Suplemente Revolucionário para Hipertrofia Muscular agora no Brasil. Compra ja

Os dois suplementos musculares Xtreme NO e HGH Energize chegaram ao Brasil. - Veja aqui toda a história de sucesso do Xtreme NO e HGH Energizer. O segredo como ter um corpo malhado e perder toda cordura. Nai perca a chance de comprar o produto no preco promocional, e fica sarada em so 4 semanas.

Para:
Suplementos Musculares

Acesse o site:
http://www.jornal-musculacao-brasil.com/

O plano exato que usei para perder peso e ficar com um corpo malhado, foi usar o mesmo truque dos atores de Hollywood.

Como disse, me levou um tempo para descobrir a maneira correta de usar os dois suplementos musculares Xtreme NO e HGH Energize, então vou lhes dizer exatamente como é que os usei. Não fiz nem dietas especiais nem exercícios loucos. A chave é usar os dois produtos juntos porque os dois fazem coisas diferentes. O resultado e um corpo sarado e musculos bem definido. Veija a minha histora no www.jornal-musculacao-brasil.com

Para:
Ganhar musculos

Acesse o site:
http://www.jornal-musculacao-brasil.com/

Let the users catch up, someone has to trailblaze and adoption will follow.

Once the FaceBook generation has spending power and matures, the average net user IQ will increase.

My ex worked from home doing tech support via remote access and one of the biggest hurdles in his job was managing to get clueless users to the right website to install the remote client. You would be appalled at how many people really, truly have NO clue as to what the address bar is and how it differs from a search bar. A lot of times, once he finally connected to them, he'd find so many toolbars installed on their browsers they only had space for about two lines of text in the window so it's kind of no wonder they aren't seeing interactive elements on the web pages they visit. Most people don't realize that installing shitty toolbars is actually an option you can uncheck when installing some other app or plugin--I've tried to beat it into people's heads that you ALWAYS choose a custom install if given the option and uncheck anything that wants to install something extraneous. I expect to see some results on this education sometime next century or so.

I belong to a message board which is inhabited by what most would have to agree is fairly the cream o'the crop of internet users--they can spell, punctuate, make hidden links and know that CAPS LOCK can be turned off. Yet most of them still cannot grasp that they don't HAVE to use Internet Exploder, that they can indeed get other browsers that can be set up to block all advertising on a page--at least once a week some clueless user is complaining that a banner ad served them adware but they never learn, in spite of constant instructions, that there are options and they don't have to see ads if they don't want to.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but as an extremely aware middle aged grandmother who's been up to her eyes in tech since before there were hard drives in computers I find that being subversive about teaching my grandkids to be tech savvy as well is a fairly good "one teaspoon at a time" method. Sure, it pisses off my kids, but as they're technotards themselves they can't really stop me! ;^D

What's more interesting is the buzz that such an occurence can create these days. Suddenly there is a whole user group that gets a "disabled" tag attached to them and fingers get pointed at people who offer services and not make them "intuitive". My word, as if "intuitive" was a global constant or something ...

We're getting there. And all those people trying to login at RWW are the magician's apprentice.

Imagine that someone "knows" that if he takes the bus and gets off at a certain station, walks hundred feet to the left and turns right, he will be in front of a bakery.
Now imagine he goes on his voyage and finds that instead of a bakery, there's now a butcher in its place. What would you do? Would you scream and shout that you want your cake? Because that's exactly what these guys who failed to go to Facebook did. They basically ignored what their eyes told them.
I agree that easier interfaces are great, but users can't expect that we or the computers read their minds. I don't blame these people because they failed to go to facebook. I blame them because they behaved like idiots after they saw that something wasn't right.

It's the willingness to learn. And the only thing you have to have for learning is the ability to look and read. It's really that basic. Why does anyone think you have to find everything lightning fast when you can't be bothered to look for a second where you are and what you are doing? You wouldn't drive a car in a street and close your eyes just because you know you don't have to turn anywhere for the next few miles.

Yes, technology can be hard to understand. And it should be as simple as possible - no disguised links with obscure names, for example. But there is no excuse for not looking and reading the most obvious things. How many times have I encountered people who seem to be pretty aware of Google and its possibilities and still try to have their problems solved in forums when the solution is the first entry in a very basic google search, which requires approximately ten seconds (with typing).

