Posted in Uncategorized on January 8th, 2008 2 Comments »
Vista’s photo manager has a built in tagging facility. Yay!
But I couldn’t figure out how to apply tags to photos until I checked the built-in help. The photo manager shows you your photos on the right and your list of tags on the left. I kept trying to drag tags onto the photos. Nope. You have to drag your photos onto your tags.
This strikes me as weird. It’s less convenient because when you drag a photo, you are dragging a translucent image of the photo, which makes it a little hard to see the list over which you’re dragging it. It’s do-able, but it’s not as easy as dragging a little bit of text onto a great big image.
So, why would Microsoft design it this way? All I can figure is that the designers were thinking that tags are like categories: Bins into which things go. For most of us, however, tags are labels that get attached to things. It works either way, but the “containment” metaphor seems inappropriate for tags… [Tags: tagging vista categories taxonomy folksonomy everything_is_miscellaneous ]
Posted in Uncategorized on January 8th, 2008 No Comments »
That’s the title of Max Kiesler’s Oct 7, 2007 post, and it’s perfectly descriptive. It’s a useful list.
Posted in Uncategorized on January 6th, 2008 No Comments »
Andy Carvin (in a tweet) points to the Wikipedia entry on the phrase “Viewers like you.” All part of the Web’s dismantling (and reassembling) of the traditional notion of topics.
[Tags: wikipedia npr andy_carvin ]
Posted in Uncategorized on January 4th, 2008 No Comments »
A: Probably this: How to organize Lego bricks.
(Thanks to Kevin Marks for the link.) [Tags: lego ocd organization messiness ]
Posted in Uncategorized on January 2nd, 2008 No Comments »
Bill Buford, writing in the New Yorker (Dec. 3, 2007), notes that the American versions of two books about meat don’t contain the same diagrams of cut-up animals:
What none of these writers acknowledges is probably something that all of them discovered right before their books were published: that there is no universal, accepted practice for cutting up an animal, that it has always been nationally and sometimes regionally determined, and that there is not, therefore, a universal set of butcher’s terms that can be translated from one language to another. Maybe, in this respect, Fearnley-Whittingstall’s instructions for butchering a piece of lamb are the most sensible after all: the only way you’ll learn is by hacking into it, and so you may as well brave the mess.
So much for Socrates’ admonition to carve nature at its joints…
[Tags: bill_buford meat taxonomy plato socrates everything_is_miscellaneous ]