tipjoy

I love the idea of earning a reputation based on how much you tip! As I just said in my post to techcrunch: We do expect that there will be some average amount of tips per piece of content which are never paid. As we collect more data, we'll be able to tell content creators what percent of their total tips earned they can actually expect to collect. Since it's free digital content, we think that a collection rate of less than 100% shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Hi, Abby from Tipjoy here. One exciting aspect of tipjoy is that the ranking is determined by the amount of PAID tips something has received. Right now nothing’s yet been paid (except for a little bit we’ve put in ourselves), so the top tip list has the spam you've mentioned. However, as people begin to pay for their tips (by hitting the ‘pay’ button in the upper right corner of tipjoy.com when signed in), the most popular tip list will start to evolve to reflect what’s really worth money to people.

That being said, we're probably going to add a "safe for work" mode, which you can toggle to hide questionable content.

At an old job in 2003, my office mate quit and left these amazing hand rests which I began to use. I loved them so much that when they broke in 2006 I actually super glued them back together. At that time I couldn't find anyone selling them on the web. Now, they've broken again and it looks like I can get them here: http://www.ausconn.com/ - see the "Comfort glide" area - third picture from the top left (I know, amazing website). Apparently they're made in Australia. Seriously, these things are amazing.

Yes, it is technically inaccurate for people to view the back button as an undo. However until new browsers come out that are designed for web applications, this will continue to be an issue regardless. As long as you judiciously use AJAX - only use it to power a true 'app' - you may largely overcome the issue, as people who feel they're working in an application may not be as inclined to hit back when trying to undo.

You should separate the notion of the interaction modalities (mouse, touch screen, voice, etc), from the ways they can be used in various different types of software. New modalities such as touch screens will require designers to rethink how the user interacts with their software, but it doesn't change the goals of the user.

From a user's perspective, games and productivity software are fundamentally different. The point of games is to have fun. The point of productivity apps is to get things done. I saw the lead designer of Halo give a talk at school several years ago, and he used this example -- 'if we designed games to be like productivity apps, then the ideal game would consist of a big red button which said "Press me to complete game!" ' Social networking applications lie somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. You're not necessarily there to 'get things done'. You're there to linger as in a game - yet you do have more concrete goals and knowledge of your path/environment than you would if you were in a game.

Although we're not entirely there yet, I think the 'socialization' of the web has begun to pave the way for online tipping. As we begin to see the people through the content, we will become more apt to support them in order for them to keep supplying the content we enjoy.

Guess I'll have to wait a long time to hear back from that YC-clone I applied to out there.

"User-error" is usually a symptom of a design flaw.

You could also use a non-standard port. We are.

Check out omnigraffle (mac only).

Married. My husband is my co-founder. Working together is tons of fun & we live and breathe our startup. I highly recommend marrying your co-founder, or co-founding with your husband/wife.

Google-reader. I used to use Sage, the firefox plugin.

Some good advice: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/paul+simon/50+ways+to+leave+you...

I can't comment on (c) but:

a: Just be open about your reasons. It isn't a personal attack to say someone is a slow/inefficient worker.

b: Work away from the partner. I hope you aren't roommates

c: Ideas aren't worth much, and it sounds like your friend isn't the competition to worry about.

I would follow the advice you hear when you read about how to quit: be direct, polite, in a private/scheduled meeting, and open.

Thanks. Just to be clear: this isn't about my 'feelings.' It's actually about having a successful startup: one major reason people fund startups is because they think the founders have the right characteristics that will make them succeed. They're looking for a certain type of person, not just an idea. Through its posts and comments, this community shares a mental model of what type of person makes a successful founder. Having that image be of a particular gender negatively impacts those of us who happen to be women or who have women in their startup team.

This example from Founders at Work struck me: Caterina Fake, co-founder of Flickr, related an anecdote where she and her partner, who was also her husband, met with a VC firm. Caterina didn't fit the VC's mental model of a founder. After the meeting the VC told her husband 'not to bring his wife to VC meetings.'

From what I can tell, being a YC alum has similar benefits to being a Harvard (or other Ivy League) alum.

Lots of talk about 'healthy white males' and 'guys' on news.yc tonight. I understand women are in the minority, but we do exist. Correction: I just re-checked the other post I was referring to and they said "healthy young male" not "healthy white male". My apologies for the misquote.

