I'm struggling to find what this has to do with San Francisco? Are you saying SF has been taken over by hipsters and is no longer recognizable as it once were?
You needn't struggle so much to find parallels, if you were to even glance cursorily.
While the general validity and the degree to which this writer's experience is shared by others can certainly be debated (which is the reason I tabled it in the first place), the fact that there are strong parallels cannot be contested.
The agents and parties affected in the two settings, London and S.F., could indeed be different. Nonetheless, the theme remains the same.
I think this is intended to be comforting, especially for corporate entities as they feel scrapegoated into bad light by the government, but there's very little for the public to acknowledge these numbers. I'm not saying Facebook is lying, I'm saying the people giving Facebook the numbers are probably lying. There's no way to tell.
Facebook know how many requests they've responded to. If there is any dishonesty here, it's coming from Facebook. They might have been told to give false numbers, but they've got the correct numbers.
There's the shared-private-keys argument, by which they wouldn't actually know how many requests were made. I haven't been followed very closely so I don't know if private keys thing was specifically denied - was it?
As far as I know, they deny any sort of blanket availability of data - so a shared private key would seem to be denied under that guise. I think claiming a number as they have, and a number of affected users, would also be denial of that. Circular logic, but we can't do much better. If they're lying and just made up these numbers, there's nowhere to really go with that.
Why give false numbers when you can give true numbers for only a six month period? Just leave out the NSA request for all user data that was made earlier.
Here we go again. Not to be cynical, but that's just unfair. Apple has plenty of time improve their icons before iOS 7 releases to the public, assuming they acknowledge it wasn't a brilliant idea to outsource design to the local children's art school.
They've already released their icons to the public in the form of an incredibly public keynote. Criticism is entirely fair at this point. If they redesign them, then great. We'll talk about that, too.
It's absolutely not unfair. Even to the beta Apple has invested a ton of time putting their UI designs front and center. If they didn't want them to be the travesty they are now they would have made them differently.
It's hard to believe that there's any other reason the icons look this way other than through intention. And then the question becomes about Apple's taste level.
So, something on a blog on the internet is now "enlightenment" ?
*edit. I found this link quoted in other places in this thread. Turns out all of them were you. What makes you believe that information there is fact ?
You said you couldn't see how the result could be unintended. I showed you how it could be unintended. You replied with sarcasm. So now I'm assuming you're not seriously interested in the answer to your second question. But I could be wrong, so here you go:
1. Experience: I've worked on design teams that did not suffer from incoherent, committee driven management, and others that did. This attuned me to the signature patterns that both approaches inevitably imprint on their products.
2. Direct Observation: Like everyone else, I can see the work for myself. If you know what to look for, it's not hard to recognize the tell-tale signs of a badly directed, poorly managed process.
3. Judgement: Being familiar with the work and reputation of the publication, I consider them a reasonably reliable source of sound reporting. The fact that their account dovetails with my own experience lends credence to the story. I can also see that that account they're providing could be easily falsified if it were untrue (making this an unlikely place to stretch the truth).
4. General Knowledge: I am aware that Ive is new to this kind of design, and relatively inexperienced. I am also aware that having good taste isn't enough. Only the combination of good taste and long practice will produce desirable results. In his defense, he's having to develop expertise quickly, under a spotlight. I sympathise with his struggles. At the same time, knowing that the company is going through a major transition means that missteps like these aren't unexpected. Indeed, it would be astonishing if they nailed it on the first try.
Go to www.apple.com - front and center is an appeal to watch the iOS 7 keynote. If they don't want to show this to the public they're going about it in an awfully strange way.
I think you're confused about what objective and subjective mean. It doesn't mean that you declare that doth now maketh an objective statement. Instead it's a manner of speaking where subjective evaluations are instead stated as if they are fact.
Hamburgers are better than hot dogs. Dogs are better than cats.
Okay, bad examples, because those are objective truths. How about-
Yellow is better than blue.
It was clear enough, after the whole hipster "not like bros" nonsense, with the "Actually if we’re being completely honest, its colors look like they were pulled straight out of Windows Metro. (And that’s not a good thing!)" bit.
Microsoft has a lot of designers. I'll bet a bunch of them will objectively make statements of claimed factual truth if given the chance. Metro has a lot of designer boosters (indeed, many in the iOS camp are boosters of the overall mix of design found in Metro). But instead of apparently realizing that they have a particular impression, the blog author is under the confused delusion that they have observations of fundamental truth. Maybe it's a narrative exercise to make an argument more convincing, but alas, such yields the sort of reply that I made.
Statically-typed and speed aren't necessarily correlated. If you want a framework faster than Go, dynamically-typed and rivaling Ruby's development speed, have a look at OpenResty+Lua+LuaJit (And MoonScript if you really want to code fast).
Funny, I think people who LIKE this design are nuts. People are nuts indeed!
> How are the new gradients any different than the old gradients?!
OMG?!?111 Well, it's not that the gradients are different, it's that the colors are bright and vivid and each icon has little distinction from the next. Oh, and it looks like something my 6-year-old nephew would draw with his colored pencil set.
I appreciate that you cleverly responded to my incredulity being expressed via interrobang with an internet-styled typo, but I still find your argument unconvincing.
If you look at the icons I mentioned, Voice Memos, Apple Store, Stocks, Videos, iTunes, Game Center, etc., they too are bright and vivid and have small inconsistencies. Why is the radial effect different between Apple Store and iTunes? Why is the light source for Videos different from Stocks?
The only difference between these icons and the new ones is that the old ones looked like they were designed by a self-important designer, thinking, "How much arbitrary detail can I pack in this icon?", rather than your extremely talented nephew.
You realize it's the same font slightly bolder, right? Are you sure you scaled the image 100% to compare them, and your browser didn't shrink the image down to fit in your window or something?
"Well, to be honest, she can always sign up for One to One if she needs to learn how to interact with iOS 7's magical new interface." - Apple employee's response in a few months.
