Page 698 of 716

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 11:31 am UTC
by Sableagle
Poll options for pin-up art based on cartoon characters, chosen from popular requests on the Patreon feed

Bikini ... double FV5 bikini ... Busty ... Extra busty ... bustier ... supercharged zapping ... Quadruple Tea'ed ... at 'next years' convention ... Double FV5 ... busty ... at what point breasts are "too big" ... Normal female Tedd to Distraction Ted ... Regular Sarah to vampire Sarah ... FV5 ... Busty ...


Bear in mind that "FV5" anyone, "zapping," "Tea," "Distraction Ted," "vampire Sarah" and "Other Susan" all include larger breasts, and so does "Dynamic Morph Watches Are Finicky."

Some of the pinups so far

Vampire Sarah
Susan to Other Susan
Finding the right size is difficult even if your bust size wasn’t sabotaged by your girlfriend.
V5 Bikini Fund Sarah
Live Tea Mishap
Dynamic Morph Watches Are Finicky
FV5 Misfire


I know, I know, everyone's got different tastes and all that, but ...

... yes, breasts happen. GET OVER IT. I can be the only one whose idea of an attractive female figure doesn't look like:

Image

... can I?

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 4:26 pm UTC
by Flumble
I don't know what the hell you're on about, sableagle, but thanks for introducing me to EGS. :)

My interpretation of your post so far is that you'd rather see a pin-up of a female without an F cup or larger. My retort would then be: isn't that the definition of a pin-up? An image of a person* with egregious body proportions in erotic pose and/or clothes?

*fine, male pin-ups exist too. Though, I've never seen either in print in real life.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 5:21 pm UTC
by Sableagle
Flumble wrote:I don't know what the hell you're on about, sableagle, but thanks for introducing me to EGS. :)

My interpretation of your post so far is that you'd rather see a pin-up of a female without an F cup or larger. My retort would then be: isn't that the definition of a pin-up? An image of a person* with egregious body proportions in erotic pose and/or clothes?

*fine, male pin-ups exist too. Though, I've never seen either in print in real life.

Male pin-ups I have seen IRL. Tall, gorgeous Jane down the hall had a room [u]full[u] of male pin-up posters, all muscular, toned models posing to display their figures. One day she saw me coming out of the showers wearing only my trousers, looked me up and down and grinned. I felt fantastic seeing that reaction!

No, a pin-up doesn't have to have a ridiculous figure. Let me try to find some good examples ... which would be vastly easier if Google could be persuaded to leave out all the results on Pinterest that I can't actually share and which are therefore NO DAMN USE WHATSOEVER.

Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Search results for "hunk" for a comparison:
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image


Apparently one doesn't need biceps like rugby balls and deltoids that go straight from shoulder to ear to be considered a hunk, nor to be clean-shaven or have stubble.

Why is it that the fanclub seems so determined to insert a pair of beach balls into every female character's chest? Seriously, would this be more pleasing to watch if she COULDN'T do most of those moves because twenty pounds of lard got in her way and gave her a bad back? Are any of that first set of pictures totally unappealing because the breasts just aren't big enough? Is the most attractive woman in any line-up always "the one with the biggest tits" regardless of absolutely every other consideration? Given a choice between Wonder Woman, Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, Rogue, Mystique, Emma Frost, Lois Lane, Jane Grey, Athena, Diana, Dana, Ceinwen, Guinevere, Venus, Aphrodite, Kim Jung-un's cousin, Malia Obama, Angela Merkel, Anita Blake, Merry Gentry, Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, Lady Deathstrike, Salome, Osama Bin Laden's niece and the girl who just got off the bus at the same stop as you, is "the one with the biggest tits" the one and only correct choice of whom to ask out on a date?

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 5:55 pm UTC
by SecondTalon
There ... Isn't really a respectful way to say what I'm gonna say.

