03 Feb 2005 | Joshua said...

Yes, that's very creative and intuitive. I voted for her in the best design category.

03 Feb 2005 | f5 said...

JF -- I'm not having one of those "I get it" moments...what's the problem that these headers are solving?

03 Feb 2005 | Paul said...

They are very subtly reinforcing the peripheral temporal-understanding of when the post was written. The brain processes the word "wednesday" faster because its position on the bar compared to the others hints at its "position" within the week. Beautifully subtle in the context of a daily blog; SvN really gets that kind of details, they do make a difference.
(I need to practice more my Academics jargon, it doesn't quite sound geeky/crazy enough...)

03 Feb 2005 | Adam said...

I like them too but do we need to link them directly from her server?

03 Feb 2005 | Eric said...

Hey Paul, you say:

The brain processes the word "wednesday" faster because its position on the bar compared to the others hints at its "position" within the week.

Is that true, as in backed up by reputable (i.e., peer-reviewed) data, or did you pull that claim out of your **tt?

03 Feb 2005 | f5 said...

Paul: I highy doubt she was trying to shave nano-seconds off viewers date-recognition time -- I think function first as nice, stylistic headers.

03 Feb 2005 | Michael Ward said...

Eric, politeness costs nothing - is there any need for the confrontational attitude?

I agree that the additional info given by those headers helps somewhat. But no, I didn't do any scientific research to back-up my opinion.

They also look good...

03 Feb 2005 | Darrel said...

Is that true, as in backed up by reputable (i.e., peer-reviewed) data, or did you pull that claim out of your **tt?

As long as it *sounds* plausible... ;o)

03 Feb 2005 | JF said...

What is this fascination with needing "data" on everything? Look... It's the days spelled out in the position they fall during the week. That's all. It's nice, useful and novel. Isn't that enough?

03 Feb 2005 | next generation-er said...

Data from Star Trek would give it a thumbs up. Good enough?

04 Feb 2005 | Paul said...

Thanks JF. ;)
Eric and F5, can I buy you a buy? i'll have tea though.

04 Feb 2005 | Paul said...

or was it "beer"? oups. anyway...

04 Feb 2005 | Eric said...

I don't think everything needs to be backed up by data. One can like a graphical element on a web page on an intuitive level, and one may hypothesize why they like it.

But it's not OK to make such a hard claim like this if you're just making it up:

The brain processes the word "wednesday" faster because its position on the bar compared to the others hints at its "position" within the week.

At the very least one would need to qualify it, with a "Perhaps..." or "I wonder if...". Anything less is dishonest.

And I certainly hope a web developer wouldn't make such a claim to a client as fact.

So, given all the responses to my provocatively worded question, including Paul's own, it would look like he did, in fact, pull that "factoid" from his lower orifice.

04 Feb 2005 | 8500 said...

Given the topic of keeping it simple, can we please just call them Ass Facts? It will minimize my cognitive load. Thanks.

06 Feb 2005 | Holy Cow said...

If you want to lower the cognitive load even further, I suggest you just call it "shit", because that's what comes out of your ass.

So this statement:

"So, given all the responses to my provocatively worded question, including Paul's own, it would look like he did, in fact, pull that "factoid" from his lower orifice."

BECOMES:

"So everyone is just spouting shit"

Ain't simplicity grand?

07 Feb 2005 | Paul said...

just passed by to say Hi.
you guys need to do some reading... You'll learn stuff...
Go get that library membership.
oh, and can you spare some paper mate?

07 Feb 2005 | 8500 said...

Actually I would like to clarify my definition of Ass Fact:
It might be true or it might be false (and is therefore different than shit) but it is unsupported and unproven.

11 Feb 2005 | Douglas said...

> Is that true, as in backed up by reputable
> (i.e., peer-reviewed) data

Since when does peer-reviewed == true?

Chill out... over here in the western world time goes from left to right*. Wednesday is on the left of Thursday, so the former must have come before the latter.

Douglas

*If you don't believe that, take a look at any timeline. Even this line of text, things which come "before" are on the left of things which come "after". Before. After. Get it?