Kipfer, Markus H, author

Duening, Thomas N

Crainer, Stuart

Crainer, Stuart

Phillips, Michael, author

Bronckart, Véronique, author

Kee, James Edwin

Dobson, Michael Singer, author

Ranjbar, Amir S

Simpkins, Stacy, author

Stull, Edward. author

Norris, Pippa, author

Saldanha, Tony, author

Grinberg, Alex. author

Maciariello, Joseph A., author

Kerkhof, Twan van de, author

O'Keeffe, Niamh

Rich, Jason

Seiwert, Lothar

Seiwert, Lothar

Seiwert, Lothar, author

Song, Mike, 1964-

Interview with Roxana Cobo, MD, author of Superiorly Pediculated Superficial Musculoaponeurotic System Ligament Flap to Control the Supratip

Interview with Keith A. Josephs, MD, MST, MSc, author of Association of Apolipoprotein E ε4 With Transactive Response DNA-Binding Protein 43

Interview with Jonathan H. Lass, MD, author of Donor, Recipient, and Operative Factors Associated With Increased Endothelial Cell Loss in the Cornea Preservation Time Study

Interview with Ivo Abraham, PhD, author of Economic Evaluation of Talimogene Laherparepvec Plus Ipilimumab Combination Therapy vs Ipilimumab Monotherapy in Patients With Advanced Unresectable Melanoma

Interview with Kathleen Merikangas, PhD, author of Real-time Mobile Monitoring of the Dynamic Associations Among Motor Activity, Energy, Mood, and Sleep in Adults With Bipolar Disorder

Interview with Joseph M. Unger, PhD, author of Association of Patient Comorbid Conditions With Cancer Clinical Trial Participation

Interview with Aaron Kesselheim, author of Analysis of Proposed Medicare Part B to Part D Shift With Associated Changes in Total Spending and Patient Cost-Sharing for Prescription Drugs, and Francis J. Crosson, M.D., author of Managing the Cost of Medicare Part B Drugs: Implications for the Program and Beneficiaries

Interview with John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, author of Trends in Oral Antibiotic Prescription in Dermatology, 2008 to 2016

Interview with George Dodge, PhD, author of Characterization of Injury Induced by Routine Surgical Manipulations of Nasal Septal Cartilage

Interview with Matthew Jeffrey Martin, MD, author of Courtesy Authorship in Academic Surgery Publications

Interview with Kausik K. Ray, MD, author of Effect of 1 or 2 Doses of Inclisiran on Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels: One-Year Follow-up of the ORION-1 Randomized Clinical Trial, and Maarten JG. Leening, MD, PhD, author of Safety and Tolerability of Sustained Lipid-Lowering Therapy: Trial Data and Public Perception in a World Where Vaccines and Statins Are About to Collide

Interview with Alexia Mattei, MD, author of Feasibility of First Injection of Autologous Adipose Tissue–Derived Stromal Vascular Fraction in Human Scarred Vocal Folds: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial

Till 12:44 pm, a combined 34.4 million equity shares, representing 32.2 per cent of total equity of Laurus Labs, changed hands on the BSE and NSE.

Debt categories continued to see redemptions. Credit risk funds saw a bulk of the outflows at Rs 19,238 crore, registering the worst month for the category in 13 months

If you’ve ever had to review a PR where the only code change is adding a wrapper element, you’ll be familiar with the pain of reviewing what appears to be a massive change but is actually trivial.

I think about design principles a lot. I’m such a nerd for design principles, I even have a collection. I’m not saying all of the design principles in the collection are good—far from it! I collect them without judgement.

As for what makes a good design principle, I’ve written about that before. One aspect that everyone seems to agree on is that a design principle shouldn’t be an obvious truism. Take this as an example:

Make it usable.

Who’s going to disagree with that? It’s so agreeable that it’s practically worthless as a design principle. But now take this statement:

Usability is more important than profitability.

Ooh, now we’re talking! That’s controversial. That’s bound to surface some disagreement, which is a good thing. It’s now passing the reversability test—it’s not hard to imagine an endeavour driven by the opposite:

Profitability is more important than usability.

