nina scaletti

Temporarily Offline

Nina — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:37:48 +0000

Until the creator of AsideShop gets around to upgrading his/her plugin, I will be turning off the syndication for my lifestream here. I have set up a temporary reprieve at FriendFeed until I can get things back online. DO NOT UPGRADE TO WORDPRESS 2.8 IF YOU DEPEND ON ASIDESHOP.

DON’T GET THAT COLLEGE DEGREE! – New York Post

Nina — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:44:10 +0000

DON'T GET THAT COLLEGE DEGREE! - New York Post: I only read a few paragraphs before I got too...

If You’re Taking Away Features From Users, Don’t Tell Them It’s For Their Own Benefit

Nina — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:54:47 +0000

Sometimes, I really wonder if companies think their users are stupid. There are times when they treat them that way. My favorite examples are when companies are taking away features or raising prices, and claiming (somehow) that it's for the benefit of those customers/users. For example, when eMusic raised prices and disabled features it put up a blog post trying to spin it as a positive, claiming "more of the good stuff!" Yes, at a higher price, with fewer features, but why let that get in the way of claiming good news?

The latest example is online music streaming site imeem. The company has struggled of late under absolutely draconian terms forced on it by the record labels. Rumors held that the company came close to going out of business until Warner Music agreed to renegotiate its suffocating deal. Still, there are many who question how the company can survive without a drastic change in business models. But, taking away features from customers with little warning and pretending it's a good thing isn't exactly the best way to go about things. Clay Shirky points us to the news that imeem is removing features for users to upload videos or pictures without even offering a "download to save" option. But, even worse, the blog post announcing the change tries to play this up as good news again, saying that it's all about "simplifying imeem" as part of an effort to enhance the site.

Sure, simplifying a site can be a good thing -- but unilaterally removing features that people use, with little warning, isn't really simplifying. You can simplify without removing features. If you have to remove features, for whatever reason, why not at least admit the truth: it's not for consumer's benefit, but for some other reason, and you realize it sucks for many users.

In other words, sound human, rather acting like your users are morons. If you want to see a company that's actually done a good job of this, look at Hulu. While we think it's ridiculous that the company caved in to content providers and tried (and failed) to block a specific browser (Boxee) from viewing its content, at least Hulu's CEO was upfront and honest about the fact that it sucked:

The maddening part of writing this blog entry is that we realize that there is no immediate win here for users. Please know that we take very seriously our role of representing users such that we are able to provide more and more content in more and more ways over time. We embrace this activity in ways that respect content owners' -- and even the entire industry's -- challenges to create great content that users love. Yes, it's a complex matter. A tough mission, and a never-ending one, but one we are passionately committed to.

For those Boxee users reading this post, we understand and appreciate that you're likely to tell us that we're nuts. Please know that we do share the same interests and won't stop innovating in support of the bigger mission.

eMusic, imeem and others would be wise to take note. Taking features away and pretending your customers are stupid enough to believe it's for their benefit isn't likely to fly.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

via imgur.com So true. Pixar > Dreamworks.

Nina — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:59:50 +0000

via imgur.com

So true. Pixar > Dreamworks.

nscaletti: Just felt something tickle my foot. Turned around to pet Piper, but she was nowhere near my feet. I’m officially freaked out.

Nina — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:26:51 +0000

nscaletti: Just felt something tickle my foot. Turned around to pet Piper, but she was nowhere near my feet. I'm officially freaked out.

Blogging to the Middle: Simplifying Financial Aid Applications

Nina — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:18:00 +0000

Here at the Middle Class Task Force, we have been working on ways to make college more affordable for families in America. The President, the Vice President and the Middle Class Task Force are committed to making sure that every student has the oppor...

Amber – This Is Your Night

nscaletti — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:14:02 +0000

Sometimes, you just need some '90's dance music. Like today!

nscaletti: Sometimes, you just need some ’90’s dance music. Like today! ♫ http://blip.fm/~935jq

Nina — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:14:02 +0000

nscaletti: Sometimes, you just need some '90's dance music. Like today! ♫ http://blip.fm/~935jq

Make a DIY Macro Lens from Old Binoculars

Nina — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:00:00 +0000

A high-end macro lens for your camera can easily run upwards of a thousand dollars, but you can make a super-simple macro lens for a few bucks out of old binoculars.

If you have a pair of old binoculars laying around and a roll of electrical tape, you'll be able to complete your DIY macro lens with no cash outlay. If you're short of both, you'll need to keep an eye out for some old binoculars at a garage sale or thrift store.

Your total cost for the project should be under $5 or so with some careful secondhand shopping. Check out the video below to see just how easy it is to scavenge the parts from some old binoculars to make a poor man's macro lens:

What you end up with is no substitution for a $1,000 Nikon Micro-Nikkor lens, but a little compromise is in order when you're spending 1/200th the amount and using electrical tape to hold things together. If you have your own clever, and hopefully thrifty, photography hacks to share, sound off in the comments below.

DIY Macro Lens Made from Binoculars [MetaCafe]

“Hate crime law is, ideally, a way to punish someone for committing a form of terrorism, targeting…”

Nina — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:39:05 +0000

“Hate crime law is, ideally, a way to punish someone for committing a form of terrorism,...