You're presuming that you can do all the manipulating and creating of a file without being able to work with the file itself, which I have my doubts about.
Well, I'm not sure if this is what you mean, exactly, but...
I can take a photo with my camera, plug it in to the computer, import the photo into iPhoto (this is done by clicking the photo itself and clicking import - there's no generic "file" icon displayed or choices about where to save anything), then do some red eye reduction, maybe some cropping, and finally click Share/Email and send the edited photo to someone else. This is all done without ever having to care about any underlying "file."
But no-one is suggesting that we actually get rid of the underlying files. They'll still exist, so different programs can still exchange information that way.
The problem is more centered on the idea that a document is pretty much useless without the application that can read it. So why not make this link explicit?
Case in point. A friend of mine is in a band - they've just released their first album. Whilst trying to drum up some buzz, they distributed one of the songs on the album as an .mp3. Trouble is, the guy exported the song as an AAC, but he named the file blahblah.mp3. Then, iTunes and WMP both refused to play the file because the format didn't match the file extension. This sort of error should just plain flat out not be possible. It's a song, not a file, and it should not be possible to create grief by stuffing up the name of the object as the computer sees it.
You care about files because you have to, not because you want to. As a content producer I consider every abstraction that lets me ignore the fact that the project I'm working on is actually made up of tens of thousands of files in dozens of different formats an unequivocal good thing.
That is absolutely untrue. It's pretty clear that Buzz was inspired by Brightkite. I'm not going to pass judgement on the similarity, but the inspiration is clear.
It's not a native app either, it's a web app that doesn't have standard controls. They could design it however they wanted as long as they could build it in HTML.
That being said, the Google Buzz app is just using the same UI library that Google has developed for all their other mobile offers (Gmail, Calendar, GTalk, etc.).
I think you have two things:
1. Google developed their library of UI elements that looks a lot like the iPhone ones.
2. Using that library, they made a new interface for Buzz. It does look very similar to Brightkite's, but only the location part can be really argued as "inspired", the rest is pretty standard indeed.
The "location" element that shows the bakery info ("X" on the left, text, then ">" on the right) is non-standard and seems pretty blatantly... "inspired".
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that.
Interesting, anecdote, but user tests show that you are in the minority. About 80% of people immediately scroll down when they reach a new page with sparse content at the top of the page.
We are still working out the best patterns for web browsing. The web is still surprisingly young. That 20% will learn eventually. Make it easy on the eyes, space it out, consider your use of typography, and avoid TL;DR. These concepts seem like they will persist.
To use those design tenants we just need more space. If that means moving the meat of the page below the fold and keeping a nice hook up at the top then I believe that's the way future web design patterns will go.
The recurring theme here is that Amazon didn't properly communicate anything to most of the people who were affected. The publisher is behaving very strategically at this point in attempting to promote its newly formed partnership with Apple and Amazon basically played into their hands by not presenting their side of the story soon enough.
Nope, I taxied and rode the train when I was in Boston.
I had a hard time with the beltway in Virginia/D.C. (I drove it twice and went the wrong way both times) and Denver/Boulder. I might hate them equally if I had to live in those places. I lived in Houston for 7 years and Austin for 6, and Houston has the nicest roads and signage of any city I've ever visited. Austin gets a lot of complaints, but I never had much trouble there.
I'm dysgraphic, and the directional component has the most noticeable impact on my day to day. If I have the option to turn and have no signs to tell me which way is which, I will choose the wrong direction at least 50% of the time. I occasionally get lost in parking lots (seriously, the big shopping center at Showers/San Antonio in Mountain View; I've been lost in that lot several times).
So, maybe for some folks California is fine. For me it is a seriously hostile driving environment. Luckily, I don't drive much.
