I changed the UX in my mobile app from text only to icon + text by default in menus, buttons, and links.
There are several reasons I made the switch, but the primary reason is that it makes it easier to build a kind of muscle memory for navigating and performing particular actions. In essence, the text is there for new users and the icons are there for experienced users.
It's kind of a shame how we keep trying to make icons look uniform, either in color, or in shape.
Like I open the app drawer on my Android phone and there are like 16 different icons, all different Google apps, all are round and various abstract configurations of the same exact four colors.
Feels like we're falling into the same trap that Gothic handwriting did with the minims. Yeah it looks very pretty but it's almost completely illegible since we've taken away all the things that help set icons apart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim_(palaeography)#/media/Fi...
Yeah, I learned that using Netscape 6 with a row of blue balls for icons; going from the older Mozilla builds with the Netscape 4-style icons it was a definite downgrade. Pheonix had a row of orange balls; they later switched to IE-style icons with distinct shapes, which was better.
The recent Android releases where everything is a squircle really sucks too.
Google has been universally panned for using their logos as app icons. I think most people in this thread are talking about UI vs app icons (essentially avatars for apps at this point).
Visually uniformity is a broad trend that affects both areas. The monochrome line-art UI icons that are used everywhere are every bit as bad as Google's app icons.
Here are some icons I screenshotted off a website. I challenge you to tell me what they mean
I like icons (and colors, but those are still mostly missing) to quickly find a frequent action. If the menu is always the same you can learn the position, but with dynamic entries it's way more difficult.
Other built-in Tahoe apps have more consistent indentations and far more icons. The Safari team (not the WebKit team, the people building the app wrapping it) just phoned it in with the menu icons. They also somehow disabled the Tahoe window opening animation.
Yes, just consistently line them up and it would be fine. There’s plenty of UX research saying icon+label improves recognition and task speed. NN Group is a good resource for this.
I think it used to just mean "singular", from the Latin grex, gregis meaning herd, and e/ex meaning "out of". It could mean singularly bad or singularly good I guess in English, but in Latin I think it had more of a connotation of exceptional, extraordinary, eminent.
I tend to assume that anyone who objects to “I could care less” has never lived in the New York City area. See the mention of Yiddish in the above link. But for some who object to it, that’s the issue: it’s a shibboleth of a culture they’re not part of.
If you're a fan of de-emphasizing your agency with the passive voice, then you can say "less could be cared for by me" or just "less could be cared for" if you totally want to totally avoid responsibility for not caring.
I loved MrHeather's comment (who worked with Weird Al to animate Word Crimes):
When I first met with Al about this project, I was quick to point out that linguists would disagree with about a third of the "advice" he's giving out. His immediate reply was "WELL THEY'RE WRONG"--really loudly in the "Weird Al" character voice.
In my mind the joke is that the song's narrator is a know-it-all character that shouldn't be taken entirely seriously. But on the other hand, a lot of educators have contacted me to tell me they use the song as a learning tool.
As an immigrant to the US, I'm a fan of recognizing that there are cultures different from my own. But sometimes, when encountering unthinking US bigotry, it can be difficult to keep that in mind.
Have you ever traveled outside the US? I don't just mean to CS conferences, I mean really traveling.
Addendum: "I could care less" is a perfectly natural and recognizable idiom in some circles. To someone unfamiliar, it can seem strange, but that's true of many idioms.
The objections to it, though, fall broadly into two categories: ignorance, and bigotry. The former becomes the latter when someone refuses to recognize their ignorance, and doubles down on it.
I feel like shortcuts are often enough. They function quite like this: a symbolic language that allows you to build up an intuition. They use icons that you already know, and instead of being bespoke per designer (how many different save icons are there?) they work across your entire OS. The muscle memory you build, instead of being bespoke per menu (and dynamic in time), allows you to skip the menu entirely!
The author doesn’t suggest it, but the implicit solution is public funding for social goods.
That could be through a robust grant process, providing funding for social media that is not supported other ways.
Alternately, it could be through a UBI, giving people basic cash flow that could be allocated to paid social media platforms rather than everyone relying on ad-supported social media.
Building the social media platform you want to see isn’t really the problem though. They are relatively easy to build, the hard part is making it valuable enough to attract users and earning enough to keep it running.
