mnicole

How technical or not you are has nothing to do with how much you care about the security of your email. LI is just hoping that they'll gain trust by being open about their process because they're counting on that "transparency" to help people feel comfortable about installing it.

Right, but I think that most people can see right through the "look guys, we're cool! we care!" crap when it's this tacky and confusing. Quite frankly I thought they would be way more outlandish and unusable in the context of being a logo simply because of the name and the whimsicality of the current iteration. Downloading a bunch of type from Dafont does not a good logo or even fake contest make.

And here's the final they posted - http://yahoo.tumblr.com/post/60332693287/introducing-our-new... - along with a now laughable quote about it from the post 30 days ago:

> The new logo will be a modern redesign that’s more reflective of our reimagined design and new experiences.

As a designer, this whole process is degrading, frustrating and reminiscent of the worst clients I've had throughout my career. I'm not sure if they are trying to make it look like they want to appease the people, but if I were working in-house over there, watching all of these awful designs roll out would just crush me and make me question what they think my worth is. I'm hoping the whole thing turns out to be a joke.

Agreed. As a designer, I don't want to waste space with this for two form inputs, not including the CVV. On pages asking for your CC information, there's generally a lot more than just this going on, and the possibility it creates confusion for those who think it is merely a graphic representing a card, and not part of the process itself, during the most important aspect of the sale just doesn't fly with me.

I viewed the site on in Chrome on a rMBP and it looked and loaded just as poorly. There's no excuse for having basic fallbacks or a preloading mechanism.

When I first moved to Portland, I lived on the same block as a wonderful little local coffee shop that served Stumptown. Man I love Stumptown. I would go there all the time, sometimes twice a day. The coffee and the food were great, but only right before I moved did they employ someone with a personality that would remember the only order I would ever get there.

When I started going to the Starbucks near my old office instead, within a week they knew my name, they know my [custom] drink, they know what I do and what my plans are for the weekend without sounding fake or pretentious and despite being one of the busier locations in the city. For me, it's customer experience, and Starbucks really emphasizes that in their training process. My taste buds preferred the local shop, but my money went to the company where the employees actually looked up at me and smiled and engaged me.

I also know they have really great benefits for their employees and with sites like mystarbucksidea.com, they at least pretend to give credence to the ideas of their customers (although they've implemented quite a few of them, they've been incredibly stingy about buying hemp milk).

To me it's more about who deserves the reward. $1.99 might not be a monetary tragedy, but it's giving someone a pat on the back that they may not deserve and asking for a refund for that amount just seems petty, so I'd rather do the research and encourage the best dev with my dollars.

Seriously. The first thing I do if I strongly like or dislike an article is click the name/avatar to get more information about the author to better understand their background. Medium pushes me onto a page with the rest of their articles instead of a profile and I then have to hope that I can use Google to find their Twitter or website based on the small amount of information in their user blurb (because it doesn't force them to include either).

I love Chris Coyier for everything he's done for the front-end community, but between his CSS-Tricks layouts and Codepen.io, his aesthetic is much to be desired.

While I agree that it would have been nice, I don't think it was an oversight. In addition to the link posted on how they found people, it's also a bit of a double-edged sword as women are less likely to apply for these types of things. This is their very first attempt; it's experimental. I'm sure when they have more faith in their product/the training, they can spend more time trying to find people from varying backgrounds to highlight.

Once you —, you never go back.

Having just had my boyfriend switch from 24/7 at-home freelance to working at his shop 7 days a week, this woman doesn't seem to understand the benefits she reaps from having someone at home and on-call most of the time (Do they have pets? Does he run errands? Is he there when maintenance shows up?). Not only this, but his mood has lowered and stress levels have skyrocketed, and given that I wake up at 6am and he doesn't get home until 8 or 9pm, we hardly spend time together anymore.

Depending on your drive, you can waste anywhere from 20 minutes to 2 hours+ a day commuting to and from, as oppose to using that time more efficiently or memorably.

Are there benefits to working from some office settings? Sure, but trying to claim he's less of a man for doing so is really the lowest and most absurd claim she could make. If she can't see that him being his own boss is better and more effective for him than having one, she's missing the point, the privilege and the potential.

What a pretentious article.

> Do NOT Use Black on White

> The only reason I don't visit Quora is bad typography. Yeah, I am that crazy!

Meanwhile, OP's body copy is a heavy slab-serif, his headers are a custom sans-serif without any margins or visual differences besides 6px in size. Using something like http://www.gridlover.net/, you can accomplish better readability and hierarchy.

He suggests type based on what's available on your OS despite the fact that those should be your fallbacks, not your defaults now. We've got a brilliant library of web type that look good and sites like http://hellohappy.org/beautiful-web-type/ + http://font-combinator.com/ + http://daneden.me/type/ help to figure out what emotion you're going for.

