6 Things Video Games Can Teach Us About Web Usability
Those who think video games are not educational, this post is for you. Not only can video games be an enjoyable experience, they can teach us many things. Websites and video games often use similar concepts about usability in order to achieve an amazing end-product. I’ve come up with 6 essential concepts that video games can teach web designers about usability.
read the whole article: atlanticbt.com/blog/
Someone at Apple is definitely listening and changes will come out soon. Anyone interested in that matter should read the post composing the thread above.
We have no idea whether our suggestion will be heard or not. We believe important changes will come to the App-roval process. They will be composed of elements that automatize the review process and will lower the lead time for approval.
Now let's wait and see
I am not a copyeditor or proofreader. When working with clients on a book manuscript, I address larger questions of purpose, audience, content, style, and structure. Nor am I a publisher or literary agent. I cannot guarantee that your manuscript will get published. Only a publisher can do that. By producing a quality manuscript, we can enhance the chances of getting your book published. However, the book business can be irrational. Worthy manuscripts can get neglected. No one knows in advance what will sell—not even major publishers. One more thing: Writing makes thinking visible. The writing process reveals gaps in logic, mistaken assumptions, unanswered questions, holes in evidence, and every other species of confusion. This can be fairly unpleasant. When you realize what you do not know, however, you are free to learn. You have reached a sacred place. This is what Shunryu Suzuki called ”beginner’s mind.” Writing can be as stern—and as enlightening—as a Zen master.
One way to understand how people, families, groups, teams, and organizations change is to use a theory to interpret what you're observing. The transtheoretical model of change describes change by using terms that name distinct stages of change. Those stages are:
Future posts will describe the processes of change and self-efficacy.
Le réexamen de l’affaire Bilski par la Cour suprême américaine pourrait avoir des répercussions sur le système des brevets 12 August 2009 by Steve Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch
Subject : software patent
On Monday, November 9th, the Supreme Court hears the case of Bilski's business method patent.
Question presented: Whether a "process" must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing (”machine-or-transformation” test), to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and whether the "machine-or-transformation" test for patent eligibility, contradicts Congressional intent that patents protect “method[s] of doing business” in 35 U.S.C. § 273.
* The Appeals Court decision [PDF]
Justices to rule on standard for 'business method' patents (June 1, 2009) Case Reference: Bilski v. Doll (on the docket)
- Comments
The easiest criticism of the [Bilski] opinion is that it invites this kind of somewhat pointless metaphysical investigation. What you say is "look, I've got an invention, I wrote some code, I'd like to a patent for that." Why do we have to play this kind of sophomoric philosophical game of "well, what changes in the real world when my code runs?" The [Supreme Court] case law arose fairly early in the information technology revolution. We're kind of stuck with this artifactual, residual overhang of physicality. It's just the price we have to pay to get a software patent these days. Someday maybe it will drop away or wither away, but that's where we find ourselves now.
The Supreme Court and Software Patents By Timothy B. Lee - Posted on January 28th, 2009
Abandoning software patents ? Editorial by Ciarán O'Riordan, Exective Director of End Software Patents (Patentlyo blog) Nov 06, 2009: " offer a review of the socio-economic arguments for abandoning software patents."
Patent case before Supreme Court could have major implications for software By Joelle Tessler, AP November 7th, 2009
Red Hat Asks Supreme Court To Nix Software Patents By Charles Babcock InformationWeek octobre 2, 2009 :
"Software patents form a minefield that slows and discourages software innovation. The Bilski case presents a great opportunity for the Supreme Court to rectify this problem"."Our patent system is supposed to foster innovation, but for open source and software in general, it does the opposite," said a Red Hat lawyer.
Re: Bilski - The end of software patents ? by David Worthington 07/08/2009 SDTimes :
"The Court could unintentionally ban software patents through the legal test it uses to determine whether business methods are patentable, he explained. "If the Court says that processes which perform calculations are not patentable, this could be interpreted by lower courts to prohibit patents on software because software performs calculations. "This is exactly what happened as the result of a previous Supreme Court decision in the early 1970s. It took many years to undo the damage done by that decision."
