For some reason, Amazon just won't let you add a paper gift certificate along with some products in the same order. It's ridiculous. Is it not a common gift giving solution to purchase an item or more and to embellish it with a gift certificate?
Apparently, gift certs are an entire different animal, treated by a different system. Funny, because Amazon does a good job of grouping Amazon and non-Amazon products into cart. Yet, if you've already Added some items to Cart, and then choose to purchase a Gift Certificate, it ignores the Cart items, regardless of whether you seek to send an electronic gift cert or a paper cert.
I like sending paper certs. I would like to send one along with some books, or kitchen products. But in this present day of 2007, it can't happen at Amazon. I ran into this problem 3 years ago after my pal Eric married Jodi. I tolerated it because I figured, okay, still working out some issues... but now it's almost 2008. Time for Amazon to indulge this 'niche' gift idea.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Craplets: PC Makers on Drugs?
PC Makers (OEMs) have decided to install multiple trial software programs, which load on boot, severely slowing down the time to get started. These trial programs have earned the nickname 'craplets,' and retailers offer to remove them at the time of purchase, often at a cost. This may have been noted elsewhere, but I must ask: isn't this crazy? This is the new reality? BestBuy sales people, in addition to extending to customers an extended warranty, must also state, with a straight face: "There's a lot of crap on this computer. Do you want us to remove it for just $30?" Such behavior seems the stuff of a monopoly (you can imagine a Phone Man coming to your parents' home years ago, offering to remove six bogus digits from the pad), and yet the computer industry is as competitive as ever, with a resurgent, ballyhooed Apple making machines in addition to the many Wintel and WinAmD OEMs.
Questions to consider:
What is behind this development? How much commission do OEMs get from these trials? Or, do the makers get the money upfront just for loading it on the machine? In which case, they may make money despite not selling the machine? Who are these craplet vendors? Is Apple behind it? Craplets have undermined the rollout of Vista... are OEMs so upset at Microsoft that they find self-destruction admirable so long as it helps knock down Redmond?
When Microsoft was being sued throughout the late 90s for its 'closed' operating system, OEMs were demanding increased ability to customize Windows. Are craplets what they had in mind? This is the result of the anti-trust settlement: the right to erode customer trust by selling slower machines?
Questions to consider:
What is behind this development? How much commission do OEMs get from these trials? Or, do the makers get the money upfront just for loading it on the machine? In which case, they may make money despite not selling the machine? Who are these craplet vendors? Is Apple behind it? Craplets have undermined the rollout of Vista... are OEMs so upset at Microsoft that they find self-destruction admirable so long as it helps knock down Redmond?
When Microsoft was being sued throughout the late 90s for its 'closed' operating system, OEMs were demanding increased ability to customize Windows. Are craplets what they had in mind? This is the result of the anti-trust settlement: the right to erode customer trust by selling slower machines?
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
iPod earbuds post un-tangle still Confuse
The iPod's white earbuds would be easier to use if one of the earbuds was colored.
The only way to determine which piece is for Right Ear versus Left Ear is to hold one of the pieces close to the eye, turning the piece to view the single letter ("L" or "R") faintly marked on its inner-side.
Ironically, Apple celebrates its releasing of various colors for various products, but the lack of an additional color Within an existing item makes it less usable.
You almost get the feeling that the geniuses would 'rectify' this problem, by releasing an all-green ear buds....amen.
What you can do: use a marker to color one of the buds. Or, use high-quality stereo headphones.
In that case, the Left and Right sides is known / derived from the shape of the phones.
Even if still ambiguous, at least the quality sound makes up for the momentary confusion. Not something that can be said of the shabby iPod phones.
(My editor just informed me that any mention of iPod phones must include the word "ubiquitous." )
The iPod earbuds are ubiquitous but far from perfect.
The only way to determine which piece is for Right Ear versus Left Ear is to hold one of the pieces close to the eye, turning the piece to view the single letter ("L" or "R") faintly marked on its inner-side.
Ironically, Apple celebrates its releasing of various colors for various products, but the lack of an additional color Within an existing item makes it less usable.
You almost get the feeling that the geniuses would 'rectify' this problem, by releasing an all-green ear buds....amen.
What you can do: use a marker to color one of the buds. Or, use high-quality stereo headphones.
In that case, the Left and Right sides is known / derived from the shape of the phones.
Even if still ambiguous, at least the quality sound makes up for the momentary confusion. Not something that can be said of the shabby iPod phones.
