Making recordings of meetings that are setting out to make decisions or even just discuss things in deep detail means people who weren't able to attend, or are just interested in the discussion had, are able to watch it on demand.
> I personally like that Apple attempts to make websites feel more like applications by making the browser disappear.
Now if they could provide a stable platform like they do for their applications versus the pain and edge cases Safari almost always introduces (especially the mobile implementations). I know its not a flashy thing but one WWDC it'd be great if they came out and said how many nearly decade old bugs have been addressed rather than a UI uplift - the cynic in me assumes a "redesigned" app is going to be less, not more stable.
It's actually become an interview question for me of "is there a bonus scheme" where I'm hoping the answer is actually no. I've yet to work in a company that has a structured bonus scheme that hasn't resulted in a worse culture for it.
The worst was in a company where your max bonus was depending on getting a "5 out of 5" performance review - however the whole business unit needed to average out to a particular number (I'm fairly sure it needed to be down the middle at 3 out of 5). What this meant was for every exceptional employee, someone else had to be under-performing in the eyes of the company. The end result was two types of teams: no one would rock the boat or have any initiative so everyone was perfectly average, or completely cut throat attitudes leading to burn out and animosity.
YMMV but to date I haven't had a good time in a company that has bonus schemes (even if I personally have financially benefited from it - the cost came at culture, stress and work life balances).
It feels like one of those things where the context of the meeting/call should be taken in: was the scheduled time of this call for an hour and you've left 10 minutes in, maybe a confirmation dialog is more useful than when you've decided to leave within a few minutes of the finish time. Doesn't cover all the edge cases etc., but just observing that "the right UX" is super contextual and not a one size fits all thing.
Whether taking that context into account is a good idea is very debateable.
The more contextually 'intelligent' a system is, the harder it is for the user to model it, and ease of user modelling is often more important than reducing the number of interactions need to complete a task.
In this particular case, it wouldn't be possible to know if your keyboard sequence that quits a call would feature an unnecessary enter at the end or not.
And to the average person who probably would just use the native app store, nothing would change. But people who are more comfortable with less polished apps that do utilities that they want to play with (or experiment with), they're missing out because of Apples restrictive policies.
> I rather give 30% of the money Epic takes for basically selling digital nothing to millions of teens to Apple. At least Apple is doing something with that money, maintaining the App Store, providing and developing tools like XCode and Swift.
Epic also would be spending some of their money on their own development, improvement to games etc. I don't quite follow the line of argument here - if things are 30% more expensive to cover Apples costs, then the consumer is the one losing out in the transaction.
And that's the case with the Epic suit: Epic literally dropped their prices when they went around Apple's cut, passing almost all of the savings directly on to consumers.
It's really incredible to me the lengths people will go to villanize Epic when they're known for not just advocating for consumer choice and lower prices, but have done crazy things like when dropping their cut... applying it retroactively since they started charging for it: https://marketplacehelp.epicgames.com/s/article/Unreal-Engin...
Can you even imagine Apple retroactively giving all those small businesses half the Apple cut back?
Obviously Epic dropped their prices, at first. I mean they got everyone rallied up and used their in game propaganda machine and everyone believed they are the good guys. By the end of the day, all they saw was 30 % loss of income. In a few years time their prices would have increased to their old level.
Also about that amazing fact that Epic has given part of the previously paid commision back. It's interesting to note the time of that decision compared to the popularity and online spending on Fortnite. Epic basically changed its business model, creating a precedent in the process. Using it two years later. If we can charge less, why can't you?
I mean I still think myself the 30% are too high, but Epic lining up your kids in front of a virtual stage to make them all hate Apple? It concerns me quite a bit!
Epic put the prices at the same level that they already sell V-bucks for via the Epic game store. I don't buy the argument that they would jack those prices back up to the other levels when if they had the ability to process payments themselves, would then be consistent across platforms.
> I mean I still think myself the 30% are too high, but Epic lining up your kids in front of a virtual stage to make them all hate Apple? It concerns me quite a bit!
Whilst I in principal agree mostly with Epic over Apple in this case, I completely agree with you here that the whole video approach was gaudy (at best) and a bit of unfair exposition.
Or sort by both artist, and original release date.
But they also have a pretty good API with generous limits. Really need to find the effort to restart work on my "spotify shuffle/playlist" style app that uses your collection to build out a play session. Had a lot of momentum at the start of covid and just fell off.
Yeah I definitely sit strongly in the former camp (that is, navigation should be in the same tab for anything that is your content).
When linking externally or to something that isn't yours, I feel it makes sense to go to a new tab then.
> someone did make a claim, that I was unable to verify, that modern users don’t use the back button and therefore relying on it to allow users to find their way back is unacceptable
I think this person is projecting their own experiences. Would be interesting to see the impact that mobile browser experiences have brought to these interactions, but for instance Android has a literal OS wide back button. I think that claim is a pretty far stretch.
> Complexity. This is the enemy, the second enemy is bad attempts to reduce complexity which often end up adding more complexity than they take away, just harder to find.
This is true at every level of the systems design process - often by trying to make a system "simpler" i.e. less complex for the end user, the complexity is shifted further down the stack into application code, or even to the underlying infrastructure.
It's easy for those of us with technical backgrounds to see the beauty and simplicity in well designed interfaces, but as the realm of computing and computer interaction shifts away from technical to non-technical people, we start to absorb some of that complexity into our systems design to make up for knowledge shortcomings of end users.
Your example of sed being better than the "fancy data tools" I feel is a good one - whilst sed is incredibly powerful for this use case, if the consumer of what needs to be run there only knows how to use excel, it's often required to create these abstraction layers to allow the end user to do their own primary function/role.
There is a difference between inherent complexity and manufactured complexity.
Inherent complexity can only be moved around, but even then you still want to move it to a place that can handle it properly. If the best you can do is a complex decision tree then it should at least be well-audited and well-documented instead of having a dozen separate buggy ones that all give different results for unknown reasons.
But much of today's complexity isn't inherent. It's manufactured. It's just not required to be there at all and there is much to be gained by taking it out.
