raphael_l

I’m 90% sure that the “new” (Diablo 2 Resurrected - is this what you’re referring to?) one doesn’t have any monetization. It’s a faithful remake.

That’s true, but only for my screen size. A smaller device wouldn’t.

This was in February of last year according to the screenshot, my device was an iPhone 11 - not a small one, but rather very much standard screen size!

Slightly off topic, but the Microsoft Authenticator app on iOS is - in my opinion - the probably worst designed app by a large corporation. Nothing in there works the way you’d expect it to work.

And my absolutely favorite thing was when it itself came in the way of seeing the 2FA code for a modal entry and you had the option on the screen to hide the modal for 10 seconds in order to remember the number underneath…

See screenshot here: https://ibb.co/5Wh05rsd

It was mentioned in one of their WWDC videos. IIRC “Reduce Transparency” now would affect the amount of blur. It was similar to the amount of blur in VisionOS.

But this was a few days ago and I can’t remember exactly which video it was mentioned in.

I would also be interested in the reasoning here!

Just for comparisons sake, our 8.6kwP setup with a 10kwH battery cost us (after subsidies from governemnt) appr. ~€11.5k. Haven't received all the subsidies yet, so the total will be lower by about 1.5k (I think). Everything was done through installers, we didn't lift a finger (also couldn't, because when it comes to electricity I have as much experience as the dog next door).

If I had more due diligence before I would have scaled up the panels up to at least 10kwP, for future proofing probably to 12kwP. This is mostly just to make sure winter is covered better, as our production is really low as we have a 10° flat roof installation.

A bit off-topic, but one gripe I had with some implementations of subtitles is when they’re delivering on the identity of a person before this was exposed. I don’t know why this happens that it would reveal <Name: Dialog> where it should instead be <Generic trait: Dialog>.

So instead of <Phil: Blah blah> it would be <Raspy voice: Blah blah>.

I don’t have examples for this, but it happens regularly that I noticed it as a trend. Might be because subtitles are outsourced and maybe the importance of exposition is not clear to the people creating the subtitles?

It’s actually also indicative of German! (and I would assume a few other languages?)

“Ich bin seit zwei Tagen hier.”

I think the author is German (inferred from the TLD), so that might just be the language barrier.

I actually recently purchased my first Kindle, as well as an gift upgrade for my partner. I researched and talked to a friend of mine who owns one.

At first I was determined I would purchase the ad-free version (I think the price difference was like ~20€), but after talking to my friend they kind of convinced me that the ad version is not so bad.

2 points on this: 1. The ad appears only on the lockscreen of the device, so you see it once and then never again until you reopen it. The ad is also only for a book in the Kindle store, never anything else (this might seem trivial, but I think one of the negative aspects of advertising is being blasted with stimuli about so many different things you don't care for)

2. The ads are personalized on books you bought and therefor a sort of recommendation engine. Both my friend and my partner told me they got some inspiration from those ads to find books they liked.

So all in all while I despise ads, I gave this one a try. Personally (and yeah, I know – subconciously) I have never looked at the lockscreen apart from the first time I launched it. It's a relatively non-intrusive ad about a book that I don't even need to engage with. And in case something relevant is on there, it leads to a good outcome for me.

This is advertising done well for me at least.

We drive an ID.5. Apart from the UX, the outdated visual design language – is the interface also horrendously slow in yours? I have very noticeable lag when interacting with it, sometimes it takes even a second to respond to input.

If it weren't for the insanely good driving experience (coming from a VW Polo before), the software would have definitely convinced us to go for another car.

Does anyone know what was behind this link? It was mentioned as "too much of a good thing", but seems that account has been deactivated and the tweet is gone.

https://twitter.com/jaredsinclair/status/633407338347634688?...

Does that mean blind jews can use this as precedent to eat whatever they like?

Crystal Skull, for me, is really one of the most disappointing continuation of any series ever. It's even worse than the Star Wars prequels (and later on sequels), because those at least managed to set up interesting world building apart from being bad movies. It's no surprise that Lucas had a say in both of them.

Temple of Doom was nowhere near the quality of Raiders or Last Crusade, but it was still a good Indy movie. They should have never touched the franchise again after the trilogy. Harrison Ford is Indy. And Indy without his charisma & agility is just really plain…

The comments are really terrible to read. There was a post with a few examples on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/MonkeyIsland/comments/vo62zx/this_i...

I would say this is not entirely correct as a standalone rule. Just to make it clear, I completely disagree with this statement the OP made:

> If it's not obvious, it's probably not a critical feature, just a nicety for those who discover it.

There is a huge difference between discoverability and hierarchy. If the user can't distinguish between an interactive element and a static label, the UI has failed. But there is definitely nuance in the degrees of hierarchy and importance. If every button looks the same with every affordance necessary for a user to recognise it as such, it might be great in terms of discoverability, but in most cases it would still be bad design because as a user I can't easily distinguish between primary, secondary or tertiary actions.

This is of course also highly dependent on the business goals and overall context of the design. If you have a marketing page you might want to clearly distinguish actions that lead to the sign up or download of your product (this – in most cases – is what you would like your users to do and also what your users eventually want to do themselves). If you have enterprise software that is highly customizable and completely different for each and every individual, you might want to shy away from opinionated hierarchy of importance. In this case, it would be very much dependent on the user and therefor their choice.