Using AI introduces additional costs without solving the core challenge there.
I don’t think there’s a person alive who wouldn’t carefully and accurately count the number of legs on a dog if you ask them how many legs this dog has.
The context is that you wouldn’t ask a person that unless there was a chance the answer is not 4.
The models are like a kindergartner. No, worse than that, a whole classroom of kindergartners.
The teacher holds up a picture and says, "and how many legs does the dog have?" and they all shout "FOUR!!" because they are so excited they know the answer. Not a single one will think to look carefully at the picture.
That's a specific example that when you draw a human's attention to something (eg: count the number of ball passes in this video), they hyper-fixate on that, to the exclusion of other things, so it seems like it makes the opposite point that I think you're trying to?
Calling a crime-related shooting in the parking lot of a school at 1am on a Saturday a school shooting is not what most people are discussing when talking about school shootings.
If you're going to count shootings at universities as school shootings, then it's reasonable to include shootings that happen over the weekend, because they still have students around on the weekends and at night.
> Calling a crime-related shooting in the parking lot of a school at 1am on a Saturday a school shooting is not what most people are discussing when talking about school shootings.
Aren't you getting it entirely backwards, though? You're faced with a crisp definition of what a school shooting is, and you're somehow invested in arguing that a shooting taking place at a school isn't a school shooting because of your own arbitrary criteria.
Arguing whether a shooting should be considered a school shooting or not feels like you're completely missing the whole point that there are shootings taking place at schools, which I would imagine would be very concerning.
I wasn't reading anything into it at all. I'm just saying that the vast majority of people wouldn't consider it a school shooting. They're almost always talking about an active shooter targeting students.
If you want my two cents: no shit gun violence is bad. It's just that that type of gun violence doesn't impact suburban whites, and it's incredibly disingenuous to have so much gnashing of teeth over the overall number when most people passionately talking about this only care about a certain subset of that number.
Those after-hours shootings-at-schools are part of a larger pattern of gun violence that advocates of gun control have basically never made a focus of.
I used to get back from band trips (competitions, away games) in the middle of the night. The buses would drop us off at school where our parents would be waiting to pick us up (the upperclassmen could drive themselves.)
It would have been rather disappointing to get hit by a stray bullet then, and know that it wasn’t considered as important as a daylight incident.
You're being obtuse. Assuming GP is stating the truth and it happened in a school's parking lot in the middle of the night, then the entire location is incidental and not meaningful in the least.
It's simply not helpful to group them with the shootings that happen during school hours and target students/staff.
No, not really. Think about it: who is somehow trying to argue away school shootings based on arbitrary assertions? Do you think you can argue away the gun violence out of school grounds?
I would dare say that gun violence is bad all around, but here we are, trying to argue that some episodes should not count because of reasons. That would certainly reassure those attending those schools, as well as their family and communities.
Arguing that gun violence is bad all round is fine. But this isn't that? It's exploiting the special emotive value of the term "school shooting" - something that will obviously be read to refer to a specific kind of circumstance that everyone understands - in an attempt to colour as many possible instances of gun violence with the seriousness with which the authors think they should be regarded. Or so it seems to me.
It's not that it's less serious, it's that it comes from a different circumstance and affects demographics that many gun control advocates don't actually have any interest in helping.
That could be motivation if one doesn't mind absurdity, like “gun control yes, but you're exempt if you pinky-promise you only shoot <people-I-don't-like>”.
I really don't know what you're trying to say. Is the implication that I don't care about the impoverished black kid that has to grow up in a world with highly prevalent incidental crime-related gun violence? If that's what you're getting at, please re-read my previous comment.
This data was compiled with the criteria it was to inflate the perceived number of "muh assault rifle" headliner-style school shootings. You're probably never going to turn on national news and see any reporting on any of these crime disputes that came to a head at/near a school. There is very little political willpower to do anything about these instances and not calling this shit out for what it is is a disservice to the people that are actually impacted by this strain of gun violence.
EDIT: after re-reading your comment a few more times, I think what you were trying to say is that it doesn't make sense that people would overlook some gun violence and worry more about other instances, but I've got bad news for you -- they do it all the fucking time. It's not that it's <people-they-don't-like>, it's <people-they-don't-think-about-at-all>, save when they make for a convenient data point.
