Interface Design Quotes

Readers usually ignore the typographic interface, gliding comfortably along literacy’s habitual groove. Sometimes, however, the interface should be allowed to fail. By making itself evident, typography can illuminate the construction and identity of a page, screen, place, or product.

Jobs's intensity was also evident in his ability to focus. He would set priorities, aim his laser attention on them, and filter out distractions. If something engaged him- the user interface for the original Macintosh, the design of the iPod and iPhone, getting music companies into the iTunes Store-he was relentless. But if he did not want to deal with something - a legal annoyance, a business issue, his cancer diagnosis, a family tug- he would resolutely ignore it. That focus allowed him to say no. He got Apple back on track by cutting all except a few core products. He made devices simpler by eliminating buttons, software simpler by eliminating features, and interfaces simpler by eliminating options. He attributed his ability to focus and his love of simplicity to his Zen training. It honed his appreciation for intuition, showed him how to filter out anything that was distracting or unnecessary, and nurtured in him an aesthetic based on minimalism.

Why can't you summon a command line and search your real-world home for 'Honda car keys,' and specify rooms in your house to search instead of folders or paths in your computer's home directory? It's a crippling design flaw in the real-world interface.

User interface is the process of shifting from chaotic complexity to elegant simplicity.

After all, as Edward Tufte once said, “Overload, clutter, and confusion are not attributes of information, they are failures of design.

An ugly system is one in which there are special interfaces for everything you want to do. Unix is the opposite. It gives you the building blocks that are sufficient for doing everything. That's what having a clean design is all about.

Effective gamification is a combination of game design, game dynamics, behavioral economics, motivational psychology, UX/UI (User Experience and User Interface), neurobiology, technology platforms, as well as ROI-driving business implementations.

Intuitive design happens when current knowledge is the same as the target knowledge.

Like putting an Armani suit on Attila the Hun, interface design only tells how to dress up an existing behavior.

As Susan Kare, designer of the original Mac interface, said, “You can’t really decide to paint a masterpiece. You just have to think hard, work hard, and try to make a painting that you care about. Then, if you’re lucky, your work will find an audience for whom it’s meaningful.

The software engineers who labored over the interface would have probably resorted to the standard lament: “RTFM”—“Read the (ahem) Manual.” For design thinkers, however, behaviors are never right or wrong, but they are always meaningful.

The best way to learn the value of good interface design is to use lots of interfaces — some good, some bad. Experience will teach you what works and what doesn’t. Never assume that a painful interface is “just the way it is.” Fix it, or wrap it in

when designers use clean aesthetics to cover over a complex reality—to take something human, nuanced, and rife with potential for bias, and flatten it behind a seamless interface—they’re not really making it easier for you. They’re just hiding the flaws in their model, and hoping you won’t ask too many difficult questions.

Remember, these things are designed for amateurs.” “Tell me about it,” Ivy snorted. “The user interface is so easy to use, I can’t do anything.

To deliver both power and pleasure to users, interaction designers think first conceptually, then in terms of behavior, and last in terms of interface.

casting the interface reference to any implementation is always a bad idea.

Design is like a magic trick, it's all about creating the illusion of simplicity.

Mother-infant inter-brain synchrony provides a template for designing compassionate artificial intelligence and social robots.

A bad UI is like an elephant in a room of blind people.

Particularly in the past fifty years the world has gradually been finding out something that architects have always known—that is—that everything is architecture. Charles Eames

Methods containing hundreds of lines of code are fine if they have a simple signature and are easy to read. These methods are deep (lots of functionality, simple interface), which is good.

The approach to digital culture I abhor would indeed turn all the world's books into one book, just as Kevin (Kelly) suggested. It might start to happen in the next decade or so. Google and other companies are scanning library books into the cloud in a massive Manhattan Project of cultural digitization. What happens next is what's important. If the books in the cloud are accessed via user interfaces that encourage mashups of fragments that obscure the context and authorship of each fragment, there will be only one book. This is what happens today with a lot of content; often you don't know where a quoted fragment from a news story came from, who wrote a comment, or who shot a video. A continuation of the present trend will make us like various medieval religious empires, or like North Korea, a society with a single book. The Bible can serve as a prototypical example. Like Wikipedia, the Bible's authorship was shared, largely anonymous, and cumulative, and the obscurity of the individual authors served to create an oracle-like ambience for the document as "the literal word of God." If we take a non-metaphysical view of the Bible, it serves as a link to our ancestors, a window. The ethereal, digital replacement technology for the printing press happens to have come of age in a time when the unfortunate ideology I'm criticizing dominates technological culture. Authorship - the very idea of the individual point of view - is not a priority of the new ideology. The digital flattening of expression into a global mush is not presently enforced from the top down, as it is in the case of a North Korean printing press. Instead, the design of software builds the ideology into those actions that are the easiest to perform on the software designs that are becoming ubiquitous. It is true that by using these tools, individuals can author books or blogs or whatever, but people are encouraged by the economics of free content, crowd dynamics, and lord aggregators to serve up fragments instead of considered whole expressions or arguments. The efforts of authors are appreciated in a manner that erases the boundaries between them. The one collective book will absolutely not be the same thing as the library of books by individuals it is bankrupting. Some believe it will be better; others, including me, believe it will be disastrously worse. As the famous line goes from Inherit the Wind: 'The Bible is a book... but it is not the only book' Any singular, exclusive book, even the collective one accumulating in the cloud, will become a cruel book if it is the only one available.

If your product solves real problems, has a simple, intuitive interaction and an appealing, easy-to-read visual design, yet people aren’t using it, chances are your product is failing to communicate at a human level.

Usability, fundamentally, is a matter of bringing a bit of human rights into the world of computer-human interaction. It's a way to let our ideals shine through in our software, no matter how mundane the software is. You may think that you're stuck in a boring, drab IT department making mind-numbing inventory software that only five lonely people will ever use. But you have daily opportunities to show respect for humanity even with the most mundane software.

We must create more effective interfaces with innovations across the whole of society; rethink how policies are designed; change how intellectual property regimes are governed; and use R& D to distribute intelligence across academia, government, business and civil society. This means restoring public purpose in policies so that they are aimed at creating tangible benefits for citizens and setting goals that matter to people–driven by public-interest considerations rather than profit.

One cannot not communicate. Because every behavior is a kind of communication, people who are aware of each other are constantly communicating. Any perceivable behavior, including the absence of action, has the potential to be interpreted by other people as having some meaning.

I write them to improve my productivity as a programmer. Making the quality assurance department happy is just a side effect. Unit tests are highly localized. Each test class works within a single package. It tests the interfaces to other packages, but beyond that it assumes the rest just works. Functional tests are a different animal. They are written to ensure the software as a whole works. They provide quality assurance to the customer and don't care about programmer productivity. They should be developed by a different team, one who delights in finding bugs.

I would argue that play is an essential part of living. It’s the process by which great discoveries are made, industries are built, and people fall in love. The instinctive human drive toward play continuously pushes us to find new ways to understand and influence the world around us.

Over the past four decades, much evidence has accumulated suggesting that responsiveness — a software application’s ability to keep up with users and not make them wait — is the most important factor in determining user satisfaction. Not just one of the most important factors - the most important factor.

When you're designing for extremes with software, the three most important "extremes" to remember are: 1. Design for people who can't read. 2. Design for people who can't use a mouse. 3. Design for people who have such bad memories they would forget their own name if it weren't embossed on their American Express

As designers, we have a responsibility to remove inherent complexity from our interfaces, or else we ship that complexity to our users. This can result in confusion, frustration and a bad user experience. Where possible, designers and developers should handle complexity, while taking care not to over-simplify to the point of abstraction.