How old are you? I ask because your musings remind me of the typical 14-18 year old dude's first realizations of how advertising and things derived thereof cater to a very specific mindset, especially in regards to sex and sexuality, more or less pandering to the lowest common demominator in regards to the female form, creating a situation where people create and consume media meant for "the general audience" despite creator and consumer not having the typical attributes depicted high on their personal list of favored attributes.

Namely, blondes with large (but not too large) breasts, narrow waist, and moderately large hips (hip size variable by market)

Point being - no. You are not the only one. People - namely men - who prioritize large breasts are in the minority.

It's just that men who are okay with large breasts - not their #1 preference, but they're not going to not look either - are in the majority.

So you hit the largest market with large breasts. That's marketing.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:15 pm UTC
by Sableagle
SecondTalon wrote:There ... Isn't really a respectful way to say what I'm gonna say.
Well, don't let that stop you.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 9:59 pm UTC
by poxic
Also, large-breasted women reading your rant are probably going to feel pretty bad about themselves. Media behaviour is not really their fault.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:16 am UTC
by SecondTalon
Sableagle wrote:
SecondTalon wrote:There ... Isn't really a respectful way to say what I'm gonna say.
Well, don't let that stop you.

Hi. I'm an asshole.

But yes, also what poxic said.

You also are just providing one source. Perhaps that's the Goonish Shiv's artist's preference. If you want more variety in your cheesecake, Ménage a 3 may be more to your liking. Or Oglaf. Perhaps the Internet at large, outside of webcomics, can also be of service, as there are many sites out there catering to displaying women of more modest endowments.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:11 am UTC
by Fractal_Tangent
Sableagle, I really don't mind people being like 'I'd like a greater variety of bodies in my smut'. That's totally fine. I don't even mind 'This isn't what turns me on and I didn't vote for it' also a good sentiment. 'I don't like big tits, they look stupid' - nope.

More bodies are glorious, every color and size.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:27 am UTC
by pogrmman
I'm very upset at an airline right now. I was traveling yesterday (my birthday), and not only was my first light 1/2 an hour late, but my connecting flight was delayed at first 30 minutes, then 2 hours, then cancelled because there was no capitan. I got food vouchers and a hotel room and was booked on the next available flight (which was today). I wake up, and it's already delayed by 3 and a half hours. I get there at the new, late time, and there's no plane for another 30 minutes. When we finally board, we end up sitting on the tarmac for an additional 2 hours before we finally take off.

In all, I lost a day of vacation because of the stupid fucking airline. I mean, first a flight runs late and makes me afraid I'll miss my connection, which gets cancelled. When I'm rebooked the next day, the flight runs more than 5 hours late, leading to me missing a whole day of vacation time and extra cost associated with cancelling and rebooking hotels and cars...

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:05 pm UTC
by Flumble
Sableagle wrote:No, a pin-up doesn't have to have a ridiculous figure. Let me try to find some good examples ...

Well clearly those must be "model photos" rather than pin-ups, because they don't have breasts the size of skippy balls. :P

SecondTalon wrote:Point being - no. You are not the only one. People - namely men - who prioritize large breasts are in the minority.

If I understand the situation correctly, the demographic of EGS patreons has a majority of large-breast fans. That, or Dan (or Sableagle) skews the results towards that outcome.

poxic wrote:Also, large-breasted women reading your rant are probably going to feel pretty bad about themselves. Media behaviour is not really their fault.

Why would they? Sableagle isn't condemning the existence of large breasts but the ubiquity in media.

SecondTalon wrote:... Ménage à 3 ... Oglaf ...

Damn you all! I have so much to do, yet here I'm sitting binging webcomics all day. :oops:
Next you're going to say "metacarpolis" or "go get a roomie" or "gaia"! (then again, I dropped MA3 a while ago after I felt it got too fantastical and abusive and dropped GGaR after it felt too heavy-handed —come on, I liked the comic exactly because it had natural interaction between unusual people; it's the worst place to repeatedly break the fourth wall/character to preach LGBTQIROFLBBQ and explain things I already know)

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:09 pm UTC
by Neil_Boekend
Maybe Bloomin' Faeries is interesting too :twisted:

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:04 pm UTC
by Sableagle
Flumble wrote:
Sableagle wrote:No, a pin-up doesn't have to have a ridiculous figure. Let me try to find some good examples ...

