Tuesday, August 2, 2016

adobe illustrator - Smart guides aren't smart


TL:DR Smart guides aren't accurate - even though the snap, (end up causing more problems in the long run) is there a way to fix it?


Maybe there are some settings that I'm missing (need to be changed)




I use my smart guides all the time (and am overall pleased with them). I do have my issues with it, as explained here:


A lot of times, when I'm trying to make a bunch of triangles like this:



enter image description here


Done by making a triangle, cloning, flipping, rotating etc. Repeat until full


(Perfect) Snapping using Smart Guides


enter image description here


Ends up looking likeenter image description herebetween the triangles (Outline Mode)




Now I personally (with a strong attention to detail) will notice that there is something off after making just 1 or 2 triangles (Even before outline mode... strokes look oh so slightly thicker/off)


And then I check in outline mode... and sure enough:


enter image description here


Notice the line spaces (and this is in outline mode, so if I didn't notice it before, now it's sitting right in front of my nose)



The way I (seemingly) "fixed" the first image was by adding in a thick stroke outline so that masks out the difference, however, in a lot of my cases I don't want to have a stroke at all (and then you really notice the problems).



Answer



Apparently, all this has nothing to do with Smart Guides.


Check if Align New Objects to Pixel Grid selected (if so, turn it off)


enter image description here


If it's on... it will keep on jumping like this:


enter image description here


To turn it off, go to the Transform Panel - Window→Transform (Shift+F8) and click on the dropdown menu.


It's often missed since it's hidden in the transform panel, which I never use anyhow.


usability - Why aren't Gmail-like "on-page" dialogs more popular UI solutions?


A few months ago, Gmail gave us the choice to switch to a new UI, with many new features (...) including an "on-page-docked" window. I personally find this piece of UI very useful as it allows users to interact with the rest of the page and doesn't feel -to me- as obtrusive as a classic modal.



Why isn't this type of interface more popular in web applications?




We did some in-house user testing on our application and results showed that 90% of users found the "on-page-docked" window interface to:



  • be faster to process (lower cognitive load) and faster to use

  • create less visual interruptions


enter image description here



Answer



I cannot comment on your user test results since I do not know your parameters and scenario.



But, talking about gmail's new email input method. The advantage which desktop email applications had over the web based ones was, while composing the email (in a separate window) you could freely browse older emails and look into content you might want to refer. (This was possible in web mail too by using different windows, but was not quite clean). With the new docked email method, you can keep typing your message and browse other content too.


Also, this is quite similar to what facebook does. If you look at the wording, it says 'Message' and not email. Slowly and gradually, mail is being merged with chat. The storage mechanism is same for chat and mail as is. In facebook, a message and mail are the same thing. When you use chat or mail client to contact the person, they end up in the messages inbox.




To answer the question as to why this is not a popular UI solution, you need to ask, in what scenarios is this a good solution? The answer is something like multitasking: focusing on a task while managing others in the same view. How many services do you think need such a feature? Many services already use pop-up windows to achieve similar results.


If used unwisely, this will amount to quite a lot of cognitive overhead for the user. On a streamlined app, it makes sense (like gmail).


terminology - Do we “exit”, “quit” or "close" an application?


Do we “exit” an application, do we “quit” an application, do we “close” an application?


This is in relation to a desktop app. What is the most meaningful term to use?



Answer



If you are developing a Windows application, the correct term to use is "Exit". This is spelt out in Microsoft's Design apps for the Windows desktop guide, under the "Standard Menu Bars" section.


If you are developing a Mac application, the correct term to use is "Quit". (Your menu item must read "Quit AppName".) This is spelt out in Apple's OS X Human Interface Guidelines, under "The App Menu" section.


In general, you should follow the platform's user-interface guidelines when you are developing apps so that your app is consistent with all other apps in the same platform, so as to reduce your app's complexity and learning curve for your customers.



Monday, August 1, 2016

world building - How can I get readers to accept more than 1 "buy" in worldbuilding?