Interesting side-topic: how many hackers out there are also musicians, and what do you play? I started playing violin when I was 2, but haven't played so much since leaving college. Maybe we could get a quartet together or something... you know, "I'm starting a hacker quartet, BUT I'm still going to work on my startup" :)

Thanks. I've been thinking about your advice and I made a quick mockup of sparklines which show 4 bars, each representing a week, where height is average popularity over that week, and darkness of the bar is how many posts there were that week: http://www.tipjoy.com/our2cents/2007/09/sparkline_update.htm...

The conventional wisdom is that no one reads help (online or otherwise). I'm wondering, would people read a manual if it looked more like this one? Have manuals gone out of fashion, and perhaps come back in style again... or are they something which never worked and never will?

Another interesting issue around help -- people often think that if something is really well designed, users won't ever need to get help. That's true for the most part, however there are important exceptions. When your product enables users to do something which they've never been able to do before, you can't expect that they won't need some help understanding what it is. Groundbreaking stuff will probably require some explanation. The original mac is a good example.

Amen. Why don't more software engineers realize designers are on their side? If your product isn't meant to be used only by hackers like yourself, then you need to have someone thinking about how the end user will understand/interact with/experience your product.

If your design team is not trying to make a usable and delightful user experience, then get a new set of designers.

Interaction design is NOT about making things pretty. It's about giving the user a delightful experience. This includes making it match the user's mental model of how the system should work, AND designing it so that users enjoy spending their time (yes, using your product will take some non-zero amount of time) using it.

In the end of this article, the author states that "In Conclusion X It's Not Necessarily Ugliness That Sells." He then goes on to plea with people to consider their usability over their aesthetic design. This seems a somewhat weak ending given the rest of the article, however reasonable this conclusion may be.

Furthermore, to quote myself: "...one of my favorite anecdotes from Blink is the tale of the identical ice cream: the same ice cream was wrapped in two different packages, one plain, the other fancy, and taken around to the public for taste tests. People actually reported that the ice cream in the 'fancier' package _tasted_ better. What's great about this story is that it's an excellent way to explain to someone the value of beauty to usability. Given two functionally identical products, users will believe that one is _easier to use_ simply by virtue of it being aesthetically pleasing. I once saw a presentation at a UPA (Usability Professionals Assoc) Conference where a study showed just that - a product with identical information architecture was run through two usability tests: one where the product had a rudimentary look and feel, and one where the look and feel had been touched up by a graphic designer. User data showed that people felt the prettier version was easier for them to use, even though it took them the same time to complete tasks in both versions. Now, as an interaction designer myself, I would hope this argument is never used to dismiss the importance of interaction design and information architecture. We can't use aesthetics to 'put lipstick on the pig,' as one of my coworkers is fond of saying. But if you've taken the time to make a really usable product which meets a user need, imagine how much people will love it if you ALSO make it beautiful. That, for me, is the definition of a "delightful experience." " (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38839)

I rarely get involved in these sorts of discussions, and will continue by remaining neutral on this issue. However you've hit on my pet peeve - the 'slipery slope cliche' and so I cannot remain silent. All of humankind's decisions lie somewhere on a slippery slope - the nature of being a human is making these kinds of choices. What makes us all so interesting is that we continue to live and function without falling down, and we trust each other to do the same. People really need to come up with stronger arguments without falling back on the 'it's a slippery slope' cliche. Every time I hear that phrase, I just want to reply with some other brilliant argument-ender like "now you're just comparing apples to oranges" or "that sounds like something Hitler would have said."

I was a bit turned off by the Spock sign up process myself, but for different reasons. First, the invite email was extremely vague - "a new search engine that organizes information around people"? I thought it might be a new human-assisted search site (something which has been in the news a bit lately), but wasn't sure. Second, clicking the invite list brings you to a very basic sign-up page with no information. As I went through the sign-up process, I really wasn't sure what I was actually getting myself into, but since I'm pretty trusting I just went ahead anyway. Once I finally got to the site, I still didn't know what it was, but I recognized that it was some sort of search engine, so I typed in a search for a bookstore I like and got one result - a person who said they liked something or other which happened to use the same word as the bookstore's name. In the end, I really wouldn't have known what was going on at Spock if my friend didn't send me a link to an article about the site which nicely explained what it was. It's actually a pretty interesting idea, and I can see that the site would work better once more people sign up. Still, Spock needs to work on their user experience, especially on their sign up process. (Additionally, although far less important, they need to work on their icon: their little person favicon looks exactly like the calvin klein logo.)

