Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Flash? (Score 2) 136

by omfgnosis (#48893713) Attached to: By the Numbers: The Highest-Paying States For Tech Professionals

That's great if you're the kind of person who fits into the midwest, but what you're getting for your additional money out here is tolerance.

Since when does tolerance mean attacking things you obviously don't know the first thing about?

You get to live in a place where diversity isn't shit upon immediately.

Clearly.

Comment: Re:Google hates widescreens (Score 1) 116

by omfgnosis (#48854065) Attached to: With Community Help, Chrome Could Support Side Tabs Extension

My text editor (I prefer TextMate, but Sublime shares a lot of its roots with TM) is another one with lots of menu stuff. Truth be told, 90% of it could go away and I'd never notice (because I am only coding in a handful of languages and don't need a universal editor all of the time). But I think these complex tools are an exception, and I would not provide tools like that to the vast majority of people who are better served by a simple editor like TextEdit (which is far simpler, but also far more powerful than Notepad).

That seems, actually, to be a prime example of a utility that would really benefit from a few menus!

Oh come on, this is just brushing the problem under the rug. You're moving all of that complexity out of view, but you're not removing it. Making HTTP requests is hardly a complex thing for a user. I do it with my web browser all the time without having to check a single checkbox ever. The whole example is kind of contrived, but the point is that engineers design poor UIs. Whether those UIs are visible or tucked away to be less discoverable is hardly material. The fact that it's a front-end to wget points to the fact that the UI of the underlying command prompt is the source of the design problem, and that has neither menus nor checkboxes! They're all fundamentally the same UI, just presented (or not) slightly differently.

Making software simple to use is quite hard, but it's worth doing, and it doesn't mean the software is not powerful or useful. It's the difference between computing being accessible to everyone versus reserved for people who have spare time or resources (like income) to dedicate to it.

Comment: Re:Google hates widescreens (Score 1) 116

by omfgnosis (#48852707) Attached to: With Community Help, Chrome Could Support Side Tabs Extension

Look. I won't even appeal to my own authority, as a software developer with over a decade of UI experience. I'm sure you're also an experienced developer with UI chops, and I don't want to have a bigger dick contest. Instead, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... - it's actually a pretty decent article for Wikipedia, and may be helpful in understanding what I was talking about (if you have any interest in understanding what others are talking about, instead of just trying to be "right" on the Internet).

Have a nice day.

Comment: Re:Google hates widescreens (Score 1) 116

by omfgnosis (#48852221) Attached to: With Community Help, Chrome Could Support Side Tabs Extension

And all of those things are invisible elements that you require zero feedback from? Read what you said and get back to me when you figure out what is wrong with it.

Not all, but they're all expressing more than just a pixel configuration on a screen.

The only browser I have installed that looks unconventional is Chromium. Neither version of Opera, Firefox Nightly, Midori or QupZilla have this problem.

Yeah, okay. Glad we've reached the endless repetition portion of this conversation. Cheers!

Comment: Re:Google hates widescreens (Score 1) 116

by omfgnosis (#48851659) Attached to: With Community Help, Chrome Could Support Side Tabs Extension

Funny, when I download software with lots of stuff in menus, I usually view it as stuff like this: http://www.uxdesignedge.com/wp...

I'd much prefer many small programs that do very few things, very easily and very well; versus large programs that try to be everything to everyone. Incidentally, that is also the unix philosophy.

Comment: Re:Google hates widescreens (Score 1) 116

by omfgnosis (#48850859) Attached to: With Community Help, Chrome Could Support Side Tabs Extension

That isn't what I meant by native menus, and Firefox does actually use *those*. What I meant is that menus rendered for selects/dropdowns/context are fakes that neither look nor behave as a Mac user expects.

As far as where a menu bar in an OS belongs... More often than not, it doesn't belong anywhere. If your application needs to provide so many operations that it needs to hide many of them in a multi-dimensional listing, your application either does too much or is poorly designed for user interaction. There are some (few) exceptions to this, but for most purposes menu bars should be considered legacy UI elements providing redundancy for users who expect every operation to be catalogued in a single place. Their primary function at this point is to provide a visual listing of all of the (also hopefully few) keyboard combinations available. If this approach is taken, it does not matter where the menu is positioned.

