I noticed on .NET Undocumented that Microsoft is currently accepting votes as to how important it is to have updated icons distributed with Visual Studio 2005. (You will need a Passport to vote, and you may have to fill out some minor registration details.)
Personally, I think that Microsoft should go one step farther. Any icon released with any of their application programs should be released with an icon for unrestricted free use on Windows platforms.
Why? Microsoft hired artists and paid them a pretty penny to make those icons easy to use and understandable? Why would Microsoft release those icons for free use? Easy. Microsoft has a vested interest in it. Microsoft is always pushing the Windows User Experience. They've even got the Official Guidelines online for anyone to read. While not as strict as Apple's UI Guidelines, Microsoft's are very straightforward, and stress the uniformity of the Windows User Experience.
The entire concept behind Windows is that your programs look and function in a similar fashion. With Visual Studio 2005, Microsoft is providing developers with UI controls that finally look and function like the controls in Office 2003.
Microsoft invests millions of dollars every year in usability research. These icons and controls are the result of that research. In order for that research to advance the Windows platform, Microsoft has essentially two choices here.
One: Microsoft can maintain the status quo. Microsoft can leave the UI resources included with Visual Studio at the same level that it has been since Visual Basic 1.0...Windows 3.0 icons and graphics. This works well for third party developers like Infragistics. They can sell overpriced controls that look and feel like Microsoft's controls. Those who cannot afford these controls are forced to look for open source controls or spend a massive amount of time reinventing the wheel.
Two: Microsoft can release their UI components or act-alikes with Visual Studio. The average appearance of Windows software from 3rd parties will improve dramatically (or legally, in the cases where people have jacked the UI components without permission). Infragistics and friends will have to actually work on dramatically new components.
Now, I'm not talking about display components, like charting components. Those are a definite value-add to the product that they come in. I'm talking about the basic UI components: buttons, menus, menubars, scrollbars, the icon glyphs that accompany certain tasks, those sorts of things.
Microsoft, if you give us the tools we need to make Windows more attractive with a low cost, we can make it harder to look at Linux as an alternative. Don't make us reinvent the wheel to keep up, and we'll spend that extra effort pushing the Windows platform ahead.
September 30, 2004
September 29, 2004
GAG: The Newsletter, The Dream, The Reality
Back when I was working the arcade in the Ogden City Mall, I started writing a small newsletter for our regular customers. It was called "GAG: The Gamers Advocacy Group." It was just a single sheet photocopied at my own expense that I would give to our regulars. It would have tips on new moves for the games, reviews of games from other arcades, and information on upcoming games.
I kept writing the newsletter for the next several years, transitioning it to an E-mail list in 1994. It varied between daily and weekly, depending on how much news I could dig up. I'd always include my own smart-ass reviews and take on the news as well. At its peak, my subscriber list was in the mid-500's, which wasn't too bad. A good two-thirds of my subscribers were developers, testers, etc., who enjoyed feeding me information.
When I joined Access Software, I was told that I could continue to do GAG under two conditions. First, I was not allowed to talk about any Access Software product in the newsletter. Second, I was not allowed to mention that I worked for Access Software. They did that as a precautionary measure. They didn't want anything I said to come back to them. In addition to keeping the promise, I also added the standard "opinions are my own, not necessarily that of my employer" clause to the bottom of my messages.
When Microsoft acquired Access, I had to put GAG on hold while Microsoft Legal reviewed my agreement. Imagine my surprise when they said I could continue to do GAG as long as I didn't tell people I worked for Microsoft. They actually removed one of the restrictions on me. I still didn't cover titles from my studio, but everything else in Microsoft was fair game.
GAG was fun, and I kept doing it to keep my sanity. However, the workload at Microsoft is heinous. Going from daily to weekly to monthly was a horrible experience. I put GAG on hiatus in late 2001, and when I lost the subscriber list in early 2002 due to a hard drive crash, most of my motivation to continue GAG went away.
It's a shame, too. If I had been able to keep the time to do it, I might not have burned out as bad at Microsoft as I had.
I kept writing the newsletter for the next several years, transitioning it to an E-mail list in 1994. It varied between daily and weekly, depending on how much news I could dig up. I'd always include my own smart-ass reviews and take on the news as well. At its peak, my subscriber list was in the mid-500's, which wasn't too bad. A good two-thirds of my subscribers were developers, testers, etc., who enjoyed feeding me information.
When I joined Access Software, I was told that I could continue to do GAG under two conditions. First, I was not allowed to talk about any Access Software product in the newsletter. Second, I was not allowed to mention that I worked for Access Software. They did that as a precautionary measure. They didn't want anything I said to come back to them. In addition to keeping the promise, I also added the standard "opinions are my own, not necessarily that of my employer" clause to the bottom of my messages.
When Microsoft acquired Access, I had to put GAG on hold while Microsoft Legal reviewed my agreement. Imagine my surprise when they said I could continue to do GAG as long as I didn't tell people I worked for Microsoft. They actually removed one of the restrictions on me. I still didn't cover titles from my studio, but everything else in Microsoft was fair game.
