There just isn't information about this on the internet (at least that I could find), so I'm here.
A few specific questions: how many team members should there be? Should they all be main characters, or just one? What kind of personalities and dynamics are needed within a team to make it work?
And any other general advice is greatly appreciated.
I'm not delusional about the nature of the science fiction novel I'm (very) slowly working on. A brief run down might be as follows:
This isn't a review of my particular story/plot, but I was wondering if it's really so bad to end up (by accident, you might say) with a plot that, while unique, has been done similarly before? Even though I feel I could do my particular idea justice, I can't help but notice it becoming more and more generic as I think about it.
Should I try to differentiate it as much as possible to the "generic" or just get on with it?
Answer
Everything has been done before. Seriously. I've taken two Ancient Literature courses and it's amazing how many plots are basically recycled versions of older plots. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Twilight, Harry Potter - their plots all model older books and plays from hundreds of years ago. Even parts of the Bible are found in manuscripts that predate Christianity by many many years. As long as the plot isn't a carbon copy of another book, you're pretty much good to go.
Because of the way the form is written, step-by-step in first person, it is necessary to put the a(n) to keep them grammatically correct for the Administrator case. However I feel like it makes the form look more confusing than necessary. Would it be a bad practice to remove the (n) and just have a case with incorrect grammar?
Example web form with radio buttons:
download bmml source – Wireframes created with Balsamiq Mockups
Answer
The book On Writing Well (a great book,) suggests making things like these plural. In the book, he talks about how to avoid the gender problem when talking about men/women. (By calling them people.) For example, when talking about a specific user, instead of saying "when he clicks on the button..." you'd say "when they click on the button...", or the passive "when the button is clicked...".
Here's how this would work in your case:
download bmml source – Wireframes created with Balsamiq Mockups
This will work even if you're only ever sending things to a single person. People don't tend find it strange, and it avoids your a(n) problem.
This technique makes the labels a little shorter and keeps them easy to scan. In certain contexts, @matt's answer would also work. It depends on what you're going for.
I am trying to find sites that can create one(or two)-off stickers/vinyls that are transparent. From what I am getting is that it may not be profitable enough to make it worth the company's time but if they did one-off batches (multiple client) would it not be possible to be worthwhile?
I was looking at http://www.stickeryou.com/ but the best I can do for transparent ones is $20 a page/unique sticker (which comes out to 8 copies of one sticker in my case). All I'm hoping for is to get two different stickers printed for some hobby projects but the cost is significant compared to the rest of the project and if I need more one-offs it just doesn't seem practical.
Did I hit a gap where it's not practical for me at one end and not practical for the business at the other?
Am I going the wrong route? Is there a better alternative for putting graphics on hobby projects? I am creating/fixing a few guitar pedals and would like to be able to put some basic graphics and text on the face of them
PS: If you know where I can get one-offs you can post those in the comments below my question
Note: Added some more context to what I am doing
Answer
I am trying to find sites that can create one(or two)-off stickers/vinyls that are transparent. From what I am getting is that it may not be profitable enough to make it worth the company's time but if they did one-off batches (multiple client) would it not be possible to be worthwhile?
Something that you have to understand when it comes to production related services there are factors companies (like digital printing) have to put in play to be profitable. I will use your issue as an example:
Say you have two stickers that come to be a total length of 12" in material. It costs you another 6" material to feed it through the printer and another 6" to feed it through lamination (if you are going to get it) which is considered as material waste because some machines require X amount of material to be able to be fed and printed on. The setup time is the same, you have to enter the design you provided, check to make sure its a correct vector, load the material, align the material, cut the material, etc. etc., and hit the print button. After printing, if they have a plotter, they will run it through the plotter and it will cutout what you needed..
Now you order 24" in material and my material waste is deleted and my production setup and print times dont change.. If you order 144" of material what are the factors that only change? Material, print time.. So that is why its better to order in bulk and small orders are usually not allowed or there is a min. order charge when placing orders because it will take the same amount of time to print 12" of stickers VS 24" of stickers (plus a little increased in print and plot times).. If you print 12" of stickers you are probably going to break even which means you will be out of business soon..
Am I going the wrong route? Is there a better alternative for putting graphics on hobby projects?
I think maybe but since you haven't posted an example of why you need to go transparent I will just explain the differences. Transparent vinyl is a lot more expensive than simply white vinyl that can be printed on. I would ask why do you need it to be transparent. Do you need to actually see through it? If no, then look into die cut stickers and we do have a question on it: "What term is used to refer to cut vinyl stickers?".
PS: If you know where I can get one-offs you can post those in the comments below my question
I think you may be looking in the wrong areas and I say that because searching online for one-offs you simply wont find it because they are looking for large, profitable, runs. Your best option would be to scout locally and use services like Craigslist, Facebook, local user groups, and you could even go to meetup and look for a local printers group where someone is doing this has a home hobby or starting out. I would also consider going into a local sign show and asking for a sheet to printed of your design and see if they will cut costs and you can just peel them off yourself like a very large sticker book.