If you don't want to learn it, don't use it.

If smart educated voters are unlikelier to vote Republican or buy your product maybe there's something wrong with the designer as well as what s/he designs. For something a weighty as voting manadatory "Civics" classes might be called for; for something as relatively trivial as a web browser a quick & easy cheat sheet should do. Fixing the American political scene might be the work of generations, but with properly designed educational tools (such "Type where you want to go here!") a reasonably intelligent "retard" might master a browser quickly. I, an 8th grade dropout, certainly did.

[If that works I'd love it if whoever's moderating this would make this the last paragraph of comment 81 and delete 82 and this one.]

[Aha. I noticed there must be a size limit to for these comments, so perhaps I ought to write shorter pithier prose if I aim to continue to comment here. Perhaps the above "concluding" paragraph would have sufficed by itself? Certainly I don't expect y'all "tech-minded people" to be so "retarded" as to have no idea what happened; you could return the favor by considering my advice.]

My point is that I'm an 8th grade dropout who, with no prior computer experience or "tech-mindedness," managed to figure out stuff a lot more complicated than knowing the difference between a location bar and a search window. When something wasn't immediately obvious and there were no "tech-minded" people around to ask I read the manual pages and help files; I also somehow learned that I shouldn't gripe because my irc client couldn't open cans too.

Tim then went on to say "There isn't all that much difference between a non-tech user and someone with intellectual disabilities, at least in terms of software interface usage..."

Thank you very much for your gratuitous insult as well as for your encouragement of ignorance and stupidity. "Non-tech users" will remain dummies as long as you cater to their ignorance and intellectual laziness instead of teaching them to know and do better.

Instead of "designing for retards" in a way that encourages retardation, perhaps you could include a graphical help file or "cheat sheet" on how to use your product. In the case of a web browser you might have a picture of the browser window with the location bar circled in red with a red arrow pointing to it and red text reading "Type where you want the browser to go here!" That's not at all complicated, and unlike the legal terms of service etc. y'all expect people to click OKAY on, a normal user might actually read it.

I think you cater to "retards" because you like them that way, perhaps because a "smart" person might find your product too flawed to pay you for. In politics the similarity is a Republican Party and it's Tea Party offshoot that encourages voters to think a "nice" middle-class middle-of-the-road half-black man is some kind of socialist Nazi who'd set up Death Panels to do in their grannies and, instead of educating voters about the actual facts and the real issues, proposes an ignoramus like Sarah Palin as a Presidential candidate. You both like "retards" because it's easier for you to get them to do what you want: in the Republicans' case by voting for right-wing candidates, in the case of condescending software designers to get "retards" to give them money. (Is there something so wrong with you product that "non-retards" won't use it?)

If smart educated voters are unlikelier to vote Republican or buy your product maybe there's something wrong with the designer as well as what s/he designs. For something a weighty as voting manadatory "Civics" classes might be called for; for something as relatively trivial as a web browser a quick & easy cheat sheet should do. Fixing the American political scene might be the work of generations, but with properly designed educational tools (such as "

After ages of trying to get everyone able to read, the next step is here. Tech-minded people 'get' the internet. All other are desperately trying to keep up, albeit slowly losing the unfair battle. They have no clue how everything ties together and how computers can actually improve their lives. They use it because everyone else does, failing to see a certain logic... Computers are no longer something you get into, or not. It's no longer a choice, special interest or hobby, it's a necessity. That being said, I estimate about 80% of people I know failing to see this simple fact. Scary to say the least.

Back on topic: It is very difficult to design a webpage that is understood by all. And whatever guidance you try to provide on a webpage, it's not like those 'illiterate' users even try to read your helpful messageboxes or warnings. They just click everywhere, as if they could in fact not read a single word...

We started using a 'retard'-factor: Try designing interfaces for retards, instead of normal users. There isn't all that much difference between a non-tech user and someone with intellectual disabilities, at least in terms of software interface usage...

People are people. No reason to act like some sort of well-meaning anthropologists studying the quaint but still clue-less behaviour of another species - homo userus.

