angumagu

Reminds me of the practice of Translations.com / Transperfect, one of the largest language services providers. Their HR policy is to not allow employees to name the company in any online space, social media or otherwise. So when you see staff on LinkedIn, for instance, their employer will invariable say "Leading language service provider" or similar. These seem to be completely unreasonable policies, to me, that in effect are demanding that basic facts are ownable by the company.

Agreed, great start. I recommend adding a tab or tab-menu object. When I'm wireframing, out of all the basic items I have to deal with, vertical and horizontal menus (tabs, often) are the most time-consuming thing to deal with. It would be great to have this object automated in a wireframing tool.

Your mirror-world example leaves one important factor out: context. That is, the larger social context is a world of unequal gendered power dynamics. I think your thought experiment is accurate in its depiction of what that flipped situation would look like, but you are implying the difference is in sensitivity or disposition.

I think the difference is actually that men can laugh at that stuff because a) it's ironic in that those images are typically the other way around and b) that sort of objectification of the male body isn't reminding them that they're at greater risk for sexual harassment and assault. Because they aren't.

The problem is that those images and that humor, in public, about women, happens in the context of a world where women are more easily abused, assaulted and harassed, and men more easily get away with it. So context matters, and in this social context, that "humor" shouldn't be acceptable.

Completely tertiary to the primary feedback being requested, but: Your default avatar (which appears to be a zoom-in of the logo) looks (to me) like a zoom-in of a line drawing of a woman's cleavage, with one nipple showing.

edited: for punctuation

I'm concerned on two fronts: 1) if quality of visual design is the thing being tested, then it might be more useful if the objective information in the two logos were the same. As it is, the difference here could be entirely attributed to the bingo card image being in one logo and not the other. (I know, the choice to put it in is a design decision, but it's useful to distinguish between testing the design/look-feel and the information in the logo) 2) I don't see in the write-up where brand confusion is accounted for here. What percentage of those shown the new logo had seen the previous one on a previous visit, and turned away because they thought they had the wrong site, or had otherwise diminished their view of the brand because of confusion?

Excellent rejoinders. They do support the simile.

I think I did jump to reading it as a "love it or leave it" argument, though recognizing you are more on the "come and join us on the outside". But maybe you can see it was easy to ready it as "it's a waste to get riled up about this".

Anyway, I'm quite sympathetic to the build-alternative-institutions as opposed to work-within-the-system approach. I rewrote this response a dozen times and then realized I hadn't figured out what really rankles me about this whole conversation (the larger one).

I think it's that Apple makes really good stuff, when so often it's the people making marginal or crappy stuff that are making regressive moves like these. So I get torn, because there are real efforts being made on their part to make technology human, to meet people where they are, efforts that have gone further than a lot of others. And I can't see any basic link between the closed approach and that success.

"Free" is a term that always benefits from definition. How free am I to start my own business? Well, that depends on relative power, and how precarious my financial situation is, my debt load, my family responsibilities, and other things. It's not just a simple question of "is it physically possible?"

I'm not sure how directly applicable that critique is to the analogy, except to say that I am well within my rights to be outraged at my own employer for many reasons, whether or not I have the opportunity to start my own business. "Love it or leave it" is generally a cheap argument for dismissing folks who are pushing for progressive change in a system.

This could be solved with a wireless pressure sensitive stylus with a capacitive tip. I think such a product would make digital artwork a killer app for the iPad.

What problems does this new approach solve? I see one that it creates: I can't see the whole month at once, so I have to take extra action to get to a date. I completely lose the spatial view of the grid which, among other things, helps me find a date when I don't know the day, and find a day when I don't know the date.

There's a bit more info here: http://laughingsquid.com/chatroulette-map-not-so-anonymous-a...

I think the title should read "Résumé using Google Maps". The current title is an imperative asking me to start using Google Maps again.