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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Submission + - What happened to UI? Who are the people who approve modern UI?

Artem Tashkinov writes: Here are the staples of the modern user interface (in varying degree apply to modern web/and most operating systems like Windows 10, iOS and even Android):
  • Too much white space, huge margins, too little information
  • Text is indistinguishable from controls
  • Text in CAPS
  • Certain controls cannot be easily understood (like on/off states for check boxes or elements like tabs)
  • Everything presented in shades of gray or using a severely and artificially limited palette
  • Often awful fonts suitable only for HiDPI devices (Windows 10 modern apps are a prime example)
  • Cannot be controlled by keyboard
  • Very little customizability if any

How would Slashdotters explain the proliferation and existance of such unusable user interfaces and design choices?

Comment OK (Score 1) 181

While I commend him for trying to bring down the price of decent Android phones to this range, I'd love to see the problem of Android updates to be solved. That's a pressing issue and it should be given the highest priority at Google.

It sucks when 90% of Apple devices already run iOS 10, while less than 1% of Android phones run Android 7.1.1. Maybe Android updates cannot be solved because ARM devices are basically different platforms but there must be a way to at least fix all the vulnerabilities which are a plenty. Google has the resources to force all vendors follow the same update protocol and have them release their firmware as open source so that Google could apply security fixes/patches and distribute OTA updates instead of uncaring OEMs and network operators.

Comment Usually just 1 thing (Score 1) 434

and that's goggles.

It's OK when you come to a movie theater and you're given a pair of glasses. Nice and clean, and later you can take them off and forget about them.

It's not OK when you have to inconvenience yourself with 3D glasses at home. Also, unlike a TV remote you must keep them clean and tidy or they become unpleasant to use.

Other minor problems in my opinion are: 1) 3D has a degraded quality (only half vertical resolution) 2) you have to manually enable the 3D mode when you need it (never seen TV sets which do that automatically) 3) the novelty effect wears off far too quickly 4) strictly speaking TVs are home appliances which are often watched in/as background/in quick sessions and people couldn't be bothered with 3D.

Strangely the industry doesn't ask itself why 4K displays slowly replace FullHD panels and 4K hasn't failed. Two many reasons: 1) it only started happening when prices fell 2) 4K doesn't require any additional tinkering on behalf of the user: you turn the TV set on and it just works. It's not that people actually see those eight megapixels - nope, most people watch TVs so far from the screen, there's zero different between FullHD and 4K resolutions for them.

New technologies for home must not be cumbersome and difficult to use. 3D is.

Comment Re:No, it's not (Score 1) 296

It's been already noted on several occasions that very large bitcoin purchases/sell outs significantly alter bitcoin's price because people still don't believe in it like they for instance trust fiat money, so whenever they see major fluctuations they start to panic and exacerbate whatever trend is currently in effect. This explains almost every time when bitcoin has lost/gain its value.

Bitcoin is a currency of pure faith (there's no bank/government or any financial entity behind it) and only when a number of agents using it increases 10-100fold or more, it'll probably become stabler.

Comment No, it's not (Score 1) 296

My bet is that someone decided to cash out a lot of bitcoins (up to tens of thousands) which swayed the market however it's already recovering - as of this moment bitcoin is trading at $985 at BitMex (the largest USD bitcoin exchange).

As for the Chinese yuan getting stronger - I call it BS. It hasn't become 10% more valuable, more like 1% at the most, yet bitcoin has suddenly lost ~30% (~1100->~880) of its value in a matter of a an hour(!). Nope. These two events seem to be related but one didn't cause the other one.

Comment Not sure what they're talking about (Score 4, Interesting) 190

Just a week ago I visited the closest to my apartment mall and compared 2016 SUHD Quantum Dot Samsung TVs and LG's OLED TVs.

And you know what? LG's blacks are just mind boggling, I mean the contrast ratio of LG's display was head and shoulders above what Samsung can manage.

Maybe Samsung can claim and does have higher brightness (not sure if it's relevant since most people have their TVs at apartments/houses and usually watch them in the evening/at night) and a wider gamut, but when it comes to darkness/dim lights, OLEDs are miles better. I'd have deeper blacks over higher brightness/wider gamut any time, please.

Comment No Moore's Law (Score 2, Insightful) 182

One cannot imagine how freaking tired I am of hearing about Moore's Law - there's no law, there's never been one. There was a mere observation that the number of transistors doubled every 18 months or so.

Whoever decided to call this observation a law must forever be held up to shame. And the ones who keep repeating this nonsense.

Submission + - "Artificial Intelligence" was the Fake News of 2016

Artem Tashkinov writes: The Register argues that the AI hype in 2016 was just that, a hype. The definition of AI was stretched out of limits to encompass what basically is very advanced algorithms for harvesting and processing data. Various intelligent assistants, such as Google Assistent and Siri, are at best a nicely looking and sounding interface to search engines. Of course, speech and images recognition has become much better but the doom and gloom of millions of people losing their jobs to AI haven't materialized yet and it's not immediately obvious that the prediction will hold any sway in the nearest future.

Comment Re:Yes but (Score 2) 91

If they use bulk interception that way, the site operator may well notice eventually - it's trivial to check for. Just contact a few random site users and ask them what cert hash they are seeing.

You must be smoking some strong weed if you believe that the average Joe even grasps the concept of CA. Most of them don't even understand what connection encryption is. All they understand is that if there's a green lock sign next to the domain name then they are secure. Then we've already seen how a lock sign can be faked, how the domain name can be faked, etc. etc. etc. Most people don't even understand what the address bar is - they usually enter domain names into ... a search string of their favorite search engine. Just a week ago I had a client who said he couldn't access the URL I'd sent to him earlier because ... it turned out the client tried to enter it into ... Google. And since the URL was internal Google of course couldn't index it and showed zero results.

Unless we make HTTPS more or less unbreakable (so that it is fully transparent to the user and doesn't require any additional actions) your "measures" aren't worth a penny: "the site operator", "check a website hash against the known hash", etc. etc. etc. - this all won't work ever.

Over the years we've seen millions of websites being hacked because site operators "forgot" to update their software. Over the years we've seen many high profile attacks against users who opened whatever attachments they received via e-mail. Computing and the Internet are way too difficult for most people - they regard it as an instrument.

Comment Yes but (Score 3, Interesting) 91

It would have been all great if governments couldn't exert power over certificate authorities. The reality however is different.

We need a universally adopted system which doesn't allow to circumvent the process of issuing certificates or at least protect against rogue certificates - then we may sing praises.

Comment Re: "Refuses?" (Score 1) 295

First of all, it could have been him who installed said "malware".

Secondly, he could have tried installing a nonmalware application infected with a trojan after the original developer has his credentials stolen/lost/whatever.

Thirdly, Google regularly removes malware from the Play Store.

Fourhtly, your expressed schadenfreude looks at the very least awkward.

Fifthly, moderation at /. has recently turned to shit. Insightful/informative posts are often ignored, hateful/factually incorrect comments are promoted.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (1) Gee, I wish we hadn't backed down on 'noalias'.

Working...