I Thought it Was Obvious

8 comments (closed), posted on november 20, 2003, tags: web

In the recent contest to redesign web "usability guru" Jakob Nielsen's site, Useit.com, I was astounded by how many people used pictures of him in their designs.

I don't know if I'm the only person who thinks this, but Nielsen looks frightening. It's bad enough that he has tons of ultra-high resolution photos on his website (so high you can see his pores), but now people think his face should greet you every time you visit the site? It's not a real problem for me, since I never visit the site and can't stand Nielsen at all anyway, but for people who do—should they have to see this? Dear god please no.

I was shocked when I saw design entries like this one, in which Nielsen's ugly mug and giant head are incorporated into the design. From a usability standpoint: is a website more usable if the people visiting it vomit instantly when they see the author's photograph? Is the site more usable when they continue to vomit in each section and eventually try to gouge their eyes out just to make it all stop?

How about this entry in which Nielsen is slowly coming out of the shadows, without doubt, to kill me. Or this entry in which size 60pt font fits comfortably on Nielsen's gigantic, pale forehead/bald spot. And my favourite use of a photograph is in this entry (which I really like otherwise), in which we see up Nielsen's nose and get a nice angle of his mutton chop. Fantastic! (Vomiting!)

Aisde from the photo aspect, however, there were some really great entries. I'm sure Jakob won't use them, because that's the kind of person he is, but it was interesting to see how people thought a website all about usability should look. Two of my favourite entries are George Sekera's and Stephane Curzi's.

People Sure to Buy? Charge a Lot!

10 comments (closed), posted on november 18, 2003, tags: software

I use three 'haxies' because they change things in OS X that bother me. I use them because they're seamless and work correctly and do what I need them to do. I use them because, at $10 each, they're worth the amount of use I get out of them.

I use WindowShade X because I can't live without being able to shade windows in OS X (double-click the window's top bar and the window shades up to just the top bar). Why Apple removed this in OS X (it was in OS 9), I don't understand at all, but WSX does it for me now.

I use FruitMenu because Apple's default Apple Menu in OS X is a waste. There's nothing in there, and I like to be able to customize what I see with things I'll use most. I put quick-links to apps I launch all the time but don't want in the dock (like Disk Utility for making disc images when sending out xPad betas and Remote Desktop Connection for controlling my PC), and I reorder system functions (like Log Out, Sleep, etc) to make more sense. Without FruitMenu I would probably never touch the Apple Menu at all, and that would be a waste.

I used to use Menu Master, and will use it again soon when it is compatible with Panther, because Cocoa has this really great ability to have shortcut-keys changed on the fly—and a lot of applications have shortcut-keys I don't like or lack what I consider to be important shortcuts. For instance, in Transmit, I assigned CMD+S to Upload, because when I'm working on a website, it plays really well with what my brain is thinking already (in BBEdit, save changes with CMD+S, Exposé to Transmit, upload with CMD+S). I also assigned things like CMD+Z to zoom in iTunes, so I can zoom open and closed the window quickly (since I like to play music with iTunes in 'tiny' mode). Any day now, Menu Master will be compatible with Panther and I'll get to use it again.

You might say that $30 for that functionality isn't worth it, but I would disagree. For a mere $30, I have added missing functionality that makes using my computer easier and more enjoyable. Can you put a price on something like that? Well, you can, but it's hard. After all, when choosing $10 as the price for each of these haxies, Unsanity surely had a lot to consider. Will the price of this application seem justified in comparison to the features? Does this application provide something people are looking for/need? Hell, I just went through this when coming up with the price of xPad.

In most cases, Unsanity is right on the mark with its prices. When they released FontCard, they priced the haxie at $17—due to its features, the community it was aimed at, and the prices of other competing applications—and I thought that was fair. I didn't buy it, because I don't have that much use for it, but I understood the price point.

Today, Unsanity released ShapeShifter, a "revolutionary new product that lets you change the overall appearance of your Mac using 'themes'." I'm not sure that it's "revolutionary," since many other applications have been changing OS X themes for a few years now, but ignoring that I will conceed that it handles theme changing in a new way that is inherently safer for the system and user, and that's a good thing. The only problem is, ShapeShifter is $20.

Why is that a problem? It's a problem because the release of ShapeShifter didn't only involve Unsanity, it also involved several of the Mac community's top theme designers. And, from the looks of it, these theme designers will now be designing themes only for SS (I could be wrong about this, but even if I am, other people will surely devote all their effort to only SS formatted themes in the future). This means that for people to use these themes, they'll need to pay $20 to Unsanity. So what? Well, ThemeChanger, the application everyone used to change themes until yesterday, was free.

Knowing this, it feels to me like Unsanity set the price at $20 just because they knew people would buy it, not because of what it does. I understand it's a leap in theming technology for OS X (how big that leap is I do not yet know), but I feel as though Unsanity had an opportunity to help the community more than profit from it to this extent. Don't get me wrong—I'm not saying it should have been free—it's just that I always get angry when someone attempts to corner the market.

