61–67 of 67 posts
Warning: severe pollution of "history" links in your browser ahead.
How is this different from having a separate page per slide? It seems we have the same result but with a better user experience. Isn't this a feature allowing each slide to be linkable? Why is this considered negative?
You have a problem, so you suggest "I'll make an algorithm to solve it!"
...now you have 2 problems.
There's some good stuff here, but a lot of the psychology is ill-founded. Flow, for example, is probably the most effective form of practice, and play often creates flow. Jamis recommends practicing constantly, but it's extremely well established that spacing your practice out gives you more bang for the buck, more improvement per hour of practice. (This is called "massed practice vs. spaced practice", and it's been…
I definitely was not recommending constant practice--I agree that doing so will hurt you more than it helps you! I was recommending consistently regular practice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Visualizing algorithms is unfair, because some people were born without vision and therefore cannot "visualize".
The problem isn't that it is unfair to people who suffer of epilepsy, the problem is that it could be DANGEROUS to people who suffer of epilepsy. Someone who is blind can't be harmed by being unable to see this particular visualization.
That, and--though it wouldn't have helped in this case--the most I heard about epilepsy complaints is on forums with flashy animated GIF images. Why do they browse with GIF animation enabled? Really, if it's such a health hazard, and images posted on a forum can give you dangerous seizures, why would you take a risk and trust on the goodwill of the community and take your chances with the occasional troll?
I don't want to dismiss the problem, not at all, I just wonder about the victim mentality displayed and lack of proactiveness.
Especially the display filter. If it's an actual health hazard, you shouldn't be asking people not to show flashing imagery on their sites, you should be taking action yourself, making sure your computer display is unable to display this imagery. Any kind of modern 3D GFX card should easily be able to detect flashing areas and dampen and/or motion blur them so they're safe, without much processing power needed. You'll be erring on the side of caution of course, so some video content might be degraded (though with a well-designed filter this should be minimal) so you'll want a key-combo to (at your own risk) temporarily disable the filter (with a parental lock for the children, of course).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem isn't that it is unfair to people who suffer of epilepsy, the problem is that it could be DANGEROUS to people who suffer of epilepsy. Someone who is blind can't be harmed by being unable to see this particular visualization.
If it's so DANGEROUS why isn't there some kind of active display filter available to dampen temporal frequencies between 2 and 55Hz? That, and--though it wouldn't have helped in this case--the most I heard about epilepsy complaints is on forums with flashy animated GIF images. Why do they browse with GIF animation enabled? Really, if it's such a health hazard, and images posted on a forum can give you dangerous seizu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's so DANGEROUS why isn't there some kind of active display filter available to dampen temporal frequencies between 2 and 55Hz? That, and--though it wouldn't have helped in this case--the most I heard about epilepsy complaints is on forums with flashy animated GIF images. Why do they browse with GIF animation enabled? Really, if it's such a health hazard, and images posted on a forum can give you dangerous seizu…
Yeah, it would be great if everyone who had epilepsy was up to hacking their video card driver to simulate an e-ink display's slow updates. I'm interested to hear what modifications you've made to your own system software to make it suit your preferences.
It seems to me that the most likely explanation is that the risk is so minimal that people with epilepsy aren't even willing to give up lolcat gifs for it, though it is possible that people are unable to conceive of a setting existing to disable a largely unnecessary feature in a piece of software.
If it is a significant danger, and people don't realize you can disable it, then that seems to indicate a significant failing of the entire system, from doctors to parents to people taking care of themselves properly. I really want to believe that it isn't the case.