I think the idea of a separate discipline of UX design came along is because, outside of big companies, a lot of designers in the field at that point in time were coming from a print/graphic design background rather than HCI.
It was a bit of "let's not forget this element of application development".
When pubs & cafés play music here in the UK they pay royalty fees to PRS for Music.
If I record the songs playing & they sell bootleg CDs, I don't have a defence of "but it was played in public, so all copyright was waived". That's not how copyright works.
There is no question that Meta violates copyright; what is in question is whether the business whose website they are scraping is doing something illegal w.r.t. third party licensed material by consenting.
If the musician gives someone consent to record (plus subsequently use the material in various ways) then in fact they do waive some of the copyright with regard to any of their original songs. The consented party has been given an implicit license to the material within the bounds expressed in the consent.
The status of the licensed songs is not affected whatsoever, and the musician has made no legal representation in regard to that. The musician is paying the royalty fees to PRS and doing everything they are supposed to.
The musician can say, "you have my consent to record and use the recordings, but be aware that some of the songs are copyrighted by a third party and I'm using them under license. Nothing I say gives you right over those songs."
One suggestion - external contacts won't know that this address will bounce for anyone they add in CC. Maybe have an option where if I include the original whitelisted domain/person in the chain then it will let the mail through even if it's from a non-whitelisted person.
Just thinking of scenarios like, you give out your email address to <[email protected]> who then emails you about a 5-a-side game with a few friends but any messages from any of the other friends bounce.
Or you apply for a job at ACME Inc and then you get a message back from `[email protected]` saying, please coordinate with `[email protected]` who'll arrange the interview but Bob can't contact you
"After doing this for more than 20 years I have asked that question hundreds of times and the answer is almost always about aesthetics, about 95%+."
It may be that a lot of it is aesthetics (though aesthetics also matter to usability) but some of it is richer functionality.
For example, a pattern I've been asked to implement multiple times is a requirement like this:
"We should have a 'Country prefix' input for a telephone number on the form. It should be a list, but allow the user to filter. They should be able to search by code (+44, 0044) or by country name (United Kingdom). We want a little flag beside the input".
Now I _can_ do that myself from browser APIs, e.g. using something like a datalist, using emojis for flags. But then I've to handle stuff like Win/Chrome not even supporting the emoji properly. Chrome will autocomplete based on label or value but FF won't. Even though there's a datalist, I can't constraint the input to _only_ select one of those values, so I need to do additional client-side validation on inputs anyway.
Then if a designer said of an 'contact book' look-up (e.g displaying an profile photo of people instead of a flag) I now have to come up with some other custom field anyway, to support that.
I think the browser level APIs and supported tags have come a long way from where they were, but they're still at the level of primitives. The libraries people are reaching for are one level above that.
But we've well established patterns on the web now that there's no reason we couldn't have richer OOTB browser chrome and remove the need for a lot of this stuff getting reimplemented in libraries all the time.
It's been awhile since I used one so maybe I'm misremembering, but isn't the brace position for a lap infant basically the same as what a rear facing soft baby carrier does naturally?
It seems strange to disallow the carrier, have the belt that loops through the adult belt but then if the plane is going down you have to get them into the same position they'll be in in the carrier anyway!
> The money in sports allows for people to focus on it and perform at the highest levels possible and compete against others who also have this same focus. Advertising is what allows for this to happen.
Erling Haaland gets half a million a week. His contract is worth £260m.
These guys take the money because it's on offer to them, and fair play to them.
But I don't think they'd decide not to play football and go off to do something else if he were to "only" get, say £5.2m over 10 years instead (£10,500 per week).
> The sport wouldn't be as popular or have as much funding. The reason football is where it is because of marketing.
wouldn't have as much funding, sure, but football was massively popular long before they started putting logos on shirts & hoardings.
If there was less money involved in football, then the likes of the free-to-air stations would be in a better position to compete to show more matches, too
I think for photojournalism it should be original raw image, as captured in camera — zero edits for colour correction/cropping/filesize etc — platforms can link a digital sig from a postprocessed version but you keep the provenance proof tied to a published original.
Are they allowed flash? What about studio lighting? What about commentary? Paid actors?
"Hey, do me a favor, wear this hoodie and go hand this plastic baggie with white powder in it to that guy over there, it's for an art project, he's going to act like he doesn't know you, and then you just run in the opposite direction to where you'll be payed"
Or "here's three photos of XYZ taken on three seperate days at his new favorite coffee shop, notably across from this elementary school. Read on for our take on why he likes this shop so much!"
Or even something as simple as positioning the camera just so that one national head appears shorter than another. Or, in an interview, adjusting lights on the 'hero' to make them look good and highlight the shadows on the 'villain' to make them look ominous.
Use a mirror set up to make it look to the 'villain' that they are making eye contact but are instead looking weirdly askance.
Limitations are the origin of creativity. Force publishing RAW would just force journalists to be more creative in their framing.
Also, no edits for filesize? Lossless RAWs are huge! Especially from professional cameras. You could end up loading a gig of data for a single article with 10 images, or even more for larger frames. The few who care enough to see the 'real' image (that is still tainted by photographer intent regardless of file size and editting) are motivated enough to click the lossy jpg for the raw. Those who do not care aren't going to sit waiting on the order of minutes to see the first image.
> Are they allowed flash? What about studio lighting? What about commentary? Paid actors?
>
> "Hey, do me a favor, wear this hoodie and go hand this plastic baggie with white powder in it to that guy over there, it's for an art project, he's going to act like he doesn't know you, and then you just run in the opposite direction to where you'll be payed"
what exactly is the 'threat model' that you're trying to protect against here? If you already don't trust John Doe as a credible source, of course then there's a million ways he can frame a scene to tell an unreliable story. That's always been the case.
But to me, what we're looking for now in the age of diffusion models is for someone to be able to say "here is the provenance of this image, it came from John Doe's camera" and that can survive being shared round the internet, provably.
> You could end up loading a gig of data for a single article with 10 images, or even more for larger frames.
I'm not suggesting that the _only_ thing that gets used is a raw image. I'm saying that if you go to the Wall Street Journal, then underneath the photo, beside the credit, they put a link out to some page that hosts the RAW file, the metadata of the camera used and a signature.
If you find the photo unbelievable and think it's bogus, you're able to regenerate the signature from the parts and see that it's valid. (and obviously if they link off to something that's massively different - that isn't just compression, white balance, etc - people hold them to account)
Or what about: the photographer tries to hide so that they don't contaminate the real-life that they are watching, but then the person sort of hears a small sound from the photographer's direction -- they don't actually SEE the photographer, but they get interrupted.
Or: the CCTV is well hidden, but the people who installed it left behind some mud that got on someone's shoes and that made them late...
ok, point camera at a screen. let's counter that by also taking 360° image with secondary camera. Ok build some props, let's add gps into it. fake gps. let's add inertial tracking and self-destruct on tamper.
Ok, but we really need a fake image, here is our badge, give us signing keys for special use case...
> Also, to be able to sell stuff, you gotta comply with the CE rules one way or another, there is no free card here.
Yes but there's a big difference between "only import electronics that aren't fire hazards" and "you have to pay custom & excise on anything you import".
They're comparing the tempo deviation not just in the drums but in literally everything.
Billie Eilish may be singing over a drum machine rather than a live drummer but that wouldn't make _her_ perfectly on time.
reply