(My editor just informed me that any mention of iPod phones must include the word "ubiquitous." )
The iPod earbuds are ubiquitous but far from perfect.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Google Kind of Wants Us to Use iGoogle
Google won cheers this summer by adding a set of context links to its search page, but due to a major flaw--a single Link that does 2 different things, an omitted Link, lack of Navigation Labels, the user is often stranded and confused.
At issue is iGoogle, which can serve as a homepage to house short cuts, collections of links, and RSS feeds. I like iGoogle. I have added some content to it. I try to visit when I can... but how do I get there? Hmmm. Well, I just had a hunch, and typed in "igoogle.com," which worked!
Once you login to Google.com, you can use the link in the top right corner to go to "iGoogle."
Terrfic. I see my homepage. I also see a row of links on the left corner:
Web (unlinked, because I am there) | Images | Video | News | Maps | Gmail More (drop-down list of other services)
So, I have gathered that "Web" equals where I am.. And that's the error Google made: it denotes "Web" to mean 2 things: iGoogle, but this same link also means a type of Search (regular web search as opposed to those other types of Searches:images, video,maps). This is both unintuitive and leads to inconsistent results.
Here's is a typical sequence of events:
1. I've gotten to iGoogle.
2. I click 'Images'.
3. It leads to Image Search.
4. I choose not to Search. I click "Web" to return to iGoogle (the only link to iGoogle).
5. I click Books from the "More" drop-down list.
6. From the menu of Book categories, I choose "Linguistics."
7. This auto-populates the Search Input field with 'subject:"Linguistics"'
8. I want to return to iGoogle, so I click "Web."
9. This brings up an Empty Search Results page, as if I had meant to do a web search for "Subject:Linguistics." (this will always bring up an empty search because, as the page notes: subject:" Linguistics " was dropped from your search because it is not supported for this type of search.)
** See Bottom of this Post, to see Screen Shots of the Above Sequence **
That is not a good experience, and it is due to poor design.
The heart of the problem is failure to resolve a common issue wrested with by web site designers: should links be Verbs or Nouns or Adjectives? It is important to be consistent at least within a given group of links? Usually, a designer thinks through the logical ramifications, and chooses One and Sticks to it. Google, although guilty of omitting a heading for its disparate groups of links, does offer consistent logic/English in its Left top corner grouping IF VIEWED IN ONE CONTEXT.
But, amazingly, Google gives the word "Web" two meanings: a Place (iGoogle) and a type of Search, and it uses the very same Link to enforce both meanings. A dedicated link to "iGoogle" would go a long way to address this (the company has bought up half of the Carolinas to house its new data centers--but it doesn't have 40 pixels of space for an iGoogle link? )
If you look further at that Left Corner group of Links, just within the context of Search Type, it is not actually sensible. What is Google implying by these words?
Does "Web" imply "web pages?" Or is it not the 'parent' of the other search types?
The word used for each link within a group should be able to fit into One commonly structured sentence, which need not be displayed, but can be inferred from the group heading. At Google Left Corner, what would that sentence be?
"Search the Web for Web ".. no. What if we use them each as adjectives for the word 'search?'
"Web search".... "Images search" .... Wait! Pluralize image? Is that consistent? Is that hip? (Aren't only older citizens charged with inappropriate pluralizing of words?) Maybe the unstated sentence formula is: "Search All (of the world's known) X for ____". That would make sense, because "Video" does not need to take the "s" to become plural. But again, that word "Web" doesn't fit.
This brings up the need for a Group Label. It is important for designers to Label things not only because it helps the user, but it then helps the designer by keeping him mindful of what he is doing/putting together.
The Internet is still new, and different organizations and users have different ideas and views. This is accepted by all, and thus, we expect and even embrace different arrangements, viewpoints--so long as the viewpoint is Clear and consistent.
Google has built up heaps of goodwill. Most people defer to it, and will give it a break. If it wants to organize a set of Links, or Methods to view content, in a given way, then users will follow the way.. The problem is, the Way is not Understood.
There is a limit to how much can be Implied, rather than expressed, in web site navigation. There is a lot of information and communication made available by Google: it enables self-expression and labeling/tagging, and it itself develops and rolls out a lot of content. Further more, Google provides a lot of FAQs, and How-tos throughout its services, such as this Blogger. For some reason, they let things slide on the single most visited page that contains the single most important function.
Google's stated mission is to organize the world's information. But in the rush to do so, it hasn't properly organized itself.
1. from iGoogle, went to Image Search
3. Used the "More" list to go to "Book Search"
4. Clicked a category from the Left, which auto-filled the search input field.
6. Clicked "Web" to return to iGoogle. But, in this case, since the Form was auto-filled, and since Google took it to be a Search Request, it brought up a No Search Results page. (and always will, because of the syntax of Book search is not recognized by Web Search).