In either formulation, what makes these statements better than the bland toothless agreeable statements—“Usability is good!”, “Profitability is good!”—is that they introduce the element of prioritisation.

I like design principles that can be formulated as:

X, even over Y.

It’s not saying that Y is unimportant, just that X is more important:

Usability, even over profitability.

Or:

Profitability, even over usability.

Design principles formulated this way help to crystalise priorities. Chris has written about the importance of establishing—and revisiting—priorities on any project:

Prioritisation isn’t and shouldn’t be a one-off exercise. The changing needs of your customers, the business environment and new opportunities from technology mean prioritisation is best done as a regular activity.

I’ve said it many times, but one on my favourite design principles comes from the HTML design principles. The priority of consitituencies (it’s got “priorities” right there in the name!):

In case of conflict, consider users over authors over implementors over specifiers over theoretical purity.

Or put another way:

• Users, even over authors.
• Authors, even over implementors.
• Implementors, even over specifiers.
• Specifiers, even over theoretical purity.

When it comes to evaluating technology for the web, I think there are a number of factors at play.

First and foremost, there’s the end user. If a technology choice harms the end user, avoid it. I’m thinking here of the kind of performance tax that a user has to pay when developers choose to use megabytes of JavaScript.

Mind you, some technologies have no direct effect on the end user. When it comes to build tools, version control, toolchains …all the stuff that sits on your computer and never directly interacts with users. In that situation, the wants and needs of developers can absolutely take priority.

But as a general principle, I think this works:

User experience, even over developer experience.

Sadly, I think the current state of “modern” web development reverses that principle. Developer efficiency is prized above all else. Like I said, that would be absolutely fine if we’re talking about technologies that only developers are exposed to, but as soon as we’re talking about shipping those technologies over the network to end users, it’s negligent to continue to prioritise the developer experience.

I feel like personal websites are an exception here. What you do on your own website is completely up to you. But once you’re taking a paycheck to make websites that will be used by other people, it’s incumbent on you to realise that it’s not about you.

I’ve been talking about developers here, but this is something that applies just as much to designers. But I feel like designers go through that priority shift fairly early in their career. At the outset, they’re eager to make their mark and prove themselves. As they grow and realise that it’s not about them, they understand that the most appropriate solution for the user is what matters, even if that’s a “boring” tried-and-tested pattern that isn’t going to wow any fellow designers.

I’d like to think that developers would follow a similar progression, and I’m sure that some do. But I’ve seen many senior developers who have grown more enamoured with technologies instead of honing in on the most appropriate technology for end users. Maybe that’s because in many organisations, developers are positioned further away from the end users (whereas designers are ideally being confronted with their creations being used by actual people). If a lead developer is focused on the productivity, efficiency, and happiness of the dev team, it’s no wonder that their priorities end up overtaking the user experience.

I realise I’m talking in very binary terms here: developer experience versus user experience. I know it’s not always that simple. Other priorities also come into play, like business needs. Sometimes business needs are in direct conflict with user needs. If an online business makes its money through invasive tracking and surveillance, then there’s no point in having a design principle that claims to prioritise user needs above all else. That would be a hollow claim, and the design principle would become worthless.

Because that’s the point with design principles. They’re there to be used. They’re not a nice fluffy exercise in feeling good about your work. The priority of constituencies begins, “in case of conflict” and that’s exactly when a design principle matters—when it’s tested.

Suppose someone with a lot of clout in your organisation makes a decision, but that decision conflicts with your organisations’s design principles. Instead of having an opinion-based argument about who’s right or wrong, the previously agreed-upon design principles allow you to take ego out of the equation.

Prioritisation isn’t easy, and it gets harder the more factors come into play: user needs, business needs, technical constraints. But it’s worth investing the time to get agreement on the priority of your constituencies. And then formulate that agreement into design principles.

Manz, A. (Andreas), author

Hickman, Cleveland P., Jr., author

China is expected to provide two more ships to the Pakistan navy. Pakistan has already raised a new division of the army to ensure security along the CPEC route and in and around the Gwadar port.