Noneditable data should never be displayed in a control that looks editable or operable. Checkboxes, radio buttons, menus, sliders, and the like should never be used for noneditable data because they look operable. Even if they are inactive (grayed), they look like they can somehow be made active, and users will waste time trying to do so.

Disney and Apple/Microsoft are in the same business: short-circuiting laborious, explicit verbal communication with expensively designed interfaces. Disney is a sort of user interface unto itself—and more than just graphical. Let’s call it a Sensorial Interface. It can be applied to anything in the world, real or imagined, albeit at staggering expense.

Most modules have more users than developers, so it is better for the developers to suffer than the users. As a module developer, you should strive to make life as easy as possible for the users of your module, even if that means extra work for you. Another way of expressing this idea is that it is more important for a module to have a simple interface than a simple implementation.

Gates was good at computer coding, unlike Jobs, and his mind was more practical, disciplined, and abundant in analytic processing power. Jobs was more intuitive and romantic and had a greater instinct for making technology usable, design delightful, and interfaces friendly. He had a passion for perfection, which made him fiercely demanding, and he managed by charisma and scattershot intensity.

A good designer should constantly be looking for opportunities to learn from others’ mistakes. Instead of blaming the protagonists, we should try to put ourselves in their shoes and honestly answer these questions: What would lead me to design the same interface they did? What decisions led to this product being approved and shipped? How can I avoid finding myself in a similar position in the future?

Pham Nuwen spent years learning to program/explore. Programming went back to the beginning of time. It was a little like the midden out back of his father’s castle. Where the creek had worn that away, ten meters down, there were the crumpled hulks of machines—flying machines, the peasants said—from the great days of Canberra’s original colonial era. But the castle midden was clean and fresh compared to what lay within the Reprise’s local net. There were programs here that had been written five thousand years ago, before Humankind ever left Earth. The wonder of it—the horror of it, Sura said—was that unlike the useless wrecks of Canberra’s past, these programs still worked! And via a million million circuitous threads of inheritance, many of the oldest programs still ran in the bowels of the Qeng Ho system. Take the Traders’ method of timekeeping. The frame corrections were incredibly complex—and down at the very bottom of it was a little program that ran a counter. Second by second, the Qeng Ho counted from the instant that a human had first set foot on Old Earth’s moon. But if you looked at it still more closely. . .the starting instant was actually some hundred million seconds later, the 0-second of one of Humankind’s first computer operating systems. So behind all the top-level interfaces was layer under layer of support. Some of that software had been designed for wildly different situations. Every so often, the inconsistencies caused fatal accidents. Despite the romance of spaceflight, the most common accidents were simply caused by ancient, misused programs finally getting their revenge. “We should rewrite it all,” said Pham. “It’s been done,” said Sura, not looking up. She was preparing to go off-Watch, and had spent the last four days trying to root a problem out of the coldsleep automation. “It’s been tried,” corrected Bret, just back from the freezers. “But even the top levels of fleet system code are enormous. You and a thousand of your friends would have to work for a century or so to reproduce it.” Trinli grinned evilly. “And guess what—even if you did, by the time you finished, you’d have your own set of inconsistencies. And you still wouldn’t be consistent with all the applications that might be needed now and then.” Sura gave up on her debugging for the moment. “The word for all this is ‘mature programming environment.’ Basically, when hardware performance has been pushed to its final limit, and programmers have had several centuries to code, you reach a point where there is far more signicant code than can be rationalized. The best you can do is understand the overall layering, and know how to search for the oddball tool that may come in handy—take the situation I have here.” She waved at the dependency chart she had been working on. “We are low on working fluid for the coffins. Like a million other things, there was none for sale on dear old Canberra. Well, the obvious thing is to move the coffins near the aft hull, and cool by direct radiation. We don’t have the proper equipment to support this—so lately, I’ve been doing my share of archeology. It seems that five hundred years ago, a similar thing happened after an in-system war at Torma. They hacked together a temperature maintenance package that is precisely what we need.” “Almost precisely.

I had argued that it was ridiculous for a person to have two separate interfaces, one for local information (the desktop of their own computer) and one for remote information (a browser to reach other computers). Why did we need an entire desktop for our own computer but get only a window through which to view the entire rest of the planet? Why, for that matter, should we have folders on our desktop but not on the web?

If you need to visualize the soul, think of it as a cross between a wolf howl, a photon, and a dribble of dark molasses. But what it really is, as near as I can tell, is a packet of information. It’s a program, a piece of hyperspatial software designed explicitly to interface with the Mystery. Not a mystery, mind you, the Mystery. The one that can never be solved. To one degree or another, everybody is connected to the Mystery, and everybody secretly yearns to expand the connection. That requires expanding the soul. These things can enlarge the soul: laughter, danger, imagination, meditation, wild nature, passion, compassion, psychedelics, beauty, iconoclasm, and driving around in the rain with the top down. These things can diminish it: fear, bitterness, blandness, trendiness, egotism, violence, corruption, ignorance, grasping, shining, and eating ketchup on cottage cheese. Data in our psychic program is often nonlinear, nonhierarchical, archaic, alive, and teeming with paradox. Simply booting up is a challenge, if not for no other reason than that most of us find acknowledging the unknowable and monitoring its intrusions upon the familiar and mundane more than a little embarrassing. But say you’ve inflated your soul to the size of a beach ball and it’s soaking into the Mystery like wine into a mattress. What have you accomplished? Well, long term, you may have prepared yourself for a successful metamorphosis, an almost inconceivable transformation to be precipitated by your death or by some great worldwide eschatological whoopjamboreehoo. You may have. No one can say for sure. More immediately, by waxing soulful you will have granted yourself the possibility of ecstatic participation in what the ancients considered a divinely animated universe. And on a day to day basis, folks, it doesn’t get any better than that.

Something refused to come into focus in my thinking. Indistinctly, as though in a fog, shapes moved toward me and retreated just beyond cognition. But that getting a hold of things is the uncertainty. As the Tractatus says right at the beginning, “The world is everything that is the case.” It seemed as though the Mammy≈Divas® were just like Steve Jobs, trying to have reality bent to their own wills. Objectively, the iPhone was a muddle of mysticism and logic—breakable glass, non-ergonomic design, lousy battery life, lousy irreplaceable battery, lousy headphone jack, lousy virtual keyboard, lousy email, lousy memory, lousy lice, etc., etc, and an interface that you had to adapt to by pretending as an article of faith that no adaptation was required. The Mammy≈Divas® promised a seamless racial interface—eternal blackness ordered and majestic. They put a benign face on their lust for panoptic power. They promised to discipline and punish with pancakes.

The paradox of impact is that while design shapes the world in profound ways, it is also being shaped by the world. Design as a process necessarily interfaces with many other systems to shape and redefine the world and our human experience within it. Designers and design in general is, however, uniquely situated to be critical mediators between the various entities, forces, and agendas that are constantly at work in developing the future that we collectively and individually want.

thousand flowers bloom. Sometimes it’s nice to be in the hands of a control freak. • • • Jobs’s intensity was also evident in his ability to focus. He would set priorities, aim his laser attention on them, and filter out distractions. If something engaged him—the user interface for the original Macintosh, the design of the iPod and iPhone, getting music companies into the iTunes Store—he was relentless. But if he did not want to deal with something—a legal annoyance, a business issue,

Software developers come mainly from engineering and don’t see how similar their industry has become to the one that produces magazines, newspapers, books, TV shows, and movies. Most software developers haven’t yet learned to develop and follow strict standards for layout and graphic design and to pay as much attention to detail as traditional publishers and media studios do. As a result, graphic design and layout bloopers often get a “Who cares? It looks OK to me!” reaction from developers.