I think this works extremely well when your users are familiar with the tasks associated with the type of thing your making. But if you're creating something entirely new, they'll need more guidance from the designer to get users started.

One thing to watch out for though is that you can't always rely on what people tell you they like or want to use. There is a huge difference between what people say and what they do. Again, this difference is further magnified if the thing you're creating is something new. It is very hard for people to imagine their life with it.

Other strategies for involving your user in the design process which work very well are: contextual inquiries (to understand what things your audience needs) http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/contextualinquiry.htm, think aloud studies (to understand how well your product is meeting those needs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_aloud_protocol, and card sorting (to understand how the user expects the product to be organized) http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/card_sorting_a_definitive....

Putting the menus either at the top or the left (or right or bottom) of a browser window won't do a thing to address the issue here, unless the user always maximizes their browser to fill their screen. In that case, flush left or right would be good from a Fitts' point of view. But most users don't use their browser this way.

You could consider enlarging your links and/or buttons so the hit space is larger. You could add a buffer zone around the hit space so if the user gets 'close enough' then that is equivalent to hitting the target. Space your hit spaces far enough apart so that users don't hit incorrectly. Run usability tests and time your users on common tasks, then iterate your design.

An important aspect of Fitts' law is minimizing the amount of movement the user has to do to get to the place they need to go to complete the next action in their task flow. Therefore you can cluster similar actions together so that the user doesn't have to move around the screen a lot to accomplish a given task.

An interesting part of Bruce's post was his mention of circular menus. Fitts' law tells us they'd be easier to use than linear menus. But usability, like so much else in life, is not so cut and dry. I would predict that the increased cognitive load that the user experienced when they saw a circular list of options rather than a linear one would slow them down so much as to outweigh the benefits of not having to move as much to get to their desired action. All things equal, circular menus may be more efficient than linear ones. However unless the whole world changes to circular menus - or at least, one whole computer environment, applications and OS included - introducing this in your application would slow your users down.

Most of us probably have those moments where we think of how great it would be to live one of your 'extreme' examples, but we wouldn't really want to live like that. Who wants to spend their lives just sitting around? In fact, most people I know spend their free time creating things in one form or another, and would do it 24/7 if given the opportunity.

Happiness is creating new things, and to the extent that money enables this, it makes us happy.

It's interesting that you think that people who are really driven can end up being unsatisfied because of that nagging feeling they have telling them there's more to be done.

I would think that having a lot of money would give you the freedom to choose your work, and the ability to wake up every day and work on something you feel passionate about would make you happier. I guess you could say that you don't need a lot of money to do that. But it would make it easier.

Or, as the update to the post suggests, allow people to pay a large amount up front.

Malcolm Gladwell rarely says anything too revolutionary, but he always says it in such an engaging and fascinating way as to make what we already know seem amazing. The 'tale of a user who doesn't know what he wants' always reminds me of an old Simpsons episode where Homer gets to design his own car. Perhaps that could be a definition for 'popular science': that which is suitable for consumption via the Simpsons.

Still, one of my favorite anecdotes from Blink is the tale of the identical ice cream: the same ice cream was wrapped in two different packages, one plain, the other fancy, and taken around to the public for taste tests. People actually reported that the ice cream in the 'fancier' package _tasted_ better. What's great about this story is that it's an excellent way to explain to someone the value of beauty to usability. Given two functionally identical products, users will believe that one is _easier to use_ simply by virtue of it being aesthetically pleasing. I once saw a presentation at a UPA (Usability Professionals Assoc) Conference where a study showed just that - a product with identical information architecture was run through two usability tests: one where the product had a rudimentary look and feel, and one where the look and feel had been touched up by a graphic designer. User data showed that people felt the prettier version was easier for them to use, even though it took them the same time to complete tasks in both versions. Now, as an interaction designer myself, I would hope this argument is never used to dismiss the importance of interaction design and information architecture. We can't use aesthetics to 'put lipstick on the pig,' as one of my coworkers is fond of saying. But if you've taken the time to make a really usable product which meets a user need, imagine how much people will love it if you ALSO make it beautiful. That, for me, is the definition of a "delightful experience."

what, not voldemort?