Even after Gladwell’s “10,000-hour rule”, research says natural talent still matters.

By age 20, the students whom the faculty nominated as the “best” players had accumulated an average of over 10,000 hours, compared with just under 8,000 hours for the “good” players and not even 5,000 hours for the least skilled.

Those findings have been enthusiastically championed, perhaps because of their meritocratic appeal: what seems to separate the great from the merely good is hard work, not intellectual ability….But this isn’t quite the story that science tells. Research has shown that intellectual ability matters for success in many fields — and not just up to a point.

Sorry, Strivers: Talent Matters

Nov 22, 2011

More stuff about Society


Adobe

Sometime in 1997 or 98 I clicked an icon that looked like an eye. I was a still a student. It was the first time I opened Adobe Photoshop. The software was amazing to me. I don’t remember which version it was, either 3 or 4, but I remember being simply amazed by the fact that I could adjust the contrast of a photo without going to a darkroom.

A short time afterward, I changed my major from Mathematics to Art. After that, I concentrated on graphic design. Nearly instantly two companies dominated my computing world: Apple and Adobe. Apple made the hardware tools. Adobe made the software tools.

Apple produced crap. Adobe produced gold. I was not well versed in computer history. I knew who Bill Gates was at the time, but I don’t recall knowing who Steve Jobs was.

Since 1997 (or was it 98?) my attitude about the two companies has reversed. At the time, I didn’t give Apple too many more years to live. I knew that Adobe was a company with its sights firmly set on the future.

I recall being very, very excited about everything Adobe did.

Times change.

Looking at blogs and technology sites, you wouldn’t guess this: but graphic designers rarely spring for the latest software. It’s expensive, and rarely does it make a significant impact on workflow and efficiency. Most of us are concerned more with what helps us create, not what is shiny and new.

In late 2003, I acquired Adobe CS (Creative Suite 1). This was a rare thing. Brand new software. State-of-the-art software.

I recall being very, very excited about it. New features. Faster. Shiny.

Not long after version CS2 was released. After that, Adobe bought a company called Macromedia (who made Flash). When CS3 was released, the company I worked for purchased it, but it was mostly out of compatibility issues (and Quark seemed less and less like the horse to ride).

I’ve not been excited about any version of any Adobe product since Creative Suite 1.

One fellow from Knoxville, Tennessee being not “excited” about a product is hardly enough for a company such as Adobe to be worried about. But CS1 came out in 2003, and I’ve not been optimistic about anything Adobe has done for eight years.

I don’t get excited about new Adobe products, I get worried about new Adobe products. With each upgrade more features are added. Usually features that do not help me. With the passage of time alternative products start to replace the bloated, expensive software that Adobe produces.

Graphic Design is not there yet.

Now I get excited about new Apple products. I worry about Adobe products and wonder how much longer they have left.

Adobe recently stopped production on its mobile version of Flash. To me, this seems like a step in the right direction. They also seem to be throwing their weight towards open standards, creating products like Edge.

Flash crashes constantly. Photoshop is a bloated mess. Dreamweaver is… Dreamweaver. But lets not give up on Adobe yet. This is the company that created Postscript. There may be some awesome to come. Hopefully, Adobe is just going through some growing pains, the same as Apple did in the nineties.

Lets hope.

Nov 15, 2011

More stuff about Design Technology






Lessening Space For Books

Why are they giving up thousands of square feet of prime bookselling space — the area just inside of entrances, which have the highest sales-volume-per-square-inch of any area in the store by far — to displays of, well, one simple, not to mention small, product: the Nook.

Since owning an iPad, I’ve actually been reading more. I still prefer reading physical books. Typography on e-readers is terrible. Worse, on devices like the iPad or an Android device, the glow of the screen is tiring on the eyes.

Barnes & Noble reducing floorspace dedicated to physical books is not surprising to me. More people are buying digital books; it seems only logical that booksellers devote less retail space to them. I do not necessarily think this means bookstores will disappear, just as record stores are still around. I suspect that bookstores will simply become something different from what we are used to, and cater to a different—perhaps specialty—market.

B&N announces major lessening of space devoted to books

Nov 02, 2011

More stuff about Books




Page 3 of 21 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›