Tiny Works of Design Genius: Food Colouring Bottles

Food Colouring BottlesIn just about every super­mar­ket in the coun­try, and doubt­less oth­ers too, one can buy lit­tle glass bot­tles of liq­uid food colour­ing and essences such as vanilla and almond.  They’re tiny, light, can eas­ily fall out of cup­boards, and can cause per­ma­nent stain­ing if they fall and smash.

Except that… they’re not glass.

They’re plas­tic.

Some­how I have lived out all my life so far con­vinced that these were tiny, frag­ile glass bot­tles that had to be metic­u­lously placed in the cup­board to avoid your floor being per­ma­nently green.  Until, grab­bing a bag of flour from my bak­ing cup­board with­out pay­ing atten­tion, one of these bot­tles fell to the floor — and bounced.

Some­times it’s the sim­plest design deci­sions that can avert dis­as­ter and bring a smile (in this case, of relief) to people’s faces.

 

Whither the Facebook Purge?

The other day, a bout of online drama made me won­der if it wouldn’t be a good idea to make my online activ­i­ties a lit­tle more pri­vate — hide my Twit­ter feed, for exam­ple, and maybe un-friend some peo­ple on Face­book to restrict it to just my “core” friends.

Facebook Friends List

Do I actu­ally want to know what 281 peo­ple are doing?

But in doing so, I thought for prob­a­bly the first time about the direc­tion Face­book has taken with regards to friend­ships and view­ing friends’ updates.

Firstly, unlike Twit­ter, when some­one you know “friends” you on Face­book, the socially accept­able thing to do is to accept.  Rather than say­ing “it’s great that you’re inter­ested in me, but I’m not as inter­ested in you, so I won’t ‘fol­low’ you back,” Face­book man­dates a two-way inter­est.  So if some­one “friends” you, you either have to ignore them (and feel slightly guilty about it) or com­mit your­self to see­ing their updates.

Sec­ondly, Face­book is becom­ing less of a place to catch up with friends, and more of an iden­tity ser­vice (which has been accel­er­ated with the new Time­line pro­files).  Your Face­book pro­file defines you; tells oth­ers who you are and who you know.  This adds to the impe­tus to “friend” peo­ple you don’t really care about that much — you’re not so much express­ing an inter­est in another per­son as defin­ing who you are.  And that, of course, also lum­bers you with look­ing at their updates all the time.

It’s obvi­ous that this is a com­mon issue, and rather than backpedal or restrict the way Face­book wants to take its ser­vice, their response has been to add com­plex fil­ter­ing options that let you block spe­cific users and apps, view only updates from var­i­ous groups, and recently, adding an auto­mated fil­ter that tries to guess which updates you’ll want to see.

Per­son­ally, I pre­fer using Face­book via the API (using Suc­cess­Whale) which avoids the auto­mated fil­ter, but I must still block the updates of peo­ple I don’t care much about man­u­ally.  I’d quite like to cull my Face­book friends list down to just those whose updates I actu­ally care about.  But is doing so a rea­son­able way of reduc­ing my infor­ma­tion over­load — or will­ingly dam­ag­ing an iden­tity that I spent the last four years try­ing to curate?

Towards a Simpler Desktop

In one of my pre­vi­ous blog posts, “Design­ing for Grand­dad”, I exam­ined some of the user inter­face fea­tures that cause my grand­fa­ther issues when using his com­puter, and left a few hang­ing ques­tions as to how we soft­ware design­ers can make our apps less con­fus­ing to the novice com­puter user.

As is my unfor­tu­nate habit, I spent some of today check­ing out how work had pro­gressed on the GNOME-shell and Ubuntu Unity desk­top envi­ron­ments.  (I enjoyed the eye candy for around three hours before revert­ing to the UI of least resis­tance.)  Var­i­ous com­plex­i­ties in their inter­faces irri­tate me and seem to have pro­voked the wrath of a com­mu­nity of largely expe­ri­enced com­puter users.  This got me think­ing about how I would go back the other way, and design a desk­top envi­ron­ment for absolute novice com­puter users — one with­out many of the frus­tra­tions of mod­ern software.

