Datingpub com

Posted by / 22-Dec-2017 02:40

Sec­ond flaw: the process of adopt­ing and en­forc­ing web stan­dards, as led by the W3C, is hope­less­ly bro­ken. I’ve some­times heard that it’s too soon to crit­i­cize the web. If any tech­nol­o­gy prod­uct should be sub­ject to high ex­pec­ta­tions, it’s the web. We’re im­pa­tient about all kinds of oth­er tech­nol­o­gy. What if I looked at pub­li­ca­tions about de­sign for de­sign­ers? And I even found out­side, be­fore this speech, this mag­a­zine. And do you know how many web­sites are sin­gled out for ty­po­graph­ic recog­ni­tion? So from ear­ly on, folks took this lemon and tried to make web lemon­ade by latch­ing onto the be­lief that ex­po­sure mat­tered more than mon­ey. “This project’s go­ing to be great ex­po­sure.” It’s nev­er true. The prob­lem, of course, is that in­for­ma­tion wasn’t ac­tu­al­ly free. This was sup­posed to be one of the virtues, I think, of web stan­dards. But as any­one who has de­vel­oped big web­sites with web stan­dards finds out, you dis­cov­er a ter­ri­ble truth—I was say­ing be­fore that the web has these two big struc­tur­al flaws. They’ve been so slow over the last 20 years at adopt­ing stan­dards. And so we have these prob­lems get­ting cre­at­ed at the stan­dards lay­er, and they just kind of flow down­stream, like tox­ic waste, down to the HTML and CSS lay­er. But in prac­tice, you still need to use all these crazy hacks and workarounds and overtag­ging to get re­sults that are ac­tu­al­ly stan­dard. For one thing, apps make it real­ly easy for in­for­ma­tion to be ex­pen­sive. The oth­er thing is that the tech­ni­cal stan­dards are to­tal­ly stan­dard. So the test­ing bur­den is rel­a­tive­ly man­age­able.

Ev­i­dence of both these flaws can be seen in a) the low de­sign qual­i­ty across the web, and b) the speed with which pub­lish­ers, de­vel­op­ers, and read­ers are mi­grat­ing away from the web, and to­ward app plat­forms and me­dia plat­forms. We’ve got to stand in line, out­side the big cube, for the i Phone. I thought, I’m go­ing to look at the most pop­u­lar mag­a­zines in Amer­i­ca by cir­cu­la­tion. They’ve ac­tu­al­ly tripled the num­ber of tool­bars they fit into the top. I’ll look at the mag­a­zines that were nom­i­nat­ed for Na­tion­al Mag­a­zine Awards in the de­sign cat­e­go­ry in the last five years. That must be a place where I could find some de­sign ex­cel­lence. The first, that it’s bad at mak­ing in­for­ma­tion ex­pen­sive. And I know—some­body’s al­ready tweet­ing: “But­t­er­ick’s an id­iot. Here, you’ve got to write a line for sev­en dif­fer­ent browsers. Where­as for web­sites, you nev­er real­ly fin­ish test­ing. So this brings us to the big con­se­quence, which is that—Be­cause for us, as de­sign­ers, these non­stan­dard stan­dards—they lim­it the things we can ac­com­plish. It’s easy to see now why apps—if you want­ed to make mon­ey—why apps would be a more ap­peal­ing de­vel­op­ment plat­form. So the ques­tion emerges: are the habits of the last 20 years the right ones for the next 20 years? Ei­ther the web is go­ing to have to adapt to to­day’s mar­ket­place, or it’s just go­ing to get re­strict­ed to this small­er and small­er box. But this func­tion needs to in­te­grat­ed with the web at a low lev­el.