An alternative "Occult Universe"


I open my occult detective novel in what is ostensibly a "noir" style, but through worldbuilding I attempt to show that the story is set in an alternate occult universe which diverged from our own sometime during the early 19th Century, along with the rise in Victorian-era occultism. Paranormal phenomena always existed but was ephemeral up until the industrial revolution.


In this world, paranormal phenomena can be induced in steel similar to magnetism. It's comparable to steampunk where steam engines and clockwork mechanics are handwaved into modern-day (or impossible) technology. Here, paranormal effects have been induced into mass-produced industrial items. The process is not explained but it's coded as bad for the environment, experimental, and generally unreliable as the phenomena uses poorly understood "occult logic". The worldbuilding also sets up a countercurrent motif that the paranormal on an industrial scale has undesirable consequences, like the backlash against nuclear power – it's a leap forward when it works, but you wouldn't want to be nearby in a catastrophe.


For the characters, these occult-powered industrial items (gasoline-free luxury cars, levitating trains, city power plants, military weapons) are a routine part of life, symbols of wealth and power-disparity that compliment the noir themes of political corruption, greed, abuse of power, secret societies, etc. I'm introducing them as "things that exist" matter-of-factly, and layering them with coded sinister adjectives: hovercar engines make disturbing human throat sounds, "ghost" trains slither in the night, etc.


The problem


My problem is that beta readers are questioning this aspect of the world and calling it "sci-fi". They aren't critical exactly, but it clearly feels non-sequitur. Rather than seeing the paranormal as a transformative "technology" that has corrupted society (a metaphor for pollution, industrialization, consumerism), readers see it as an extra "buy in" that doesn't fit the rest of the story. My plan was to have a naive character begin to question these "toxic" items, transitioning from symbols of wealth to symbols of moral corruption.


In the Writing Excuses podcast How Weird is too Weird, they suggest the reader will accept 1 "buy" for the world and everything else should derive from that. A story with multiple unrelated "buys" will seem unfocused, trying to do too much at once. I've fallen into that problem.


My "buy" is that paranormal phenomenon can be induced in a manufactured object. The industrial machines exist, unexplained, but they are the logical worldbuilding conclusion of this idea. However, the story's MacGuffin is about a manufactured object with much smaller stakes, its purpose is evil but personal: an occult Maltese Falcon that might grant a kind of immortality. Immortality effects 1 person, flying cars effects all of society and seems like a much grander theme that is being ignored.


Part of the problem is that I am trying to introduce a sub-genre with unclear rules. There is no "occultpunk" for the reader to fill in the blanks about what is normal in this world. I have an 800lb worldbuilding gorilla that readers feel should have more of a payoff in the story. I would like to keep this aspect of my world, I think it is interesting, but not if it's a distraction.



How can I get readers to accept more than 1 "buy"?


Is there a way I can better integrate this concept into the story, or has my worldbuilding gone off the rails? Can I get readers to "buy" this grand concept as a backdrop, and still appreciate the smaller paranormal MacGuffin as a threat deserving its own story?


It also breaks my own rule that paranormal stories need a firm normal to contrast against, otherwise it obscures why the paranormal thing is suppose to be interesting. Maybe I should avoid grand-concept worldbuilding altogether? Readers calling it "sci-fi" indicates it's sticking out in an oddball way. They don't see the rest of the story as taking place in a sci-fi universe, but they mention those elements like they are refugees from the wrong genre.



Answer



My favorite example of "one buy too many" is the movie Looper. Time travel is essential to the plot. Psychic powers are a distracting, disbelief-endangering extra, with little payoff. With that said, I'm not sure that's actually your problem here.


If I understand your set-up, this is an old-fashioned world with some futuristic elements, like steampunk, but moved forward a couple of generations? Maybe the problem is that the scenery doesn't match the play. Steampunk works --if you like it-- because it looks and feels old-fashioned, but has playfully modern aspects. Conversely, Star Wars looks and feels futuristic, but tells an old fashioned, fairy-tale style story --magic dressed up as technology.