 

Gnome-Shell Screenshot

The Gnome-Shell Interface

 

My ideas, roughly dis­tilled into a sort of ‘design man­i­festo’, are:

  1. One activ­ity at a time.  Here I actu­ally agree with Gnome-shell and Unity’s focus on  full-screen appli­ca­tions, avoid­ing unre­lated yet over­lap­ping windows.
  2. Never hide the means to change activ­i­ties.  Both Gnome-shell and Unity hide their appli­ca­tion switcher dur­ing nor­mal use, requir­ing at least a mouse move­ment or a click to get it back.
  3. Don’t change state with mouse posi­tion.  Novice com­puter users often have trou­ble con­trol­ling the mouse.  Unity’s auto-hiding dock and Gnome-shell’s “hot cor­ner” could prove frus­trat­ing, par­tic­u­larly the lat­ter which com­pletely changes the dis­play when hit.
  4. No sys­tem trays.  The dis­tinc­tion between the taskbar and sys­tem tray is not well-defined and can be con­fus­ing.  Gnome-shell is a par­tic­u­larly bad offender here, with not one but two tray-like areas.
  5. No noti­fi­ca­tions (unless they help).  Pop-ups con­fuse and scare novice users.  If at all pos­si­ble, the app should use a sane default rather than ask­ing a ques­tion, and do noth­ing rather than dis­play­ing infor­ma­tion.  If a pop-up does appear, it should be help­ful and clearly worded.
  6. State­less apps and back­ground ser­vices.  The user wants to get their e-mail. Reading e-mail is a legit­i­mate activ­ity, but leav­ing a mail client open so that they are noti­fied of new mail is not.  Use back­ground ser­vices so that it doesn’t mat­ter which apps are running.
  7. Zero tol­er­ance on UI clut­ter.  While UX peo­ple like me may some­times deplore clut­ter and idolise min­i­mal­ism on aes­thetic grounds, for the novice user, every bit of clut­ter is some­thing that they feel like they should know how to use.
  8. Explain things clearly.  Keep words to a min­i­mum, but ensure that the user always feels con­fi­dent that they know what click­ing a given ele­ment will do.
  9. Undo every­where.  Offer an “undo” option wher­ever pos­si­ble.  If you’re deal­ing with small but impor­tant items (such as e-mail), con­sider offer­ing a non-destructive way of get­ting e-mail out of the user’s face — “archive” instead of “delete”.
  10. Use icons and words together.  Novice com­puter users may be young or old, and users of any age may have poor vision or may not speak the lan­guage in which the inter­face was writ­ten.  These may result in users find­ing either icons or words eas­ier to under­stand on a con­trol.  Pro­vid­ing both, by using clear iconog­ra­phy and sim­ple text together, helps to alle­vi­ate this problem.

I’ve mocked up a cou­ple of inter­faces to show a desk­top envi­ron­ment that adheres to these prin­ci­ples.  The first shows the “desk­top”, taskbar and an exam­ple notification:

 

Simple Desktop Environment - Taskbar & Notifications

 

The sec­ond shows the mail app with exam­ple messages:

 

Simple Desktop Environment - E-mail App

 

Is there any­thing you par­tic­u­larly like or hate about the mock­ups or the design prin­ci­ples behind them?  Bear in mind that if you con­sider your­self tech-savvy or a soft­ware designer your­self, you’re prob­a­bly not the tar­get audi­ence for this desk­top envi­ron­ment — pre­tend to be your mother or grand­fa­ther for a minute and see how you feel about the sug­ges­tions I’ve made.

I’m happy to go fur­ther with these designs if you think it’s use­ful, and of course your own ideas and sug­ges­tions are more than wel­come.  The com­ments sec­tion is yours!

For any­one won­der­ing, the mock­ups in this post were gen­er­ated with Mock­ing­bird, an excel­lent UI mock­ing web-app.