In any case, even if a usability test resolves a dispute, it doesn't do it in any kind of a statistically valid way. Unless you test thousands of people from all walks of life under all kinds of conditions, something that not even Microsoft can afford to do, you are not actually getting statistically meaningful results. Remember, the real strength of usability tests is in finding truffles—finding the broken bits so you can fix them. Actually looking at the results as if they were statistics is just not justified.

Project managers don’t write code, they don’t test the use cases, and they’re not designing the interface. You know what a good project manager does? They are chaos-destroying machines, and each new person you bring onto your team, each dependency you create, adds hard-to-measure entropy to your team. A good project manager thrives on measuring, controlling, and crushing entropy. You did this easily when you were a team of five, but if you’re going to succeed at 105, what was done organically now needs to be done mechanically.

In his book Software Abstractions, MIT Professor Daniel Jackson explains just how important it is to choose the right abstractions. "Pick the right ones, and programming will flow naturally from design; modules will have small and simple interfaces; and new functionality will more likely fit in without extensive reorganization, " Jackson writes. "Pick the wrong ones, and programming will be a series of nasty surprises: interfaces will become baroque and clumsy as they are forced to accommodate unanticipated interactions, and even the simplest of changes will be hard to make.

0.1 second: This is the limit for perception of cause-and-effect between events. If software waits longer than 0.1 second to show a response to your action, cause-and-effect is broken: the software’s reaction will not seem to be a result of your action. Therefore, on-screen buttons have 0.1 second to show they’ve been clicked; otherwise users will click again. If an object the user is “dragging” lags more than 0.1 second behind the cursor, users will have trouble placing it. This 0.1-second deadline is what HCI researcher Stuart Card calls the perceptual “moment.” It is also close to the limit for perception of smooth animation: 0.063 second/frame (16 frames/second)

Jobs’s intensity was also evident in his ability to focus. He would set priorities, aim his laser attention on them, and filter out distractions. If something engaged him—the user interface for the original Macintosh, the design of the iPod and iPhone, getting music companies into the iTunes Store—he was relentless. But if he did not want to deal with something—a legal annoyance, a business issue, his cancer diagnosis, a family tug—he would resolutely ignore it. That focus allowed him to say no. He got Apple back on track by cutting all except a few core products. He made devices simpler by eliminating buttons, software simpler by eliminating features, and interfaces simpler by eliminating options.

...задача дизайнеров заключается в том, чтобы создавать интерфейсы, которые не позволяют привычкам вызывать проблемы у пользователей. Мы должны создавать интерфейсы, которые, во-первых, целенаправленно опираются на человеческую способность формировать привычки и, во-вторых, развивают у пользователей такие привычки, которые позволяют упростить ход работы. В случае идеального человекоориентированного интерфейса доля участия самого интерфейса в работе пользователя должна сводиться к формированию полезных привычек. Многие проблемы, которые делают программные продукты сложными и неудобными в использовании, происходят из-за того, что в используемом интерфейсе «человек-машина» не учитываются полезные и вредные свойства человеческой способности формировать привычки.

Their avatars all sat motionless, with their eyes closed. This was a signal that they were “engaged,” meaning they were currently on phone calls, browsing the Web, or logged into chat rooms. It was poor OASIS etiquette to try to talk to an engaged avatar. They usually just ignored you, and you’d get an automated message telling you to piss off. I took a seat at my desk and tapped the Engage icon at the edge of my display. My own avatar’s eyes slid shut, but I could still see my surroundings. I tapped another icon, and a large two-dimensional Web browser window appeared, suspended in space directly in front of me. Windows like this one were visible to only my avatar, so no one could read over my shoulder (unless I selected the option to allow it). My homepage was set to the Hatchery, one of the more popular gunter message forums. The Hatchery’s site interface was designed to look and operate like an old pre-Internet dial-up bulletin

looking for people to design the graphical interface for Apple’s new operating system, Jobs got an email from a young man and invited him in. The applicant was nervous, and the meeting did not go well. Later that day Jobs bumped into him, dejected, sitting in the lobby. The guy asked if he could just show him one of his ideas, so Jobs looked over his shoulder and saw a little demo, using Adobe Director, of a way to fit more icons in the dock at the bottom of a screen. When the guy moved the cursor over the icons crammed into the dock, the cursor mimicked a magnifying glass and made each icon balloon bigger. “I said, ‘My God,’ and hired him on the spot,” Jobs recalled. The feature became a lovable part of Mac OSX, and the designer went on to design such things as inertial scrolling for multi-touch screens (the delightful feature that makes the screen keep gliding for a moment after you’ve finished swiping). Jobs’s experiences at NeXT had matured him, but they had not mellowed him much. He still had no license plate on his Mercedes, and he still parked in the handicapped spaces next to the front door, sometimes straddling two slots. It became a running

If you want to make money at some point, remember this, because this is one of the reasons startups win. Big companies want to decrease the standard deviation of design outcomes because they want to avoid disasters. But when you damp oscillations, you lose the high points as well as the low. This is not a problem for big companies, because they don't win by making great products. Big companies win by sucking less than other big companies.” - “The place to fight design wars is in new markets, where no one has yet managed to establish any fortifications. That's where you can win big by taking the bold approach to design, and having the same people both design and implement the product. Microsoft themselves did this at the start. So did Apple. And Hewlett- Packard. I suspect almost every successful startup has.” - “Great software, likewise, requires a fanatical devotion to beauty. If you look inside good software, you find that parts no one is ever supposed to see are beautiful too.” - “The right way to collaborate, I think, is to divide projects into sharply defined modules, each with a definite owner, and with interfaces between them that are as carefully designed and, if possible, as articulated as programming languages. Like painting, most software is intended for a human audience. And so hackers, like painters, must have empathy to do really great work. You have to be able to see things from the user's point of view.” - “It turns out that looking at things from other people's point of view is practically the secret of success.” - “Part of what software has to do is explain itself. So to write good software you have to understand how little users understand. They're going to walk up to the software with no preparation, and it had better do what they guess it will, because they're not going to read the manual.

How is the body, including the observing body, becoming a component of new machines, economies, apparatuses, whether social, libidinal, or technological? In what way is subjectivity becoming a precarious condition of interface between rationalized systems of exchange and networks of information?

Structured Application Design with MVC MVC defines a clean separation between the critical components of our apps. Consistent with its name, MVC defines three parts of an application: • A model provides the underlying data and methods that offer information to the rest of the application. The model does not define how the application will look or how it will act. • One or more views make up the user interface. A view consists of the different onscreen widgets (buttons, fields, switches, and so forth) that a user can interact with. • A controller is typically paired with a view. The controller is responsible for receiving user input and acting accordingly. Controllers may access and update a view using information from the model and update the model using the results of user interactions in the view. In short, it bridges the MVC components.

