Vincent Gable’s Blog

April 1, 2009

Microsoft Excel Does Not Excel at Graphing

Filed under: Design,Quotes,Usability | , , , ,
― Vincent Gable on April 1, 2009

I gripe about Excel a lot, as we’re more or less forced to use it for data analysis in the intro labs (students who have taken the intro engineering course supposedly are taught how to work with Excel, and it’s kind of difficult to buy a computer without it these days, so it eliminates the “I couldn’t do anything with the data” excuse for not doing lab reports). This is a constant source of irritation, as the default settings are carefully chosen so as to make it difficult for students to do a good job of data presentation.

Now, you might be saying “Well, of course Excel isn’t appropriate for scientific data analysis. It’s not really for scientists, though.” Which is true, but here’s the thing: the things I’ve complained about here aren’t good for anything. The color schemes and axis settings lead to illegible plots no matter what sort of data you’re working with. And I’m completely at a loss as to the purpose of the “Line” plot, or making it difficult to find uncertainties in fitted quantitites.

Professor Chad Orzel, Why Does Excel Suck So Much?

There’s no question in my mind that a lot of serious analysis is done in(spite) Excel. I’ve worked with some very smart programmers, with PhDs in experimental science, who have “numerics” in their job description, and used Excel to make quick graphs.

The best solution I can recommend is reading The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. It’s probably the best guide to honestly presenting data graphically.

Unfortunately I don’t have a good recommendation for a better software program. The excellent redrawings at the chartjunk blog were done in Adobe Illustrator (more info in this comment). But Illustrator costs $599, and is a complex drawing program. Honestly the sticker price, and ease of use, have kept me from trying it.

What do you use to draw graphs?

February 24, 2009

More Flash Hate and Graceful Degradation

Filed under: Accessibility,Announcement | , , , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 24, 2009

Adobe’s website for Air (their cross-platform ‘web for the desktop’ technology) requires Flash 10. If you have an earlier version of Flash, like 75% of the visitors to my website, then you see a big blank box.

This is a terrible mistake for the company that makes Flash. In no way does it inspire confidence that Flash is accessible.

The real irony is Adobe’s own website was the first website I’ve seen that was incompatible with the version of Flash I was using. If other websites leveraged Flash 10, they gracefully degraded so that I could use them with Flash 9.

When I finally upgraded, I couldn’t see why Adobe’s website needed Flash 10 was required. I wasn’t wowed. All I saw was some fancy transitions between slow-loading flash videos.

Just by being open, that one website used 125% of my CPU even when I wasn’t interacting with it. No joke, 125% is what OS X reported. I am using a dual core machine, so the 125% means that 100% of one CPU, and 25% of another were used — just to render a webpage I wasn’t even looking at.

Is Adobe fine with alienating 75% of the internet?

Why can’t they make their own website laptop friendly?

Why should I trust their new Air platform that “lets developers use proven web technologies” if its own website won’t just work for me?

January 29, 2009

Flash Hate

Filed under: Quotes | , , , ,
― Vincent Gable on January 29, 2009

I don’t like Flash because it is responsible for the overwhelming majority of my browser crashes. I don’t like it because it consumes memory and (especially) CPU resources on my computer for almost the sole purpose of showing me advertisements, which also translates directly to reduced battery life on my laptop.

But it’s interesting to note that it’s quite a technical and ethical challenge to run a browser without Flash.

Steven Frank

I’ve written before about how important it is to optimize CPU usage of your website for the mobile world. And this is yet another reason for anyone who is add-supported. People will tolerate advertisements that are just there. But when they kill their work time, or are otherwise malignant, then they will take active steps to stop them. And that means no more advertising revenue.

January 26, 2009

Adobe UI Gripes

Filed under: Design | , , ,
― Vincent Gable on January 26, 2009

Adobe UI Gripes is a blog with screenshots of Adobe’s weird, non-standard interfaces. (Too much of) Adobe’s current Mac software is like Microsoft’s during the Word 6 period.

(Via Michael Tsai, Jonathan Rentzsch.)

If Adobe didn’t make, you know Photoshop etc. al., I would cut them more slack when it comes to their software’s face. It’s like a dermatologist with terrible acne. Graphic designers seem like exactly the types who would be bothered the most by a tool’s interface not being pixel perfect.

But I am impressed by what I’ve seen of Adobe Lightroom. They deserve UI props for that.

October 7, 2008

Photoshop Upgrade Refusenik

Filed under: Design,Quotes | , ,
― Vincent Gable on October 7, 2008

I hadn’t heard of Bob Staake before but, according to Wikipedia, he’s kind of a big deal:

Illustrations by Staake appear in The New Yorker, Time, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and others. Illustrations by Staake are used in advertising by such companies as McDonald’s, American Express, Sony, United Airlines, Nickelodeon, Sports Illustrated For Kids, Ralston Purina, Hallmark Cards, Kenner Toys, and others.

Starting in 1993, Staake illustrated and contributed concepts to The Style Invitational, which is a humor contest at The Washington Post.

In 1995, Staake became a regular contributor to Mad Magazine.

In the September 4, 2006 issue of The New Yorker, Staake created the first of many cover illustrations to follow for that magazine.

Interestingly, he still uses Photoshop 3, first released over 12 years ago,

Let me clear up today’s rumor: I do NOT work in OS 7. I use OSX and run classic (9.0) in the background. Photoshop 3.0? Yes, STILL use that.

Responding to some brouhaha over his tools, he made it clear that it’s by choice,

I love how every tech geek out there goes POSTAL over the idea of an artist using software that they’re comfortable with – even if it’s old.

Reminds me of people who still think Microsoft Word 5.1 was the best version ever. Personally, I don’t think they are off by much, although given my spelling, a word processor without spellcheck-as-you-type just won’t cut it.

Powered by WordPress