Well clearly those must be "model photos" rather than pin-ups, because they don't have breasts the size of skippy balls. :P
Some of them were pin-ups, some were stars of the silver screen, some were athletes and some were from shopping sites.

They had a variety of breast sizes, too. So do the characters in EGS. Default Nanase is pretty well endowed. Ellen's definitely curvy. At one point Elliot calls them "Exhibit Ds," as in D-cup. Grace goes up to that size at will, too. We've already seen Ellen zap herself and gain enough cup sizes to undo three blouse buttons. A single dose fo "tea" is enough for "that's gonna be awkward" sizes in a lot of cases. FV5 turns A-cups to D-cups. EGS has small breasts, normal breasts, large breasts and very large breasts already, particularly if you count a date at the mall. It doesn't have DiDi but DiDi is ridiculous and, to me, unattractive.

Come survey time, the most popular suggestions for pin-ups are almost all "Ellen supercharged-zapping herself" and "quadruple Tea" and things like that. I'm not talking about people requesting that we get some C- and D-cups for once rather than all characters having A or B cup sizes. The supercharged zap in question results in breasts so large that it's physically impossible to stand up straight. I'm talking about each one having a circumference greater than the owner's waist measurement. Supercharged zapping doesn't result in an F-cup instead of a D-cup. It ... you know what? I can't tell a J from an S, but it goes OTT. Anyone who already has breasts THAT big either got them on purpose to appeal to some really sad specimens of "men" or already feel bad about it due to back problems, and probably can't read this thread anyway due to them getting in the way of the keyboard ... and the Patreon feed seems to be the target of a takeover by a mob of people who (a) don't think that went far enough and
(b) want to apply it to every female character everywhere all the time.

If EGS was all about breast sizes, I wouldn't be reading it. It's about people. See the hug at the end of Painted Black. See "I think I like you too." See "She's family. Help her. Not that complicated." If there's a breast-size-related theme running through canon EGS, it's that who you are is more important than whether you have breasts or not and how big they are, no matter how much your body selects its reactions based on other people's physical sexes (on a minute-by-minute or character sheet basis). The fanbase has been ... contaminated ... with a weird subspecies of human that demands Everyone Must Have Ludicrously Huge Breasts, though.

Try to imagine ... er ... xkcd comic feedback being swamped with demands for every character to be wearing at least 7 hats in every frame of every comic on xkcd ... and to have at least waist-length hair ... and enormous breasts ... and a penis of at least 18" length and at least 4" diameter at the base ... and tentacles. No, wait. That's lots of different things. Try to imagine xkcd comic feedback being swamped with demands for every character to be wearing at least 7 hats in every frame of every comic on xkcd or xkcd comic feedback being swamped with demands for every character to have tentacles in every frame of every comic on xkcd.

--

I'd never heard of Metacarpolis but I knew Ma3, Gaia, Sandra and Woo, GGaR, S*P, Misfile, Exiern, Flaky Pastry, Elf Life, Deathworld, Delve, Between Failures, ... you know what? The list is too long to post here.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:36 pm UTC
by SecondTalon
Flumble wrote:
poxic wrote:Also, large-breasted women reading your rant are probably going to feel pretty bad about themselves. Media behaviour is not really their fault.

Why would they? Sableagle isn't condemning the existence of large breasts but the ubiquity in media.
While that may have been Sable's intention, the words chosen essentially boil down to "large breasted women are terrible, no exceptions."

I'd argue that the words used were insufficient to clarify the statements as one person's opinion acknowledging that both possessors and people who desire large breasts are a-okay, just not his thing.

It's okay to have large breasts.

It's okay to not.

It's okay to find large breasts more interesting.

It's okay to not.