Dreaming Awake — Epilogue

“Com­ing home from very lonely places, all of us go a lit­tle mad:
whether from great per­sonal suc­cess, or just an all-night drive,
we are the sole sur­vivors of a world no one else has ever seen.”
– John le Carré

The stars blinked out as we landed that killing blow; the dying uni­verse that had been dreamed so well and for so long, gone in an instant. We stood in a cir­cle, or at least imag­ined we did, in that moment beyond space and time. Behind each of us streamed the flick­er­ing lights of a life, a dream, a mem­ory of the world from which we had come. I looked around and saw my friends as chil­dren play­ing on beaches, as dis­ci­ples in lonely monas­ter­ies, as sol­diers in train­ing. To my left stood Lilac, haloed in the white of the snow, and to my right Kyrhien, sur­rounded by the glit­ter­ing stars of a mem­ory beyond our under­stand­ing. And I knew that when oth­ers looked at me, my world of green fields and mar­ket days would be vis­i­ble behind me like a comet tail.

We spoke to each other, then, with­out words — for what use were mor­tal words between us? We talked of what we had, and what we had lost, and what we had hoped for the future.

We looked beyond each other at the black­ness and knew that there was noth­ing else but us, alone in the void. We knew that we were gods, cre­ators of the uni­verse yet to come. We were all that lived in exis­tence, and the future of it lay in our omnipo­tent hands.

I saw each of our shad­ows flicker with a thou­sand dif­fer­ent images as we imag­ined what that meant. I saw my friends as rulers of vast empires, as prophets adored by mil­lions, as free spir­its of unlim­ited wealth, but each image soon faded.

“None of it mat­ters, does it?” I thought, and the oth­ers agreed. After all, what mean­ing had power to those who now stood omnipo­tent? What mean­ing had wealth for those whose who had torn down empires? What mean­ing had love for those who would have to cre­ate the peo­ple to love them?

At last the flick­er­ing ceased, each image back to the mem­ory it once was, each ego sub­sided — for try as we might, none of us could imag­ine a world more per­fect than the one from which we came. Through all our hard­ships, in all our bat­tles, we had fought for each other; our fam­ily and friends; the peo­ple who were depend­ing on us. What right had we to decide for them what world they wanted?

“Will all this hap­pen again,” Rachel thought, “if we change nothing?”

We sup­posed that it would. We thought, per­haps, that we should restrict the power of dreams that had brought exis­tence to its knees. But we under­stood that we were each the sum of our dreams, and oth­ers’ dreams of us, and we knew that with­out them we would be noth­ing. Human­ity must be allowed to dream, wild dreams and crazy dreams and dan­ger­ous dreams, because that is what it means to be human.

Some­day, would the world be torn apart again? Maybe. And on that day, would heroes like us arise to set it right again? Cer­tainly, because that is a dream that each and every per­son car­ries within their hearts.

Know­ing this, the images of worlds that streamed out from behind us as indi­vid­u­als began to merge into one, a con­sen­sus real­ity, the sum of all our mem­o­ries of how things were before.

“And what of us?” Lilac thought. “Are we to remem­ber this?”

How sad would it be to have stood as gods and yet not remem­ber? But how much sad­der would it be to remem­ber all our time together, know­ing that we were the only ones like our­selves and that no-one else would believe a word? To remem­ber what it was like to be a god, and be unable to achieve it again? How many of us would live out our lives as mad­men, con­vinced of a real­ity no-one else would ever know?

“No,” thought Kyrhien. “It is bet­ter to forget.”

The world behind us was fully merged now, a sin­gle band of images. Our expe­ri­ences com­bined; our world fully realised. The images grew, upwards and down­wards until they made a sphere sur­round­ing us, then took on depth, images tex­tures over shapes, a world form­ing from our memories.

We closed out eyes, each of us find­ing in the work of cre­ation a peace beyond thoughts or words.

“We will for­get,” I said. “But per­haps, we might leave a few clues…”

Our world col­lapsed and expanded, infi­nitely hot, infi­nitely dense, rush­ing ever out­wards; a world of laugh­ter and sad­ness and love and pain and light and dreams and infi­nite possiblity.


The sun crested the tree­tops to the east of the vil­lage of Arca­dia, spilling light through the win­dow of a young man who should have awoken long ago to help his mother pre­pare for mar­ket day. He groaned and rolled over, but a warmth on his chest kept him from sleep. He sat and looked down, expect­ing to see the old dirt-stained pen­dant that he always wore. But this morn­ing it was clean, and clear, and hot, and glow­ing with a golden light from within.


A world away, another young man awoke to sun­light, not with a glow­ing pen­dant but instead with a glow­ing mind full of ideas and thoughts and mem­o­ries that begged and pleaded to be written.

