num1

I wasn't talking about the downvotes, that's to be expected. I was talking about the humorless replies :)

If we all acted our IQs, all the time, the world would be a very boring place. It's not responsible to buy myself expensive toys, it's not respectable to be sarcastic. Yet we do it anyway.

Trolling is meant to make people angry, I meant to to get a chortle out of at least somebody... but now I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this is not the site for that. Thank you for helping me realize it.

Let's see how much karma I can lose in one thread.

There's a difference between not thinking a joke is funny, and arguing against it as if it weren't a joke, a la tiles.

checking netcraft is left as an exercise for the reader

Erm... I forgot I was in a place where preemptively apologizing for making a joke isn't enough for people to think you're joking.

I would like to point out though, that the text you just copied are pretty much apple's only words on the topic.

To further my joke even more:

Google search for "easy" on apple.com [1] returns 3.3 million results. Google search for "secure" on apple.com [2] returns .5 million results.

On the internet easy returns 3.6 billion results, and secure 1.25 billion. So on the apple site, you would expect easy to show up 3 times as much as secure. In fact, easy shows up over 6 times as much as secure.

This definitely proves apple cares about security only half as much as the rest of the internet does!

You're using an apple product. When did they ever claim to be secure? Your life is easier, more magical, full of glass, and very fast! Security is... a little bit of whipped cream on top. So enjoy your gestures on that magic touchpad, don't worry about being safe.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist)

Well, In defense of Facebook nothing about the app works well. It's not like they decided not to use C2DM, they just didn't do anything right.

I think from a programmer standpoint, I'd prefer to deal with the text directly instead of with some abstract space between characters.

I see your point though, it is different. It does take a little getting used to, but if you slowly teach yourself the motions you'll learn it unconsciously.

As for your example, you're running into this problem because you are manually placing your cursor. If you watch someone who uses vim, they almost never use the keys hjkl, or even x. When you type w to get to the next word, or when you search for something, the cursor will be conveniently placed for whatever kind of deletion you plan on doing. x is for deleting one character, if you ever want to delete more, you move to where you want to start, then use a motion and delete. For more precise control enter visual mode and delete. But never hit x three times in a row and stop to think about whether the cursor is going to shift left or right after the first x.

Vim does have a concept of words, sentences, and paragraphs, but that's because it's not a programming editor, it's a text editor. It also has a concept of lines, braces, parens, and angle brackets. That's because programming is a common text editing exercise :)

"I hope once Lik­ables and Denso goes live they will be proof for the production-worthiness of the 4-pixel rhythm. I also hope that Apple will see this and per­haps recon­sider the visual pro­por­tions of UI in future iOS versions." doesn't match what you just said ;)

What I'm saying is that "You can look at a 4-pixel rhythm as 8-pixel, 16-pixel or 32-pixel. 4 is just the lowest basic unit" doesn't improve upon our situation. The lowest basic unit is called a pixel. Grids make everything look consistent; but when the only requirement is that you snap to 4-pixels, things aren't going to look consistent, because you have far too much flexibility.

I'm not a designer, so maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about. But @Aen, you sound like an idiot to me.

On grids. A grid is a fantastic idea for a newspaper, or even for an iPad, where you have large elements which need to all be aligned. However, your eyes are not trained to jump around in pretty pixel increments, your eyes jump to what they want to look at. In other words, fuck "rhythm." When horizontally aligning elements, I am completely for snapping to a grid of sorts, it makes your UI "just look nicer." When aligning vertically, against things that don't exist, you win nothing. (Well, you do win something, but it's something you didn't touch upon, more on that later)

On grid size. By making a "grid" of 4x4 pixels, all you have done is decrease the resolution of the display. Only an OCD programmer would get excited by a declaration that all pixel offsets must be even. In programming, whenever you sit down and design a framework that is too flexible, you have designed a framework which isn't useful. If you complain about "rhythm," you certainly can't suggest a 4px grid, it has no noticeable rhythm.

On why your design looks nicer. I'll say it, a few of your "fixed" screens do look nicer. This is because you have introduced more padding, in the form of 2px increases, to every element. Anybody can make something look nicer by removing information. Of course your examples will look great compared to the real thing, negative space tends to do that. I want you to compare the number of visual elements on either the Likables screens you posted, with the number of visual elements on the playlist view.

If I ever have a site which posts content, or if I ever finally make a blog, the first thing I will do is turn off the comments. If you want to talk to me, you can email me, or write your own post in response.

Isn't it easier to just resize your browser window?

Yeah I've only ever dealt with Linux, that would make sense that it exists on other OSs.

Slightly unrelated, but why does everybody insist on calling it vi(m)? I have never seen a box that used vi in lieu of vim, it seems to be a historical artifact.