It's not okay to put down people with large breasts or people interested in large breasts just because you're not.

And that last bit is how Sable was coming across. Which may not have been the intention, sure, but it was the effect.

And at any rate, Sable's complaint appears not even to be with the art, but with the other fans on the Internet. Which is another important lesson - the Internet, being anonymous, let's people more freely fly their freak flags.

And, uh, it turns out a shitload of people are in to (sometimes nonconsentual) wild growing with an emphasis on breasts and feet.

The internet's a fucked up place, full of fucked ip people who think they're normal and normal people who think they're fucked up.....and it's really hard to tell them apart sometimes.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:08 pm UTC
by Angua
Sableagle wrote:
Flumble wrote:
Sableagle wrote:The supercharged zap in question results in breasts so large that it's physically impossible to stand up straight. I'm talking about each one having a circumference greater than the owner's waist measurement. Supercharged zapping doesn't result in an F-cup instead of a D-cup. It ... you know what? I can't tell a J from an S, but it goes OTT. Anyone who already has breasts THAT big either got them on purpose to appeal to some really sad specimens of "men" or already feel bad about it due to back problems, and probably can't read this thread anyway due to them getting in the way of the keyboard ... and the Patreon feed seems to be the target of a takeover by a mob of people who (a) don't think that went far enough and
(b) want to apply it to every female character everywhere all the time.

I mean, I have seen people with breasts that size (though often have been of the pregnant or post-partum variety). Some do get back problems, but not all are able to afford reduction surgery even if they want it.

Nice to insult them though :roll:

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:10 pm UTC
by Sableagle
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/or

... but hey, this is the thread where having an opinion of a country before Coldplay make a video there is a sure sign of racism.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:47 pm UTC
by Angua
I read the options - they were either that the women did it on purpose (with a backhanded insult at who they'd be trying to attract) or unable to read a monitor and type on a computer.

Both were insulting.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:40 pm UTC
by SecondTalon
Sableagle wrote:http://www.dictionary.com/browse/or

... but hey, this is the thread where having an opinion of a country before Coldplay make a video there is a sure sign of racism.


I can get you a good deal on excavators if you'd like. Sandwiches too, but you'd have to take the foot out first.


I mean, fuck, the easiest point I can make are lesbians who get breast implants because they didn't like their small chest.

They may be sad examples who got them to impress a certain subset, but they sure as fuck don't care what men think.

Like, Jesus Christ, the third pet of the set you ignored -"Women with large breasts who don't fit in either category" are overwhelmingly the majority.

And you completely ignored them, just to be an angry, spiteful piece of shit hellbent on making women who don't fit your ideal feel shitty.

At least I know when I'm being an asshole, and do it intentionally. I mean, damn. That takes some incredible, mind-boggling levels of not paying attention and zero critical thinking to fuck up like that, and completely ignore thousands of large breasted women - enhanced or not - who don't have back problems and/or don't give a shit what men think about them because they got them for themselves.

Do you also think makeup and short dresses are just for men to look at?

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:05 pm UTC
by Fractal_Tangent
Hey, hey Sableagle.

Fuck off. You fuck right off now.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 11:19 pm UTC
by Flumble
Fascinating.
I really don't understand why sableagle is getting so much hate. (unless there's a history of which I'm blissfully unaware) Perhaps I'm biased because I don't have breasts. Perhaps I'm reading his posts differently because I agree with the sentiment that it's weird that a large majority of the (paying) EGS audience would want more huge-breasted pin-ups, when you can have more of this and this. (note to self: not really bothered with (unhealthy) breast size, but just a sucker for intimacy)

Neil_Boekend wrote:Maybe Bloomin' Faeries is interesting too :twisted:

Hahahahah, that's all so ridiculous and hilarious I can't stop reading! :lol:
Oh wow. Oglaf is like sexual fantasies on steroids, but this, this is oglaf on steroids. :mrgreen:

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:04 am UTC
by Fractal_Tangent
If it were a simple 'These animated sexy ladies don't turn me on' that would be great. We all understand that some people are into things that others aren't.

