> Seems to me like the author is just a bit behind and finally caught on.
False. It could be that some give more weight to superior hardware, and while Android's openness is great, it still lacks the polish of iOS. I'm pretty much in the same place as the author. The ideal is: excellent hardware, openness (hooks, ability to hack, customize, etc.), well-designed defaults for UX, app-to-app integration, cloud support, features. Android scores low on the first and last.
If you know vim I'd assume you already know the answer. If you know vim and don't know the answer, I guess vim just doesn't work for you. But for many others, it does. I'm not going to enumerate what's already covered in endless blog posts, SO answers, books, IRC logs, and .vimrcs.
I think you're missing the point that many developers choose vim over "modern" editors because of its highly efficient text-editing capabilities. The same points could be made about emacs.
As to "user friendly" - depends on who the user is. Yes, this text box is infinitely more user friendly than vim when your mom is using it.
That a foot-pedal might make vim more usable has nothing to do with vim being outdated or unusable. Is your operating system broken / outdated because one might find a food pedal driving "alt-tab" more usable or fun?
If you want to test multiple versions of IE, you need to do some time intensive VM cloning to trick VirtualBox into thinking they're actually separate images. Then configure and install IE's debugger tools for each image. Then, when the VMs expire in a few months repeat that process.
Add to that the problem of VMs booting slow, running slow, and consuming tons of memory on my otherwise-fast dev machine.
Not at all. The things discovered are unessential to getting things done. It's usually just a nicer way or more of a "wow, I can't believe they thought of this crazy edge case".
This prototype is a failure of both design and usability. It's an offense and a joke against anyone who expects to be able to interact with a machine in an efficient and intelligent manner.
- It's ugly as hell
- A beginner is bombarded with way too many things to click on
- An expert is annoyed by useless buttons and waste of space
Sure, you can turn it off, but who wants to configure and reconfigure UI preferences for the rest of their lives (sidenote: reminds me of eclipse)? Sensible defaults, please.
Contrast this with Apple, whose designs often define what good design and usability means. In their apps:
- The appearance is simple, well-designed, elegant
- The only actions present are those deemed most necessary to the user
- Tons of functionality is hidden under shortcut keys, modifier clicks and context menus for expert users (after years on OS X, I still discover hidden elegance as a result of their zealous attention to detail)
False. It could be that some give more weight to superior hardware, and while Android's openness is great, it still lacks the polish of iOS. I'm pretty much in the same place as the author. The ideal is: excellent hardware, openness (hooks, ability to hack, customize, etc.), well-designed defaults for UX, app-to-app integration, cloud support, features. Android scores low on the first and last.