Go back to your awshucks, humble geekiness. It suits you so much better and always serves as a daily antidote to the holier-than-though pissy rumour-mill over at TC.
TK

I've had to redesign and even migrate the entire site from Blogger to Wordpress just to give my non-savvy readers the ability to search and read my archives without having things too contrived. And, what's intuitive to me (as a Computer Science major) is still hell on my once-in-a-while readers. My biggest frustration is not finding an RSS feed button on new sites, but my site is so Wordpress cookie cutter that I'm surprised my users can't find what they want.

Or my comic just sucks, which I'm prepared to admit as well.

And I would also guess that it hit on just "facebook", searching a two-word concept like "facebook" and "login" together seems almost too much for the kind of people that would mistake this site for Facebook.

Turn that around: why are contributing to mass idiocy by refusing your obligation to try to teach people the difference between a search engine and an address bar?

Do YOU want to live in a society like that of "Harrison Bergeron?"

What browser are you using and what device do you use it on?

Maybe we should be asking instead where all the blipping idiots came from and how they got that way. And while we're at, we might ask why we let people who think the Internet is hard do things like vote and drive.

This goes to one of my pet peeves about a lot of user interfaces, though: Nowhere on my Google search bar does it say "Search," "Google search," or anything like that. There's just a little colored "g" and a little magnifying glass icon. So many user interfaces -- and Facebook is guilty of this too -- use cute little icons instead of words, and unless you're acclimatized to the system, you might not know what they mean.

Besides the obvious that us technical people understand (intent)... How is this any different than phishing? I mean, I understand how OAuth works, but there were enough people that logged in to RWW using facebook credentials in 24 hours to make a small profit.

This is why I get so completely frustrated trying to explain online safety to people like my parents... and to think that it was only 10-15 years ago they were trying to protect me from the evil things on the internet.

This behaviour is clearly widespread, and (in my personal experience of training users) it isn't confined to any one demographic.

So, as a commenter suggests above, web browser and search engine designers need to pay attention to dealing with this common user behaviour in such a way that users are taken to the sites they are clearly attempting to access.

Why are we blaming users for the deficiencies of browser and search engine design?

Regards
Tim Jones

I **am** a middle-aged mom.
Many of our site's "readers" (they do so much more) are middle-aged moms. And dads.

And that's why, every time I start to feel a little nervous about not having implemented some whizbang new super-de-duper techy feature all the techy people are raving about, I slap myself and say IT'S THE CONTENT, STUPID. And then I get back to finding and writing said content.

Bravo for a reality check!

As someone once said, "Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot". There is only so far one can go to make things simpler before you sacrifice function, design or both. The vast majority of users will want to use your product without being condescended to. Granted, the designer needs to strike a balance between function and simplicity, but make things too simple and no one will want to use it.

There is a point at which every user needs to take personal responsibility for using their tools, be it a microwave (don't put metal in it), a lawnmower (don't touch the moving bits) or a computer / The Internet (don't blindly click things until something happens).

Sorry Jolie, but sometimes you just can't design for Stupid.

article interesting, users actually learnt to do one thing - i.e. learn the application function no theory

Everyone has a toolbox or ikea toolkit at home that is a combination of the main tools. On the other hand, what is most people's reaction to one of those 35-in-one tools that does all of the above? Generally, it is that it is cheap and that they'll probably not use most of what's included so they don't buy it. Same on the web. People want to use an web app to complete a job or solve a problem. The easier you make it for people to do this, the more likely you'll succeed. What developers and startup folks generally forget in the giddiness of "what is possible", is that people want something that solves a problem that actually exists or makes their life easier. They don't want a hot glue gun on their hammer. Well most people don't.

We're finishing off a redesign right now on our site and we've removed more functionality than we thought we would. The funny thing is... it makes it far more functional and makes much more sense. Funny thing that. Nice post.

On the one hand it's never been easier to start with a bunch of parts and build a powerful personal computer. On the other hand Apple is set to introduce a device that locks as much of the hardware and software behind the Wizard's curtain.

On the one hand there have never been more powerful and elegant tools for publishing your own content. On the other hand you've never needed them less.