He also completely ignores the weights and families available with Helvetica that truly make it superior to Arial that you can call for most OS X users, and fallback with Arial for Windows folks. http://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/better-helvetica/

No matter what it was, did he learn from it? That's what matters in my book. If he was older, I might care more about the specifics of what he did since I think a lot of people get too comfortable with the lies they build around themselves and appearances they need to keep up, especially professionally. But he's young and he's learning how to hack it in two industries where going at it alone is both rewarding and daunting, and of course you'll mess up somewhere, especially when you have much less experience, both professionally and in life.

That said, if it was something more malicious than what you mentioned, then it would be worth looking into.

What a great idea; a lot less intimidating than doing it on your own or one-on-one. Interested in seeing how this plays out.

Studies show that it takes less than a second for visitors to determine - based on appearances - whether or not your site will bring them value. The Nielson Norman Group says that in addition to this, you only have ten seconds to provide written-proof of that value:

> the first 10 seconds of the page visit are critical for users' decision to stay or leave. The probability of leaving is very high during these first few seconds because users are extremely skeptical, having suffered countless poorly designed Web pages in the past. People know that most Web pages are useless, and they behave accordingly to avoid wasting more time than absolutely necessary on bad pages.

> To gain several minutes of user attention, you must clearly communicate your value proposition within 10 seconds.

> http://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-long-do-users-stay-on-we...

The author is assuming a few things: (a) that most visitors to your site are there because they intended to be and don't need their hand held to get to the next step, (b) that there is only one 'next step' to send them to, and (c) that your short description is a list of bullet-points as opposed to a sentence or two.

For one, I don't think we can assume the intent and understanding of most users. I visit more sites daily that I don't have a clue about than those that I do, but maybe I'm a small percentage. Secondly, depending on the product, I think bullet points can be just as effective as a short blurb (especially if you have a tagline that does a good job summing things up). Pinboard (http://pinboard.in/) is a great example of this.

> For the purpose of feminizing men so that they are more passive and they fit better into your ideals of who people should be? So to fit men who want to be themselves into your little cult of civility?

Grow up.

> The point is to appeal to your group, not to appeal to all of society.

The point is your group is flawed, and that flaw legitimately keeps newcomers out and cause well-intentioned contributors to leave. There's absolutely no reason why the community should have the stance "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Competition is only going to make you better. Taking the time to help someone will also help you. Having the support of your peers for being courteous does far more for you in the long-run than intimidating them into submission does. But I guess that's "feminizing men" vs. holding them accountable as not only adults but as advocates and respectable members of the community.

Some of the arguments here are that if you post something to the web, you can't be in control of where it ends up. While I agree with that sentiment on the whole, HN shouldn't be a place where you submit articles that are clearly just somebody's snippet of an opinion, but rather actual news or human interest stories that err on the tech side. Others are suggesting that you just avoid the thread that is about you, and I think that's irresponsible; people have the right to correct information about themselves and their opinions.

We've seen all sorts of ShowHNs where the person who made it wasn't ready to post it yet, but someone got ahead of them. They rush into the comments to do due diligence, but sometimes the damage is already done. Now if the author wanted to post it again once it is finally complete, they'll likely end up with comments like "Didn't we see this already?" and potentially get less click-throughs considering. We've seen blog entries torn to shreds and the author show up hours late to a dead thread, hoping to do any necessary damage control or simply answer questions that could have changed the entire flow of conversation.

Not being fully in control of where my content ends up and not being able to be in every conversation about what I write is a big contributor to why I don't write at all. When someone posts my content here, it's assumed that it's to be taken seriously or that it is worthwhile. Despite that not being the case, people respond as though it is, and thus we find ourselves in this situation.

Even if there was some sort of tag like #nohn or something to highlight the fact that if discussion on the issue should be kept on the site because, as it wasn't intended to be a HN-worthy piece. That way, if it's posted anyways (as I don't believe in blocking the URL entirely), the author's intent is clear.

Exactly why I'm leaving my company after ~3 years. There's absolutely no movement but lateral with a laughable pay raise, more responsibility in tasks that are unrelated to my skills and greater micromanaging.

While I've learned a lot here, most of the time I've been stagnating and it's depressing and infuriating.

I've found that if both users have their windows at full-size, it's fairly easy to read (at least, default Sublime Text 2 is readable) so long as the connection is good. As soon as either user adjusts, it shrinks too much unless you've got the text bumped up quite a bit (and even then, you might be dealing with too much connection fuzz for it to be readable).