Federal Court Rules in Bilski Business-Method Patent Case Diane Brady on October 30 Business Week
A patent dispute for the Information Age Bilski v. Kappos, Argument Preview Friday, November 6th, 2009 by Lyle Denniston SCOTUSblog
Bilski': Software firms eye key patent case at Supreme Court Mon., Nov. 9 2009 localtechwire
Bilski Brief Summary Pierce law center
A Math Geek's Ride to the High Court in Landmark Patent Fight Tony Mauro The National Law Journal November 09, 2009
Bilski v. Kappos Legal Documents - Reference List scoop.jdsupra.com
Oral argument
* complete transcript of the oral argument
Recap: Bilski Oral Argument at Supreme Court By Jane Wu on November 10th, 2009 The Columbia Science and Technology Review
____________
Patent lawyers don't understand software Send them back to school By Stewart Meagher 16 November 2009
PATENT FAILURE: HOW JUDGES, BUREAUCRATS, AND LAWYERS PUT INNOVATORS AT RISK by James Bessen and and Michael J. Meurer. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2008
SOFTWARE PATENT LAW: UNITED STATES AND EUROPE COMPARED 2003
Prensa El Supremo de EE UU decide qué invenciones son patentables - Su doctrina podría dar un vuelco total a la industria del 'software' J. M. - Barcelona - 09/11/2009 El Pais
At work, there is almost no greater feeling than being part of a high-performing team, and no worse than being part of a dysfunctional one.
Teams are not, by definition, destined to succeed. In fact more often then not, they will fail unless they have the right mix of people, purpose, process, commitment, training, and of course, leadership—along with the time for it all to jell.
I remember being on a team in one special law enforcement agency that had the “right mix.” The project was both very successful and was written up as a case study, and everything in the project was really fulfilling personally and professionally: from gathering around the whiteboard for creative strategy sessions to the execution of each phase of the project. Now, that is not to say that there were not challenges on the project and on the team—there always are—or you are probably just dreaming rather than really in the office working. But the overall, in the experience, the health of the team was conducive to doing some really cool stuff. When the team is healthy and the project successful, you feel good about getting up in the morning and going to work—an almost priceless experience.
Unfortunately, this team experience was probably more the exception than the rule—as many teams are dysfunctional for one or more reasons. In fact, at the positive team experience that I was described above, my boss used to say, “the stars are all aligned for us.”
The challenge of putting together high-performance teams is described in Harvard Business Review, May 2009, in an article, “Why Teams Don’t Work,” by Diane Coutu.
She states: “Research consistently shows that teams underperform their potential.”
But Coutu explains that this phenomenon of underperformance by teams can be overcome, by following “five basic conditions” as described in “Leading Teams” by J. Richard Hackman (the descriptions of these are my thoughts):
“Teams must be real”—you need the right mix of people: who’s in and who’s out.
“Compelling direction”—teams need a clear purpose: “what they’re supposed to be doing” and is it meaningful.
“Enabling structures”—teams need process: how are things going to get done and by whom.
“Supportive organization”—teams need the commitment of the organization and its leadership: who is championing and sponsoring the team.
“Expert coaching”—you need training: how teams are supposed to behave and produce.
While leadership is not called out specifically, to me it is the “secret sauce” or the glue that holds all the other team enablers together. The skilled leader knows who to put on the team, how to motivate its members to want to succeed, how to structure the group to be productive and effective, how to build and maintain commitment, and how to coach, counsel, mentor, and ensure adequate training and tools for the team members.
One other critical element that Coutu spells out is courage. Team leaders and members need to have the courage to innovate, “ask difficult questions,” to counter various forms of active or passive resistance, and to experiment.
In short, harnessing the strength of a team means bringing out the best in everyone, making sure that the strengths and weaknesses of the individuals offset each other—there is true synergy in working together. In failing teams, everyone might as well stay home. In high-performance teams, the whole team is greater than the sum of its individual members.
