand what the process from top to bottom is, is to hear Jobs explain how they came up with the idea for the iPhone at D8. It starts with an idea that is then handed down to relevant people to think and work on.
Both Jobs and Ive are fantastic at what they do, don't get me wrong. But the truth is they're run as much by other people's ideas as they're run by their own.
As far as paying for R&D goes, how much does it take to replicate something? I'd say a fraction of the cost since you already have the product in front of you. All you need to do is duplicate it.
I'm not going to argue further though, because apparently you're incapable of arguing your point without condescending remarks.
If a client requires a copy of another site, then no, his requirements don't supplant everything. If you know exactly what you want, you don't need a designer, and hiring one will just piss both of you off.
A 'designer' by definition is someone who designs — comes up with a plan — not someone who implements (which is completely secondary). And frankly, the designer is the expert here, not the client. So all a client should do is fill the brief, and give specific feedback when asked (not say things like "I like that logo because it looks fresh"). That's it.
The client should trust the designer to make the right decisions based on his requirements. And going on the same note, a good designer will ask the right questions and pull a client's requirements out of him. This, you're right about, yes. But clients WANT to guide the designer, so YOU might not want to hold hands all day, but most clients do, and that's why we reach the situation in the first paragraph : http://theoatmeal.com/comics/design_hell
This post is from the point-of-view of a designer, so the client is (obviously) the bad guy. I'm not defending either; just stating why your comment is wrong.
It's quite an ugly beast though ... anything on the resolution of that display? Looks very stretched to me.
People are reaching this site because the URL to that post and title of the post has all the words, which scores pretty high on the relevance-o-meter for Google. Why is it so surprising that people searching for negative opinions about the battery life are reaching a negative post?
Engadget has got 38 hours of usage out of the iPhone. Good enough for me: http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/22/iphone-4-review/
Android is shooting for share, and they will get it eventually, because of the number of devices it ships on. Once they have that, most (if not all) developers will follow. Missing APIs can be added, but users are hard to convert back — Apple and we know this from the PC vs. Mac days. My question was, has this shift already been set in motion fast enough that Apple will not be able to catch up.
(Of course, tech news on the Internet is very US centric, but those of us who are outside the US can see how non-existent Android is here. I haven't been able to factor in the whole "Android for world domination" theory just yet.)
I haven't gone through these slides thoroughly because I'm done with Microsoft peddling vapourware and getting our hopes up (coughCouriercough) only to sack the entire team (or whatever they did recently), but whatever I saw showed me a tighter integration with using the cloud as storage. The problem here is that Microsoft is trying to make a faster, leaner and better looking truck (to borrow Jobs' description) because it has lost the mobile game; at least for now. They're trying to maintain the status quo, but nothing in the last 10 years has shown me anything that tells me they will succeed. I don't believe in their ability to execute.
And I fail to see what decentralising Twitter has to do with keeping it simple.
Would you like to see a rolling list of the names of all Apple engineers every time you turned your iPhone on or off?
Also, ideas are evolutionary. Go watch Steve Jobs' D8 interview. See how the iPhone didn't start as a phone, and then tell me Jobs doesn't deserve as much credit as he does.
Remember that this isn't about the iPhone as a device, but the device as an industry mindset changer. An idea goes beyond just the idea, and Jobs dared to envision and execute a strategy that put the phone before the carrier. If what Jobs did isn't that great, then why didn't anyone else do it?