I’m not sure how new this is, but it’s really great. Since the content aggregated into Google Reader is time-based, and often becomes irrelevant quickly, it makes perfect sense to expand the usual mark as read functionality to include various time spans. Makes paring down a several-thousand-item unread count easy. Epic win.
Stop repeating the obvious! I see this twenty times a day, at least.
I fully understand the implications (which aren’t even destructive! The session’s gonna be fine in the background!). You don’t have to remind me every fucking time. By definition, anyone who uses Remote Desktop is not a casual, naïve user. Why do you treat us as such? I’d argue that this dialog is entirely unnecessary, but if you absolutely insist on giving me this piece of data I already know, for fuck’s sake stick in a “don’t show me this again” option.
Patronizing, lazy, unnecessary. EPIC fail.
(By the way, the Mac version of the TS client doesn’t ask.)
(Also by the way, there might be some way to turn this off, but if I have to hunt for it, it’s less than useless to have it at all)
Fix the problem, dammit, don’t just tell me about it! I see dialog in Expression Blend often:
Here’s how I get there: I build the solution, I have a look at it, I see what’s wrong, I switch back to Blend, I fix the problem, I want to build it again, and– D’oh! I forgot to close the running app. So I have to close the dialog, switch to the app, close it, switch back, tell it to build again.
As is ususally the case with these stupid, stupid error dialogs, it doesn’t help me at all towards my goal. Yes, I forgot to close the running app so you can’t build on top of it. Yes, that was my mistake. How about not scolding me for it, but actually fixing the problem: close the damn thing, and build it again.
Lazy. Inconsiderate. Bitchy. Fail!
I can’t decide. Is the use of “-ize” on each navigation tab a clever way to enforce parallelism (one of my favorite rhetorical devices), or silly, trite and another example of how lolspeak iz killing teh English? Weigh in below.
This one makes me laugh. Shifting elements around a few pixels on focus isn’t a terrible idea; I’ve designed it, and it looks great in flat comps. It can give an element more dimensionality if it looks like it’s physically pressed in, for example. However, when it comes to implementing it, it just ends up looking broken, like this:
See? The Amazon icon on the unselected tab comes dangerously close to the edge of the tab. The label, also, doesn’t get shifted down. It looks like a mistake, it feels like a mistake. It is a mistake. (One, I’ll point out, I didn’t make.) It’s too subtle, and users won’t get it (I’ve seen them not get it); I can’t believe Apple missed this one. Oh, wait, yeah I can. Once again, lack of user testing produces inferior results.
On the other hand, I will hand it to them for reversing their position on the position and behavior of the tabs. Still, the icon thing? Fail.