It's the constant comparing women who have large breasts to tomatoes, saying that they can't see over their screens and generally demeaning them.

It's possible not to want to bang something and still be respectful.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:07 am UTC
by SecondTalon
Fractal_Tangent wrote:If it were a simple 'These animated sexy ladies don't turn me on' that would be great. We all understand that some people are into things that others aren't.

It's the constant comparing women who have large breasts to tomatoes, saying that they can't see over their screens and generally demeaning them.

It's possible not to want to bang something and still be respectful.

Yep.

And we haven't even gotten to the part where if you like that (where Sable also ignores that it's not just men who can like large breasts) you're ...part of a "really sad specimens of "men" "

But mostly it's the treating of women with large breasts as being awful.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:10 am UTC
by Carlington
Things it's okay to say:
I don't like large breasts.
I do like large breasts.

Things it's not okay to say:
Liking large breasts is bad.
Not liking large breasts is bad.
Having large breasts is bad.
Not having large breasts is bad.

Things Sableagle is saying:
I don't like large breasts. (okay)
Others do like large breasts. (okay)
Liking large breasts is bad. (not okay)
Therefore, the people who like large breasts are bad. (not okay)
Having large breasts is bad, except in specific cases where I say it's not. (really not okay)

That last one is semi-implied through tone and phrasing, but it's there. There's also a smidgen of concern-trolling (I'm just worried about their spinal health!) which is not okay and a bit dishonest.

Although many people have previously tried to make this as simple as possible, it seems to have failed. I don't know why I think this will work, but I literally don't know if this can be broken down any further.

(Ninja'd, same.)

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:15 am UTC
by SecondTalon
Also what Carlington said

In the shortest possible way - you can talk about the thing you like not getting representation without shitting all over the thing that you don't like that is getting representation.

The "shitting on something else" is the problem here.

It's pretty much always the problem in the Rant thread.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:08 am UTC
by Fractal_Tangent
I I ever mention that I love Carlington? Because I seriously love Carlington.

You're pretty great as well Sexy.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:30 am UTC
by ucim
Seems to me the issue is simply the objectification of a body part, especially for commercial gain. Objectification usually entails a "bigger is better" viewpoint (especially for sexual body parts, which have more commercial potential), and for it to work, the audience has to buy into it. It's the objectification that's "not ok", not the preference or the body part itself.

Is this what you're aiming at, Sableagle?

Jose
edit: fix misspelling of Sableagle

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:54 am UTC
by eran_rathan
Sable, you're being a dick. Don't be a dick.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:06 am UTC
by Weeks
OH MY GOD THESE ROLLING PINS

WHAT DO I DO WITH ALL THESE ROLLING PINS

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:07 am UTC
by gmalivuk
ucim wrote:Seems to me the issue is simply the objectification of a body part, especially for commercial gain. Objectification usually entails a "bigger is better" viewpoint (especially for sexual body parts, which have more commercial potential), and for it to work, the audience has to buy into it. It's the objectification that's "not ok", not the preference or the body part itself.

Is this what you're aiming at, Sablegate?

Jose

Sure, that seems to be what Sableagle is aiming at, but what others are pointing out is the degree to which said target is being missed.

You can complain about the objectification of breasts without shitting on people with large breasts (whether natural or surgical).

Angua wrote:
Sableagle wrote:
Flumble wrote:
Sableagle wrote:The supercharged zap in question results in breasts so large that it's physically impossible to stand up straight. I'm talking about each one having a circumference greater than the owner's waist measurement. Supercharged zapping doesn't result in an F-cup instead of a D-cup. It ... you know what? I can't tell a J from an S, but it goes OTT. Anyone who already has breasts THAT big either got them on purpose to appeal to some really sad specimens of "men" or already feel bad about it due to back problems, and probably can't read this thread anyway due to them getting in the way of the keyboard ... and the Patreon feed seems to be the target of a takeover by a mob of people who (a) don't think that went far enough and
(b) want to apply it to every female character everywhere all the time.

