101–110 of 175 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This soulless corporate style of illustration not a single person likes: https://www.imgur.com/DcL05OA.gif (This could be a subset of infantilization, since this art style seems to come from books for toddlers.)
What is the name for this abhorrent trend, and how did it originate and become ubiquitous?
Someone in Google’s UX and Design department, really needs go out and breathe some fresh air. Is it only me, who dislikes 95% of the design decision of Google products in the recent years?
Google Search on mobile browsers is horrible too. When having a typo in the search terms and trying to fix it, the search field moves to the top of the screen and it constantly happens that I click on the second or third entry in the list of suggested searches.
I also have issues with GBoard, which cause tons of typing errors. My last iPhone was an iPhone 3G and I recall it having a much better keyboard many years ago than Google currently has.
It's almost as it was deliberate to artificially increase certain click KPI's or force users to use the phone's search bar or autocorrect function.
I believe, decision makers at Google are too far away from the products, and while managers might have developed good soft skills they massively lack practical knowledge. Google would do good hiring more engineers and less academics and managers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am interested in your point of view. Care to expand?
iOS homescreen management is one example. Three confirmations to delete app. Can’t delete app from search. Editing stacks is miserable. The the control center... changing audio source - fine motor skills required if you ever find how. Long pressing things means its faster to do things from settigns. My pet peeve is macos Photos. Forget ever watching your videos for which storage you pay. It just won’t play until you…
I would even consider it by design - management doesn't want apps to be deleted so easily. It's a subtle nudge for a user to accumulate apps, which slowly increase and eat up disk space.
The justification is that if no one deletes apps often, the button to do so should be hidden away, so users don't "accidentally" delete an app. And the designers are just a cog in the wheel - they listen to the objective given to them by management and do exactly that.
This is why you see great designs from apps that are written/made by a single person, or from a small team that cares. One such example is IDEs like Intellij - the UI/UX design is very much geared towards developers (by developers).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand your point. If you hate copyright and IP, then you inherently also have to believe Getty should be allowed to take public domain photos (or someone else's photos) and sell them.
They have the right to sell them. I'm not sure it's ethical to do so for $1k/image. It's definitely not OK that they billed the photographer who took the public domain photos for using them on her own site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_M._Highsmith#Getty_Image...
That being said, anything published on the web should be free. E.g. if some don't want their image to be used, they should not publish it publicly in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think that downloading an image is stealing?
> You think that downloading an image is stealing? Do you really expect me to believe your are an archivist using a Google Image interface to get images to then wait the ~70 years of copyright to use them? These, "Piratebay has Linux torrents", or "a hash isn't copyright" arguments don't hold up in a court and don't hold up with mates at the bar. We are an abstract society, it's why we no longer live like animals. We…
I'm not claiming to be.
> These, "Piratebay has Linux torrents", or "a hash isn't copyright" arguments don't hold up in a court and don't hold up with mates at the bar.
I don't know people who say any of that.
> We are an abstract society, it's why we no longer live like animals. We are right now having to decide what things like Facebook and Twitter really are, beyond the technical they are internet companies.
You speak in riddles.
> This add-on is great, and should not be illegal in any free society, but forcing Google to change was a different story.
So what's the story?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the shift in recent years has been from "UI designers" to "graphic designers". There is a massive difference between the two, but also a lot of conflation. Computer programmers may not be the best UI designers, but graphic designers are even less so, and the "but my art!" graphic designers are the absolute worst.
a main tenet of graphic design is sacrificing your art for functionality. i'm not sure what designers you've been speaking to, but i doubt they're professionals.
As evidenced by the discussion here, there seems to be far more of the former than the latter.
The project's rather esoteric license confuses me quite a bit, as it seems to have a mixture of English and French, and I can't make heads or tails out of the French parts. Could anyone else help me out describing the license terms in plain English, please?
Plugging 'Jollo' into Wikipedia gets me a page about a defunct machine translation engine. This reads exactly like a simple license that went through several rounds of machine translation. Making some allowances for usage and spelling errors, as well as some outright guesses at meaning, here's a somewhat fractured full-English translation: See, far wanderer, confronted with raw, programmatic instruction in the most p…
Forget UX, the image search itself _doesn't_ work. Search for some known person's name. 90% of the image results will be from the side bars on LinkedIn page of that person, which have no relation to the search key words.
Really missed that view image button especially for Pinterest images that are pure spam
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We wouldn't have modern civilization without IP law. Curious how you make a living; if it's like anything like the vast majority of the people on this site, or society in general for that matter, it's rooted in laws protecting theft of intellectual property.
The term "intellectual property" lumps together quite disparate concepts. It's not helpful to use it. And "theft" is a poor analogy. I'd say society wouldn't change much if copyright were abolished. Probably for the better. Claiming authorship should still be protected in my opinion, see next point. Trademark law gives some nice protections to consumers, so I'd vote for that one to stay. Patent law? Ahhahaha where do…