He sat, pen in hand. And this is what he wrote:

“With the wind in your hair,
love in your heart,
and a dream in your soul,
any­thing is possible.”

Silence

for Eric


I’ve heard a silence described as “smoth­er­ing”, a kind of dense and envelop­ing silence that crushes not just sound but even the thought that you could make a sound.  I was quite fond of that fig­ure of speech, until I started work­ing at Elm Park Library.

At Elm Park Library, the silence is smoth­er­ing.  And once in a while, we find the bod­ies; asphyx­i­ated as if smoth­ered by some cloth that is never left behind.

It’s always the loud­est patrons, those who don’t afford the library the respect it deserves. They’ll make too much noise, then they’ll grow qui­eter and we’ll go about our busi­ness assum­ing some other patron has just asked them to keep it down.  Then the clos­ing time bell will ring, and all bar one will head for the exit.  One who sits, eyes open, not breath­ing, gaze locked on what­ever book was in their hands when the silence came and smoth­ered them.

They closed us down every time, of course.  Police and foren­sics scoured the scene, but it was always the same.  Asphyx­i­a­tion, no prints, no DNA, no fibres, and the library re-opened until the next time.

The final straw came in the Autumn one year, when they knocked down the the­atre oppo­site us.  Demo­li­tion balls and pneu­matic drills, ham­mers and shov­els banged and crashed at all hours, and my once-peaceful library was peace­ful no more.  Fewer patrons came each day, leav­ing me alone with that awful noise, until again the smoth­er­ing silence came.  One day at noon, it struck.  Builders, plumbers, elec­tri­cians, twenty-seven in all, their last breaths taken in har­mony as they fell to the ground.

That was the end of Elm Park Library, then, though of course they could prove noth­ing. The doors were bat­tened shut, books left on shelves since no-one dared enter to take them. Per­haps the silence itself reads them as it drifts through the deserted aisles, finally at peace.

Between musty hard­backs and set­tling dust, Elm Park Library has noth­ing now but silence, a smoth­er­ing silence, a dense and envelop­ing silence.

Progressiveness and the Tribe

As a for­mer sup­porter of the Lib­eral Democ­rats, I found my sup­port lean­ing toward Labour due to the Lib Dems’ ongo­ing dis­as­trous coali­tion with the Con­ser­v­a­tive party.  But in truth, the Labour party are just a con­ve­nient polit­i­cal marker for some of my opin­ions on eco­nomic and social pol­icy.  What I really care about, I sup­pose, is progress – chang­ing things that are bro­ken, try­ing new ideas until we dis­cover some­thing that makes the coun­try work better.

But all three main par­ties now label them­selves as “Pro­gres­sive”. (I sup­pose “regres­sive” isn’t much of a vote-winner.)  The minor par­ties mostly have lim­ited agen­das that make it impos­si­ble to sup­port them to the exclu­sion of all oth­ers.  Who, then, do I vote for? The truth is prob­a­bly that none of the UK’s polit­i­cal par­ties are as pro­gres­sive as I would like, but more than that — a politi­cian being pro­gres­sive on my behalf isn’t really what I want at all.

I want to design the future.

Then I want to engi­neer the future.

Then I want to sit back and think “bloody hell, we made that.”

That’s what gets me out of bed and halfway across the county five morn­ings a week, what keeps me sketch­ing inter­faces and gets me through design meet­ings, what keeps me cod­ing and sol­der­ing and get­ting cov­ered in grease and salt-spray.

I’m not pre­tend­ing that I could engi­neer the future of this coun­try by myself, or that I should have any more of a say than the other sixty mil­lion of us, but I’d like to at least have some input besides a sim­ple vote.  As far as I’m aware, there exist only two ways of hav­ing this kind of input — sell your soul for a career in pol­i­tics, or be ignored on e-petitions.