I mean, I have seen people with breasts that size (though often have been of the pregnant or post-partum variety). Some do get back problems, but not all are able to afford reduction surgery even if they want it.

Nice to insult them though :roll:

Sableagle wrote:http://www.dictionary.com/browse/or

... but hey, this is the thread where having an opinion of a country before Coldplay make a video there is a sure sign of racism.

Did you mis the word "reduction"? Did you misread your own post? Or are you the one who doesn't understand "or"?

You said:
Anyone who already has breasts THAT big either
1) got them on purpose to appeal to some really sad specimens of "men" or
2) already feel bad about it due to back problems, and probably can't read this thread anyway due to them getting in the way of the keyboard.

Angua addressed 2, and added that women who have back problems may not be able to get surgery to improve those problems even if they want it. (You're also making a stupid claim about what people with really large breasts can and cannot read, which apart from being offensive also misses the point that no one needs a keyboard to read this thread.)

Your option 1 is also stupid and reductive, as there are reasons to get breast augmentation that have nothing to do with appealing to men (and not all men who like large breasts are "sad specimens"). And then there are the others who you implicitly excluded, because they have naturally large breasts but don't have back problems or otherwise don't feel bad about it.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:13 am UTC
by Weeks
I'm personally a big proponent of thinking about what you're gonna say *before* you post it. Just in case you accidentally shit on people. I mean, nobody does that on purpose. Nobody actually thinks women with large breasts can't see this thread because they can't reach the keyboard.

...Right?

Come back Sableagle. Please. We're going to give you the benefoot in your mouth. I mean benefit of the doubt! Sorry.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 7:03 am UTC
by K-R
New User wrote:I'm annoyed that software developers decided that an intuitive interface means having icons with vague shapes, so I have to guess what the icon stands for, usually by activating things at random and then trying to determine what I've done.
Yes, this. I've lost track of the number of times I've been staring at my phone screaming "BUT I CAN'T HOVER OVER THE BUTTON TO GET A TOOLTIP, HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT IT DOES?"

Metro: Redux is the worst. I gave up on that game after about five minutes because everything is symbols and there's no manual. And it doesn't even tell you which symbol correlates with which button.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:01 pm UTC
by MuEta
K-R wrote:
New User wrote:I'm annoyed that software developers decided that an intuitive interface means having icons with vague shapes, so I have to guess what the icon stands for, usually by activating things at random and then trying to determine what I've done.
Yes, this. I've lost track of the number of times I've been staring at my phone screaming "BUT I CAN'T HOVER OVER THE BUTTON TO GET A TOOLTIP, HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT IT DOES?"

Metro: Redux is the worst. I gave up on that game after about five minutes because everything is symbols and there's no manual. And it doesn't even tell you which symbol correlates with which button.


This is something that I have observed a fair amount with my parent's (baby-boomer generation) vs. my (older side of millenial) generation. Pretty much across the board, when my generation sees an app, we click on the buttons, experiment, and if shit fucks up, we figure out how to un-fuck-ify it. Whereas my mom and dad will always ask me how something works before experimenting.

I have been working with them to get them more comfortable with experimenting with an app or a website before asking me for advice, and they have noted that their online experience has become much better since getting over the fear of fuck-ifying something up. Just me $0.02.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:07 pm UTC
by ucim
Experimenting is a great way to learn how things used to work. Feeding Oscar is a classic.

Jose

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:39 pm UTC
by New User
I shouldn't have to experiment. I know what I want to do, I just don't know which icon to click to get it done. Let's say I'm messing with a little time-waster app that involves solving a puzzle. What's so hard about having a button labeled "undo"? Instead, I get a button with a little arrow on it. Maybe that button means "back" as in "back to the main menu". I click it and, oops, I've just gone back to the main menu, losing all my progress with solving the puzzle. Maybe the button means "retry". I click on it and, oops, all of the puzzle resets to what it was at the beginning, and I have to start over. What I'm getting at here is that a button with a little arrow on it can mean different things, and indeed I have seen some very similar-looking icons in different apps and they have had different functions.

