In Search of Organic Software An Article by Pirijan Ketheswaran pketh.org Two different kinds of farms can grow vegetables. One is a factory farm built for scale, and the other takes the time to grow more expensive but healthier plants without pesticides. Will everyone appreciate the difference? Of course not, but the latter plants are labelled ‘organic’ to give us the information and the choice, so that those of us who do care can make better decisions. So maybe we should have ‘organic’ software as well, made by companies that: Are not funded in such a way where the primary obligation of the company is to 🎡 chase funding rounds or get acquired (so bootstrapping, crowdfunding, grants, and angel investment are okay) Have a clear pricing page Disclose their sources of funding and sources of revenue softwarebusinessfarming
How I Build An Article by Pirijan Ketheswaran pketh.org In 2014, I wrote about my belief that design and engineering are best when tightly woven together. That’s truer now than ever. If I’m feeling confident, I’ll jump right into my text editor…From here, more functionality is added and the code is tweaked until the feature looks and feels right to me. Whether it’s something simple like this, or prototyping a new interaction like multi-connect, there’s no substitute for designing with real code. In rare cases when I have ideas or plans that I’m less confident about, it’s time to break out the paper, pens, and markers, Because the Kinopio interface elements and aesthetic are full-grown, I almost never use traditional design software anymore. makinginteractioninterfaces
Why Software is Slow and Shitty An Article by Pirijan Ketheswaran pketh.org Roman empire militaryBuilding is never a straight lineConversations, not commandments Planning doesn't make for better software softwareperformance
Text for Proofing Fonts An Article by Jonathan Hoefler www.typography.com The pernicious issue with pangrams
The pernicious issue with pangrams The far more pernicious issue with pangrams, as a means for evaluating typefaces, is how poorly they portray what text actually looks like. Every language has a natural distribution of letters, from most to least common, English famously beginning with the E that accounts for one eighth of what we read, and ending with the Z that appears just once every 1,111 letters. Letter frequencies differ by language and by era — the J is ten times more popular in Dutch than English; biblical English unduly favors the H thanks to archaisms like thou and sayeth — but no language behaves the way pangrams do, with their forced distribution of exotics. Seven of the most visually awkward letters, the W, Y, V, K, X, J, and Z, are among the nine rarest in English, but pangrams force them into every sentence, guaranteeing that every paragraph will be riddled with holes. A typeface designer certainly can’t avoid accounting for these unruly characters, but there’s no reason that they should be disproportionately represented when evaluating how a typeface will perform. Embracing Asymmetrical Design typographylanguagedesign