Advanced Search
Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili (Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.

This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.

This is what normal people think web browsers are. If you're not thinking about the usability of every facet of your app, you're doing it wrong. : programming

Sounds like someone has seen A Clockwork Orange.

Well, I had no idea what synecdoche is, so I'm an idiot too.

Now I have to watch that movie all over again...

I think that the word "google" will for the most part, be only thought of as a search tool to the average person.

When ever google pastes that name on another product, the human brain will only remember that blank white google search page.

How many people even know about google's gmail, advanced search, free blog thing, igoogle, etc.

That mostly blank white page must have some correlation to the Pavlovian Dog Theory.

Ask those same people if they know how much of their search engine results are paying to be there.

The word browser reminds me of someone at a shopping mall. Edit: http://www.givemebackmygoogle.com/

[deleted]

Your trying too hard. Just relax

Or...it could be that we do not give retards student visas.

The problem is 'browser' should be called 'retriever'.

Why should it be called a retriever?

It allows you to "browse" through web pages.

I feel like you are making the same mistake most people in this video do..

It allows me to SURF the pages like a fucking california hippie on pot!

You mean 'renderer'?

The GET portion of the browser takes all of two lines of code, it's the web rendering that's so complicated.

Most people don't know what 'render' means.

Most of the rest will think of cutting up animals.

If they were called "Web Retrievers" then Cyberdog might have been slightly less stupid of a name for a browser.

Not only that - most of the people around me don't even type URLs into address bar, they type either a name or an address (sigh) into google or google search bar and click the first link that comes in results.

For a long time I've tried to fight them through that, but that battle is lost, this is how things are and should be accepted and accounted for what they are.

I don't type urls either.

It is easier to let the google figure out the address and essentially use the search argument as a mnemonic.

I've never typed an address into the search box though. Of course most sites are bookmarked.

Thing is in chrome...

Thats just fine.

I use FF's Awesome bar and type in the title of the page, instead.

When I discovered FF had this capability, it was one of the happiest days of my life.

Sometimes you just type in the name of the restaurant or wherever you want to go, you don't even need to know the actual title.

I know. I tried Chrome but it didn't do the title search that FireFox does. I'm so used to it now, that the only way I can switch browsers is if Chrome introduces the same functionality.

This is what actually drove me away from Firefox to Chrome.

It was automatically selected stupid bullshit I didn't want.

You just described my mom.

Yeah it's amazing.

When you look at some people.

They type in google.com in the URL bar.

Type in "Facebook" in the search bar and than klick on the first link...

And therein lies Google's business model.

;-)

Blogspam

I take issue with the second line of the subject here (which wasn't mentioned in the article).

It's bullshit. Usability (in the guise of "user-friendliness") should only be a pervasive concern in software intended for beginners.

Once one knows what one is doing, excess user-friendliness becomes Navi-level frustrating.

( Stop helping me!

) (This is not to say it should never be a concern, or that usability should be avoided ;

Malbolge results from that sort of thinking.

But in many cases, it should come second to power or efficiency.)

I like to distinguish those two by calling one discoverability (i.e.

How easy is it for you to discover the feature you want and/or new features you don't know about but might need or like anyway) and the other one usability (how easy is it to use the average feature when you know exactly what you are doing weighted by how often you need each feature).

Autoformat in word processors is the most depressing feature I've ever seen.

All phone numbers in the UK start with 0 so of course my word processor handily strips that unnecessary 0 from the start of my phone number.

Who needs a zero? Not to mention that when you want to type stuff like say CppUnit it throws a fit and starts fiddling with my capitalisation everywhere.

Agh, stop it.

You can easily turn that feature off or alter its behaviour in MS Word.

If you're doing any real word processing you are most likely using MS Word.

The feature should be off by default.

It is nothing but a nuisance.

The word processor never knows better than me. 99% of word processing is typing up CVs and such that can be handled by practically any word processor on the planet.

Anything more complicated should be typeset.

And you sir, are a retard who hasn't touched more than what a high school grad would use in Word. When you're dealing with a 100 page document being modified by half a dozen people, you need control over who made which edit, comments, CONSISTENT formatting, auto-generated headings/references/Table of Contents, automatic integration with Excel spreadsheets... and oh, actually working.

Typeset that for me bitch for less than a $100 a license.

The gold standard in typesetting is free/libre/gratis.

TeX (and LaTeX) is $0 per license, and last I checked $0 was less than $100 (though what with inflation these days, one can never be sure). A few other points: concurrent editing is handled much better by another piece of software than the editor.

Hence we have concurrent versions system, and assorted other version control systems.