This is super janky (sorry if anyone here made it), but there's an online version here -- http://pyz.socialgamer.net/game.jsp

I love the game in small doses, but it's very obvious there wasn't much diversification in the team that made it. Not because it would have curbed the offensiveness, but because after two or three hours of playing [as happens in larger groups], and even with hundreds of cards and endless combinations, the formula of offensive card (either based on history, internet humor or shaming) + offensive card just isn't funny anymore and people become bored. They'd have benefited from including different folks so that the jokes were different and meant different things to different people. Part of the fun/unexpected educational aspect is learning what the cards are referring to if you don't know (forcing people to learn about things outside of their worldview in an effort to make them funnier is a great incentive).

As it stands, if you're not a gamer, aware of internet culture or you don't find tragedies hilarious, you may have a hard time finding enjoyment from it.

Thanks. I'd spent a good chunk of time on the initial post itself, so I opted to just see what the community did instead of responding to it. Thankfully, it was downvoted quickly and two people responded to him directly about it.

In another post when I said I didn't want kids, I had about 5 replies insinuating I was risking my future happiness/purpose and I'd regret it in my later years. So.. there's still room to grow.

Yeah, I had a bit of a struggle with:

> Yes, we encountered dicks in our lives. Yes, we have been assaulted in our lives, maybe in broad daylight, in public. Yes, we've been hit on tastelessly and repeatedly and we have been disgusted and annoyed and sometimes we have been near panic. Some of us have encountered violence. We've gotten grabbed our asses, gotten felt up our boobs, have been stared at, wolf whistles at us and had some drunken moron hang in front of us. Yes, some of us have hit the proverbial glass ceiling in our careers.

> This is (a bad) part of our lives and yes, we judge social gathering and human encounters by how comfortable we are and how safe we feel and by their level of open or veiled dickishness.

> But this is only ONE aspect of being a woman and we do not like to let this aspect dominate how we live and behave within the tech communities of our choice.

The first paragraph acknowledges sexual and physical assaults/harassment, the second acknowledges that these shape our worldview, but the third implies that the victim is able to overcome the problem and let it slide off of their back. I think this is a bit if a dangerous message to send because it negates the unfortunate reality that it is always in the back of your mind and it insinuates that these encounters are one-offs, as opposed to childhood trauma or ongoing domestic issues (ignoring that a lot of the harassment faced these days is online and done by people who wouldn't at all think to do it in real-life).

Also I'm not sure if "assault" is coming from someone's CoC, but:

> We also like to keep the vocabulary appropriate: An "assault" is an act of violence, an agressive act to overpower a person. We do not feel being hit on tastelessly being an assault. A blunt stare into our cleavage is not an assault. Someone accidently touching us is not an assault. The typical french pseudo-kiss-hug is a cultural thing and not an assault. A hug might be a completely friendly act and not an assault - even if it might not be welcome.

.. comes off more as "Hey guys, don't worry! We're not tight-asses about this stuff!" vs. "Assault is the wrong word to use, but these are still forms of harassment depending on the person and the action, so please know when and what is appropriate for whom."

People seemed to miss this article when it was posted here when it was published. Surprised at some of the comments; they seemed to only read the headline before commenting as well.

Like I said then, the social buttons didn't work for MailChimp because they implemented them after most users already had email logins. The article dismisses a concept that is integral to onboarding users at the beginning of your service. When everyone has been using their email login for years, why would they switch? I disagree with some of the people here saying these types wouldn't use a Facebook login. Lots of people use MailChimp; lots of people that have no issue using a Facebook login (and don't understand the risk in doing so).

This is a case of coming to the wrong conclusion with the wrong data.

Ah, this breaks my heart. Homestead was the very first service I used, ever. Thanks so much for it :)

Just checking in, did any of that work out for you?

Ditto. Deciding to use a variant of my name here was something I went back and forth on (partly because I didn't want it associated with me at all, partly because I didn't want it to be gendered [1]). Ultimately I decided that I wanted to be able to take credit for posts where I write about usability/design/anything else I feel qualified to speak to, even at the expense of potential employers reading the rest of what I write here. On the other side of the same coin, I don't put any personal information in my profile.

[1] One of, if not my very first, comment's first comment was someone using my gender to denounce my opinion, which had me trying to figure out if I should start fresh again. For the most part this only happens in gender issues threads (where sockpuppets and new accounts run rampant), but this particular one wasn't. I wasn't sure if that attitude was going to follow me throughout my time here, but I've found most people don't even look at my username (as evidenced by being referred to as "he" in child comments).

Reddit didn't go off of information that wasn't already being passed around on the police scanners and Twitter. Their guessing game was just much more public than others'.

Well sure, but being as I'm not interested in the new tracks - especially in a concert setting - I won't be seeing them live.