The five letters of the SOLID acronym stand for: Single Responsibility Principle: a class should have one and only one responsibility; that is, only one reason to change. The Lack of Cohesion Of Methods metric indicates the antipattern of too large a class. Open/Closed Principle: a class should be open for extension, but closed against modification. The Case Statement design smell suggests a violation. Liskov Substitution Principle: a method designed to work on an object of type T should also work on an object of any subtype of T. That is, all of T’s subtypes should preserve T’s “contract.” The refused bequest design smell often indicates a violation. Dependency Injection Principle: if two classes depend on each other but their implementations may change, it would be better for them to both depend on a separate abstract interface which is “injected” between them. Demeter Principle: a method can call other methods in its own class, and methods on the classes of its own instance variables; everything else is taboo. A design smell that indicates a violation is inappropriate intimacy.

For example, consider a stack (which is a first-in, last-out list). You might have a program that requires three different types of stacks. One stack is used for integer values, one for floating-point values, and one for characters. In this case, the algorithm that implements each stack is the same, even though the data being stored differs. In a non-object-oriented language, you would be required to create three different sets of stack routines, with each set using different names. However, because of polymorphism, in Java you can create one general set of stack routines that works for all three specific situations. This way, once you know how to use one stack, you can use them all. More generally, the concept of polymorphism is often expressed by the phrase “one interface, multiple methods.” This means that it is possible to design a generic interface to a group of related activities. Polymorphism helps reduce complexity by allowing the same interface to be used to specify a general class of action.

This really does attack essence. Because the build-on-package phenomenon does not today affect the average MIS programmer, it is not yet very visible to the software engineering discipline. Nevertheless, it will grow rapidly, because it does attack the essence of fashioning conceptual constructs. The shrink-wrapped package provides a big module of function, with an elaborate but proper interface, and its internal conceptual structure does not have to be designed at all. High-function software products such as Excel or 4th Dimension are big modules indeed, but they serve as known, documented, tested modules with which to build customized systems. Next-level application builders get richness of function, a shorter development time, a tested component, better documentation, and radically lower cost. The difficulty, of course, is that the shrink-wrapped software package is designed as a stand-alone entity whose functions and interfaces metaprogrammers cannot change. Moreover, and more seriously, shrink-wrapped package builders seemingly have little incentive to make their products suitable as modules in a larger system. I

An important milestone in the history of web design has been the birth of MySpace and Facebook and the advent of social networks, at the beginning of the 21st century. The websites began to adapt to this new level of interactivity, and companies finally understood the importance of placing their users at the centre of the web experience. If, up until that moment, designers and coders used to create aesthetically pleasing interfaces based merely on their clients’ requests, they then started moving to a more user-centric approach. Web research began to focus more and more on the study of websites usability, navigation fluidity and on the easiness of interaction.

The natural mistake engineers make is to build from the bottom up. They leave the user interface last, assuming it is the least complex technology. This is wrong. Humans are much more complex than software, and since the interface has to interact with people, it's the most difficult to do well. By building from the bottom up, technologists paint themselves into a corner, resulting in ugly, hard-to-use things. By the time they finally got to the user interface work, so many constraints exist that even the best designers in the world couldn't salvage the project. The answer is simple: design the user interface first. This is a mandate at any organization that makes things people love to use.

Web Design - Give Your Brand Global Recognition Running a small business seems easy but actually, it is not. Surprised? Well, there’s a lot to look after and accomplish without violating the budget and resources. If you own a small business and planning to take it to new heights, you must begin with a professional web design company. Why? Because to let your audience know about your products and services, you got to make your online presence. To make a visible impact online, you need to give your organization a face, which is possible only with a well-designed website that’s professional yet user-friendly. When a website has to be designed, a number of factors are meant to be considered. Font, images, content, alignment, graphics, loading time and interface are the major factors to be careful about. What else? You need to ensure that your brand’s message is displayed the right way and at the right place. Call-to-action has to be there and the design must be in a way that attracts the audience. Want to know more? Length and number of pages also matter, as they play a great role in the presentation and are responsible to hold the audience. All this must be sounding like a lot of stuff and complicated but it is all easy with the right small business web design company by your side. It will understand your business, its needs, and goals for long-term and come with a website which is liked by the audience the moment they click it. All you need to be careful is finding the company that’s worth time and money you invest. The market is flooded with a number of web designers who boast a lot but are not worth what they say. Hiring the wrong designers may cause serious consequences for your website and eventually business. To stay away from coming across such ugly experiences, take enough time and settle for the best professionals. Check their previous work, feedback, price plan and expertise before finalizing anything. Keep this brief piece of information in mind and gift your small business the website it deserves. Good Luck!

Bruce Horn: I thought that computers would be hugely flexible and we could be able to do everything and it would be the most mind-blowing experience ever. And instead we froze all of our thinking. We froze all the software and made it kind of industrial and mass-marketed. Computing went in the wrong direction: Computing went to the direction of commercialism and cookie-cutter. Jaron Lanier: My whole field has created shit. And it’s like we’ve thrust all of humanity into this endless life of tedium, and it’s not how it was supposed to be. The way we’ve designed the tools requires that people comply totally with an infinite number of arbitrary actions. We really have turned humanity into lab rats that are trained to run mazes. I really think on just the most fundamental level we are approaching digital technology in the wrong way. Andy van Dam: Ask yourself, what have we got today? We’ve got Microsoft Word and we’ve got PowerPoint and we’ve got Illustrator and we’ve got Photoshop. There’s more functionality and, for my taste, an easier-to-understand user interface than what we had before. But they don’t work together. They don’t play nice together. And most of the time, what you’ve got is an import/export capability, based on bitmaps: the lowest common denominator—dead bits, in effect. What I’m still looking for is a reintegration of these various components so that we can go back to the future and have that broad vision at our fingertips. I don’t see how we are going to get there, frankly. Live bits—where everything interoperates—we’ve lost that. Bruce Horn: We’re waiting for the right thing to happen to have the same type of mind-blowing experience that we were able to show the Apple people at PARC. There’s some work being done, but it’s very tough. And, yeah, I feel somewhat responsible. On the other hand, if somebody like Alan Kay couldn’t make it happen, how can I make it happen?

Greg Christie, one of his other senior managers, the day-to-day leader of the Human Interface team, the software designers responsible for the look and feel of iOS and the Mac, as well as the concepts behind how these systems functioned.

Having studied both the possible risks and the likely rewards, the Guardian’s managers decided both to “open in” the website, by bringing in more data and applications from the outside, and to “open out” the site, by enabling partners to create products using Guardian content and services on other digital platforms. To work toward the “open out” goal, the Guardian created a set of APIs that made its content easily available to external parties. These interfaces include three different levels of access. The lowest access tier, which the paper calls Keyless, allows anyone to use Guardian headlines, metadata, and information architecture (that is, the software and design elements that structure Guardian data and make it easier to access, analyze, and use) without requesting permission and without any requirement to share revenues that might be generated. The second access tier, Approved, allows registered developers to reprint entire Guardian articles, with certain time and usage restrictions. Advertising revenues are shared between the newspaper and the developers. The third and highest access tier, Bespoke, is a customized support package that provides unlimited use of Guardian content—for a fee.

When a significant process or transformation in the domain is not a natural responsibility of an ENTITY or VALUE OBJECT, add an operation to the model as a standalone interface declared as a SERVICE. Define the interface in terms of the language of the model and make sure the operation name is part of the UBIQUITOUS LAN- GUAGE. Make the SERVICE stateless.

Interactive designers may [...] recommend technologies that do not date as easily as others, such as touch tables rather than apps. One strategy is to use technologies that have been in existence for a while, as component and style have been proved to last, at least for a number of years. The most effective interactive often do not seek to use the latest technology, but rather work with existing technological "gestures", such as using fingertips to zoom in, and exploit these Given that the only certainty for technology is further change, the success of any interactive is always measured by its usefulness, and its relevance to the exhibition content. The only way to mitigate against obsolescence is the richness of the interpretation—if the story is strong enough, an older technological interface can sometimes cease to matter.

