Google Chrome For Mac Disregards Accessibility∞
In the past, Google has provided fairly good support for accessibility with screen readers, but that reputation has begun to slip in recent years, as the Internet giant has expanded its offerings and let its accessibility efforts slip.
This might be a compelling argument if the writer cited any examples other than a lack of VoiceOver support.
Accessibility isn’t a feature you can mark off on a checklist. It’s not a technology; it’s not something you can “support.” Of course Google Chrome is accessible—people are able to use it. There may be things that Google can do to make it accessible to more people, but it’s bullshit to say that it doesn’t “support accessibility,” as if accessibility were some sort of standard.
I may be picking at semantics here. My point is, cite examples that show how Google Chrome is more inaccessible than other browsers such as Safari—don’t just say that Chrome doesn’t “support accessibility” and expect me to believe it.
Google Android Personal Thoughts∞
Boy Genius has a scathing critique of Android—Android as a platform, mind you, not just any one device.
His main complaint is that Android has no “emotion”, which is to say it’s difficult for the user to connect with their device on a level deeper than they would with, say, a hammer. Google thinks of Android as a tool, and as a result it feels clinical and systematic.
The problem with Google is that they are an engineering company through and through. Doug Bowman (of Stopdesign fame) gave a good account of some of the obstacles designers face there.
Yes, it’s true that a team at Google couldn’t decide between two blues, so they’re testing 41 shades between each blue to see which one performs better. I had a recent debate over whether a border should be 3, 4 or 5 pixels wide, and was asked to prove my case.
Google approaches everything as an engineering problem, even when they absolutely shouldn’t. Yes, you’re creating a sophisticated piece of technology, but designing what the user sees is an art, not a science. The engineering ends where form takes precedence over functionality: the interface.
And the interface is arguably the most important part of any system. Pack Android with as much awesome functionality as you want—the thing people will judge it on is its interface. Apple understands this, which is why Apple does not release anything—ANYTHING—unless they can design it well. That is why it took two years for Apple to release copy-and-paste on the iPhone, and that is why people develop a connection with their iPhone that they never will with their Android phone.
As so often happens, John Gruber put it best:
Apple is a design company with engineers; Google is an engineering company with designers.
Philip K. Dick Estate in Pursuit of Google’s Nexus One ∞
Philip K. Dick’s novel “Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?” was about a detective pursuing a fugitive android (a “Nexus 6” model). The just-announced Google device is called the “Nexus One” and the platform is called “Android,” so I think we can all be reasonably certain that it’s a reference to the novel. I’d also like to call bullshit on Google’s “it wasn’t a reference, we were just using the word to mean a place where things converge” excuse. Sorry, guys.
As for the legality of the claim: as far as I know, trademark claims like this only hold water if there is a likelihood for confusion between the two products/brands, which seems unlikely in this case.
This also isn’t the first time that an Android device has used a sci-fi pop culture reference in its name—the Droid gets its name from the Star Wars universe, a privilege which Motorola paid for (“Droid” is a registered trademark of George Lucas). The article notes that a double standard may be in place:
Reports of the estate’s objection have led to accusations that the estate is just grubbing for money, though few seemed to think the same of George Lucas when Motorola paid him to use the name Droid for their Android OS-powered smartphone.
Personally, I don’t think Google/Motorola/HTC should have had to pay for either of those names, (“Droid” or “Nexus One”) but I guess it all comes down to which side has a strong case legally.
Google Introduces URL Shortener∞
Ouch, bit.ly. Right now goo.gl only works with Google Toolbar and Feedburner, but how many people will switch once it becomes more widely available?
Not that bit.ly is in any danger of going under (like tr.im) but it seems much, much less likely with goo.gl. I, for one, can’t wait for integration with Chrome, which has been my main browser since they released a beta (stable?) build for Mac.
Google To Limit Free News Access∞
This makes sense—they’re just taking away the feature of Google News that allows people to use it to circumvent news organizations’ paywalls, which they arguably shouldn’t allow in the first place.
Hopefully this will stop Rupert Murdoch and the other media companies from complaining, but I somehow doubt it.
(via Slashdot)
Zealotry Sucks And So Does The Droid∞
Lots of negative publicity for the Droid.
(via Daring Fireball)
Google Apologizes For "Michelle Obama" Image Search Results∞
Apparently for the past week or so, searching Google Images for Michelle Obama
turned up a picture of the first lady altered so that she resembled a monkey. After receiving criticism, Google banned the site, claiming it contained malware, and when the image showed up on another site, they posted an ad above it apologizing.
There are several disturbing things with this story.
First of all, why are people complaining about this? Google is designed to index content people want to find, offensive or not, and they practically can’t screen the billions of images they index before they show up on Google Image search.
Second, asking Google to remove the image is asking Google to compromise the integrity of their search results in a dangerous way. What is the threshold for an offensive
image that needs to be removed? Is it really the right thing to try to censor what most people believe to be a more or less comprehensive index of what’s on the Internet?
I’m further disturbed that Google apologized for this, because they’re in no way in the wrong and have no obligation to. They know that their algorithm can’t discern offensive
content, they know the impracticality of pre-screening images before they appear in search results, and they know what censoring their search results would mean.
(via Slashdot)
The Droid Battery Cover Problem∞
John Gruber:
Funny, I’ve never heard of any problems with the iPhone battery cover falling off.
Zing!
