Categories
Category: maeda.dev
Page Slider
Not null-safety ready but simple and easy
Carousel Slider
This has much of the function needed.
Cool Stepper
Forms oriented and informative approach.
Swiping Card Deck
This solution is more tinder-like.
Appinio Swiper
All about the movement and one undo level.
Swipeable Card Stack
Has the vertical angle.
Card Swiper
More like a carousel
Swipe Deck
Like a deck of cards.
Flicked Cards
This one is extra fancy
If you happen to be in a “stepping” mood, these articles are useful:
I’ve been thinking about LEAD and how it helps define consumer experiences. And in the enterprise software space, I needed to have a different instrument to sum up the non-experiential aspects as a starting point. So this post is the first draft of what I’m referring to as “CASES” as a starting point for the future:
- Comprehensive: “Does so many kinds of things.” (breadth) or “Does that one thing flawlessly.” (depth)
alt: Collaborative: “We work together remotely.” - Adaptive: “Evolves over time.”
Smart, Intelligent, Versioned, Automated. - Secure: “Got your back.”
Reliable, Supportive, Private, Accountable. - Extensible: “Future proof.”
Flexible, Connectable, Augmentable. - Sustainable: “Guilt free.”
Responsible, Considered, Auditable.
This is a v 0.1 and I’m curious if I’ll come back to it in the future. Let’s see. Oh weird, the title for this post also spells CASES. I guess that means this might stick for me. LOL. —JM
“CASES: Core Attributes of Superior Enterprise Software”
Categories
For Developers Learning Design
There are a few resources that I’ve found useful to teach developers about design.
“For Developers Learning Design”
Categories
Dev-as-Marketing
From my blog post, “Charles Gross on Product Marketing and Dev-as-Marketing (2013)”
I watched this YT video via the YT rec engine this morning. It is way back in 2013 from a Google Ventures startup gathering in SV the same year that I landed there — so I wish I saw this live!
Categories
Design and Developer Partnerships
I did an interview with Rachel Been that posted over here. —JM
John Maeda: I think the education system has created this dichotomy. While studying at MIT, I had the engineer’s problem of being able to build anything, but not knowing what to build. It was only after attending art school—and discovering what to build—that I could combine the two. It takes a developer who’s gone to the design side to appreciate what engineering can be, and it takes a designer who understands that the “religion” they were taught is slightly incorrect, because it was conceived when there weren’t high-end computational systems. If you think of designing a chair out of wood, that religion still works fine, because that’s something that creates a great chair. However, if you’re making something on the computer, that religion has to adapt and change.
“Design and Developer Partnerships”
Categories
We Always Go Back
I recall noticing when I was younger that folks who go across many fields tend to go back to their home field when they get older. Hmmmm. I wonder if that’s what’s happening to me? —JM
Categories
Hello World
Hi there, This is YAB (Yet Another Blog) I’m starting. It’s using a vintage,
Kim Scott once told me a story of how they’d drink a beer together during a Google hangout across timezones. When I was at Automattic, I recall having people check-in with their meal of choice. It all makes me wonder if there’s a world of phavatars — physical avatars to create persistence and accountability.
What’s the BFD if you’re not a remote team? I strongly suggest that IRL teams use virtual sticky-noting technologies when they’re together just because it’s faster and because it scales so fluidly. Also you have the shared artifact always available to you for later use. And throw in some virtual food if you need to, like me. —JM
I’ve been reading an old McKinsey report from HBR (2001) about the “War For Talent” by Ed Michaels, Helen Handfield-Jones, and Beth Axelrod and loved this table:
| The Old Reality |
The New Reality |
| People need companies | Companies need people |
| Machines, capital, and geography are the competitive advantage |
Talented people are the competitive advantage |
| Better talent makes some difference |
Better talent makes a huge difference |
| Jobs are scarce | Talented people are scarce |
| Employees are loyal and jobs are secure | People are mobile and their commitment is short term |
| People accept the standard package they are offered |
People demand much more |