Would I have reacted like this if the price were $10? No. I probably wouldn't even have reacted this way if the price were the same as FontCard ($17). I think something about it being the most expensive Unsanity product ever (by more than 15%) strikes a nerve with me. It feels much more about making money than about revolutionizing anything.

Updated to add:

I think pricing would pricing be more accurate if ShapeShifter were only $5, but each theme you used cost 99¢. The price breakdown could be something like the iTMS, in that Unsanity would get a percentage of the buck, and the theme design would get the rest.

Maybe that's another thing that's holding me back from paying $20 for the app. While I understand that ThemeChanger could cause problems, it never did for me. Not once. And the app is free. I would be much happier paying for the themes themselves than for the means to apply them. After all, in the long run, it's the theme designers who are doing all the real work on the front-lines. Imagine if SS came out, but no themes had been created... no one would buy the software. For that matter, there is no purpose for the software at all without excellent and continuous theme design and release.

If Unsanity wishes to revolutionize the theme community, I think they should lower the price of ShapeShifter, and encourage theme designers to create a new community in which they are paid for their hard work. Even if it's only a dollar at a time.

Not coicidentally, themes are the topic of Erik's QotD.

Yet Another Version

16 comments (closed), posted on november 16, 2003, tags: site

Boy, if you were to remove all the entries I've written about new designs of this website, there might not be many others to read. But, yet again, here we are.

This new version doesn't change much of anything usability-wise. It's most just a visual change. Although, I did change the sidebar to a new style, using ideas from Douglas Bowman's great ALA article, Sliding Doors of CSS. The sidebar is now built using lists (yes, everyone's favourite old ul and li tags), and I like the new look a lot.

The site is still valid XHTML and CSS, and doesn't use any tables. It wasn't too hard to do, since the last time I rewrote the code for the site I converted it to all dynamic templates, so changing the visual style only required changing a total of 10 lines in three files. That and CSS changes.

You might need to refresh your cache (especially if you use Safari), and it looks iffy in parts in IE for Windows (please, god, download Mozilla people!). Not much else to say. Give me your feedback, if you will.

The "Gruber" Easter Egg

2 comments (closed), posted on november 16, 2003, tags: software

It had been driving me nuts until tonight. John Gruber mentioned that there was an easter egg in BBEdit's about box, and I wanted to find it. I tried, over and over, to find this egg—but I couldn't.

Then, he posted a hint—that it was a menu—and I found it. I think I never would have found this had I not spent the last few months writing an OS X app, and getting to know all the little things OS X can do. I was very pleased with myself when I found it, not only because I felt smarter than the average person, but because the egg is actually quite good.

If you still haven't found it, here's how:

Open the BBEdit about panel, and then hold down Command (the Apple key), and click the BBEdit icon or the words About BBEdit in the window's top bar. You'll get a menu with a list of people who worked on BBEdit, and if you click them some of them will open web pages with different things on them.

Gruber's page is nice, and my favorite is Gypsy, the "office dog."

I know, I know—it's no fun to give it all away. But, at the same time, I feel I should share this with others who might not find it. All apologies to John (and maybe Gypsy too).

Matrix Revolutions Outlook

5 comments (closed), posted on november 4, 2003, tags: entertainment

Well, after 6 months, The Matrix Revolutions arrives in theaters tomorrow. It's strange that I almost forgot about it completely this week (mostly due to the new job), but when Reloaded came out I was excited for months prior. I guess that's the difference between waiting 5 years and waiting 6 months.

So far, the reviews aren't looking so good. A check on Rotten Tomatoes last night yielded a rating of 19%. Today that rating has gone up to 44% (of all reviews last night, only 2 were positive—today with more reviews that number has gone up to 7 of 16). Doesn't sound like anyone is really liking it. Even though that won't stop me from seeing the film (nor from liking it), I have to admit that it is a bit depressing. Then again, Reloaded only received a rating of 73% (based on 207 reviews), which isn't terrific either. Perhaps tomorrow when more reviews are released the number will creep up.

I haven't decided yet whether to deal with the whole opening-night-madness thing. Don't get me wrong—I want to see the movie, but I just don't know if I want to wait in line for 2 hours on a work-day. It seems I have some time to decide, since my theater of choice hasn't sold-out a single show on Wednesday yet. I think part of my reluctance to see the film is the finality of it. After this, it's over. I really like this series. Regardless of whether or not Revolutions is great, it's a shame it will be over tomorrow.

It's Coming...

3 comments (closed), posted on november 1, 2003, tags: xpad

After almost 9 months, my first OS X application, xPad, is almost ready for release. I plan to launch the app on December 1, 2003. I'll be working like crazy until then to get all the details in order, but I will say this—xPad will quickly become a part of your daily routine. User response has been great so far, and I can't wait to get it out there.

xPad (click to enlarge)

Stay tuned for more information. Later in the month I'm going to start posting a series of entries about specific xPad features. Until then, hopefully the screenshot will do.