Somehow, even if it means laws and rules and governments, we must find our way back to the technologists’ dream of the internet, the free exchanges among millions of equals; the following of links to links, unobserved, as we desire; the personal web pages we created, of our own designs, defeating the domination of Microsoft’s and Apple’s standard human interfaces. We must go back to that internet, even if it existed for only a flickering moment, or never existed except in idylls and nostalgia. We must route around the new bad corporate net; or create a superset of it; or an alternative. Or something.

Those who support the concept of a direct interface network don’t take into account the price they would have to pay for it, in privacy and safety and a thousand other areas of concern. Do you really want a machine to know where you are every minute of the day? Do you really trust the people who design these things, and program them, enough to let their work directly into your head? Don’t you realize that every time you let this creature come in contact with your brain, you are leaving your mark upon it as clearly as fingerprints upon glass, which any clever programmer can decipher? MAXWELL ONEGIN; Think Again! (Historical Archives, Hellsgate Station)

John Hennessy and David Patterson: they are titled Computer Organization and Design: The Hardware/Software Interface and Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach (both published by Morgan Kaufmann).

Requirements are not architecture. Requirements are not design, nor are they the user interface. Requirements are need.

Transitive dependencies are a violation of the general principle that software entities should not depend on things they don’t directly use. We’ll encounter that principle again when we talk about the Interface Segregation Principle and the Common Reuse Principle.

Don’t refer to volatile concrete classes. Refer to abstract interfaces instead. This rule applies in all languages, whether statically or dynamically typed. It also puts severe constraints on the creation of objects and generally enforces the use of Abstract Factories.

10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design

ISP: The Interface Segregation Principle This principle advises software designers to avoid depending on things that they don’t use.

Some of us have even been convinced that the database is the embodiment of the business rules. But, as we shall see in another chapter, this idea is misguided. The database is a tool that the business rules can use indirectly. The business rules don’t need to know about the schema, or the query language, or any of the other details about the database. All the business rules need to know is that there is a set of functions that can be used to fetch or save data. This allows us to put the database behind an interface.

minimise choices when response time is critical to decrease decision time

For years I found it annoying to walk my dog. All she ever wanted to do was sniff the grass and trees upon which other dogs had left their scent. Neither of us got much exercise. It was like tug-of-war to get Snickers to move at all. One day, I saw an Instagram video in which a self-designated dog expert explained that dogs might need the sniffing more than the walking. Their brains light up when they sniff, and it can tire them out when they engage in vigorous sniffing. I had noticed how happy Snickers looked when sniffing, but my brain couldn’t connect the dots because sniffing dog urine sounds inherently unpleasant to my human brain. But to the dog, it was the equivalent of checking her social media. I started naming the trees and shrubs in the park accordingly: Muta (formerly known as Facebark), Twigger, LeafedIn, Instabush, and Treemail. Obviously, the garbage receptacle into which people flung their dog poop bags was TikTok.  Once I understood the importance of sniffing, I reframed my experience this way. Usual Frame: Taking the dog for a walk and failing. Reframe: Taking the dog for a sniff and succeeding. That reframe completely changed my subjective experience. Instead of failing at walking, I was succeeding at being a sniff-assistant. Snickers loved the new arrangement, and sure enough, twenty minutes of outdoor sniffing set her attitude right for the rest of the day.  But then I had a new problem. Standing around holding a leash is boring compared to walking. It’s boring compared to most things. But then I reframed my boredom this way. Usual Frame: I have nothing to do. I am just standing here. Reframe: Perfect time to practice proper breathing and posture. Now I spend twenty minutes a day enjoying the outdoors while breathing properly and practicing my posture. It feels good, which is enough to lock in the new habit. Now I am delighted to take my dog to the park. The only thing that changed was how I thought about the point of it all. If you’re like most people, you spend a lot of time standing in line or waiting for one thing or another. It feels like a gigantic waste of time. Maybe you check your phone, but that probably isn’t as useful as it is anxiety-making. As you can tell from the Snickers story, I found a way to turn all mindless waiting time into one of the most productive parts of my day using the good-time-to-breathe reframe.

Two or more things are orthogonal if changes in one do not affect any of the others. In a well-designed system, the database code will be orthogonal to the user interface: you can change the interface without affecting the database, and swap databases without changing the interface.

Many developers and usability professionals still approach interface design by asking what the tasks are. Although this may get the job done, it won’t produce much more than an incremental improvement: It won’t provide a solution that differentiates your product in the market, and very often it won’t really satisfy the user.

I FOUND THIS AMAZING WEBSITE Best eLearning Authoring Tools for Rapid Course Development - 2022 As more organizations look to create digital training content, tools that help presenters create engaging eLearning courses are always in demand. Authoring tools with intuitive interfaces and robust features can be expensive, but luckily some alternatives don’t require a hefty price tag. These authoring tools offer the core features needed to produce effective eLearning courses with a minimal learning curve. They also offer time-saving features like drag-and-drop functionality and pre-built templates in different design styles.

He laid out the defining characteristics, workflow, and management as follows. A two-pizza team will: Be small. No more than ten people. Be autonomous. They should have no need to coordinate with other teams to get their work done. With the new service-based software architecture in place, any team could simply refer to the published application programming interfaces (APIs) for other teams. (More on this new software architecture to follow.) Be evaluated by a well-defined “fitness function.” This is the sum of a weighted series of metrics. Example: a team that is in charge of adding selection in a product category might be evaluated on: a)  how many new distinct items were added for the period (50 percent weighting) b)  how many units of those new distinct items were sold (30 percent weighting) c)  how many page views those distinct items received (20 percent weighting) Be monitored in real time. A team’s real-time score on its fitness function would be displayed on a dashboard next to all the other two-pizza teams’ scores. Be the business owner. The team will own and be responsible for all aspects of its area of focus, including design, technology, and business results. This paradigm shift eliminates the all-too-often heard excuses such as, “We built what the business folks asked us to, they just asked for the wrong product,” or “If the tech team had actually delivered what we asked for and did it on time, we would have hit our numbers.” Be led by a multidisciplined top-flight leader. The leader must have deep technical expertise, know how to hire world-class software engineers and product managers, and possess excellent business judgment. Be self-funding. The team’s work will pay for itself. Be approved in advance by the S-Team. The S-Team must approve the formation of every two-pizza team.

