jase_coop
Joined 16 years ago
Karma
108
Submissions
30
Member since
Aug 3
Recent submissions
Comment · 15 years ago
He's publicly announcing his market predictions based on one interaction with his child and Mashable decided to publish it.
Comment · 15 years ago
I'm focusing on the fact that I think the one on the right is style over function. Based on the jquery hiding the select box and displaying a list of spans (or something similar, depending how you go about it). Either way, the original select box is mutated all for a simple change of aesthetic.
So my question is focused on the designed/engineered implementation of the select box. I was interested if anyone would bring this up or agree/disagree.
On principal, I see this as the equivalent of printing a white piece of paper with a black background. Thoughts?
Comment · 15 years ago
From a design POV, I can't see what good will come from a focus group on steroids.
Comment · 15 years ago
That justification is more acceptable, but still a poor excuse (which doesn't sound like your fault), and if anything highlights the problem with the focus of user-centered design.
I'm sure you'd agree, design isn't a democracy. Clearly, your users are wrong.
Comment · 15 years ago
"I said: because the iPhone has a very very advanced browser that is more than capable of handling our Homepage we do not REDIRECT them to the Mobile site automatically. You can still go there if you like."
My point still stands. Just because Apple give you the choice to pinch and zoom doesn't mean that's the way it should be.
The fact you already have a mobile site but choose not to put it to its full use baffles me even further.
Comment · 15 years ago
"In other words why not a mobile site.
Well, very simple. The iPhone is capable of rendering and interacting with the full page. It was the first browser to do so - it don't require a lite version. You could tap, zoom, pinch, drag and get the full depth of the page. Other browsers - like those for Nokia, RIM etc couldn't handle that."
That's your main reason for not having a mobile site?
In terms of usability, zooming in on a mobile device to click on a website designed for a desktop browser is a nightmare. Just because it can be done, doesn't mean that's the way it should be. It results in a horrible experience.
Poor excuse, poor design.
Comment · 15 years ago
Not so great - Seems to require your Twitter followers to associate their Google account on Migrat.us before it's of any use.
Comment · 15 years ago
100% agree.
A bunch of CSS3 animations whizzing around the page is the last thing we need. (Though it's likely to happen as people go crazy with new capabilities).
But with a bit of constraint these can be used to add value, simply the difference between good and bad design.
Simple HTML markup with a bit of CSS position would be a huge step up from flat jpegs, particularly as far as type is concerned.
Comment · 15 years ago
I'm neither pro Google or Facebook.
I merely make a comparison between the early days, intentions and motives of both Google+ and Facebook, how they're different and why I think that difference is important.
Comment · 15 years ago
> Polish, ease of use, a large feature set, security, and any number of other factors can have just as big an impact on users as innovation.
Not if it's something people don't need or want in the first place.
If Google have 'innovated' then it means they've created something original and new that is useful for people. Only time will tell, but my personal opinion, based on what I've seen so far is they haven't.