Whilst filling out a form on the Royal Mail site this morning, I came across this heresy of form design: the self-negating checkbox...
This required careful (re)reading to ensure that:
The mixed metaphor is confusing enough to me, but I was under the impression that (in EU countries at least) the legal requirement was for all marketing preference questions to now be opt-in by default, not opt-out?
Has any notable comparative research been done into opt-in versus opt-out options on forms to see which are more annoying / easier to understand? The inconsistency across sites just from one country is mindboggling, never mind an apparent lack of international standard. Is it just me failing to wrap my head around things still being opt-out by default or does nobody else actually care?
Answer
Mixing opt-in and opt-out is totally bad UX as it leads to a lot of confusion. The meaning of both lists should be consistent, so there should be either opt-out or opt-in for both groups:
Do you want to receive information from us by:
[]post []phone []email []SMS []
Do you want to receive information from our carefully selected premium partners:
[]post []phone []email []SMS []
The reason for mixing the opt-in and opt-out mechanisms may, however, lie in some legal requirements (it sometimes leads to such situations). However, even in this situation it could be presented in a more clear way, e.g.:
Select the options below TO RECEIVE information from us:
[]post []phone []email []SMS []
Select the options below NOT TO RECEIVE information our carefully selected premium partners:
[]post []phone []email []SMS []
Regarding the opt-in and opt-out performance, please refer to this study, showing that opt-ins have significantly better conversion: http://mashable.com/2011/11/28/mailing-list-performance/ Opt-outs during a registration process are confusing and irritating, so it's actually close to adding people to a list without their knowledge.
From my point of view, these results are quite understandable, because:
I'm working on an iPhone app (early stage) and we had some discussions on the best navigation system:
This would be the home screen. What I like: Good feature overview; a "hub" for all functions and information. What I don't like: All menu items have more or less the same priority; if there are many items they don't fit on one screen.
The bar would always be there, the home screen would be the most important functionality of the app. What I like: No navigation needed if you want to use the main functionality; many apps use this approach so I guess users are quite familiar with this pattern. What I don't like: You shouldn't put more than 5 items on the bar so we would have a "more" button and (see this article: The iPhone Tab Bar)
Could it make sense to have a dashboard (which would also serve as home screen) plus a tab bar with the main functions and the home button? This would mean that 2-4 functions would be available on the tab bar and on the dashboard.
Any thoughts on that? Or experiences? Or completely different approaches? Any feedback/input/critic/answer is appreciated!
Update: After reading the three great answers (thanks!), here is some additional information:
One of my main concerns is that actually only 3 sections are important for the user (the rest is account information, contact/feedback, legal stuff etc.). The most frequently used functionality would be search (think "find an apartment to rent"). Returning users might use pre-saved searches and favorites quite often as well.
Users would probably not switch a lot between sections.
In the combined option the tab bar would not be shown on the home screen.
Answer
As you say, you get 9 items rather than 5. You're also better for fat fingers. You're also not making the user comprehend two different kind of things on their first view of the app.
Easier comprehension: With grid navigation on their launch screen - and only navigation - you are presenting the user with a simple navigation choice. With a tab bar they first have to ask themselves 'What does the main area do?' - because that is what they see first - and then ask themselves 'Do I actually want one of the other modes?'.
A fourth reason for a launch grid: Pixels are precious. With a tab bar, if it's there all the time, you risk having idle pixels that aren't doing much for your user - or you design assuming frequent switching of modes, as a justification for having the tab bar. Frequent mode switching is unlikely to be good.
Kinds of Navigation: Navigating within a dataset such as within graphs, lists or maps is a very different beast. It's worth making that distinction because that uses different metaphors. I am assuming we are talking here about navigation between different modes of operation.
If your design barely needs navigation between modes, then you can dispense with the dashboard screen and launch straight into action. However, your situation sounds very different.
Since you're concerned that 5 choices might not be enough, and that even 9 might still not be enough, it's sounding to me like a home screen with a grid layout is really what you want.
Combine grid and tab bar? I wouldn't. Unless you have an insane number of navigation options and want the tab bar to select between five different nine way grids. If that's where you are now, "I wouldn't start from there."
And what about if you need more than 9? That gets very application specific. Often you can combine two modes and avoid a more... by being a bit craftier. Can't say more without you telling us a bit more about what your modes/navigations are.
(After the Update)
So - it now sounds like there are 6+ locations we might go to from launch, and 3 interesting ones for everyday use. I'd still stick with the grid launch screen.
Tab bar as well? (alternative way of combining both) - With 3 interesting locations, shortcuts to those top modes from a tab bar once deeper in the app could save your users one click. You'd be duplicating the three most interesting icons from the home screen, slightly reduced or trimmed.