Why Google Shouldn’t Cool It With Chrome OS#
Brian Chen over at Wired has written an article entitled Why Google Should Cool It With Chrome OS, saying that he doubt[s] consumers will show much interest in a Chrome OS netbook the way Google is currently packaging it.
In other words, he’s skeptical that consumers will want to give up all their local software in favor of web apps.
Web apps can’t let us process Microsoft Word documents, sync our iTunes libraries, or edit photos with Photoshop, for example. Thanks to their crampy keyboards and small screens, netbooks aren’t ideal for productivity apps such as Photoshop or Microsoft Word — but you’d be surprised at the different uses for netbooks that made them last year’s hit product category.
I say, if consumers are slow to pick up Chrome OS, it’s because Windows is familiar and Chrome OS is new and foreign, not because it can do less.
Any computer purchase is an exercise in compromises. Generally, a consumer will compromise on price for specifications, paying more than they had planned to for a faster computer. However, when buying a netbook, consumers are making a different compromise. Instead of compromising price for specs, they’re compromising specs for form factor.
This compromise happens because a netbook user buys a netbook realizing they’re not going to have the full functionality of a laptop or a desktop. They’re buying it SPECIFICALLY to do less. A netbook is a computer that’s designed for easy Internet access like checking mail, chatting, and browsing around—NOT resource-greedy tasks like Photoshop. That’s the whole appeal.
Why are users comfortable making this compromise? Jon Gruber over at Daring Fireball nails it:
One thing that strikes me about Chrome OS and Litl is that neither bother trying to do everything Windows or Mac OS X can do. Not even close. I don’t think either even bothers trying to serve as one’s primary computer.
Nobody’s going to be buying a laptop with Chrome OS to use as their main computer. Obviously, many people will still want Photoshop or Microsoft Word or iTunes on their computer. But not everyone needs to have access to that ALL THE TIME, and that’s what Google is betting on. Need to quickly edit a document on the road? Fire up Google Docs and slam it out. Want to get rid of red-eye in your photos while you’re on vacation? Aviary will do just fine.
The Wired article quotes Michael Gartenberg, a tech analyst at a company called Interpret. He says:
This idea that I’m somehow going to do away with rich app architectures and do everything through the browser is an old argument, and it’s never taken root.
That’s because it’s never been feasible before now, not because users have an inherent preference for local software over web apps. The average user doesn’t care whether an application is in their browser or on their hard disk—as long as it does what they want it to do. Now that most people have relatively high-speed Internet connections, and technologies such as Canvas and AJAX and frameworks such as Ruby On Rails and Cappuccino exist, it is actually feasible to have a web application that works and feels just like a desktop application.
There are many, many web applications that prove that last point. Aviary, a whole suite of web-based creative applications (vector and raster image editing, audio editing, and more). Google Docs, an office suite. meebo, a chat client that supports multiple protocols. Mozilla recently released Bespin, an editor for HTML, CSS and Javascript written using the new Canvas element.
There’s one thing Mr. Chen gets right, though. He describes Chrome OS as an OS that enables us to do less.
YES! That’s EXACTLY the point.
Don’t shoot for every feature that your competitors offer. Make your product simple, and make it better than anything else out there. It works for Apple, it works for Nintendo, it works for Twitter, and it will work for Google.
Chrome OS Demo∞
Really cool video of the Chrome OS user interface. It makes me wonder if Google wrote Chrome specifically so they could expand it into Chrome OS.
It’s cool that all the data is stored in on the web—for example, if you make a note in the Notepad application it’s saved into Google Docs—but they make no mention of an offline mode. I realize the whole point of the OS is web applications, but even with a 3G connection and Wi-fi there will be times that it can’t connect to the Internet.
Introducing Google Chrome OS∞
Speaking of new operating system releases, Google announced Chrome OS today.
Here’s the project page for Chromium OS.
The Google Phone Is Very Real. And It's Coming Soon∞
Really. Because I seem to recall Andy Rubin, head of Android development at Google, saying flat-out that Google isn’t going to make any Android hardware.
Rupert Murdoch May Block Google Searches∞
Or, alternate title: Rupert Murdoch Is A Whiny Bitch!
It would be nice if he came out and said what he actually MEANS, which is that he wants to still be indexed by Google with the added bonus of them sharing their ad revenue with him when a search links to his page. Instead he’s hiding behind this ridiculous argument that Google searches are stealing from him somehow. Furthermore, he somehow has it in his brain that he has to get rid of the fair use doctrine. Here’s what he had to say about it:
There’s a doctrine called ‘fair use,’ which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether
Poor grammar notwithstanding, THAT’S his solution to Google using headlines and blurbs from his articles for their search results? Going after fair use? Whoops. I guess I shouldn’t have used that quote… which is exactly what his news sites wouldn’t be able to do if fair use were gone. YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, BUDDY.
Of course, that argument (if they’re stupid enough to even bring it) will get shot down in court way before it ever gains the slightest amount of traction. And to your general whininess about Google stealing from you, Mr. Murdoch, I say:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
That should block Google and all those other pesky search engines from indexing your content. If you truly don’t think you need those millions of incoming links—if you TRULY think that will help you offset your advertising losses with subscribers—you can use that to replace your current robots.txt file, which (ironically enough) specifically optimizes your site for Google.
Whoa. The guy in charge of Fox News being hypocritical? No way!