GAG was fun, and I kept doing it to keep my sanity. However, the workload at Microsoft is heinous. Going from daily to weekly to monthly was a horrible experience. I put GAG on hiatus in late 2001, and when I lost the subscriber list in early 2002 due to a hard drive crash, most of my motivation to continue GAG went away.
It's a shame, too. If I had been able to keep the time to do it, I might not have burned out as bad at Microsoft as I had.
Charity for Florida
Just a reminder: if you're going to donate to the rebuilding of Florida, remember to donate to an established charitable organization. They have the infrastructure in place and the connections to ensure that your money gets put to the best possible use.
I donate to The United Way. I can't donate much...after all, I took a 33% pay cut when I left Microsoft. But I donate what I can.
I donate to The United Way. I can't donate much...after all, I took a 33% pay cut when I left Microsoft. But I donate what I can.
September 28, 2004
Links LS 1999 Edition: Links, the Access way
I was thrown in feet first working on Links LS 1999 Edition. This was the first iteration of Links to allow St. Andrew's-style pit bunkers, as well as the first iteration to support 3D objects. I was brought in near the tail-end of the development cycle, so the development team was really starting to crack down on bug submissions.
Let me see how I can best sum up the Access way of doing things: ship it and patch it until it was right. Access had their cost structure set up in such a way that support calls weren't the death knell that they are to the rest of the industry. They also had a bit of a secret margin on every unit (more on that later).
As a result of the Access way, testing was pretty much an afterthought. The test plan was to throw the test department and the tech support staff at the game until it broke, fix it, and repeat. The test department received the manual for a tech review three days after it went to press. Needless to say, it was an interesting experience.
There were a few things that surprised me, however. Very few people worked on Sundays. Admittedly, this is a very religious state, but in other local game companies, Sunday was just another day. The only real pressure in the office was pressure that you placed on yourself to do great work. I remember Les Oswald re-editing video clips of the courses over and over again because they just didn't feel right to him.
My most vivid memory of that product was the first bug I had to fight for. Near the first tee box on St. Andrews Old Course is a little shack. Due to a bug in the 3D model, you could see through the undersides of the shack roof. (The normals were facing wrong on the polygons.) It basically looked like total ass. I bugged it, and it came back "Won't Fix." It took me nearly two weeks of arguing up the chain of command to get it fixed. The fix took less than 20 minutes to find and fix. This series of events is one that becomes all-too-common for a tester.
So, what was the secret margin on each box of Links LS 1999 Edition? Would you believe that it was the box itself? Of course you wouldn't. That's why it was a secret.
Near the end of his service at Microsoft, he may have become a raging egomaniac because of PC Gamer calling him a "Game God," but you can say one thing for Bruce Carver...he was a hell of a negotiator. Due to his price negotiation skills, the price for the box was about one-fifth the price that other companies paid for their boxes. On Microsoft Golf 2001 Edition, a plain, non-embossed box with a paper sleeve to hold the disk and no manual had a total materials cost of goods of nearly $10, whereas the LS99 packaging, with multiple CD's, Arnold Palmer embossed on the package, a real jewel case, a full manual, etc., and a flap on the box was sub-$5.
In an industry where every dollar extra on a franchise can amount to boucoup bucks, Bruce's packaging helped ensure a steady revenue source...especially since the packaging for the courses was even cheaper.
He bought the disk cases in bulk from cheap manufacturers. He bought the boxes from local companies that wanted the recurring business and were willing to offer discounts for repeat customers. His shipping and packaging staff was a skeleton crew. He only cello-wrapped the course boxes, not the main game. He took care of the disk replication locally. Finally, in order to get the game packed and shipped to stores in time, he called in on his secret weapon: every employee at Access.
Any other time, his skeleton crew could handle the packaging and shipping, but not on day one. Most of the developers were salaried. Everyone else was pretty cheap. So for one day, he sent everyone in the company over to the warehouse, and the entire company packed up the game. I shifted between slipping the liner art into the front cover of the jewel case and putting disk #3 in the case.
Remember: if you already have a sunk cost in staffing, and it would cost an inordinately large amount to bring on temp staff to handle a job for you, screw the temp staff. Use your currently sunk cost.
It was an interesting experience that led me into my first lead assignment, Links Extreme, which is where I learned my first bit of what test should not do. It was also the beginning of the end for many things. More on that later.
By the way, if any old Access/Microsoft cronies read this and see mistakes, please post them in the comments so I can correct them. Thanks.
Let me see how I can best sum up the Access way of doing things: ship it and patch it until it was right. Access had their cost structure set up in such a way that support calls weren't the death knell that they are to the rest of the industry. They also had a bit of a secret margin on every unit (more on that later).
As a result of the Access way, testing was pretty much an afterthought. The test plan was to throw the test department and the tech support staff at the game until it broke, fix it, and repeat. The test department received the manual for a tech review three days after it went to press. Needless to say, it was an interesting experience.
There were a few things that surprised me, however. Very few people worked on Sundays. Admittedly, this is a very religious state, but in other local game companies, Sunday was just another day. The only real pressure in the office was pressure that you placed on yourself to do great work. I remember Les Oswald re-editing video clips of the courses over and over again because they just didn't feel right to him.