At issue is iGoogle, which can serve as a homepage to house short cuts, collections of links, and RSS feeds. I like iGoogle. I have added some content to it. I try to visit when I can... but how do I get there? Hmmm. Well, I just had a hunch, and typed in "igoogle.com," which worked!
Once you login to Google.com, you can use the link in the top right corner to go to "iGoogle."
Terrfic. I see my homepage. I also see a row of links on the left corner:
Web (unlinked, because I am there) | Images | Video | News | Maps | Gmail More (drop-down list of other services)
So, I have gathered that "Web" equals where I am.. And that's the error Google made: it denotes "Web" to mean 2 things: iGoogle, but this same link also means a type of Search (regular web search as opposed to those other types of Searches:images, video,maps). This is both unintuitive and leads to inconsistent results.
Here's is a typical sequence of events:
1. I've gotten to iGoogle.
2. I click 'Images'.
3. It leads to Image Search.
4. I choose not to Search. I click "Web" to return to iGoogle (the only link to iGoogle).
5. I click Books from the "More" drop-down list.
6. From the menu of Book categories, I choose "Linguistics."
7. This auto-populates the Search Input field with 'subject:"Linguistics"'
8. I want to return to iGoogle, so I click "Web."
9. This brings up an Empty Search Results page, as if I had meant to do a web search for "Subject:Linguistics." (this will always bring up an empty search because, as the page notes: subject:" Linguistics " was dropped from your search because it is not supported for this type of search.)
** See Bottom of this Post, to see Screen Shots of the Above Sequence **
That is not a good experience, and it is due to poor design.
The heart of the problem is failure to resolve a common issue wrested with by web site designers: should links be Verbs or Nouns or Adjectives? It is important to be consistent at least within a given group of links? Usually, a designer thinks through the logical ramifications, and chooses One and Sticks to it. Google, although guilty of omitting a heading for its disparate groups of links, does offer consistent logic/English in its Left top corner grouping IF VIEWED IN ONE CONTEXT.
But, amazingly, Google gives the word "Web" two meanings: a Place (iGoogle) and a type of Search, and it uses the very same Link to enforce both meanings. A dedicated link to "iGoogle" would go a long way to address this (the company has bought up half of the Carolinas to house its new data centers--but it doesn't have 40 pixels of space for an iGoogle link? )
If you look further at that Left Corner group of Links, just within the context of Search Type, it is not actually sensible. What is Google implying by these words?
Does "Web" imply "web pages?" Or is it not the 'parent' of the other search types?
The word used for each link within a group should be able to fit into One commonly structured sentence, which need not be displayed, but can be inferred from the group heading. At Google Left Corner, what would that sentence be?
"Search the Web for Web ".. no. What if we use them each as adjectives for the word 'search?'
"Web search".... "Images search" .... Wait! Pluralize image? Is that consistent? Is that hip? (Aren't only older citizens charged with inappropriate pluralizing of words?) Maybe the unstated sentence formula is: "Search All (of the world's known) X for ____". That would make sense, because "Video" does not need to take the "s" to become plural. But again, that word "Web" doesn't fit.
This brings up the need for a Group Label. It is important for designers to Label things not only because it helps the user, but it then helps the designer by keeping him mindful of what he is doing/putting together.
The Internet is still new, and different organizations and users have different ideas and views. This is accepted by all, and thus, we expect and even embrace different arrangements, viewpoints--so long as the viewpoint is Clear and consistent.
Google has built up heaps of goodwill. Most people defer to it, and will give it a break. If it wants to organize a set of Links, or Methods to view content, in a given way, then users will follow the way.. The problem is, the Way is not Understood.
There is a limit to how much can be Implied, rather than expressed, in web site navigation. There is a lot of information and communication made available by Google: it enables self-expression and labeling/tagging, and it itself develops and rolls out a lot of content. Further more, Google provides a lot of FAQs, and How-tos throughout its services, such as this Blogger. For some reason, they let things slide on the single most visited page that contains the single most important function.
Google's stated mission is to organize the world's information. But in the rush to do so, it hasn't properly organized itself.
1. from iGoogle, went to Image Search
2. Used the Left Corner "Web" link to return to iGoogle. No other link visible.
3. Used the "More" list to go to "Book Search"
4. Clicked a category from the Left, which auto-filled the search input field.
6. Clicked "Web" to return to iGoogle. But, in this case, since the Form was auto-filled, and since Google took it to be a Search Request, it brought up a No Search Results page. (and always will, because of the syntax of Book search is not recognized by Web Search).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)