All of this leads me to the con­clu­sion that hav­ing our voice heard and our expe­ri­ence utilised on our own terms is not some­thing that a nation state can offer its cit­i­zens.  Our voices are heard and our expe­ri­ence utilised by our fam­i­lies and friends; at our places of work — tribes of a few hun­dred peo­ple at most — but not on a national scale

Is there some use­ful way for cit­i­zens to help engi­neer their future at the state level, or are we rel­e­gated to hav­ing that kind of influ­ence only in our hundred-strong social tribes?  Are there any coun­tries that are sig­nif­i­cantly bet­ter at this than ours, coun­tries that progress with heavy cit­i­zen involve­ment?  Am I dream­ing of an impos­si­ble soci­ety, and most impor­tantly of all, should I go to bed and sleep it off instead of fill­ing the inter­net with my ranting?

Film Review by the Numbers: Angel

By guest reviewer DANFOX DAVIES:

Syn­op­sis:

Stolen HARRY POTTER Music shoved hur­riedly into the EDWARDIAN era on a set some­where between DAVID COPPERFIELD and NANNY MCPHEE. BOWLER HATS and lack of plot sense belie the FRENCH ORIGINS of the film.

MILDRED HUBBLE is ridiculed at CACKLE’S ACADEMY and starts RUMOURS.
She casts the NEVERENDING STORY spell and these rumours get a lit­tle too real.
Writ­ing BOOKS is such fun, Mil­dred almost fails to notice her MOTHER is becom­ing less Nanny McPhee and more CLARA COPPERFIELD by the day. Her SMUGNESS out­lasts her mum and her PATHETIC PAINTER crawls back with ONE LEG and a BEARD. Then it gets WORSE so she dresses as CAPTAIN JACK SPARROW and goes EMO-GOTH.

By The Numbers:

  • Incred­u­lous fake laughs: 2
  • How dare you’s: 2.2
  • Worst Witches: 1
  • Chil­dren scared by them: at least 1
  • Let­ters deliv­ered: 3
  • By owl: 0
  • Make-up, in hours it took to layer it deep enough: 9
  • Do I look like a man?: 1
  • Glasses removed for a seri­ous Look: 1 pair.
  • Bowler hats on extras: over 9000
  • Of which are later replaced with Tril­bies: at least 3
  • Obvi­ous green screens: 5
  • Lol­cats: 6
  • 4th wall facial expres­sions: most of them includ­ing all of Mil­dred Hubble’s
  • Jars of pick­led eggs: 5
  • Chitty Chitty Bang Bangs: 8
  • Huge dogs: 2
  • Of which died dur­ing the mak­ing of this film: 1
  • Shame­less sucking-up moments: 2
  • Dreamy glides through tidy gar­dens: 3
  • Attempts to place selves in gen­res: 5
  • £400?!:1
  • Musi­cal mood swings: 15 or so
  • Painters using psy­chol­ogy to get in bed with an author and later regret­ting it, leav­ing her and then crawl­ing back a gam­bler and debtor:1
  • The cost to him of leav­ing her: 1 leg, –1 beards
  • Deathbed scenes:2
  • Sec­onds between a mother’s death and her daugh­ter sell­ing her story: 9
  • Boost this pro­vides to book sales: pre­dictably, over 9000
  • Use of God Save The King to intro­duce the smug­ness: Quite.
  • Posh net­work­ing events: 7
  • Hermiones: some­how, 1
  • Loves requited despite smug­ness: amaz­ingly, more than 0
  • Mon­tages to move the story breezily along: 5
  • Magic elixirs: 1
  • Reduc­tion in qual­ity of paint­ings between begin­ning and end of film: 100%
  • Dif­fer­ence this makes to the film or the paint­ings: 0%
  • Angels: 0
  • Ser­vants who quit this farce: 2 includ­ing the husband.
  • Badly acted ill­nesses: 2
  • Dis­ap­pointed pipe smok­ers: 1
  • Rape kisses: 1
  • Nudity scenes: 3
  • Sex scenes: 3
  • Of which are rapes: 1
  • Actual plot aside from the lessons about obses­sion with writ­ing: very little
  • Les­bian rela­tion­ships in the closet, later moved to a cot­tage: 1
  • Games of hang­man, real and cheated at: 1
  • Rela­tion­ship between main char­ac­ter bitch­i­ness and num­ber of deaths: exponential
  • Naff last words: all of them.
  • Obvi­ous fake snow: all of it

Over­all: 2/5

I mean, really, there aren’t even any angels in it. OK, there are a cou­ple of stone cherubs and Mil­dred Hub­ble claims her name is Angel. So?
The moral: erm, if you’re a bitch you should dream through your life so you don’t notice your immense smugness.