How do companies, producing little more than bits of code displayed on a screen, seemingly control users’ minds?” Nir Eyal, a prominent Valley product consultant, asked in his 2014 book, Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products. “Our actions have been engineered,” he explained. Services like Twitter and YouTube “habitually alter our everyday behavior, just as their designers intended.” One of Eyal’s favorite models is the slot machine. It is designed to answer your every action with visual, auditory, and tactile feedback. A ping when you insert a coin. A ka-chunk when you pull the lever. A flash of colored light when you release it. This is known as Pavlovian conditioning, named after the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov, who rang a bell each time he fed his dog, until, eventually, the bell alone sent his dog’s stomach churning and saliva glands pulsing, as if it could no longer differentiate the chiming of a bell from the physical sensation of eating. Slot machines work the same way, training your mind to conflate the thrill of winning with its mechanical clangs and buzzes. The act of pulling the lever, once meaningless, becomes pleasurable in itself. The reason is a neurological chemical called dopamine, the same one Parker had referenced at the media conference. Your brain releases small amounts of it when you fulfill some basic need, whether biological (hunger, sex) or social (affection, validation). Dopamine creates a positive association with whatever behaviors prompted its release, training you to repeat them. But when that dopamine reward system gets hijacked, it can compel you to repeat self-destructive behaviors. To place one more bet, binge on alcohol—or spend hours on apps even when they make you unhappy. Dopamine is social media’s accomplice inside your brain. It’s why your smartphone looks and feels like a slot machine, pulsing with colorful notification badges, whoosh sounds, and gentle vibrations. Those stimuli are neurologically meaningless on their own. But your phone pairs them with activities, like texting a friend or looking at photos, that are naturally rewarding. Social apps hijack a compulsion—a need to connect—that can be even more powerful than hunger or greed. Eyal describes a hypothetical woman, Barbra, who logs on to Facebook to see a photo uploaded by a family member. As she clicks through more photos or comments in response, her brain conflates feeling connected to people she loves with the bleeps and flashes of Facebook’s interface. “Over time,” Eyal writes, “Barbra begins to associate Facebook with her need for social connection.” She learns to serve that need with a behavior—using Facebook—that in fact will rarely fulfill it.

designed for people. User Interface gurus consult for large sums of money to build HTML code that is easy to use and displays correctly

Windows User Interface Design Specifications and Guidelines

Here are the most important software design principles discussed in this book: Complexity is incremental: you have to sweat the small stuff (see p. 11). Working code isn’t enough (see p. 14). Make continual small investments to improve system design (see p. 15). Modules should be deep (see p. 23) Interfaces should be designed to make the most common usage as simple as possible (see p. 27). It’s more important for a module to have a simple interface than a simple implementation (see pp. 61, 74). General-purpose modules are deeper (see p. 39). Separate general-purpose and special-purpose code (see pp. 45, 68). Different layers should have different abstractions (see p. 51). Pull complexity downward (see p. 61). Define errors out of existence (see p. 81). Design it twice (see p. 91). Comments should describe things that are not obvious from the code (see p. 101). Software should be designed for ease of reading, not ease of writing (see p. 151). The increments of software development should be abstractions, not features (see p. 156). Separate what matters from what doesn’t matter and emphasize the things that matter (see p. 171

Here are a few of of the most important red flags discussed in this book. The presence of any of these symptoms in a system suggests that there is a problem with the system’s design: Shallow Module: the interface for a class or method isn’t much simpler than its implementation (see pp. 25, 110). Information Leakage: a design decision is reflected in multiple modules (see p. 31). Temporal Decomposition: the code structure is based on the order in which operations are executed, not on information hiding (see p. 32). Overexposure: An API forces callers to be aware of rarely used features in order to use commonly used features (see p. 36). Pass-Through Method: a method does almost nothing except pass its arguments to another method with a similar signature (see p. 52). Repetition: a nontrivial piece of code is repeated over and over (see p. 68). Special-General Mixture: special-purpose code is not cleanly separated from general purpose code (see p. 71). Conjoined Methods: two methods have so many dependencies that its hard to understand the implementation of one without understanding the implementation of the other (see p. 75). Comment Repeats Code: all of the information in a comment is immediately obvious from the code next to the comment (see p. 104). Implementation Documentation Contaminates Interface: an interface comment describes implementation details not needed by users of the thing being documented (see p. 114). Vague Name: the name of a variable or method is so imprecise that it doesn’t convey much useful information (see p. 123). Hard to Pick Name: it is difficult to come up with a precise and intuitive name for an entity (see p. 125). Hard to Describe: in order to be complete, the documentation for a variable or method must be long. (see p. 133). Nonobvious Code: the behavior or meaning of a piece of code cannot be understood easily. (see p. 150).

Cash App Money Adder Software 2024 | Cash App Transfer Software Cash App Money Adder Software 2024! We are Professional hackers with the latest Cash App Money Adder Software 2024. We can flip any Amount of money you need into your Cash App account in just 10 Minutes. we have the best tools to carry out any amount of cash App flips you wish to without any issue:; Reach us on; hack360.wu@gmail.com | hack360.org Reach us on; hack360.wu@gmail.com | hack360.org We have the Latest 2024 Cash App Money Adder Software. With this software, You can Add up to $50,0000 to your cash App Account daily…. Key Features and Benefits of the Cash App Money Adder Software: Seamless Integration: The Money Adder Software seamlessly integrates with the Cash App, ensuring a user-friendly experience. Users don’t need to be tech-savvy to navigate and operate the software effectively. Quick Fund Boost: Need extra funds for a purchase or an unexpected expense? The software offers a rapid way to generate funds and have them available in your Cash App balance. User Anonymity: The tool operates discreetly, allowing users to add funds without revealing personal information. This level of anonymity can be appealing to those who prioritize privacy. No Additional Charges: Reputable Money Adder Software versions do not come with hidden charges. You can boost your funds without worrying about extra costs. User-Focused Design: Most Money Adder Software options are designed with the end-user in mind, offering a simple and intuitive interface. Ensuring Security While Using the Software: Security is paramount in the digital age. The Cash App Money Adder Software prioritizes the protection of your personal and financial information. Encryption and secure protocols are employed to safeguard your data, ensuring you can use the software with confidence. Our Cash App Flips is 100% secure with 100% success rate. $3500.00 fee $350.00 Minimum $4000.00 fee $400.00 $5000.00 fee $500.00 $6000.00 fee $600.00 $7000.00 fee $700.00 $10000.00 fee $1000.00 $20000.00 fee $2000.00 $25000.00 fee $2500.00 $50,000.00 fee $5000.00 Cash App Money Adder Software 2024 | Cash App Hack Software | Cash App flips Transfer only takes 10minutes or less Contact Us for your Fast Cash App Flips and to buy the cash App Money adder Software ====================================================== Contact us: hack360.wu@gmail.com | ICQ Link Post navigation