I know what I want to do, I just don't know which icon to click to get it done. So instead I'm forced into clicking on everything like a moron until I find the right one, meanwhile wasting time, risking erasing my progress, or causing my browser to slow down while it tries to load up some other webpage that I'm not interested in. What's so hard about having words on buttons? Do they think audiences are too dumb or too lazy to read? Are they aimed at a multicultural audience, that might not know the language? My counter to that would be that it's okay to have both the icon and a word in English, especially acceptable if it's in an app wherein I chose my language preference, or if it's on a webpage that has content otherwise written in English, or if it was an app purchased in an English-language app store, or from any other imaginable way that it can be inferred that English is my preferred language. Just put the word "undo" next to the little arrow.

Also, tooltips. They are acceptable, although I still think it's a waste to have the word available to read but to have it hidden from view until I put my mouse cursor on the icon. Do they think it takes up a significant amount of space in the UI to include small words like "undo" or "back" or "menu" or "main" or "exit" or "zoom" or "like" or "refresh" or "restart" or "settings" or "options"? Do they think users want to point their mouse cursor at each individual icon until they find the one they're looking for? And then there's the problem with tooltips being incompatible with touch screen controls like K-R explained.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:27 pm UTC
by Yakk
"I shouldn't have to experiment."

Why not?

For the most part, when using any new applicaiton, you'll have to experiment to use it. Yes, this adds more experimentation.

In exchange, you get a "cleaner" UI (that can attract more new users), and probably a better UI for experts (as it has less clutter).

What more, "<- Undo" itself isn't clear: is it undo one step, or is it undo back to the start of the puzzle, or is it undo trying this puzzle, or is it undo your account creating and discard all your progress? In a sense, you have to assume that the designer of the app doesn't have one-click "destroy all my work" buttons on it before you even press "<- Undo". You'd need a paragraph of help text.

And now all of your buttons have hover help-text, a [?] widget next to them (that is large enough to click on a touch screen) that gives you a selection of options on how much help you really want, and the screen is cluttered all over the place.

At the far other side of "clean UI": the screen with no controls, where all operations are done with gestures you just have to know. (!)

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 4:14 pm UTC
by Sableagle
There was a link. There was an actual link to the actual comic with the actual supercharged zapping. That comic has a "next" button.

The next comic shows the target of the supercharged zapping standing very awkwardly due to the enormous size of her breasts resulting from the supercharged zapping.

The person who did the zapping already has larger breasts than her target had. Hers would, presumably, have been even bigger had she zapped herself.

People in .....

Oh, wait. That was more than ten words. Too long an explanation. Someone's bound to deliberately misinterpret it just to find an excuse to White Knight for the 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000034% of the population who could possibly be offended by some misinterpretation of it.

Well, you know, they're fictional characters in the comic so obviously we're including people's imaginary friends here, and of the several hundred billion real and imaginary people on Earth there just possibly may be one or two who have breasts with circumferences larger than their waists either because they naturally grew that way or because, without ever seeing any of those "beach body ready" adverts of an airbrushed magazine picture or anything else like that or any fuss about it or hearing a single comment from anyone about breast size or noticing the way some men look at women differently based on breast size they came up the idea that their own galia-melon-sized breasts weren't large enough and got an extra five litres of volume added to each, and who read this forum and give a fuck whether I like their figures ... and have no back problems because their breasts are helium-filled ...

... so to avoid offending Second-rate Fingernail's imaginary lesbian friends, apparently nobody should ever criticise the people who seem to want every female character in every universe to be carrying around ten kilos more breast than Ashley, Nanase, Susan, Sarah, Kate Winslet, Christina Hendricks, Alyson Hannigan, Cate Blanchett, Kylie Minogue, Marilyn Monroe, Samantha Fox, Cheryl Tiegs, Bettie Page or Jennifer Connelly, no matter how much my imaginary friends might be upset by the implication that their own C-, D- and DD-cup sizes are inadequate (or by the reduced amount of room in the polls for romantic imagery, long legs images, fabulous hair images, anthro-furry images, images full of high-tech gadgets, MLP-like images or whatever else they're into).