Designing for Granddad

Slate’s recent arti­cle, “2011 Was a Ter­ri­ble Year for Tech”, coins the term “mom-bomb” for the moment that tech­nol­ogy jour­nal­ists declare a gad­get so easy-to-use that it is actu­ally use­ful to peo­ple who aren’t tech­nol­ogy journalists:

He begins by prais­ing the gadget’s intu­itive inter­face and its easy setup process, but even­tu­ally he finds that mere descrip­tion doesn’t ade­quately con­vey the product’s momen­tous sim­plic­ity. That’s when he drops the mom bomb: This thing is so easy that even my mom could use it.

I’m blessed with par­ents that, by and large, ‘get’ tech­nol­ogy.  Their VCR never flashed 12:00 (and now they have a DVD recorder); they both have Android phones that they can hap­pily e-mail from.  My grand­par­ents are a dif­fer­ent story, of course.  Two of them have almost never used a com­puter, but my Grand­dad has a nice new shiny one and uses it reg­u­larly.  But as the arti­cle points out, what tech jour­nal­ists and we tech-savvy users think is sim­ple and ‘user-friendly’ often falls far short of the ‘mom (or grand­dad) test’.

A few obser­va­tions spring to mind:

  • Mov­ing pho­tos from a dig­i­tal cam­era to a com­puter is one of the sim­plest tasks non-‘tech-savvy’ users often want to do.  But when you plug in a dig­i­tal cam­era, Win­dows 7 help­fully pops up this dia­log:
    Windows 7 Camera AutoPlay DialogDo I want to “Import Pic­tures and Videos” using Win­dows, or using Win­dows Live Photo Gallery?  What’s the dif­fer­ence?  Do I want to “Copy pic­tures to [my] com­puter”?  Do I want to “Down­load images”? Where will the pho­tos go?  Will they still be on the cam­era?  I just want to see my pho­tos, so I click “Open device to view files”, but what the heck is “DCIM”?
  • I set Google as his browser home­page, and since then, he has been get­ting his news not from the BBC News book­mark I cre­ated, but using the ‘News’ link on Google’s own menu that appears at the top of its pages:

    Google Menu Bar
    …which is great, except that Google can change that menu at any time.  And of course they are doing exactly that:

    New-Look Google Menu
    To my grand­dad, and many other novice inter­net users, the dis­tinc­tion between book­marks — which only change if you want them to — and web page nav­i­ga­tion menus — which can change at the webmaster’s whim — is not nec­es­sar­ily clear.

  • Even sim­ple mouse com­mands can be unclear and dif­fi­cult.  In the exam­ple above, Google’s instruc­tion to find the new menu is to ‘roll over’ the logo.  When the novice user fig­ures out that means ‘hover the cur­sor over’, they’re greeted with a JavaScript popup which will dis­ap­pear again if their cur­sor acci­den­tally wan­ders too far from the popup.

It’s my fam­ily duty to be tech sup­port, and occa­sion­ally I am called upon to fix things that have actu­ally gone wrong.  But more often than not, I am called upon to try to ratio­nalise a sim­ple task that is unex­pect­edly com­plex to per­form.  This com­plex­ity has usu­ally arisen because the software’s devel­op­ers and most vocal users are so immersed in com­mon UI par­a­digms that they just don’t notice that the com­plex­ity exists.  For the novice user, on the other hand, even your software’s instal­la­tion wiz­ard is com­plex­ity they’d rather not deal with.

The Slate arti­cle is right to cite Facebook’s user inter­face as a par­tic­u­larly oner­ous exam­ple of soft­ware com­plex­ity.  Feeds, live updates, inboxes, hid­den inboxes, walls, pro­files, Time­line, com­ments, likes, tags — some users need and revel in that level of com­plex­ity, but a sig­nif­i­cant num­ber just want to, say, see what their kids are up to.  I’m ner­vous that one day soon, my grand­dad will ask me to set him up with a Face­book account.  I’ll duti­fully com­ply, log him in, and give him this:

Facebook User Interface

 

Where does one even begin?  There are mul­ti­ple feeds, mul­ti­ple menus, pop-up and pop-down boxes.  How do you add one of these “sta­tus” things?  How do you add a friend?  How do I send a mes­sage to some­one?  What’s pub­lic and what’s pri­vate?  Why is there so much stuff?