Comment: Re:Google hates widescreens (Score 1) 116

by omfgnosis (#48850797) Attached to: With Community Help, Chrome Could Support Side Tabs Extension

UI stands for "user interface", which are the visualizations you see when interacting with a graphical shell. If something does not conform to the UI, that means it has its own UI that doesn't fit in.

I beg your pardon. UI stands for user interface, which is the way a user interfaces with an application. Yes, that includes appearance, but it is far from only that. The behaviors of menus, cursor interactions, focus, stacking, direction of elements, language, are all factors in a UI. Even vague things like "feel" which includes such nit picks as which elements of an interface respond to interaction while in the background, how a caret moves through a text field, what portions of a window are draggable. All of this and more is user interface.

Because that is what the browser is. The UI portion is peanuts, as proven by the fact that ONLY Google has screwed this up. Nobody else has.

And you listed other browsers using the same rendering engine as Chrome, so clearly the rendering engine has fuck all to do with the UI.

In Windows I don't have this problem. Every browser works pretty much like any other application, menus are where they should be, shortcuts are corrects, etc. The UI itself is an eyesore though and it's annoying to have just the one application that doesn't look right. It also makes it pretty much impossible to read some text in the UI due to conflicting colour schemes.

I'm pleased you see this much UI conformity in Windows. My experience on Windows is not the same, but I am also considering a much broader set of expectations (as listed above).

To clarify this entire conversation: we had a misunderstanding about what you meant by "UI", and diverged from there. Obviously Chrome looks out of place in some environments, because it has a fairly distinctive appearance of its own. Yes, I agree it can be annoying. But my point was that every current browser does unconventional things in their UI, because the UI toolkits available to them are too limited for the needs of a good browser interface. I hope we can agree that is the case as ell?

Comment: Re:Google hates widescreens (Score 1) 116

by omfgnosis (#48848317) Attached to: With Community Help, Chrome Could Support Side Tabs Extension

What does it mean to "conform to my UI"? Why are you listing rendering engines (which, apart from Firefox, are literally not involved in windowing UI at all)? Are you just talking about adopting appearance characteristics of a windowing theme? Because if that's the case, I definitely misunderstood. I was talking about browsers (all of them) adopting UI conventions that are at odds with (every) environment, often for the better but sometimes not so much.

But basically, I wasn't talking about appearance convention... and if that's what we're supposed to be talking about, I can single out Firefox\ as far and away the worst offender on the Mac, and pretty much guaranteed never to look or feel native in any way. It probably feels just as foreign as Chromium does on whatever WM you use. The damn thing has never even used native menus EVER, and they're just there, free for the taking!

Comment: Re: a better question (Score 2) 591

by omfgnosis (#48848293) Attached to: Why Run Linux On Macs?

Taking your price comparison claim for granted (which is not a safe bet, but one I'm willing to indulge for the sake of making a point)...

Plenty of people find a reason to pay extra for a mostly-equivalent product. Some people buy Coke or Pepsi versus RC; some buy Crown Royal versus whatever the other one is that CR rebrands; some buy Acura versus Honda or Toyota or whatever. In all of the cases where this happens, a price comparison will be convincing (pretty much) only for people on the economic margins of the target market. It turns out people are willing to pay more for perceived quality or even for differences you do not yourself find substantial even if they do.

I have a number of reasons to prefer OS X versus competing operating systems, and I have a number of reasons that I'd "pay more" to continue using it. Some of them are deeply subjective (I prefer the way OS X works versus Windows or Linux, in a lot of ways) and some of them are pure balance sheet (I spend less on software I already licensed, I spend less on hardware that either I know how to maintain or I can trust won't require maintenance). Those reasons are, to me, worth a very large chunk of a price comparison between computers which, on the whole, cost nearly nothing compared to how much they provide to me in income.

If you don't feel the same way? If you'd rather purchase based on price-to-spec alone? Sure, go for it. Why does this need to be a battleground? Why do you need to convince me to spend my money differently (or vice versa)?

Comment: Re:Google hates widescreens (Score 1) 116

by omfgnosis (#48848277) Attached to: With Community Help, Chrome Could Support Side Tabs Extension

I provided a bunch of reasons. Tab behavior, toolbar behavior being the most substantial.

Maybe we're talking past each other. I'm not aware of any Blink or WebKit browser that isn't heavily customized from its native environment (including Safari, which has the fewest excuses). Can you say more about what you expect and what violates those expectations?

All theoretical chemistry is really physics; and all theoretical chemists know it. -- Richard P. Feynman

Working...