Golden Rules for Bad User Interfaces

People often propose how to’s for good thing. But that seems not enough if you cann’t find the bad examples of how to not do. That’s why this golden rules for bad user interface might be a good reference for web developer like me. 🙂

The SAP Design Guild Website is full of guidelines and tips for good user interface design, and it’s not the only one on the Web. Nevertheless, we see examples of bad user interface design everywhere – many more than users would like to see. As people like to do just the opposite of what one is proposing, we thought that it might be a good idea to promote bad user interface design. Therefore, we collected “Golden Rules for Bad User Interfaces” on this page – please help yourself (and do the opposite). We started this page with ten rules and are continually expanding our collection.

An App A Day

Paul Graham mentioned in his essay that if you ask a good hacker how good he is, he might replay “i don’t know”. He’s not being modest, he really doesn’t know. But i think it’s not a bad idea to test your skill of coding and find out how good you are. How about if you challenge yourself to make a new application every day?

Well, that might sound hard to do. But not really. At least not for her. So this blog goes to anappaday.com.

Don’t worry, you haven’t miss anything. By the time i write this, she is in 10th day of 30 working days she planned. You can also chat with her while she’s working on an app.

What Pope did not say

Great article from Thenews.com.pk (copied from khilafah.com),

Why would pope Benedict XVI, an ex-professor of theology, one of the best-known theologians of the Western world, a prolific writer, a staunch defender of traditional Catholic doctrine and values cite this medieval text in a lecture on faith and reason? Let us look a little more closely at the context of the speech.

The pope invoked the words of the emperor to serve as the “starting point” of his reflections on the issue. He resurrected the seventh conversation between the emperor and the almost-absent Persian from the text which is to be found in a version edited by Professor Khoury. In this conversation “the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war”, the pope told his audience, and then went on to state that “the emperor must have known that ayah 256 of surah 2 reads: ‘There is no compulsion in religion’.”

Then the learned pope said that the “according to the experts, this is one of the surahs of the early period, when Muhammad (PBUH) was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the directives developed later and recorded in the Quran concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the ‘Book’ and the ‘infidels’, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. After having expressed himself so forcefully, the emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. ‘God’, he says, ‘is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats. To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death'”.

This quotation from the pope’s speech leaves one struggling with the question of his understanding of Islam. To begin with, regardless of the pope’s experts, the second surah of the Quran (Suratul Baqarah) is not an early surah of the Quran; it was in fact revealed in Medina at a time when Muslims were in full control of the Arabian peninsula and not when “Muhammad was still powerless and under threat”. Second, to consider the Prophetic mission of the Prophet (PBUH) in terms of an individual’s struggle, even to treat him as a man who is once “powerless” and “under threat” and who then gains power and strength is totally contrary to Islamic understanding of a prophet’s mission. According to Islam, God has chosen certain men to act as his messengers to humanity and once a man has been chosen to perform this function, his individual power of strength have little meaning left; he is acting under Divine Commands.

But regardless of these obvious misunderstandings about Islam (which one would not expect from such a learned theologian), the point that the pope attempted to make in his speech was that there is a “profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God”. He did not say that such a “profound harmony” does not exist between Islam and Greek thought, but his invocation of the ugly words written by a Byzantinian emperor leaves one wondering how much of that text has crept into the understanding of the Church.

To be sure, the current perceptions of Islam and Muslims in the West are not merely the result of CNN and Fox News; they are the handiwork of generations of churchmen and academics who have followed in the footsteps of people like Emperor Manuel II. One only has to read a work like Islam and the West: The making of an image by Norman Daniel to see the contributions of the Church in the cultivation of the deep hatred of Islam and Muslims in the contemporary West.

Again this shows us the man real view of Islam.

Pope, Bad “Freedom of Speech” Player

As a learned theological man, Pop Benedict XVI must knew perfectly well the consequences of his invocation. But seemed to me, the man has “freedom-of-speech supporter” all over him, only he played bad.

I mean, what could be the rational for quoting a part of the dialogue that took place between the Byzantine emperor and a Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam? why would he choose to resurrect the ugly words of this medieval text in Germany at a time when the hurt caused by the terrible Danish cartoons is still fresh in Muslim memory?

Even low educated muslim will take that as an open war, considering his position as the head of a global institution with more than a billion follower.

Jonathan Freedland made a great view of this,

At a 1983 Conservative rally, the comedian Kenny Everett called out, “Let’s bomb Russia!” A year later, a microphone caught Ronald Reagan ad-libbing a mock radio address: “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia for ever. We begin bombing in five minutes.” Both had an equal right to make the joke. But it was rather less wise for the leader of a cold war superpower.

Pope Benedict is in the Reagan category. Of course he has the right to quote whomever he chooses, but there is now a significance to his words that did not apply when he was a humble scholar. This is what makes the Pope’s defenders so disingenuous when they insist that he was merely engaged in a “scholarly consideration of the relationship between reason and faith”. He is not a lecturer at divinity school. He is the head of a global institution with more than a billion followers. So he has to think carefully about the sources he cites. When he digs out a 700-year-old sentence that could not be more damning of Islam – “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached” – he has to know there will be consequences.

Who is tolerance?

When i first found the link to this article in delicious, i thought it would be a thoughtful and intellectual article about muslim tolerance. But i realized i was wrong just by reading the first two paraghraps of it. It is nothing but an ignorance journalist who tried to make big hit from his nonsense article by quoting from Al Qur’an.

How can i guessed just by the first two paragraphs? Simple, just connect the title and the ayat he quoted.

Is this what they mean by ‘Muslim tolerance’?

Listen to this: “Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.”

Or then again, this: “Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends.”

The minute he said about muslim is actually intolerance, he declared himself as intolerance to muslim.