Typically the context is – at scale – more on the former side than the latter. If I have, for example, a notes app I would say the hierarchy favors the creation of new notes rather than going into settings to change the appearance of my notes. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discoverable, only that the design should clearly dictate what's more important (especially on a temporal dimension: I'll add notes more often than I would edit the style) and therefor influence the appearance of both actions.

Let me know what you think.

I definitely agree with this sentiment in terms of general UX and performance. I can't find a lot of messages and files that I'm looking for because it's so badly structured. And it has a very noticeable lag whenever I perform any function (clicking on "Activity" out of "Chat" for example).

The only good thing about it is video calling. Without testing this, I always feel it's much faster/smoother and has better screen sharing quality. Also the launch screen does a great job (in comparison to Zoom for example)

Yes. A lot of. I value the work the designer put into it. But you have to also consider all the variables: 1. This is not a one and done deal. If he had a single client paying that for 80 icons, of course it wouldn't be fair. But since it's a product that is created once and sold multiple times, the price shouldn't be decided by the hours of work or craft put into it. 2. These icons are minimalistic. There certainly is a craft behind this design choice, but compared to more realistic icon depictions (comparing to macOS icons for example), it takes far less effort to design these. 3. A lot of them have already been established. If you can simply take a pre-existing pattern and adapt it to your style, there's not much for you to do. Official logos of other companies and adaptions of app icons.

Don't take this the wrong way. I'm happy for the designer to have been so successful. I'm merely pointing out that the price is relatively steep in comparison with other icon kits of the same craft. But good for him that he was so bold to go with the price and get rewarded for it!

I'm convinced the poster above is only surprised because of the combination in this case: It costs (a lot of) money to buy this set. It requires a lot of manual work to add the custom icons. And - most importantly - it slows down every app start. While I myself don't really like to change defaults, I can very well see the benefit of customization for other people. But at the expense of performance this becomes very questionable.

This happened to me yesterday as well, only it was "liked" instead of "replied". In my confusion I clicked on the account, since I didn't recognize it. Only to mistakenly click the Follow button, as my brain didn't manage to correctly derive the current status of it. Because I actually thought I had accidentally followed them or something similar.

But the scaling of bitmaps would have the same problems, wouldn't they? Or do you mean custom icons per given resolution/size?

Very interesting concept, thanks for providing this link!

We could also apply this terminology to startups: precocial startups are profitable and self-sustaining soon after their launch. Superprecocial startups would be so right away.

I somewhat agree with this. Instead of shaming companies for trying to produce/show the most likely content users would enjoy, shame those who abuse the easy access to their users, e.g. this one: https://i.redd.it/bmkpt4orb3uy.jpg

This article [0] seems to be much more in-depth and explains the situation a bit better (if factually correct).

I'm not so much baffled about actually showing up with a SWAT team before the threat could be identified as a hoax, but rather how an allegedly sleeping man could be shot twice. Once in the face.

The interesting parts are the following:

> Dobbs himself said when police woke him up with a call on his cellphone, he said he told them he would come outside. Dobbs said he walked around the apartment looking for something to put on because it was a cold February night. He said he walked out to the living room, saw the SWAT{ } team, and heard police yelling at him to come out. He said he turned around to go get his girlfriend but was shot. He said he doesn't remember anything after that rubber bullet him in the face.

And:

> Police say Dobbs was shot twice with two rubber rounds to prevent him from reentering the apartment. A Howard County Police Department spokesperson said Dobbs repeatedly refused to obey officer's commands, and also allegedly had his hand in his shirt, though police do not have video evidence of it. When asked, Dobbs denied having his hand in his shirt, and said he had nothing in his hands at all. The department said Dobbs was shot in the face as he was "falling forward," according to a written statement to 7 on Your Side.

[0] http://wjla.com/features/7-on-your-side/fbi-says-swatting-is...

Maybe I'm not getting something quite right, but why is there a "UX" in the title?

It works for Apple and how they want it to work. That's why it is designed well.

Design is very much depending on the intended outcome. Apple wants to sell devices -> design them so that they get bought (make them "shiny", as you put it ;)). Of course this is not the only point of what Apple wants, but it certainly is the biggest one.

The quote from Jobs gets thrown around pretty heavily, but I also think it is interpreted very narrow sometimes. For me, "(...) how it works" isn't just about functionality, but about "how it works on the user". Yeah, aluminium plus glass may be a brittle combination, but if people like it, it just works. And this isn't on the same level as the "how it looks", because that can be quite different. Facebook Paper for example. It looks good, it "works" well (in functionality and purpose of the app), but it just doesn't work well on the user, because the concept is all wrong.

Is this actually the sort of people that get attracted to HN? Thinking of others as "mere mortals" and yourselves as gods?

Sad picture.

While I agree that substituting a single word is a very easy target and easily manipulated, so that I shouldn't have gone for it, I think "life" is very relevant in this case, as for many people it is either part of their life or their social life exclusively evolves around FB.

All I'm saying is that when a friend of yours decides to share information about you in public, you should hold them responsible and not the channel he is sharing this information. That's it.

I'll quote what I said in the post you're responding to: "Please note that I'm simply responding to the argument that Facebook mines all the data your friends put up." That's the only point I made.