I wonder what portion the population is the user who has a Google Reader account, can post to a blog, connect with people on Facebook, and knows what Firefox is, but has no idea how to use HTML tags, what Javascript is, or cares whether a certain page is Flash or not. It seems like that person either gets "techy" and learns about that stuff or increasingly has someone hide it far away.

Today, some apps or services are better than others at this but NO ONE excels at it. What passes for "innovative" new UI design is mostly appalling and cosmetic only. Some of the biggest and most "successful" vendors fail miserably and pretend it doesn't matter. In the future, excelling at UI will matter and those that fall short will be surprised how much it hurts them.

I love geeks, any geek who wants to design only for other geeks is an endangered species. They are no different from the high priests of COBOL of yesteryear and just as doomed.

We can't. I hope we can leave them out sooner than later and not turn them into the IE6 to our web design industry or whatever.

So folks on older computers, older monitors, large text, may be first trying facebook.com -- even following the "click here" of the warning -- and may still be mystified. See comment 114, "The new interface has some kind of atlas-like graphic with icons that look like little people with dotted lines between them. Tried clicking on those but they don't do anything. Where do I enter my password for authentication, that is a challenge." That's what is on the left 600 pixels of the facebook page, the text entry boxes are to the right of the 600 pixels.

I suspect these folks may be doing something more reasonable than all the name-calling implies. They go to facebook.com and are confronted with this map showing people connected but which does nothing. Before the recent redesign, they found login boxes there*. Now it's changed. They want to find someone to complaint to and possibly help. The random RWW article was first victim.

Designing for the lowest common denominator here means thinking about screen sizes. Not clear that that thought went into the front page.

* Google's cache is too recent to prove this supposition, the Wayback machine too old. This 2008 view of the log on page shows the important fields on the sensible left hand side:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080417005545/http://www.facebook.com/

Gotta object to the characterization of "moms" as muddled, unobservant, dim or confused users. Sooo sick of this stereotype.

And I have sympathy with them up to a point, but it's also worth pointing out that they're the ones who make spam profitable by occasionally actually buying junk advertised that way.

Your responsibility is to the people who you want to use your product. The responsibility to the others is to be honest (don't tell them you have meat and then serve falafel), patient in turning them away and (I suppose) not to laugh at them too hard.

It's not about making something so boiled down that a child can find it, and learn it. It's about making things easy to remember, so intuitive, that once we show it to them, they won't forget it. They'll feel comfortable enough with it to start poking around on their own with just a few hours training.

After reading the George Carlin comment from one of the other commenters, I had to comment my ownself. So much wisdom and cultural observations came out of that man's mouth I miss his sarcasm about U.S. So I'm furthering the George Carlin-isms being bandied about here:

"When you're born, you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you get a front row seat."

:)

The lessons started with me giving the "The worst thing that you can POSSIBLY manage to do, unless you throw the laptop out your second story window, is mess it the programs so bad we have to spend an hour with the DVD installing stuff again. This is not bad, and also you'd have to be really unlucky to even do that much damage. Be unafraid to explore!" as she was terrified she'd break it by pressing the wrong thing.

She's learned a lot in a very short time and, being a very smart person in general, has taken to it like a duck to water. Thankfully, her style of learning fits with my style of teaching and she's able to take what I've taught her and generalise it to an extent that makes me proud and surprised, so she's probably very much not a typical "non-computer-using" student.

In any case, as much as she's learned I'm pretty sure I've learned more just from the mistakes she made and the way she explores things - which is, of course, totally different to the way I'd explore the same things. So I learned not only which things are obvious to a non-geek, but also how to teach which is something that's very handy to know!

I would highly recommend that every geek whose friends are all geeks finds a motivated beginning student, invests in a $500 netbook to give them, and offers one-on-one lessons. Seriously, your investment will be repaid tenfold in terms of the understanding you will gain from the experience. If you don't know how to find a needy and motivated non-geek, go down to your local public library or place of religious worship and put up a note on the noticeboard - there are needy non-geeks around every corner, "we" just don't interact with "them" very much.

r

Speaking as a 45-year old woman that has a daughter and a 25 year career in software development, this is getting pretty old.