Cash App Hack & Transfer — Get Real Cash Easily. Enter the Cash App Money Adder Software — a modern marvel that has caught the attention of individuals seeking to elevate their financial prospects.. Visit safepairs.ru Visit safepairs.ru Discover how Cash App Money Adder Software can revolutionize your finances. Learn how this game-changing tool can help you multiply your funds effortlessly..,,,,,,,, In a world where financial advancements are rapidly reshaping our lives, the notion of boosting your funds through innovative means has taken a remarkable stride forward. Enter the Cash App Money Adder Software — a modern marvel that has caught the attention of individuals seeking to elevate their financial prospects. Introduction to Cash App Money Adder Software: Imagine having the ability to boost your financial resources with just a few clicks. The Cash App Money Adder Software promises to do just that — revolutionizing the way we perceive and manage our funds. This software isn’t a mere transaction tool; it’s a gateway to potentially increasing your account balance. How Does the Money Adder Software Work? Curious about the mechanics behind this financial game-changer? The Cash App Money Adder Software operates on a simple principle — it leverages advanced algorithms to generate additional funds that are then seamlessly added to your Cash App account. It’s like having a digital money tree at your disposal. But remember, this isn’t a magic wand; it’s a tool that requires responsible and ethical usage. Key Features and Benefits! Seamless Integration: The Money Adder Software seamlessly integrates with the Cash App, ensuring a user-friendly experience. Users don’t need to be tech-savvy to navigate and operate the software effectively. Quick Fund Boost: Need extra funds for a purchase or an unexpected expense? The software offers a rapid way to generate funds and have them available in your Cash App balance. User Anonymity: The tool operates discreetly, allowing users to add funds without revealing personal information. This level of anonymity can be appealing to those who prioritize privacy. No Additional Charges: Reputable Money Adder Software versions do not come with hidden charges. You can boost your funds without worrying about extra costs. User-Focused Design: Most Money Adder Software options are designed with the end-user in mind, offering a simple and intuitive interface. Ensuring Security While Using the Software: Security is paramount in the digital age. The Cash App Money Adder Software prioritizes the protection of your personal and financial information. Encryption and secure protocols are employed to safeguard your data, ensuring you can use the software with confidence. Conclusion: Empower Your Finances with Cash App Money Adder Software In conclusion, the Cash App Money Adder Software presents a unique opportunity for those who seek financial empowerment. By understanding its functionality, benefits, and potential, you can make an informed decision about incorporating it into your financial strategy Cash App working Method 2024 | Cash App Flips | Cash App Money Adder Software OUR CASH APP MONEY ADDER SERVICES IS 100% GENUINE AND RELIABLE, You can contact us if you are interested in making up to $50,000 in just one day with cash App flips or the latest 2024 Cash App Money adder Software. Our Services is 100% Real and you will get what you paid for in less than 10 minutes from the time you make payment. We have the best tools in place to do your job with 100% success rate. CASHAPP TRANSFER PRICE LIST 2024 ( $£€ ) Price 300 = 3,000 Cash App Price 400 = 4,000 Cash App Price 500 = 5,000 Cash App Price 650 = 6,500 Cash App Price 850 = 8,500 Cash App Price 900 = 9,000 Cash App CLICK HERE TO PLACE A TRANSFER ORDER 10,000( $£€ ) AND ABOVE Related Posts

Cash App Hack & Transfer — Get Real Cash Easily. Enter the Cash App Money Adder Software — a modern marvel that has caught the attention of individuals seeking to elevate their financial prospects\ Visit safepairs.ru Visit safepairs.ru Discover how Cash App Money Adder Software can revolutionize your finances. Learn how this game-changing tool can help you multiply your funds effortlessly..,,,,,,,, In a world where financial advancements are rapidly reshaping our lives, the notion of boosting your funds through innovative means has taken a remarkable stride forward. Enter the Cash App Money Adder Software — a modern marvel that has caught the attention of individuals seeking to elevate their financial prospects. Introduction to Cash App Money Adder Software: Imagine having the ability to boost your financial resources with just a few clicks. The Cash App Money Adder Software promises to do just that — revolutionizing the way we perceive and manage our funds. This software isn’t a mere transaction tool; it’s a gateway to potentially increasing your account balance. How Does the Money Adder Software Work? Curious about the mechanics behind this financial game-changer? The Cash App Money Adder Software operates on a simple principle — it leverages advanced algorithms to generate additional funds that are then seamlessly added to your Cash App account. It’s like having a digital money tree at your disposal. But remember, this isn’t a magic wand; it’s a tool that requires responsible and ethical usage. Key Features and Benefits! Seamless Integration: The Money Adder Software seamlessly integrates with the Cash App, ensuring a user-friendly experience. Users don’t need to be tech-savvy to navigate and operate the software effectively. Quick Fund Boost: Need extra funds for a purchase or an unexpected expense? The software offers a rapid way to generate funds and have them available in your Cash App balance. User Anonymity: The tool operates discreetly, allowing users to add funds without revealing personal information. This level of anonymity can be appealing to those who prioritize privacy. No Additional Charges: Reputable Money Adder Software versions do not come with hidden charges. You can boost your funds without worrying about extra costs. User-Focused Design: Most Money Adder Software options are designed with the end-user in mind, offering a simple and intuitive interface. Ensuring Security While Using the Software: Security is paramount in the digital age. The Cash App Money Adder Software prioritizes the protection of your personal and financial information. Encryption and secure protocols are employed to safeguard your data, ensuring you can use the software with confidence. Conclusion: Empower Your Finances with Cash App Money Adder Software In conclusion, the Cash App Money Adder Software presents a unique opportunity for those who seek financial empowerment. By understanding its functionality, benefits, and potential, you can make an informed decision about incorporating it into your financial strategy Cash App working Method 2024 | Cash App Flips | Cash App Money Adder Software OUR CASH APP MONEY ADDER SERVICES IS 100% GENUINE AND RELIABLE, You can contact us if you are interested in making up to $50,000 in just one day with cash App flips or the latest 2024 Cash App Money adder Software. Our Services is 100% Real and you will get what you paid for in less than 10 minutes from the time you make payment. We have the best tools in place to do your job with 100% success rate. CASHAPP TRANSFER PRICE LIST 2024 ( $£€ ) Price 300 = 3,000 Cash App Price 400 = 4,000 Cash App Price 500 = 5,000 Cash App Price 650 = 6,500 Cash App Price 850 = 8,500 Cash App Price 900 = 9,000 Cash App CLICK HERE TO PLACE A TRANSFER ORDER 10,000( $£€ ) AND ABOVE Related Posts

Have a sunny hello! Mate ! We are doing and providing design and Development Service that one the stranded and qualitative. we are believe Great design makes your brand marketing easier and enjoyable to get it. We will use our graphic design experience to create beautiful Brand identity that demonstrate your company’s uniqueness. We take pride in our work, making sure that every element is beautifully designed with color, proportion, type, shape and image in-mind. We can create nearly any kind of web and print design such as: Identity/Logo User Interface Design for Mobile Apps &Website. Web Marketing such as advertising Banner and Poster Business cards Info graphic etc We also provide Clipping Path services for your images: · Remove Background from your images or photos · Create Shadows · Masking Images · Retouching Photos to make it more vibrant · Glamour correction · Color correction · Brightness and contrast correction · Raster to vector · Digital image album creation etc.

Initially working out of our home in Northern California, with a garage-based lab, I wrote a one page letter introducing myself and what we had and posted it to the CEOs of twenty-two Fortune 500 companies. Within a couple of weeks, we had received seventeen responses, with invitations to meetings and referrals to heads of engineering departments. I met with those CEOs or their deputies and received an enthusiastic response from almost every individual. There was also strong interest from engineers given the task of interfacing with us. However, support from their senior engineering and product development managers was less forthcoming. We learned that many of the big companies we had approached were no longer manufacturers themselves but assemblers of components or were value-added reseller companies, who put their famous names on systems that other original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) had built. That didn't daunt us, though when helpful VPs of engineering at top-of-the-food-chain companies referred us to their suppliers, we found that many had little or no R & D capacity, were unwilling to take a risk on outside ideas, or had no room in their already stripped-down budgets for innovation. Our designs found nowhere to land. It became clear that we needed to build actual products and create an apples-to-apples comparison before we could interest potential manufacturing customers. Where to start? We created a matrix of the product areas that we believed PAX could impact and identified more than five hundred distinct market sectors-with potentially hundreds of thousands of products that we could improve. We had to focus. After analysis that included the size of the addressable market, ease of access, the cost and time it would take to develop working prototypes, the certifications and metrics of the various industries, the need for energy efficiency in the sector, and so on, we prioritized the list to fans, mixers, pumps, and propellers. We began hand-making prototypes as comparisons to existing, leading products. By this time, we were raising working capital from angel investors. It's important to note that this was during the first half of the last decade. The tragedy of September 11, 2001, and ensuing military actions had the world's attention. Clean tech and green tech were just emerging as terms, and energy efficiency was still more of a slogan than a driver for industry. The dot-com boom had busted. We'd researched venture capital firms in the late 1990s and found only seven in the United States investing in mechanical engineering inventions. These tended to be expansion-stage investors that didn't match our phase of development. Still, we were close to the famous Silicon Valley and had a few comical conversations with venture capitalists who said they'd be interested in investing-if we could turn our technology into a website. Instead, every six months or so, we drew up a budget for the following six months. Via a growing network of forward-thinking private investors who could see the looming need for dramatic changes in energy efficiency and the performance results of our prototypes compared to currently marketed products, we funded the next phase of research and business development.