My most vivid memory of that product was the first bug I had to fight for. Near the first tee box on St. Andrews Old Course is a little shack. Due to a bug in the 3D model, you could see through the undersides of the shack roof. (The normals were facing wrong on the polygons.) It basically looked like total ass. I bugged it, and it came back "Won't Fix." It took me nearly two weeks of arguing up the chain of command to get it fixed. The fix took less than 20 minutes to find and fix. This series of events is one that becomes all-too-common for a tester.
So, what was the secret margin on each box of Links LS 1999 Edition? Would you believe that it was the box itself? Of course you wouldn't. That's why it was a secret.
Near the end of his service at Microsoft, he may have become a raging egomaniac because of PC Gamer calling him a "Game God," but you can say one thing for Bruce Carver...he was a hell of a negotiator. Due to his price negotiation skills, the price for the box was about one-fifth the price that other companies paid for their boxes. On Microsoft Golf 2001 Edition, a plain, non-embossed box with a paper sleeve to hold the disk and no manual had a total materials cost of goods of nearly $10, whereas the LS99 packaging, with multiple CD's, Arnold Palmer embossed on the package, a real jewel case, a full manual, etc., and a flap on the box was sub-$5.
In an industry where every dollar extra on a franchise can amount to boucoup bucks, Bruce's packaging helped ensure a steady revenue source...especially since the packaging for the courses was even cheaper.
He bought the disk cases in bulk from cheap manufacturers. He bought the boxes from local companies that wanted the recurring business and were willing to offer discounts for repeat customers. His shipping and packaging staff was a skeleton crew. He only cello-wrapped the course boxes, not the main game. He took care of the disk replication locally. Finally, in order to get the game packed and shipped to stores in time, he called in on his secret weapon: every employee at Access.
Any other time, his skeleton crew could handle the packaging and shipping, but not on day one. Most of the developers were salaried. Everyone else was pretty cheap. So for one day, he sent everyone in the company over to the warehouse, and the entire company packed up the game. I shifted between slipping the liner art into the front cover of the jewel case and putting disk #3 in the case.
Remember: if you already have a sunk cost in staffing, and it would cost an inordinately large amount to bring on temp staff to handle a job for you, screw the temp staff. Use your currently sunk cost.
It was an interesting experience that led me into my first lead assignment, Links Extreme, which is where I learned my first bit of what test should not do. It was also the beginning of the end for many things. More on that later.
By the way, if any old Access/Microsoft cronies read this and see mistakes, please post them in the comments so I can correct them. Thanks.
Fable: Great with one exception...
I borrowed Fable on Saturday, and beat it last night after exactly 10 hours of gameplay. I enjoyed it, and will buy it when it becomes a Platinum Hit, but they made one design decision that pissed me off to no end.
<----- WARNING: SPOILERS FOR FABLE AHEAD ----->
When I beat the end boss, my character was pegged good. At the end of the game, you are given a choice between killing your sister with a magical sword, or casting the sword into a swirling vortex and making it go away forever.
I chose to throw it away, I got the good good ending, and skipped the end credits.
Turns out that if you skip the end credits, you can't keep playing the game. That pissed me off.
So, I reloaded the last autosave, beat the end boss in 4 minutes, killed my sister, got the bad good ending, and then waited for fifteen minutes for the end credits to end. I don't know how much extra crap they could have put in the end credits. Who cares that you had Chinese takeout 2,828 times during the making of your game?
Anyway, I was so pissed after the credits that I went on a rampage. First, I went to Lady Grey's bedroom and beat the living shit out of her until she divorced me. Then, I went to every town in the game, slaughtered every single inhabitant, bought their homes, and put them up for rent.
After doing that, I was only half-evil.
<----- FABLE SPOILERS OVER ----->
In short, we should be able to skip cutscenes, credits, etc., without penalty. Forcing us to submit to your vanity scroll in order to advance in the game is just bad manners, and you should all feel very bad about it.
<----- WARNING: SPOILERS FOR FABLE AHEAD ----->
When I beat the end boss, my character was pegged good. At the end of the game, you are given a choice between killing your sister with a magical sword, or casting the sword into a swirling vortex and making it go away forever.
I chose to throw it away, I got the good good ending, and skipped the end credits.
Turns out that if you skip the end credits, you can't keep playing the game. That pissed me off.
So, I reloaded the last autosave, beat the end boss in 4 minutes, killed my sister, got the bad good ending, and then waited for fifteen minutes for the end credits to end. I don't know how much extra crap they could have put in the end credits. Who cares that you had Chinese takeout 2,828 times during the making of your game?
Anyway, I was so pissed after the credits that I went on a rampage. First, I went to Lady Grey's bedroom and beat the living shit out of her until she divorced me. Then, I went to every town in the game, slaughtered every single inhabitant, bought their homes, and put them up for rent.
After doing that, I was only half-evil.
<----- FABLE SPOILERS OVER ----->
In short, we should be able to skip cutscenes, credits, etc., without penalty. Forcing us to submit to your vanity scroll in order to advance in the game is just bad manners, and you should all feel very bad about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)