Usually, when someone talks about "starting from scratch" they mean "starting over from scratch," meaning throwing out something good enough in the hope of building something perfect.
This article is more about "first mover disadvantage" or "handicap of a head start" where an early implementation is leapfrogged by competitors that don't have legacy baggage.
It's 100% the endorsement I think it is, someone searching for "is there a fire near me" wants an answer. The main issue with websites (and why Twitter grew) is it became easier to colocate information and get real(ish) time updates. For sites that don't care about actual traffic being able to surface that data to AI bots is perfect. If it reinforces a loop of "oh [site] is the actual source of information" even better.
Why not? I'd much prefer if I can just send my agent to gather info among these sites than have to sign up for some Twitter clone, enable Javascript, then click around through a sea of algorithm bait.
Lotus/IBM took an extremely flexible, encrypted, document-oriented database with a powerful RAD client platform and tried to sell it as a competitor to Outlook-Exchange. And Outlook-Exchange won, because as terrible as it was (and it was much worse then than it is now) it still had a better user experience than Notes Mail.
Notes insisted on a UI paradigm with widgets and controls that didn't work at all like regular OS widgets and controls. Properties boxes were tiny and hard to resize. Selecting from lists or menus required hitting tiny hidden checkmark targets. Keyboard shortcuts were divorced from the host platform. And the error messages -- and you'd get lots of them -- constantly referenced obscure internal Notes object model constructs that had no relationship to the user's mental model.
Everyone uses email. Even top executives who don't bother with the ERP system or the content management system have to use the company email program. And executives hated having to use use Notes-Domino.
Exactly. Their ten-point scales have no obvious relationship to the underlying measurements, where measurements are even provided, and they rescale the points every so often. (They call this their "methodology version.")
I've noticed that, when a new (expensive, high-commission-generating) product comes out, it often has middling scores at first, and then, a few months later, they've revised their methodology to show how much better the pricey new product is.
1) I trust rtings to not change their position on the basis of what makes them money; that trust is their whole brand.
2) I have not seen products jump from middling to high before, but I have seen the scores change with new methodologies, and sometimes that has the net effect of lowering the scores of older devices. Typically, that seems to represent some change in technology, or in what people are looking for in the market. For instance, I would expect (have not checked) that with the substantially increased interest in high-refresh-rate monitors, the "gaming" score has probably changed to scale with gamer expectations of higher frame rates. That would have the net effect of lowering the score of what was previously considered a "good" monitor. This seems like an inherent property of improving technologies: last year's "great" can be this year's "good" and next year's "meh".
Personally, I never pay much attention to the 0-10 scores in the first place, and always just make tables of the features and measurements I care about. The only exception is for underlying measurements that are complex and need summarizing (e.g. "Audio Reproduction Accuracy").
> The original phrase "The customer is always right" had an important caveat: "... in matters of taste".
This is not true. This is fairly recent Internet revisionism with no historical basis, an attempt to "well ackshually" the phrase into something else to make a point.
"The customer is always right" has always meant, "It's better to appease occasional assholes than to risk ever disappointing a customer with a legitimate grievance." Of course, TCIAR is not a natural imperiative. It's an unproven philosophical proposition that may or may not be appropriate at any given time and in any given industry.
To the extent that there is an "original" formulation, it might be Marshal Field's "Give the lady what she wants," which is (probably intentionally) vague on exactly how it should be applied. (And remember that "lady" in Field's time had some classist connotations that are less present today.")
> The function of the icon is to have distinct shape so you are able to visually distinguish menu items quickly in future (more you use the app).
In theory, yes. But if you look at the examples in the article, the shapes are basically all similarly-sized circles.
In the Apple example, "System Settings" is circle (A gear with barely discernible teeth.) "Recent Items" is a circle (a clock.) "Force Quit" is a circle (a rounded! octagon.) "Sleep" is...a circle with a line through the bottom third. "Log Out" is...a human silhouette in a circle! (Why?)
It doesn't matter what the icon is as long as the icons are distinct, and today's icons aren't.
This article is more about "first mover disadvantage" or "handicap of a head start" where an early implementation is leapfrogged by competitors that don't have legacy baggage.