pwhermanson

This article has several scary insights. When Google has too many eggs, they start to work against each other for the user. And talking about monopolies: "If you think that Facebook has a monopoly in the social scene, just imagine for a second what your life on the web would be like if you switched to Google+" Sebastian didn't even mention Google Fiber! Eventually, Google might even be your internet service provider!!! WOW. It is interesting how this article starts out leaving you to believe that Google+ is beneficial to the social network industry, but then gives reason after reason why we live in a scary world that collects and sells your information.

I also think the vagueness about how Google defines "illegal" is ridiculous! Why don't they just make Google+ a self-policed community? This solves all sorts of issues.

It seems to me that the question of the day is..what IS "intuition?" Most UI designers will create an interface that relies on typical design standards that any competent user would understand, such as home icons, menu bars, banners, footers, thumbnails etc. There are good reasons for this; namely because many interfaces target a market of experienced users.

Designing an "intuitive" interface true to the word is almost impossible. Experienced users can look at a new UI developed with standard design principles and navigate through it without frustration. But this is not called "intuition;" This is called past experience.

Now, rollover pop-up text that describes functionality may add a level of intuitiveness to a system. But why create a help menu for how to use the mouse or how to single click in a text field before you can type in it? Many of those users who aren't experienced are left behind only because it is usually not economical to market to them.

Interesting. Does anyone remember what happened to Pets.com? View my post on the Top 10 dot-com flops.

How do you develop a pricing scheme for a new product that hasn't been marketed before? At any point in time, the true value of a new product to consumers seems intangible and subjective.

It is important to consider what market you are going after when thinking about pricing. Lets think in terms of art for an example of a new or misunderstood product. If the art is priced just above the cost of materials, say, $75. What market of people would buy it? I'm sure plenty of people would see that for its price and think ooh, pretty. I can afford that. Who are those people going to show off that artwork to? Are they going to talk about it? What about the people that will look at the price and automatically assume that it is poor quality. OR, are people not defining the work's value by its price, but by the name of the artist? If the price is low, then that must mean that the artist isn't well known. Now think about if the artwork was priced at $10,000. Someone might buy it because they are a collector looking for something in particular and you were lucky enough to give them what they wanted. Or maybe they will buy it just because they can. They will pride themselves on being able to show friends and colleagues that they appreciate the finer things in life.

Elasticity in pricing is already complicated enough to understand let alone applying it to a real life situation. But when you add a subjective or new misunderstood product, pricing can play an even more prominent and critical role in how a company is perceived.

Check out this book: The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art by Don Thompson

Does anyone have any predictions for what applications 3D printers could have in the future? What about a food processor like the Jetsons? A machine that can print food.

This is fascinating. The properties of light are proven to be either a particle or a wave. It is a particle only when it is observed. There is also reason to believe that light exists in multiple dimensions at the same time. Example: If Person A is stationary, holding a flash light down a road And person B is in a car traveling down the road in the same direction at 100 mph, also holding a flash light straight ahead. Which beam of light is moving faster?

One would figure that the light coming from the flashlight in the car would be 100 mph more than that speed of light coming from the stationary flash light. But the light from both flashlights will be calculated to be exactly the same. How does one explain that?

I love the comment at the end of this article by iangotts [Moderator]

"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for – in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car, and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." Ellen DeGeneres

The world seems to be full of paradoxes. Entrepreneurship is my answer - I get to wear jeans.

This has exceeded its funding goal on Kickstarter. It still has 24 days to go! It sounds like an incredible gadget to solve many photographic dilemmas. Say you wanted to get a wide angle photograph of a leopard as it approaches a watering hole. You don't want to be standing 2 feet away, otherwise you might get attacked, or the leopard just won't make an appearance. What if you wanted to time the shutter speed with the exact moment a water balloon is punctured? This device could apply to both those situations...Pretty neat. Wish I had $75. But I'm saving up for a new camera.

In today's world we are already seeing a dramatic shift in educational methods. Examples include Internet classes where you only meet your teacher face to face for the final exam, the usage of Youtube and other internet media in the classroom and the acceptance of Wikipedia as a source in a paper. We've known for a long time that traditional classroom schooling does not work for everyone. The difference is that students growing up with technology today have better opportunities to discover how they learn the best. Institutions are slowly catching on.

Garciag said..."I'd be interested in seeing how long the students would need to adapt to the new classroom dynamic. I would suspect that the students would at first present cautiously, seeking your approval of the material, until you are seen as the mentor and not just a traditional teacher observing and grading."

I agree with him. I believe that this model would be easier to adjust to if each "teaching project" was graded as pass/fail. Either you did it, or you didn't go it. Anyone in an undergraduate entrepreneurship class should LOVE what they are doing. If they don't, then they will never succeed as an entrepreneur. So, if they do it at all, the chances are they will put effort into it. I believe that this concept of teaching in order to learn is absolutely correct. However, just like your favorite chocolate, it must be done in moderation. Along with the chocolate metaphor, you don't want to eat straight cocoa, you want to add powdered sugar with it to balance the sweetness and bitterness. Likewise, a typical lecture dynamic and breaking students out into groups are equally as important. Try to tap into different forms of learning so that all the students will latch onto the concepts. In conclusion, the model of teaching in order to learn is a form of learning that is rarely used. It should be used almost as regularly as breaking students out into groups.

In a graphic design or web design project, there is definitely a fine line between what the client can expect as an aesthetic outcome and what works functionally or is congruent with user-friendly/intuitive design principles. The scope of any project can clearly define functionality requirements. However, when it comes to aesthetic appeal, and "beauty" as Johan describes, the client and designer may not be on the same page. As a professional, the designer should incorporate everything that was asked; this is not in question. There are problems with designers projecting their own will onto a project and it can take a negative effect on the client/contractor relationship. But the problem at hand is when a client gets an idea of what the final product should be and this idea conflicts with the functionality requirements as outlined in the scope. Several clients of mine have even changed their minds in the middle of the project and try to "scope-creep" their way out of the original concept to cover up the fact that they were not yet mentally prepared to start. This is when the designer needs to believe in their knowledge and experience and be professional, firm and courteous. I inform my client that I will complete the functionality requirements. Any major changes that are made to the original concept will result in an amendment to the contract or a second contract. Johan is absolutely right! The client should know exactly what he/she wants their website/app/interface to do. The client may suggest ways on which technologies to do it with and why. The client may supply design layouts that appeal them. The designer's job is then outlined and structured, yet they still have the freedom to use experience and professional opinions to construct the best possible product.