> Why does the UI have to change all the time? Can't they just keep it the same?
Because if they kept it the same, then there would be no need to continue to employ all those UI designers. Therefore, to be assured of their continued employment, the UI designers have to make constant changes to justify their existence. Meanwhile, we get to suffer with their changes.
I see this sentiment sometimes, but don't buy it. What I do buy is that customers, as well as investors expect the company to keep developing new products, create new releases and version. To drive sales.
Companies don't build things to motivate having developers - Remember they are the "cost center", while sales are the creators of value. The developers are a necessary burden and would be axed as soon as they don't provide what is needed.
Old products are boring. New products are interesting. Customers likes new thing. Media writes about new things, even writes negatively if updates are slow to come.
Compare to cars, skis, tennis rackets even dishwashers, new coke, new christmas special of somesuch not the same as last Christmas. Things that have new models every year or season, every six months etc. We create newness, not because it is really needed, but it drives sales.
Moving to a once a year makes Apples products guaranteed to get buzz, sales repeatedly. And investors can predict when that will happen. All are happy. Almost.
It began life as an "out of band" way to administer servers so that an ops. team could do everything (other than actual hardware changes) remotely that would otherwise need a person to be standing in front of the server in the datacenter poking commands into a keyboard.
It then grew in responsibilities to also support the "secure boot" aspect of system startup, and beyond some Intel CPU version point (I do not remember which point), it exists in every Intel CPU produced.
Spoken like someone who does not have a "second person" around while they are working from home.
Unless the "other people" (spouses/partners/parents/etc.) also work a from home job, they simply do not internalize that the work from home individual is "at work" in the same manner as if that individual were away in an office. And for some of them, no amount of explanation ever sinks in to fully internalize the fact that "when I'm working from home, I am not available to also solve all the problems you create for yourself throughout the day".
Most all of them, however, do actually pay attention to and understand the meaning of a "do not disturb" sign on the door.
> Building 29 separate settings with confusing and overlapping effects is less work than making a single setting of: [Local Only]?
The 29 separate confusing overlapping effects is by design. A single "local only" switch would (so long as that switch is enabled) lock out all manner of potential future revenue and recurring rents, which these companies very much want to see hit the balance sheet.
So the 29 separate confusing overlapping settings is designed to frustrate you to the point that you allow what they want from the start, the ability of the device to generate future revenue (via both of one time sales and recurring rents on rental sales).
>>The 29 separate confusing overlapping effects is by design
>>designed to frustrate you to the point that you allow what they want from the start, the ability of the device to generate future revenue
And this explains why they are willing to do all the extra work to do it.
It is not even close to accidental or lazy — there is nothing accidental about the intention or going to the extra cost to build those dark patterns to screw the customers.
At the end of the day if the MTX group says no, it doesn't happen. Sales is always the most powerful group in an organization, sometimes even overriding compliance if they can get away with it.
> I disagree with a notion that a page needs to work without javascript. It is only design choice of author.
Sure, I guess, but if a site that's primarily text doesn't work without Javascript then that's a design failure. I sometimes use a browser like links2 because eliminating everything but text can sometimes help me focus. If the site displays nothing, I'm probably not going to bother reloading it in a different browser just so I can render the text.
(It's a nonissue for this site, which appears to render fine in links2.)
If you disable CSS as well then it works. (This is true of some web pages that allegedly require JavaScripts, while others will not work with JavaScripts disabled whether or not you disable CSS as well.)
It comes about from digitizing analog video signals. The early standards for sampling (digitizing) analog video signals resulted in the digital pixel horizontal sample size (often) being wider than the line spacing of the displayed analog video. With the result that digitized video of analog signals usually has a "pixel size" (analog video has no concept of discrete horizontal pixels) that is wider than it is tall.
Nope. There is no 'guarantee' the centralized kitchen produces nutritious foods. Further, you the recipient have no way to verify with any ease the accuracy of any 'claims' of nutrition made by the centralized kitchen.
And if merely having a "centralized kitchen" guaranteed food safety, there would be no recalls of processed foods for listeria or salmonella contamination. A "processed foods factory" is exactly a "centralized kitchen", just with a different destination for the output food items.
reply