After all, it's perfectly normal to want every woman on Earth to look exactly like one parti..... no, wait. That was Not-Tengu's weird schtick. That guy wasn't normal or cool at all. Still, however creepy he may have been, if people want to pay Dan to draw nothing but huge boobies, that's their prerogative and I shouldn't complain, right?

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 4:19 pm UTC
by Sableagle
Yakk wrote:And now all of your buttons have hover help-text, a [?] widget next to them.
I know someone who had to add those to a whole website once. Every single one of them had copy-pasted code, a copy-pasted link and the hover text: "What's this?" Her day at work thus contained: "What's this? What's this? What's this? What's this? What's this?"

The earworm was inevitable. She was not pleased.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 4:29 pm UTC
by ucim
New User wrote:I shouldn't have to experiment.
I agree, and was saying the same thing. "Feeding Oscar" refers to the story of kids dragging (macintosh) files into the garbage until the parent came along, horrified, asking what they were doing.

They were feeding Oscar (the grouch, from Sesame Street, who lives in a trash can).

Maybe the files were recovered. Maybe not. Depends what other experiments happened.

In any case, the operations should be self-evident or easily discoverable. The interface should be clean (which is harder with small screens), thus help is often hidden. Tooltips were never meant for this, but are useful in this manner.

Reliance on tooltips (that are inaccessible on touch screens) is an antipattern. But given the prevalence of tooltip help, so is the interface that doesn't allow easy access to tooltips.

Of course, the cleanest interface is the command line. To control the device, you just text to it. LOL.

Jose

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 4:44 pm UTC
by Carlington
Since this is the rant thread...
Sableagle wrote:things

I'm quoting you so you'll get a notification for this post, because I want to make sure you see it.

I've read every word of each of your posts about this comic, Sableagle. You're making it abundantly clear that you've not extended the same courtesy to me, or to anyone else who has criticised you in this thread. I can't speak for them, but I'm insulted by your disregard for mine and their efforts.
It's a shame that you've embarrassed yourself in this way. I actually enjoy many of your posts. Your photography is quite nice, and I enjoy your descriptions of walks you've taken. The pleasant regard I previously held you in has been tarnished. You've behaved in a childish, petulant manner and it's really disgraceful. When people raised genuine objections to the way you were writing, you threw an entitled tantrum and have not so much as gestured in the direction of listening and taking their words into account.

As I said, I enjoy a lot of the things you post. I just think it would be fucking top-class if you said less sexist stuff and were more open to criticism.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 4:49 pm UTC
by Fractal_Tangent
Fractal_Tangent wrote:I ever mention that I love Carlington? Because I seriously love Carlington.

Re: ANGRY NATTERINGS

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:15 pm UTC
by MuEta
ucim wrote:In any case, the operations should be self-evident or easily discoverable. The interface should be clean (which is harder with small screens), thus help is often hidden. Tooltips were never meant for this, but are useful in this manner.


I agree with you. It might be Snapchat that has a "tutorial" image that overlays each possible view that the user can get to with arrows pointing to each icon and a bit of text to explain what they do, the first time a user opens the app. The icons on the views themselves are fairly similar to those found around the "app industry". With those two factors combined, a user should be able to use basic Snapchat functionality from the get-go, and anything they can't immediately grok should be understandable through experimentation or going to the help page.

The problems come about with what you were saying in the Oscar story. A Windows or Mac desktop is more or less incomprehensible to someone that has never had experience with a computer (or desktop interface), as would be a lot of apps for any user that is getting their first smart phone. But a hesitancy to experiment (which is what I noted about my parents and possibly their generation as a whole) won't make them learn it any faster.