On Tim Cook being “the first”

Alanna Petroff, writing for CNN.com:

It’s a landmark moment for both the gay community and the business world. Tim Cook is now the first and only openly gay chief executive in the Fortune 500.

Of course, many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered employees still struggle with discrimination at work. The executive suite also remains extremely closeted, but there are a few high-ranking openly gay businesspeople.

Not to detract from their accomplishments or their struggles, but none of these examples come close to Tim Cook in terms of power or visibility. It’s like pointing out the US had prominent black politicians before Obama; not to take away from any of them, but there is a clear difference. Cook is the first openly gay CEO of a Fortune 500 company, and it’s a company with a track record the other 499 would kill to have.

I remember when “Apple is so gay” was a common juvenile taunt. For all I know, it still is. Regardless, times have changed, and we should all be comfortable responding to that taunt with “You say that like it’s a bad thing.”

Radar’s UI For Entering New Issues

UI rule of thumb: use the biggest buttons for the most likely actions.

UI rule of thumb: Convey a sense of progression by putting a sequence of steps in a row or column, one after another.

Corollary to that second rule of thumb: Having led the user through a list of actions, don’t make the last thing on the list “Cancel everything I just did”, because that is very likely not what they want.

Pop quiz: How many of the above rules of thumb does Radar break here?

Extra credit: Did you think to yourself, “On iOS it’s normal for the ‘Done’ button to be at the top right corner, so this makes perfect sense”? Or did you think to yourself, “This is not iOS”?

Radar new issue UI

UPDATE 2014-09-09: Great news from Zach Drayer:

Just a Tool

When it comes to the “Mac or PC” question, I am not neutral. It’s more that I decided at a certain point to wash my hands of the business of telling people which to buy. I am not the right person to ask, if only because I lack perspective, and I will avoid that conversation whenever possible. When pressed, I will say “Buy what’s right for you”, because that really is sound advice.

What I never say is “It’s just a tool.” To be honest, that sentence makes me feel a little sick and sad inside. Like many people who live by their tools, I feel there is no such thing as “just a tool”.

The Power of Unoriginal Storytelling

A friend posted this video on Facebook:

The video tells a story, but its purpose goes beyond storytelling: it is a marketing tactic used by a company that sells copywriting services. The blind man represents potential clients, the pedestrians are potential customers of those clients, and the mysterious woman represents Purplefeather.

According to the description on YouTube it is an “[h]omage to Historia de un letrero, The Story of a Sign by Alonso Alvarez Barreda”, where “homage” really means “remake”. You could argue that it was sleazy of Purplefeather to rip off the earlier film. You could also argue that there’s nothing wrong with a remake, especially when the source is itself a retelling of a previously told story. Regardless, I’m not sure why Purplefeather wouldn’t demonstrate its copywriting skills by writing something original.

Something else feels off to me: I’ve seen comments in various places describing the story as “beautiful” and “powerful”, but to me, the core message of the story is not particularly heartwarming or inspiring. The good samaritan is kind of a jerk, altering the sign without permission and without telling the blind man what it says. And the good samaritan as a proxy for the storyteller (i.e., the filmmaker) seems a bit self-congratulatory, as if saying to the audience, “Aren’t you glad I taught you this lesson about marketing?”

To me it is an interesting parable about human nature, but the same point could have been made with the “blind” man actually being a con artist whose “sales” have been slumping until he himself comes up with the clever marketing tactic. Different story with the same lesson: how you convey your message affects the material rewards it will get you. And perhaps a secondary lesson: people want to be compassionate, but sometimes you have to sell them a little on the idea.

On the other hand, “Historia de un letrero” was a winner at Cannes in 2008, I suspect because it was seen as heartwarming. Maybe the filmmakers would not have won if they had told my con-artist version of the story. So maybe the story is itself a demonstration that how you convey your message matters — even when the message is that “How you convey your message matters.”

Who’s on First

A friend posted this on Facebook:

I think it’s okay. It respects the original while adding a little something fresh. I wonder who the guy who plays “What” is. I felt bad when he didn’t get big cheers like the others.

To be honest, for a long time I had found the original a little stale, but I think that’s because I’d heard so many amateur reenactments. No offense to the amateurs — this routine was practically made to be repeated and enjoyed by all comers forever and ever — but I just watched a couple of Abbott and Costello’s performances, and you can see the difference between mastering the lines and mastering the performance. It’s all about the reactions. It’s no use delivering the lines with rapid-fire precision if we don’t see the cumulative effect on Costello’s emotions, while Abbott in his own mind is giving exactly the perfectly reasonable answers Costello is asking. To get those reactions — and to keep the wording confusing enough for Costello but clear enough for the audience, without sounding scripted — that’s the brilliance of this routine. I am sure it could only have been accomplished over thousands of rehearsals and hundreds of performances.

Here’s one performance:

When I watched this video I noticed it didn’t exactly match the script I’ve heard over and over. It turns out:

“Who’s on First?” is believed to be available in as many as 20 versions, ranging from one minute to about 10 minutes. The team could time the routine at will, adding or deleting portions as needed for films, radio, or television.

That they could adjust bits of it on demand and keep up the speed and spontaneity is just another sign of their brilliance and virtuosity.