hkuo

I made a point on their GetSatisfaction feedback page, and will state again, if they can somehow lay down the cash for one or two of the most-used designer fonts, say, Helvetica Neue, or Gotham, or Garamond, then designers and web designers would flock to this service. Additionally, if they were to add a few of the popular-to-designer bit type faces, such as any of the FFF fonts, then again, designers would eat that up. Designers just have their standard kit of faces they turn to.

This is a great idea for a site. But it's success will depend entirely on how serious the majority of submittors take it. On that, I don't have much confidence. If there were some kind of incentive, like the top-voted idea each month or bi-monthly is somehow actually funded, then the jokers would become completely irrelevant.

I disagree with this. I actually really like the asthetic of having a mostly blue selection screen, rather than the jumble of clashing colors. I won't go so far as to say that one SHOULD use blue, but I don't believe there is anything wrong with it.

I would actually argue to stay away from the color black. Looking at my current home pane, I tend to forget that I have AirCam and Rev, AirCam in particular because it melts the most into the black backdrop.

When I first visited Hacker News, I was a little offput by the design, but quickly embraced it after discovering the quality of content. I now see this as an advantage, as it can turn away undesirable users that would not add quality to our conversations. I can't guess really whether this effect is true, but anything that could keep this from turning into reddit or digg would be great.

To put it more simply, you're talking to both audiences at once (people that use these tools and people that don't). Thus, the message is cluttered. You need to focus on one, and I would recommend you focus on people that already use these kinds of tools. Cause they're the ones already buying into the idea.

They're completely missing the mark in selling their product, like really really really far off. The only takeaway I got from their homepage is "save $500 over web ex over a year". Ok, that's a +1. What else? Hello? Anything?

So they should understand that there are people that currently use tools like this, and there are people that don't. The people that don't, well, that's hard, because you have to explain how the service can benefit them. The people that do use these kind of tools, well they all have their gripes. So that's an easy sell. Assuming you are focusing on those gripes. Or giving a service of equal quality, but less money.

So, looking at the people that already use these tools (myself included), I need a comparison chart. Tell me how you are better. Saving money alone ain't gonna cut it. Lay out all the reasons for me in as simple a way as possible. If saving money is the only thing you're selling me, well, my only assumption can be that I save money for a lesser quality product.

That homepage is hella cluttered, but isn't doing any convincing.

The controversy here is so unecessary. They begin with "Why we skip..." Note, the word "we". They're making a case that works for them and may work for others that haven't considered it. They're not trying to tell you how you should do things and they're not asking people to tell them how they're wrong. People have just forgotten that there is no one way to do things.

The advantages of the new media far outweighs the negatives, and this guy seems to be another case of focusing on the negatives rather than the positives. Is there a solution to his problem? Of course! We all know that. It seems he just has not reached the next level of thinking or searching to adapt to this new environment and make it work for him. I group him into the type of people who feel handicapped by their old habits. Nothing wrong with that. He will figure it out eventually.

christ this is what i left reddit for

I hereby proclaim my NY Times boycott. After reading this article, the boohoo about the former $225k/year SVP now out of a job, and that op-ed a while back whining about the iphone, it's become clear to me that the NYTimes is essentailly a troll writing about trending topics angling for unpopular opinions to gain readership.

Most telling quote for me was “If I walk to the store, I’m back in 10 minutes, and then what?” And then what???? Man, if I had enough money to live for 2-3 years, single, and having 24/7 time to do whatever the heck I wanted, I'd for damn sure be working on some crazy-ass shit. Another quote from him "...I can adapt". He refers to adapting as taking a cut in pay. Simply put, this man has no ability to adapt, nor an understanding of what adapting means. I have zero sympathy for this guy. 10 minutes to the store and back and then what? Get on the f'ing internet and freakin learn something and get a clue.

Went portrait about a year ago and I ain't looking back. http://www.flickr.com/photos/10026788@N00/3478203761/in/phot... Landscape is for video. Portrait is for data. And 99.9% of my day is looking at data (aka web pages, word documents, spreadsheets, tweetdeck, email)

On another note, it is this kind of mindset that is both unadaptive and uncreative. Rather than tout the benefits of the new social world, it focuses on the negatives. And then, rather than focusing on how the negatives can be fixed, it focuses on just complaining about them.

Here's a novel idea. Stop checking people's facebook status updates if you don't care!! Wow, that was really hard.