Just because they're used primarily for source code management doesn't mean they're not equally well suited to handling other things. 99% of the people who use Word use it as a text editor and never touch a formatting feature more advanced than page numbering.

"Word processing" is a self-invented software category (the bastard child of text editors and typesetters;

Tries to be both, and succeeds at neither) that, frankly, the world would be better off without.

TeX and a decent VCS for concurrent editing is so much easier on the brain than word that it's not even funny. Also, 99% of people use Word as a program to paste screenshots in and then attach the doc to a mail. I spent all autumn writing a manual for a software system, it was the most annoying work I've done ever.

The way it can't handle big documents, and the way you can't really use Master Documents either, and the way everything just fucks itself up after a finite number of edits is astonishing.

Every day I encountered something that would have been a non-issue with emacs and LaTeX, and mind you there were images all over.

Heck, I would have been content with Notepad.

Also, 99% of people use Word as a program to paste screenshots in and then attach the doc to a mail. Ah, so that's why Microsoft hasn't implemented something like KSnapshot.

Sales of Word would plummet.

I said 99%. I don't give a damn about the 1 or 2 cases which use Word in areas it is completely unsuited for.

Typesetting is great precisely because it can do consistent formatting and auto generated references headings and table of contents.

I suggest you actually look at a typesetting program before commenting that one of the strengths of such systems are actually a weakness. Word processors are for typing up short letters and CVs.

Technical documents and books are done in a type setter.

The publishing industry uses dedicated publishing packages.

People who use Word for anything important are equivalent to people who use Access for major databases (or just Access in general TBH).

99% of people (where the fuck did you get that stat from anyway) don't USE Word's features.

Hence, they'll never see what it can do.

Go look at the selling points of Word 2007 and you'll see what I mean.

It's meant for REAL word processing, not merely a resume or a two page essay on why you like dick in your ass.

I bet your typesetting application thingy does that well.

Almost nobody wants what it can do.

You are missing the point.

In all likelihood bold, italic, underline, alignment, tables and font selection are 100% what most people need.

My original post answered the challenge that everyone should be using Word.

No almost nobody should be using Word since they don't need to spent an excessive amount when even Google Docs is enough for their usage. I will however tell you where Word is completely inadequate.

First off the formulae editor sucks on so many levels it is hard to describe.

You really can't compare its ability to the amsmath package.

It also fails at spacing words appropriately.

You always have that line which Word has stretched out to an absurd degree and you have to manually bash to get in properly.

Then again its general layout system isn't great.

Try typing a document and then decide to move it from a full page width to a 2 column split, then 3.

Try the same in Latex and tell me Word performs even remotely as well.

Well maybe. But most computer users are going to benefit from the feature because they are usually careless and dumb... It's an extension of the basic Windows way...one size fits all by default, and takes a little bit of customisation to get it exactly how you want it.

There's no other way when so many people with different needs all use the same software.

S/real world/business world/ The output from Word makes me cringe and I really wonder how the business world uses it at all as it reeks of amteurishness.

Amusing that a zero-cost typesetting system outperforms a several hundred dollar per license word processor.

I agree with you on everything but your use of the term usability.

Usability is a concern in all man machine interaction.

It covers how to design a system that is most usable by the target users, which may be beginners or advanced users.

It is not defined as making a system trying to helping you in every step.

That is actually an example of bad usability for which clippy has been used many times.

A lot of users also think that Firefox and IE are "different Internets." I can't count the number of times that I've had to explain to someone that Internet Explorer is not an Internet provider. Explaining the Internet at that level is pretty hard.

You wouldn't think so, but it is.

:-/

Tell 'em Firefox and IE are different cars, the Internet is the road system.

Car analogies work with folks.

Car analogies are like bad analogies.

I rode your mom like an analogy.

Car analogies are bad to argue with, because the Internet is not a road and computers are not cars. They're fine to explain with.

It's just not right enough to win an argument with.

I'm amused by the use of a simile to describe an analogy which was arguably actually a metaphor.

Google's master plan is almost complete!

This isn't about usability, this is the same thing that M$ tried with their attempt at blurring the lines between a browser and the operating system.

If it was a widget manufacturer and I wanted everyone in the world to buy my widgets, the perfect way to do that would be to somehow get people to believe that widgets were air.

Without air (my widget) you die.

Ok, it's a poor example, but that's what I see happening here.

/tin foil hat off

Users reading "This is what normal people think.." don't know how to reply on reddit!:0

There's a difference between usability and catering to fucking morons.

Sadly to make money you usually have to cater to the morons. The average person is highly ignorant.

Voluntarily ignorant.