For you, however, it sounds like your "look" isn't matching your "feel." The feel is early industrial, the look is science fiction. There's a simple fix: Just change the costuming a bit. If you want to go sci-fi, update the time period to a gritty, rundown future. If you want to stick with an early industrial time frame, rename your hover-cars as "flying horseless carriages" or something else period-appropriate, and watch people's objections melt away.


Critique: Tritium software logo design


I am looking for a review for a logo that is going to be shipped with a project of mine.



I wanted to keep it simple and clean, with a high level of appeal so that no one will really dislike the design of it.


Specifically:



  • Should I implement more color into the design?

  • Is the hexagon a suitable drop-back? Should I even have a drop-back?

  • Are there any design concepts I overlooked and haven't implemented?


enter image description here


Another rendition based off of a suggestion from a friend:


enter image description here



If it is important, the design was based off of a tritium atom, since the project name the logo will be paired with is "Tritium". Here is a picture of part of the website for the project (also a work in progress):


enter image description here


Also keep in mind that I am brand new to graphic design, so please be as harsh as necessary with this.




Update:


Thank you all for your feedback, unfortunately I could only accept one answer! Some of you had really good ideas/concepts, and I will try my best to implement them in my final website design.



Answer



It's interesting, but (I assume) It's really the three dots that is the tie into 'TRItium'. As such, I'd consider dumping both the circle and the hexagon. They seem superfluous to the concept.


They are nice, but (and this is just my opinion) in the world of software, those tend to give off a bit of a video game vibe--which may or may not be your objective.


So, to go back to focusing on the 'tri' I'd strip down and simplify. This example may have gone slightly too far, and you may want to incorporate a bit more into this, but I think it gets the idea across of 'keep it simple'



enter image description here


I also gave the dots different sizes to a) add some dynamism and b) try to prevent it looking like two eyes and a nose. :)


Hope that helps!


controls - Is there a name for the UI that marks key positions in a scroll bar?


In Chrome, when you do a text search, you'll see the locations of found instances of the text string shown as yellow lines in the vertical scrollbar.


If you run Visual Studio with the Resharper plugin, the location of errors/suggestions/warnings/etc in the viewed source file are shown in a similar way in a vertical strip next to the scrollbar.


Is there a name for this UI element?



Answer




I believe this design was invented by McCrickard and Catrambone of the Georgia Institute of Technology:



McCrickard DS & Catrambone R (1999). Beyond the scrollbar: An evolution and evaluation of alternative navigation techniques. Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, p270-277.



It seems very similar ideas were independently developed in Nordic countries:



Laakso SA, Laakso K, & Saura AJ (2000). Improved scroll bars. Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 00),


Bjork S (2001). The ScrollSearcher Technique: Using Scrollbars to Explore Search Results. Proceedings of Interact 2001, Eighth IFIP TC.13 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.


Bork S & Redstrom J (2002). Window Frames as Areas for Information Visualization. Proceedings of NordiCHI, p247-250.




In all cases, the authors don’t provide a general term for graphically encoding content information in the scrollbar track, but instead give different names depending on exactly what is encoded. Chrome’s feature, for example, would be called a ScrollSearcher. There are also ChangeIndicator, ReadabilityViewer, Bookmark Scroll, Calendar Scroll, Mural Bar, and Pile Bar.


We could call them “Georgian Bars” in honor of their birthplace, at least until someone finds an earlier example than McCrickard and Catrambone. A simply descriptive name would be “encoded content scrollbars.”


adobe photoshop - How to creat a bump-map from a image


I need to make bump-map for objects like shirts or sofa that I could apply new patterns to it so how should convert the following shirt


enter image description here


into this:


enter image description here


? How can I make bump-map for this? Thanks




technique - How credible is wikipedia?

I understand that this question relates more to wikipedia than it does writing but... If I was going to use wikipedia for a source for a res...