The DVD extras are awesome also - one segment has fanciful descriptions of the different racing teams and their cars' features.

That's it

I'll give you an example, take a popular prescription drug that's currently advertised on TV do a google search for information about it. Even though there are few "ad" indicated entries there are a ton of links that surely have the same ad feel.

Either someone's getting to google's secret sauce and top-loading all the results or Google has sold out in other respects that allow such gaming the results.

I think on many generic searches it still works OK, but when it is some big marketing push or issue Google's results seem a might slanted. And when it is most people who know better don't click on any of those results.

You mean it will work on my Commodore 64 and Amiga?

68 MB? Wow, that's a lot of RAM. (for a Mac SE/30 - really!)

Those sound great, easy, etc . But as a developer some of those "easy" features are not so easy to implement. Sounds like simple, but there's usually a lot of data processing going on to make stuff just work right. Articles just don't fall into place by category/subcategory, you have to not only implement the categories you have to as you create each article determine which categories apply. And for old articles you will have to have someone go through each one to categorize (or in the case of new categories re-categorize content).

New functionality and methods get added to sites a lot, some of them are easy but most have to be appended to the existing UI wherever it makes sense, or usually where it can just fit in for now. So as things go you get a mess. The only way to clean up a lot of that is a refactor of the sites structure (forward and back-end facing parts) which not only deals with new content but must also convert/carry in the old content the site has already generated (such as my example of re-categorization only way more complicated.)

And lastly add onto that; usually this needs to be all done by committee for large sites, there's no Steve Jobs type figure that can say, "this is how it's gonna be, just do it," You will be trying to get many people to buy-in, some will have sacred-cow features they don't want to sacrifice, or others they just feel are plain wrong or stupid, or too much work.

The main way a lot of those things happen is when some competitor leapfrogs their stuff to such levels or the place in question is compelled to (by competition or customer drop-off.) So your best bet is to lead by example make a competing product and either you will see change or you will get the audience, or like many you can also fail to get the recognition and merely hope to become an anecdote (and there are many out there).

Good luck with that.

Because for every OS there are hundreds of applications that went down with them when they went out of favor. Just like Mojave, which is the subject of the article.

Been there, done that through Mac 68K, PPC, etc.

PC Isn't immune to this either, DOS, Windows 3, 95, XP, etc.

If you like it so much first thing to do is make sure you have a bare metal restore data and procedure so you can migrate it to a newer (used) computer when your current hardware fails. Its not hard to keep stuff like this going if you get your ducks in a row now.

As a developer and doing my own UI/UX I can say I can't really even think about the UI/UX much until I've developed a lot of the final product. Until then, fields and control come and go move from one screen to another, maybe completely change what sort of purpose it has. Developing is not a set in stone thing, and on independent projects like these where you may be pushing the envelope in features where there may not be a UI/UX paradigm for it.

In the design phase for these projects, it is a great benefit if whoever does the UI/UX design know the the environment in and out and if it is a specific subject - should know that pretty well too, you can't just plop down and work up some awesome Blender interface unless you have really used Blender extensively and know what would actually make an awesome interface for someone working with Blender.

Ao as most of these people say, Yes it's an awesome thing, no its not cost effective to pay people on an rarely unpaid open source project, and mostly if you want a great UI/UX you really need to be a lasting member of a project where you can develop the user aspects along with side the evolving technical aspects.

And if you were able to make some awesome easy-to-use advanced interface for blender, you will be well recognized.

You know, in my extensive research, Ive found indications that HACKERS HATE COBOL, you would be really hard pressed to find a COBOL rootkit attached to an email. I think we should all switch over!

I would say the first best practices is to make code easy to read. That would include:
- Syntax formatting all the indents and whatever case things are popular for variables, globals, functions, etc.
- Breaking out of command packing lines, Indenting, how you present opening and closing brackets/braces/parenthesis
- Descriptive naming of tables, fields, variable, functions, etc.
So when you are done comments wont be apologizing, but just augmenting what is apparent. Once much of that is done class should start to recognize where things are messed up because... they still are kind of messed up.

How to teach it? Easy, take some part (or a few parts, not to pick on one person) of existing code your team already has and go through formatting and then some refactoring to improve readability (assign better fields, variables, etc.) as it becomes more readable I would hope your team would see and suggest things, and maybe have an end product of the lesson that inspires them to spruce up the rest.

Second, train them to use what you make, if you can get sample input and have the programmers actually try out the end-user processes to input forms, use collection tools, etc., on a sample data, reports, etc., they may realize that they could do some things better to make the system more efficient, and/or the end users job easier, or make the data more useful. Just getting the requirements and the user story doesn't do the same as trying to actually use what you make.

How to train it? You can relate the story of Bill Gates and Satya Nadella trying to install, configure and use Windows 8, I'm sure that was a pretty sobering time for them, happens on all kinds of software..

This and the latest MacOS is getting crappier as well.

The other part of it is is you have a PC/Mac with an older system that "just works" why are you gonna buy some new hardware that likely will lock you into the latest OS that just "doesn't seem to work right"?

I do use Linux, and for the most part it runs great on older hardware. Linux doesn't usually run just fine on the latest hardware. Why should I risk upgrade hassles with a new PC?

Maybe if they made PCs/OSs that people actually could use or have features they really want instead of more remote dependability, subscription tie-ins, and DRM.

I know, people aren't wearing enough hats... Maybe put the stuff in a hat?

Obligitory Monty Python Clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

My basic analogy is that its like those logic puzzles in the newspaper, you piece together the things you have to work with to get the result - you do deal with tens, hundreds or thousands of such problems in making a program. The easier it seems to the user, the more problem solving was done on our part to make it that way.

I guess my frame of mind is part the startup culture where you gotta be young "We're not working for our dads" mentality,

The second is and I see this a lot in the non tech sector is the assumption that "younger generations are just better with tech because they grew up with it." And will pick someone younger under the assumption they will just get it. Ive seen that happen and then they learn not every millennial (or similar) actually likes tech, and don't get it easier either.