But af­ter 20 years, the web still has no cul­ture of de­sign ex­cel­lence. Be­cause de­sign ex­cel­lence is in­hib­it­ed by two struc­tur­al flaws in the web. But I also know that 99.99% of peo­ple who men­tion this line for­get to talk about the first and last parts of it.“In­for­ma­tion wants to be ex­pen­sive, be­cause it’s so valu­able … The mes­sage is that there are two forces in ten­sion. The web, how­ev­er, has nev­er bal­anced these forces. There’s like three or four of them that ac­tu­al­ly work. And when that hap­pens, in a very real way, we’ll have trad­ed good gov­ern­ment for ban­ner ads. A tech­nol­o­gy com­pa­ny’s be­ing paid with tax dol­lars to stay in San Fran­cis­co? That’s a tens-of-mil­lions of dol­lars ben­e­fit to them. We might find a tiny sil­ver lin­ing in all this if the web’s ad­ver­tis­ing econ­o­my were ac­tu­al­ly healthy. In fact, The prob­lem is that as every­one has bet on ads—80% of these sites, right? As ads have got­ten less valu­able, you have to gen­er­ate more click­ing and more ads. You know how it works: You’re do­ing your job, and you come across a link like this: It’s like, oh shit—I have to click on it. But then you scroll down, and it’s like oh no, there’s a 73-pic­ture slideshow. But you have to make more mon­ey than you spend, oth­er­wise you’ll go broke. The only real de­sign con­sid­er­a­tion on this page is how you get the read­er to click again. This page, and so many oth­ers like it, are just ad-de­liv­ery ve­hi­cles. I can be­lieve that ad­ver­tis­ing has a role to play in sub­si­diz­ing cer­tain kinds of web con­tent. So the in­cen­tive is not real­ly to hold read­er at­ten­tion, but to man­u­fac­ture dis­trac­tion.It should fo­cus on a small­er ter­ri­to­ry where it can work well, and work con­sis­tent­ly, rather than try­ing to of­fer it­self as this holis­tic ap­proach to web de­vel­op­ment. But ei­ther way, we’ll be get­ting the web that we de­serve.They’re just find­ing oth­er things to do with their time. How­ev­er, I agree that the W3C should be dis­band­ed; the web does need to take a more or­gan­ic evo­lu­tion­ary path.It’s like “why am I go­ing to write, and go through the has­sle? Au­thors find some­thing else to do with their time. Don’t be fooled into think­ing that dis­band­ing the W3C will do any­thing about bad de­sign on the web, on the con­trary, it will like­ly give the bad de­sign­ers more tools with which to shoot them­selves in the foot.—Jonathan Dick­in­son De­sign­ers are al­ways put into a sit­u­a­tion where the de­sign is judged by peo­ple that are not qual­i­fied to do so. [t]he mar­ket will ei­ther prove that good de­sign begets bet­ter prof­its, or more de­sign-ap­pre­ci­at­ing man­agers will suc­ceed and nat­ur­al se­lec­tion will sort out the rest. I gave up try­ing to make the world pret­ty be­cause every­one that was will­ing to pay me want­ed to make it ugly.

datingpub com-50datingpub com-20datingpub com-18

Be­cause as de­sign­ers, this prob­lem af­fects all of us. But when you start say­ing things about tech­nol­o­gy com­pa­nies, it’s like you punched a baby in the face. But more than that, it real­ly should be the best man­i­fes­ta­tion. And that comes back to the oth­er thing that I said drew me to the web: that it was a ty­po­graph­ic medi­um. But de­spite this, the web isn’t the best man­i­fes­ta­tion of the writ­ten word. And that’s real­ly why apps have been drink­ing the web’s milk­shake re­cent­ly.

One thought on “datingpub com”

  1. The Face-to-Face experience: As an IJL client, we guarantee you will go out on dates. What happens: Once staff members find a good match, they'll tell you about your date, coordinate your schedules, and select a nice spot for lunch or drinks. A dating service is trying to revolutionize the blind date.

  2. She's using some harness or whatever you call that while she spreading her legs and dildo pounding her pussy! Kitty_Le Roux, watch this amateur free webcam video chat show featuring a horny babe with big titties!