It's going to be a judgement call and app specific. Is it worth giving up one search result in the listing for that - or whatever else it is that you would sacrifice - for easier mode switching? Only you can tell. To be politically correct here I would say 'Test! Test!', but the truth is I would go with my own judgement. You have to like your own apps, be emotionally engaged, particularly in the early stage of development, otherwise you start to miss-fire on other details that matter.
One more point - As well as the UX choice, (is a direct link sufficiently helpful when the switching between modes is rare?), there is also your app promotion to consider. Will you be showing a screenshot of the search results? Do you want to alert people to the other functions of the app when showing them that screenshot?
This question came up on the pros and cons of publishing avenues question; when I tried to look it up, I found the results confusing.
For example, SFWA's explanation of publishing types gives the following distinction:
A vanity publisher prints and binds a book at the author's sole expense. Costs include the publisher's profit and overhead, so vanity publishing is usually a good deal more expensive than self-publishing. The completed books are the property of the author, and the author retains all proceeds from sales. Vanity publishers may exclude objectionable content such as pornography, but otherwise do not screen for quality.
Self-publishing, like vanity publishing, requires the author to bear the entire cost of publication, and also to handle all marketing, distribution, storage, etc. However, rather than paying for a pre-set package of services, the author puts those services together himself. Because every aspect of the process can be out to bid, self-publishing can be much more cost effective than vanity publishing; it can also result in a higher-quality product. Completed books are owned by the author, who keeps all proceeds from sales.
The page also contains a recent amendment to the "vanity" tag:
A vanity publisher relies on its authors as its main source of income–whether by charging fees for publication or other services, or requiring authors to buy or pre-sell their own books. There’s little if any meaningful quality screening, and adjunct services (editing, marketing, and/or distribution) are generally minimal or of dubious value. A vanity publisher claims various rights by contract, and owns the ISBN. Payment to the author is in the form of a royalty or a percentage of profits.
Wikipedia's attempt at distinction is similarly vague:
With vanity publishing, the author will pay to have their book published. Since the author is paying to have the book published the book doesn't go through an approval or editorial process as it would in a traditional setting where the publisher takes a financial risk on the author's ability to write successfully. Editing and formatting services may or may not be offered and they may come with the initial publishing fee (or more correctly, printing fee) or might be offered at an additional cost.
Self-publishers undertake the functions of a publisher for his or her own book. The classic "self-publisher" writes, edits, designs, lays out, markets, and promotes the book themselves, relying on a printer only for actual printing and binding.
More recently, companies have offered their services to act as a sort of agent between the writer and a small printing operation. In these cases, the distinction between self-publishing and vanity publishing is less obvious than it once was.
What I'm getting from all this is somewhere between:
Both of these seem to me merely particular subsets of self-publishing services, rather than an inherently different mode of publishing. E.g., for the purposes of the pros/cons question, a vanity publisher would be considered by exactly the same guidelines as any other self-publishing service (pertinent questions including "Do I trust them to do good job with my work?" and "Is the price they're offering me fair for the services they're providing?").
Is there a clear-cut distinction, or is "vanity publishing" just a pejorative for the bad end of self-publishing?
Answer
What you're observing is a sea change in values and perceptions in the publishing industry, which has caused the distinction between "vanity publishing" and "self-publishing" to become very murky. This is important because "vanity publishing" did and does carry a heavy stigma, while "self-publishing" is on the road to respectability.
Until pretty recently, anyone taking your money to publish your book was a vanity publisher. Vanity publishers were all scams, in that they took your money on the (implicit) promise that you had a chance to make it back from book sales, but in practice no one ever did. Furthermore, the vanity publisher had no interest in helping you sell your book, because they got their money from bilking the authors, not from selling books.
Self-publishing, meanwhile, was about equally likely to fail, but as there was no middle-man the people who tried it were merely fools, not victims of a scam.
In the past ~5 years, mostly due to the rise of e-books, self-publishing has become a plausible path to success. Lots of people are making small but respectable sums e-publishing, and a handful of people have made it big. As a result, we're now seeing "self-publishing services" which attempt to help people self-publish by doing some or all of the work that "pure" self-publishers have to do for themselves. And here's where it gets complicated: strictly speaking the business model of the self-publishing services is identical to the business model of the vanity press. But the self-publishing services desperately want to be seen as part of the legitimate self-publishing ecosystem, and not as another scam.
So the terminological confusion that you're seeing is due to self-publishing services and the people who use them trying to disassociate themselves from the old vanity publishers. However, your basic observation is correct: there is no hard line between self-publication services and vanity presses.
That said, I think there is a significant difference between the presentation and implicit promises made to the author between these two groups. A classic vanity publisher pretends to actually be a publisher, as in an entity that actually makes its money from selling books. There existed the impression—disavowed in the fine print, of course—that your book would be professionally edited, that the publisher could actually get your book into stores, that your book would be "published" in the usual sense. Honest self-publication services do not claim to be publishers, and are very forthright about the set of services they're offering (cover design, typesetting, etc.) and more importantly what they're not offering (marketing, placement in brick-and-mortar stores, etc.)
