51–60 of 128 posts
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6SC0QO0kVZI/YAyILg6A43I/AAAAAAAAV...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you slap on a $5 cover and never enjoy the premium materials and physical design It is ridiculous, I agree. I don’t use a case. I do have a thin screen protector. Anytime I handle anyone else’s phone, I think, “This is so clunky, and would barely fit in my pocket.”
"No case" worked for me for about 18 months. Now I'm forced to wear a case to keep the broken glass from cutting my fingers when picking up my phone (the back of the phone shattered but the front is perfectly fine with no screen protector). How / why the back of a phone would be made of a material that is essential glass is beyond me.
For wireless charging.
If you pay for the extra warranty and break the glass screen you can replace it for $100. If you break the glass back the repair price is astronomical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you slap on a $5 cover and never enjoy the premium materials and physical design It is ridiculous, I agree. I don’t use a case. I do have a thin screen protector. Anytime I handle anyone else’s phone, I think, “This is so clunky, and would barely fit in my pocket.”
"No case" worked for me for about 18 months. Now I'm forced to wear a case to keep the broken glass from cutting my fingers when picking up my phone (the back of the phone shattered but the front is perfectly fine with no screen protector). How / why the back of a phone would be made of a material that is essential glass is beyond me.
- It lets wireless through.
- it’s design for the showroom, not at home. A plastic back would be better on most parameters. Lighter, sturdier and better grip.
But it lacks _luster_ and doesn’t feel or look premium. The glass back is great for the showroom. Not as great once you get home and start using it.
This is definitely one of the books that has shaped my thinking the most. The book argues very strongly for functional design and design that makes usage obvious. “The way you use a thing should be encoded in the way the thing is, not in a manual”. I’ve been told there’s a follow up that concedes some of this and argues for emotional design. Something a long the lines of “this thing doesn’t need this handle, but it m…
I don’t[1] use a cover for my phone and it seems mostly fine. Granted, I probably wouldn’t be super sad if it were to smash and I had to buy a replacement and maybe I’d be more careful if it would be worse for me. I’m also not so concerned about resale value and therefore micro scratches or slightly chipped/deformed corners. Maybe the newer design of iPhone is less rugged than the rounded design mine has. Maybe I’m j…
It’s a Vleben good: it doesn’t simply signify that you have money to throw away, but shows that you have a lifestyle in which your expensive watch won’t get damaged.
Fun fact, for some reasons it had the title translated in Italian as "La caffettiera del masochista" (The masochist's coffee pot) which is a great textual description of the cover image, moving "the psychology of everyday things" to a sub-title. https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6SC0QO0kVZI/YAyILg6A43I/AAAAAAAAV...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to work for a mortgage broker, and there was a "Best Mortgage Broker of 200x Award" that basically rotated each year around the participating companies.
I strongly suspect that many awards in the legal industry work in this way also.
By "realized this" I really mean "I was shown this reality by the people in charge of paying for the service". I guess I should have know better, but my cynicism failed me in this instance!
This is definitely one of the books that has shaped my thinking the most. The book argues very strongly for functional design and design that makes usage obvious. “The way you use a thing should be encoded in the way the thing is, not in a manual”. I’ve been told there’s a follow up that concedes some of this and argues for emotional design. Something a long the lines of “this thing doesn’t need this handle, but it m…
A lot of this is really just needless anxiety though. I tended to go caseless until I had kids and they're pretty durable on their own. They will collect scratches and dings but honestly the only times my phone ever falls is when I'm wearing a certain pair of sweatpants with pockets that are too small.
YMMV on how well you can hold things naturally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A "Norman door" is a poorly designed door that confuses or fails to give you an idea whether to push, pull or slide. https://99percentinvisible.org/article/norman-doors-dont-kno...
Does that concept have a name now? That reminds me of this Japanese comedy sketch about doors: https://youtu.be/nq-2USGVoEE
This is definitely one of the books that has shaped my thinking the most. The book argues very strongly for functional design and design that makes usage obvious. “The way you use a thing should be encoded in the way the thing is, not in a manual”. I’ve been told there’s a follow up that concedes some of this and argues for emotional design. Something a long the lines of “this thing doesn’t need this handle, but it m…
Why hasn't Apple ever made a version with a built-in ruggedized case? I hate putting the case on but in practice it's too fragile of a thing for many people's usage patterns. Seems like one of those things, like the flashlight, where they would see how the people are using it and build it in for a more streamlined experience. I don't want to believe the cynical interpretation that they do it to sell more phones/repai…
What would be the point? It might make it slightly slimmer, but for the most part I think people like having the choice in cases. iPhones are so ubiquitous that people put a lot of value in being able to personalize or set theirs apart.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For me one lesson was that when we fail to properly use a thing we should blame that thing for its bad design instead of ourselves. I think this is a bit too easy. After all it depends on what problem the thing is solving. E.g. if I think of lab test equipment you failing to use it properly might have nothing to do with the design and everything to do with you not having sufficient knowledge in the given domain. I…
I feel you are re-emphasizing the validity of the point. It should not be easy to use things wrongly, with more secret knowledge needed to use things that are more dangerous or require more skill than things that will do no harm when used wrongly. In other words, your lab equipment should be fool-proofed so that if I walked into the lab and try to use it, I might get it loud buzzing sound a emoji of a sad face. I am…
Think of the command line. It would drive me crazy if it didn't exist, because I'm a power user. But it's not a good interface for a novice, it fails several design guidelines, starting with lack of discoverability.
Lab equipment is even worse, since you -- a non-scientist -- are not even supposed to be touching it to begin with.
I do think that equipment with the potential to cause catastrophic failure (such as a nuclear reactor) should be designed in such a way that the critical error state cannot be entered easily. A silly human mistake shouldn't cause a reactor meltdown. (Do note modern nuclear reactors tend to "fail safe", so this is definitely a consideration!)
