I don't have a family of my own, so I can't do that part.... but switch an SaaS for the next single function social media platform that's obviously going to be a >$4B buyout and count me in.
They removed features, too. They used to have a feature that allowed you to view traffic patterns at a future time of day -- what traffic looks like during rush hour vs. weekends, for example.
How is it annoying? When I load maps.google.com in Chrome on desktop, the link for "traffic" is shown by default. All you have to do is click once to turn it on.
On mobile, it's the very first option in the drawer, and if you turn it on it stays on until you turn if off again.
Sorry I mean the web version. It really is impossible to do both.
On mobile? I think it's even worse. Look up your nearest favorite chain and it zooms in on what it believes is the one you're looking for. What if it's not? There's a tiny 3 lines in the search bar that I apparently have to click to list all locations.
And anytime I snap to location? It zooms in. Really I'd love to just write the few lines of code it takes to toggle between current zoom level and default zoom level when snapping to location.
And they've stripped features. New UI is fine but at least keep old features nestled around somewhere. I used to be able to look up directions and then nestled in settings view "gas stations along the way". It's near impossible to do that now.
I can't use GMaps anymore, which was one of the most wonderful products ever! Still haven't found how to do street view of a specific step in directions.
Those people shouldn't be giving design advice, they should be seeking it.
And if those Water Engineers are consumed with their jobs - and constantly stressed and depressed by the poor standing of the world - and cannot seek little pleasures in things like pastries or a craft beer or a street performer, would you say they would perform to the best of their abilities?
Could Earth use more Water Engineers? Certainly. Should people with passion be forced into pursuing careers that utilize their talents better? No way.
>Should people with passion be forced into pursuing careers that utilize their talents better? No way.
I agree with that statement but what you're saying is Peter Parker should not be forced to be a Spider-Man or Bill Gates should waste his billions on parties because he likes to party.
I'm not trying to sound socialist it's just the world would be a much better place to live if people with power and talent really took responsibility and made a good choice.
Generally people with extreme gifts or talents (and specifically the 2 examples you mentioned) find passion in their skillsets so the argument that they should do that anyways is somewhat unnecessary. And the ones who don't most likely have legitimate mental issues that would prohibit them from contributing at a consistent level. Of course there are deviations, but physchological studies have more than adequately shown the large deviation of mental stability in truly gifted individuals.
My argument is made for "normal" people.
And I don't think your opinion falls in the realm of socialism, fyi.
> physchological studies have more than adequately shown
> the large deviation of mental stability in truly gifted
> individuals
This is a common misconception. If, for example, one looks at physicians as a group (the occupational class with the highest so-called IQ), they are in general more stable and mentally healthier than the rest of the population.
If one ventures into the realm of savants, then those people are, by definition, not normal, so anything goes. But they are small in number.
When I was in high school I would always lose points on my tests because I never showed any work. It was always easier for me to imagine formulas in my head like puzzle pieces then writing them down.
Weight does change around the world, mostly because at the equator you are farther away from the centre of mass of the earth than you are at the poles, but also because of local gravity anomalies.
It's mass that never changes, so maybe we should all get an inertial balance for our kitchen!
> I have to resize my window to actually read the text [...] we live in a world in which many people now have bigger widescreen monitors
I'm sorry, I just don't understand this whole "people have widescreen monitors, so designers need to decide how wide something should be" idea. "Because people have wider monitors than they used to" seems like a meaningless excuse to me, since windows have been resizable since Douglas Engelbart's Mother of All Demos in 1968 (more than 40 years ago).
In my opinion, when you choose a size for your web browser, you are signaling to the webpage which region of your screen you would like to have filled with content. If your screen is too wide to read full-width text comfortably, you should just keep the web browser resized to 83% of your screen width (or whatever) instead of having it maximized all the time. Most web browsers will even remember your preference from one time to the next. Plus, if you do want something to fill your screen (and you don't use Mac OS) it's one click to maximize the window temporarily.
Nothing's ever stopped designers from over-designing webpages (many people would point to scroll-to-animate webpages), but I really don't think that maximum width (or, worse, minimum width!) is some necessary thing for designers to dictate, since it's so easy for users to choose a width that's comfortable for them.
You say that but your average user isn't going to make sure they keep their browser window to some arbitrary amount. People just tend to makes it fullscreen, myself included.
HA!!