My comment wasn't meant as an attack on you, on the contrary. I think we agree on your points. I find it absurd that one can be pro gun control but then be selective about what kind of gun violence it's meant to reduce.
I'm more inclined to count students fighting off-campus about classroom grudges than to count non-students fighting on-campus.
And the idea of counting both doesn't seem right to me.
Though I'm not sure how my expectations align, in particular when I hear "school shooting" my first expectation is that there are multiple targets, not just one person. And it's hard for me to react to this data unless I know what percentage are single-target and what percentage are multi-target.
Good idea. Incarcerate violent homeless fighting in the parking lot. We can’t have school around that.
Note that the presence of vagrants and other violent criminals is orthogonal to schools or children having access to firearms.
Any reasonable person will agree that violence on school property after school hours without student involvement is different than violence between students.
The only reason you want to say they are the same is you want to borrow that public sentiment against the horror of school shootings like Columbine.
You and I both know that if the public was explained the details of each event classified as a “school shooting” they would not have the same reaction.
It doesn't look sarcastic to me. They are arguing that two random people fighting in the parking lot should be arrested but not treated like a columbine. That makes a lot of sense to me. It doesn't make sense to you?
The phrasing only sounds weird because you were (baselessly) implying they didn't care about that violence, so they had to directly state that they care in a super obvious way.
"is orthogonal to schools or children having access to firearms."
which drained the sense and reason from their position.
Homeless vargrants gunfighting in the school carpark after dark will factually increase the odds of the first children the next day finding a scattered firearm with live ammunition from ZERO chance to SOME chance.
This negates the assertion of orthogonality.
Regardless, my only other comment to this submission still stands; it doesn't matter whether non student shootings on school grounds are included or not in country by country comparisons .. the USofA still "wins" a very hollow victory - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43155165
What makes you think that it’s more likely reporting a software-configured resolution?
It is after all a hardware survey, and focused on what user hardware supports.
It's vastly simpler, and more useful, for Steam to detect the current resolution. Trying to detect the maximum supported resolution is non-trivial, especially when there are devices that will accept a 4k signal despite having fewer pixels.
You’re wrong that a so-called “war on hate” doesn’t work. More correctly, it doesn’t work in the US because of the first amendment and the few limitations on it.
Many other countries have robust anti-hate speech laws that are effective, although less so in the age of the internet.
People broadly conform to the society in which they live, and the rules of the society are broadly set by the laws they adhere to. So in countries where hate speech is disallowed, people conform to a less hateful viewpoint as a rule, and hateful people are the exception.
In the United States, it is clear that hatred is the norm as long as it is permitted by law and by leadership.
> People broadly conform to the society in which they live, and the rules of the society are broadly set by the laws they adhere to
Well this can work very differently from what you imagine I believe. Like late Soviet Union where certain things were said in public and other things were said in private or in "trusted environments". For years and years... From what I hear this is in part what goes on in large multinationals where the pressure to conform is quite tangible.
> it doesn’t work in the US because of the first amendment and the few limitations on it.
This isn't clear to me. For instance, Meta was free to forbid hate speech on their platforms, or not to promote it in their feed algorithms. I don't think first amendment would force them to authorize hate speech. They do it to align with power in place (freely or coerced, not clear), but it's not a legal enforcement.
> So in countries where hate speech is disallowed, people conform to a less hateful viewpoint as a rule, and hateful people are the exception.
"Maja R was sentenced to a weekend in jail after her comments because she had a previous conviction for theft and had not attending the court hearing for the case."
Whatever you can say about the suspended sentences, merely "given harsher sentence than rapist for calling him ‘pig’" is not true by your own article.
> The court did find the two men guilty of wrongly making and distributing the sex video and fined them 1,350 euros ($1,500) each. But it reserved its gravest punishment for Lohfink, levying her a fine of 24,000 euros for falsely accusing the men.
If we're talking about the same story, it has nothing to do with "war on hate".
#/media/File:Minims_(palaeography).jpg){kind=link}
There are several reasons I made the switch, but the primary reason is that it makes it easier to build a kind of muscle memory for navigating and performing particular actions. In essence, the text is there for new users and the icons are there for experienced users.