In the world of User Expe­ri­ence (UX) design, we spend so much time think­ing about how soft­ware will be used and by whom — per­sonas, use cases, red routes and all the rest.  But in the major­ity of soft­ware I see when work­ing with novice users, it seems that either the novice user has not been con­sid­ered, or their per­sona is paid lip ser­vice while the lat­est excit­ingly com­pli­cated new fea­tures are bolted onto the software.

As cre­ators of soft­ware and of user expe­ri­ences, I know we can do bet­ter than this.

Do you have any thoughts on how we can design bet­ter for the novice user?  Just want to vent about an app with a par­tic­u­larly poor UI, or about a rel­a­tive with a par­tic­u­larly poor grasp of com­put­ing?  Fire away in the com­ments below!

Film Review by the Numbers: The Musketeer (2001)

Syn­op­sis

D’ARTAGNAN’s PARENTS were killed, so in order to avenge them, D’ARTAGNAN learns LEET NINJA SKILLZ, joins the MUSKETEERS, talks in noth­ing but CLICHES, and flirts embarass­ingly with MENA SUVARI.

Also, ARAMIS is a SARCASTIC BASTARD with an EIGHTIES POWER METAL MULLET.

By the Numbers

  • Evil hench­men with eye­patches: 1
  • Uncon­vinc­ing cock­roaches required to defeat a mus­ke­teer: 3
  • D’Artagnan’s “evil hench­men killed per bul­let fired” ratio: 3
  • Times Francesca switches from badass to point­less floozy and back: 7
  • “What if I absolutely… must kill some­one?”: 1
  • Inex­plic­a­ble Rooms Full of Lad­ders: 1
  • “On rolling bar­rels” fight scenes: 1
  • “Run­ning across heads of bystanders” fight scenes: 1
  • “In remark­ably destruc­table kitchen” fight scenes: 1
  • “Along the sides of a tall build­ing” fight scenes: 1
  • “On the back of a mov­ing car­riage” fight scenes: 1
  • “Pre­car­i­ously hang­ing on ropes” fight scenes: 1
  • “Along extremely thin ledge” fight scenes: 1
  • Boxes checked there: 7
  • Tim Roth: 1
  • Chan­de­liers swung from: 2
  • Horses jumped between: 3
  • Buck­les swashed: over 9000

Over­all: 1 / 5 (with brain enabled),
or 5 / 5 (with brain disabled)

Cheese rat­ing: Casu marzu (warn­ing: gross).
This shit is Film Review by the Num­bers gold.

Film Review by the Numbers: Zookeeper

Syn­op­sis

KEVIN JAMES, famed STAR of AWFUL MOVIES, is a ZOOKEEPER.  He fails so hard with WOMEN that the ZOO ANIMALS have to res­cue him from his own INEPTITUDE by teach­ing HIM to GRUNT and PISS ON THINGS.  Some­how, this actu­ally works.  Oh yeah, also the ANIMALS can talk.

Hon­estly, the only way this movie could be any worse is if it starred Adam Sandler.

By the Numbers

  • Inap­pro­pri­ate Mari­achi bands: 2
  • Rap­ping giraffes: 1
  • Lions under lionesses’ thumbs: 1
  • Thumbs pos­sessed by lionesses: 0
  • Times the main char­ac­ter is talk­ing to ani­mals when there are def­i­nitely mem­bers of the pub­lic around: 24
  • Humans that are kind of a dick: 4
  • Ani­mals that are kind of a dick: 1
  • Tri­cy­cle limbo moves: 1
  • Peo­ple not freaked out by a gorilla in TGI Fri­days: some­how about 90
  • Ostriches crushed: 1
  • Canoe chases: 1
  • Cringe-worthy scenes: 204

Over­all: 2 –

WAAAAAAIT! It did have bloody Adam San­dler in it. The voice of the bloody mon­key. Right, that’s it Zookeeper, you get a point docked for that.

Over­all: 1 / 5