No I am not alone, there are plenty of women my age and older that are in fact not only web-literate, but participated in creating the industry where you are currently making your living. Some of us even have kids!

Need we really make the internet dumber for dumb people? How disappointing that the status quo won't just raise their level of intelligence instead of asking us to be dumb with them.

So much for evolution.

Seriously, I think RWW, and especially Google and FB, need to give their collective foreheads a good whack and figure out how they can make user experience better.

There must be some mindblowingly stupid people out there, but on the whole they are so focussed on what they are doing (or distracted by the outside world), that it doesn't occur to them they have made a mistake. Have you ever completely missed the no-entry signs into a one-way street?

I've seen genuinely intelligent people type "www.google.com" into a Google searchbox, and then search for "www.whateverwebsite.com" - Google could easily spot these behaviours and take some responsibility for boosting web literacy.

The web's beauty lies in its simplicity and associative nature, but that also means people have to train themselves to use it, making their own assumptions, and repeating the mistakes of millions. But that's also the business that employs nearly every one reading RWW.

Quite a few of my non-geek friends spend lots of time on the internet these days, something they didn't do 10 years ago. It's what gives me a job and helps me make money. And I'm probably not the only one commenting here for which that's true.

Sometimes people are also just stressed and tired and don't pay attention for a long list of reasons. Web design is an imperfect attempt at satisfying an ever wider audience. So a kinder and gentler approach might be in order, with just a tad less attitude.

Its maddening how blind folks in the tech community can be. God knows how many VC deals, killer startup teams and energy is wasted on products that only appeal to a narrow geek community. You try to pitch a geek or investor (or geek press ahem) on something for the common joe blow you get nothing but resistance and doubt, pitch them something that makes their petty narrow little niche better and they lavish you with praise and opportunity.

The geeks out there are just as braindead as the idiots who google "facebook login", just in a different way...

not the best advice to tell designers to just ignore actual numbers and just 'be kind' to

Imagine however, if someone bookmarked/favorited a saved search for "facebook login" for your grandmother. She might be a little confused if she normally clicked on the first link to login.

@Jolie - not sure if it's available or worthwhile - but I would love to see statistics on how many users actually visited that page, how many commented via Facebook Connect, how many users have previously visited the site, and how many have previously commented.

I would wager that the number of first time visitors is MUCH higher than the number of first time commenters.

Thanks for not being mean or condescending to the regular folks :)

Well... after many years of experience in designing software, I find that even the savviest users are habitual users. And here's the example: Last year, I designed, wrote, and deployed a sales tool with and for a 25 year old VP of Sales. I went back there two months ago stopped in to say hi to the VP of Sales. He raved about a particular feature and wanted to show me some data but along the way I noticed that he was dismissing several application error dialogues.

So I sweated a little and I asked him, "How often do you get those error messages?"

He said , "I dunno... I guess since you left... maybe a month or two after? Jane showed everyone that we can just click Dismiss and it goes away... but forget that... everyone's used to it. I want to talk about these enhancements we can add to..."

So you see someone trained them, they developed a conceptual model, and became habituated.

To me it says a lot about which companies understand this when I see 60 year old using an iphone .....

I also think that this issue of tech for tech comes to the surface when the ipad is discussed...Most tech blogs I read panned it by pointing out all of the tech features it does not have while the rest of the non tech world seems to be jubilant that a company has finally designed a computer for the rest of the world.

http://www.factoetum.com/factoetum/Steve_Jobs_(Technology_Icon)

Getting back to Jolie's original question...at iWantMyName we intentionally took a simple approach to site design because almost every other domain registrar we know has got it so horribly wrong. OK, so you need a certain level of technical functionality to make a registrar site run, but you don't need spammy ads, distracting messages and bells and whistles.

Surprise, surprise! We were able to make sales from day one purely on the basis of offering a clean and simple search and management interface. But because we were evolving iWantMyName into an industry platform-as-a-service product we had to focus most of our developer time on crucial but invisible backend functionality; otherwise we would lose credibility.

As a start-up, ultimately I think that paid off because even though we had a minimal feature set to begin with, making the sales process painless and easy was THE most important feature we could incorporate. And by the way... a lot of our customers ARE geeks and CompSci grads.

