4 ms·

Pretty hard, right? Isn't that his point?

by jraines 18y ago

mynameishere 18y ago
Three people have upmodded you, which means that there are at least three people here incapable of reading and processing very simple sentences: Complexity is easy to build That is what I am refering to. The search engine behind google and the scheduler in NT are COMPLEX, and to suggest that they are EASY TO BUILD for that reason is a suggestion of almost blinding stupidity.
- jraines 18y ago
  He's saying simplicity FOR THE USER is tough to build. I'm sure even more so when they are backed by complex logic that make them magic for the user. Maybe you should work on your own reading comprehension skills before you go insulting other people's.
  - pg 18y ago
    Looks like sometimes that 140 character limit is a problem.
    - ivankirigin 18y ago
      I've seen a funny result of the 140 limit + the stack of comments. People will leave three part tweets, often numbered, but will need to do number 3 first. One thing people love about twitter is the ability to push updates to everyone. Everyone wouldn't tolerate it for long messages, but the desire is clearly there on behalf of the senders.
  - mynameishere 18y ago
    It still doesn't make sense. To extend my example, the interface into all search engines, google or otherwise, is naturally simple. The more complicated interfaces, like that of clusty.com or a9.com, are surely not easier to create.
    - mlinsey 18y ago
      Sure they are! Complicated interfaces make it easy to: 1 - avoid forcing yourself to really prioritize your feature set, something that's really hard to do and requires really understanding your users. 2 - push a bunch of effort from you to the user. For example, you cited A9.com. If I do a search on A9.com, the search results window is split (by default) into two parts: one that lists web search results and one that lists book search results. At least by default, it appears that both sections are always there. If I do a search on Google, than Google will usually only display web search results, but if it senses I'm searching for something about a book (example: do a search for "Charles Dickens"), you'll sometimes see some book results up at the top. Google's method of only showing you book results when it suspects you are looking for something having to do with books is both much less complex for the user and much more difficult to build.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]

Pretty hard, right? Isn't that his point?

by jraines 18y ago

Pretty hard, right? Isn't that his point?

Three people have upmodded you, which means that there are at least three people here incapable of reading and processing very simple sentences: Complexity is easy to build That is what I am refering to. The search engine behind google and the scheduler in NT are COMPLEX, and to suggest that they are EASY TO BUILD for that reason is a suggestion of almost blinding stupidity.

jraines 18y ago
He's saying simplicity FOR THE USER is tough to build. I'm sure even more so when they are backed by complex logic that make them magic for the user. Maybe you should work on your own reading comprehension skills before you go insulting other people's.
- pg 18y ago
  Looks like sometimes that 140 character limit is a problem.
  - ivankirigin 18y ago
    I've seen a funny result of the 140 limit + the stack of comments. People will leave three part tweets, often numbered, but will need to do number 3 first. One thing people love about twitter is the ability to push updates to everyone. Everyone wouldn't tolerate it for long messages, but the desire is clearly there on behalf of the senders.
- mynameishere 18y ago
  It still doesn't make sense. To extend my example, the interface into all search engines, google or otherwise, is naturally simple. The more complicated interfaces, like that of clusty.com or a9.com, are surely not easier to create.
  - mlinsey 18y ago
    Sure they are! Complicated interfaces make it easy to: 1 - avoid forcing yourself to really prioritize your feature set, something that's really hard to do and requires really understanding your users. 2 - push a bunch of effort from you to the user. For example, you cited A9.com. If I do a search on A9.com, the search results window is split (by default) into two parts: one that lists web search results and one that lists book search results. At least by default, it appears that both sections are always there. If I do a search on Google, than Google will usually only display web search results, but if it senses I'm searching for something about a book (example: do a search for "Charles Dickens"), you'll sometimes see some book results up at the top. Google's method of only showing you book results when it suspects you are looking for something having to do with books is both much less complex for the user and much more difficult to build.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]