They have no need or desire to determine the correct definition of browser.

What ever happened to curiosity...

Well, in the United States, I think it died off around the same time that television became widely available to all.

I think there's just as much of it as ever, but new, more accessible forms of media keep emerging so that the average Joe can easily parade his incurious mediocrity in front of a wider and wider audience. This has led to the exaltation of uninformed opinion to the point that it is respected almost religiously.

This phenomenon has existed for years in the form of the "man on the street" news interview, but has climbed to new heights with the advent of Yahoo Answers and Twitter.

Our innate inclination for viewpoints which validate our own convictions has always encouraged unenlightened expression, but combined with modern modes of communication, mindless masturbation has almost drowned out thoughtful discussion.

When I tried to explain Linux to my mum, one of the first questions she asked was "does it come with Google?"

A browser is a big herbivore.

I thought he was a big green dude who hated that Italian plumber.

That's Bowser. I thought it was a county in Florida that became famous for voting irregularities in the 2000 US presidential election.

Palm Beach? I think you are playing this wrong. Yowsa!

That's Broward. I thought it was my wife in Target at the end of the month.

Different browser.

I thought it was that guy from the show where he's a teenage doctor.

That's Howser. I thought it was an article of clothing that covers the length of your legs?

Those are trousers.

I thought it was one of those German dogs that look like they have big mustaches.

That's a schnauzer.

I thought it was a cannon with a short barrel.

That's howitzer. I thought it was a person who wakes people up.

If I could have a penny for every time I have sat with a client and said, "now type this into the address bar...why are you doing a Google search for it?

Type it into the address bar.

No, the bar that says 'address' next to it.

No, not the Google search..." That is only second to "which browser are you using?" "Err, Word, no, Windows, yes, Micro-thingy.

No, Internet, I click on Internet."

So they don't know the proper terminology.

They know that if they put the key into THIS hole and turn it THIS way, it'll start the car.

They have NO idea exactly what electrical ignition system is being used, nor of the computer safety checks in place, nor of the exact voltages and gauges of the wire used. In other words, they know what works for them.

If you don't like your job, get the fuck out and get a different one or STFU.

But they know how to open the window of the car, they know how to find their way on a road, they know which side of the road to drive on.

I suffer through exactly the same scenario as judgej2 at least once a week myself, and i cant understand why it is so difficult to find a line of text on a screen.

I usually ask them to open cnn, and them let them find the location where it says www.cnn.com.

Most people find it then.

So they don't know how to tell the engine from the transmission apart.

Big deal. If you don't like doing that aspect of your job, get out of the business.

More like being unable to distinguish between the steering wheel and the sat-nav system.

Well, regardless of the false comparisons you wish to make, if you don't like it, leave the business.

We'll be better off without your condescending ass.

Oh, yeah, I'm a condescending prick, but I don't talk about my customers behind their back with an air of arrogance over their lack of familiarity.

Except that the sat-nav system is far worse at taking you where you want to go, compared to how good the search engine does by itself.

The only reason people don't know the definition of "browser" is because they never had to go out and buy one themselves.

So thank Microsoft, if anyone, for people's ignorance as a result of packaging Internet Explorer with Windows (likewise safari with macs).

Why would the average person switch to chrome or firefox if what is on their desktop works fine?

It's maybe because people do not see email, instant messaging or online gaming as something that happens over the internet.

Or that they think that somehow beneath the surface, a webbrowser is involved.

Hah! normies...

I work tech support for an isp and have found that most of our customers (granted about 3/4 of them are dial up users) wouldn't have the slightest clue what you're talking about if you asked them what a web browser was.

"Normal" is not another word for "clueless".

People with a clue are not automatically abnormal and weird. If you mean to say that someone is clueless or uneducated, those are the words to use.

If you insist that knowledge is abnormal, you sound like an anti-intellectual loser.

If only 8% of people know what a browser is, taking the other 92% to be 'normal' is a perfectly good standard to use.

Huh? Normal just means "usual".

If we assume that the people in the video are a fairly representative sample of the population at large*, then any property which applies to 92% of the sample can be considered "normal". If you insist that normality is positive, you sound like a reactionary.

I really liked the guy, that's using Firefox because his buddy came over removed all the bloated spyware crap and installed him Firefox :D

What browser do you use? The big "e" with the explorer on there.

I'm not a computer guy!

I might be the wrong one for this! And yet, he was one of only three people to give a correct answer to that question, once again demonstrating the correlation between ignorance and confidence. In other news, I am now incredibly depressed.

I think I'm going to throw up

Computers are too easy to use.




Omgili Home About FAQ Plugins Usenet