But to designers of complicated web apps, be kind to those who live offline. I guess that's my whole point.

200 or so people Googled 'Facebook login,' managed to click on a a news story, landed on this blog, and found the Facebook connect button and posted a comment.

Don't see how today's incident is evidence that the internet is hard, or that 'it' needs to be simplified for this small subset of internet moms.

This is true, and while I do not agree with the stereotype presented, it's similarly unhelpful to call ageism/sexism/racism. To paraphrase someone cleverer than I, everytime I hear "I don't see age/sex/race, I just see people." I hear, "My heart's in the right place, but fuck I'm stupid."

I know it's been beaten to death but I have to agree with Victor on this one. The masses aren't ever going to get much better at tech which is why tech as to get better for them. The iPhone/iPad phenomenon is just getting started.

All of us nerds bitched about how mediocre the options and lack of multitasking were but the fact is I can put an iPad in my Grandfather's hands and he can be up and running inside of five minutes, and probably pretty competent within an hour. I can't help but think the coming sea change will have some repercussions in web design as well.

It doesn't matter if the people who commented out of confusion were from one particular group or another. This article paints them all with one brush that says they are this-way or that-way and represent the entirety of their group. It's ironic that the point of the article was, "The Internet is hard, you need to know all of your users including the ones who will never understand technology the way you do, and you need to design for them, too." Labeling someone with a stereotype doesn't help you understand them. It is more likely to continue the confusion.

However, my first inclination when I saw what was happening (which was about 10 comments in, before it really took off) was to refer back to a comment I made on a post from earlier in the week:

My comment, from the article "Startup Priorities: Is Design More Important Than Engineering?"
http://www.readwriteweb.com/start/2010/02/startup-priorities-is-design-m.php#comment-187178

The key part:

"I've designed scores of websites and hundreds of ads, and in my (anecdotal but substantial) experience, the designs that convert the best are not the ones that are the most visually-appealing. As much as we designers hate to admit it, sometimes people really do need a huge, obnoxious, lime-green "CLICK HERE!!!!" starburst in order to know what to do. It's ugly as hell, but even my mom can see it and know what to do."

That's exactly what happened here. Jolie nails it: Users' eyes glazed over all the content on the page. It was all noise, interfering with the signal they were looking for: the Facebook login button.

The lesson for designers is that we need to resist our natural creative urge to do something "different". We've all seen 1000's of websites, and we get bored with the same old same old.

But what we consider "boring", others consider "comfortable" and "familiar". You might think it's clever to call your shopping cart a "goodie carton" (or whatever), but your users are pulling out their hair because WHERE'S THE GODDAMNED SHOPPING CART?!?!

I once did a site for a band called Bigelf, which have a weird 70's-meets-Tolkein vibe. They wanted to call their fan club page "Rogue's Gallery" and their lyrics page "Musings And Ramblings" or something like that.

I was like, "here's an idea: how about calling the fan club page 'Fan Club' and the lyrics page 'Lyrics'" But that was too mundane for them. And guess what? Nobody could find the fracking fan club page.

To sum up, a paraphrased quote from George Carlin:

"Think of how stupid the average American is. Then realize: half the people are DUMBER than that."

That being said, they are not your target. You don't want them to read your stuff. You have steady, large, educated audience keep coming back. That is what you are blessed with. Keep up with the good work!

RWW's readers are people who can't tell your blog from Facebook? And you're going to cater to that lowest demoninator?

I don't buy it.

If you honestly believe that, you're going to have a tough time selling your demographic to advertisers, no?

Some of my geeky friends are also middle-aged moms. I know plenty of young people who are totally clueless about how the "Intarwebz" work.

It would be a useful exercise for us to get beyond stereotypes, especially sexist and ageist ones.

You may counter with some demographics, but that isn't the point. The point is, using and reinforcing stereotypes is hurtful behavior that reinforces the exact thing your article is coming out against.

Right, but look at the demographics of the confused FB users on that last post. They were almost universally members of two specific groups, but we can't talk about that with being ageist or racist.

Your lazy icon-slinging packs a nice one-two punch (ageism and sexism). Way to go.

Exactly. That's why the iPad is a foretaste of the future of "computing."