As the 1970s drew to a close, and Commodore, Tandy, Altair, and Apple began to emerge from the sidelines, PARC director Bert Sutherland asked Larry Tesler to assess what some analysts were already predicting to be the coming era of “hobby and personal computers.” “I think that the era of the personal computer is here,” Tesler countered; “PARC has kept involved in the world of academic computing, but we have largely neglected the world of personal computing which we helped to found.”41 His warning went largely unheeded. Xerox Corporation’s parochial belief that computers need only talk to printers and filing cabinets and not to each other meant that the “office of the future” remained an unfulfilled promise, and in the years between 1978 and 1982 PARC experienced a dispersal of core talent that rivals the flight of Greek scholars during the declining years of Byzantium: Charles Simonyi brought the Alto’s Bravo text editing program to Redmond, Washington, where it was rebooted as Microsoft Word; Robert Metcalf used the Ethernet protocol he had invented at PARC to found the networking giant, 3Com; John Warnock and Charles Geschke, tiring of an unresponsive bureaucracy, took their InterPress page description language and founded Adobe Systems; Tesler himself brought the icon-based, object-oriented Smalltalk programming language with him when he joined the Lisa engineering team at Apple, and Tim Mott, his codeveloper of the Gypsy desktop interface, became one of the founders of Electronic Arts—five startups that would ultimately pay off the mortgages and student loans of many hundreds of industrial, graphic, and interaction designers, and provide the tools of the trade for untold thousands of others.

Facilitate and document business analysis. Assist the project manager in defining project scope. Estimate needed time and resources. Define and design interfaces to external applications.

Clients think that a product is composed of only user interfaces.

Identify items that seem likely to change. If the requirements have been done well, they include a list of potential changes and the likelihood of each change. In such a case, identifying the likely changes is easy. If the requirements don't cover potential changes, see the discussion that follows of areas that are likely to change on any project. Separate items that are likely to change. Compartmentalize each volatile component identified in step 1 into its own class or into a class with other volatile components that are likely to change at the same time. Isolate items that seem likely to change. Design the interclass interfaces to be insensitive to the potential changes. Design the interfaces so that changes are limited to the inside of the class and the outside remains unaffected. Any other class using the changed class should be unaware that the change has occurred. The class's interface should protect its secrets. Here are a few areas that are likely to change: Business rules. Business rules tend to be the source of frequent software changes. Congress changes the tax structure, a union renegotiates its contract, or an insurance company changes its rate tables. If you follow the principle of information hiding, logic based on these rules won't be strewn throughout your program. The logic will stay hidden in a single dark corner of the system until it needs to be changed.

Watch for coupling that's too tight. "Coupling" refers to how tight the connection is between two classes. In general, the looser the connection, the better. Several general guidelines flow from this concept: Minimize accessibility of classes and members. Avoid friend classes, because they're tightly coupled. Make data private rather than protected in a base class to make derived classes less tightly coupled to the base class. Avoid exposing member data in a class's public interface. Be wary of semantic violations of encapsulation. Observe the "Law of Demeter" (discussed in Design and Implementation Issues of this chapter). Coupling goes hand in glove with abstraction and encapsulation. Tight coupling occurs when an abstraction is leaky, or when encapsulation is broken.

Class Quality Abstract Data Types Have you thought of the classes in your program as abstract data types and evaluated their interfaces from that point of view? Abstraction Does the class have a central purpose? Is the class well named, and does its name describe its central purpose? Does the class's interface present a consistent abstraction? Does the class's interface make obvious how you should use the class? Is the class's interface abstract enough that you don't have to think about how its services are implemented? Can you treat the class as a black box? Are the class's services complete enough that other classes don't have to meddle with its internal data? Has unrelated information been moved out of the class? Have you thought about subdividing the class into component classes, and have you subdivided it as much as you can? Are you preserving the integrity of the class's interface as you modify the class? Encapsulation Does the class minimize accessibility to its members? Does the class avoid exposing member data? Does the class hide its implementation details from other classes as much as the programming language permits? Does the class avoid making assumptions about its users, including its derived classes? Is the class independent of other classes? Is it loosely coupled? Inheritance Is inheritance used only to model "is a" relationships—that is, do derived classes adhere to the Liskov Substitution Principle? Does the class documentation describe the inheritance strategy? Do derived classes avoid "overriding" non-overridable routines? Are common interfaces, data, and behavior as high as possible in the inheritance tree? Are inheritance trees fairly shallow? Are all data members in the base class private rather than protected? Other Implementation Issues Does the class contain about seven data members or fewer? Does the class minimize direct and indirect routine calls to other classes? Does the class collaborate with other classes only to the extent absolutely necessary? Is all member data initialized in the constructor? Is the class designed to be used as deep copies rather than shallow copies unless there's a measured reason to create shallow copies?

On small, informal projects, a lot of design is done while the programmer sits at the keyboard. "Design" might be just writing a class interface in pseudocode before writing the details. It might be drawing diagrams of a few class relationships before coding them. It might be asking another programmer which design pattern seems like a better choice. Regardless of how it's done, small projects benefit from careful design just as larger projects do, and recognizing design as an explicit activity maximizes the benefit you will receive from it.

The Pseudocode Programming Process Have you checked that the prerequisites have been satisfied? Have you defined the problem that the class will solve? Is the high-level design clear enough to give the class and each of its routines a good name? Have you thought about how to test the class and each of its routines? Have you thought about efficiency mainly in terms of stable interfaces and readable implementations or mainly in terms of meeting resource and speed budgets? Have you checked the standard libraries and other code libraries for applicable routines or components? Have you checked reference books for helpful algorithms? Have you designed each routine by using detailed pseudocode? Have you mentally checked the pseudocode? Is it easy to understand? Have you paid attention to warnings that would send you back to design (use of global data, operations that seem better suited to another class or another routine, and so on)? Did you translate the pseudocode to code accurately? Did you apply the PPP recursively, breaking routines into smaller routines when needed? Did you document assumptions as you made them? Did you remove comments that turned out to be redundant? Have you chosen the best of several iterations, rather than merely stopping after your first iteration? Do you thoroughly understand your code? Is it easy to understand?

Норман (1983) указывает три метода предотвращения модальных (т. е. связанных с режимами) ошибок: 1. Не использовать режимы. 2. Обеспечить четкое различие между режимами. 3. Не использовать одинаковые команды в разных режимах, чтобы команда, примененная не в том режиме, не могла привести к неприятностям.

Норман (1983) указывает три метода предотвращения модальных (т. е. связанных с режимами) ошибок: 1. Не использовать режимы. 2. Обеспечить четкое различие между режимами. 3. Не использовать одинаковые команды в разных режимах, чтобы команда, примененная не в том режиме, не могла привести к неприятностям. Из приведенных трех методов только первый позволяет полностью избежать модальных ошибок. Что касается второго метода, то, как мы могли уже убедиться, он не всегда работает. Третий метод не сокращает количество ошибок, но позволяет уменьшить их негативные последствия.