Also really most british comedy isn't really laughing AT people, it's laughing at the awkwardness of the situation. Cringe comedy is inherently sympathetic with its subject
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Also really most british comedy isn't really laughing AT people, it's laughing at the awkwardness of the situation. Cringe comedy is inherently sympathetic with its subject
Nah, a huge component of British comedy, and one of the main things that underlies it's general difference from american comedy, is laughing as people fail. British comedy leans really hard towards flawed characters trying and failing and us laughing as they do so.
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
There are some different questions here. Why do people like Napoleon Dynamite? Well, because it's funny. That sounds flip but I don't mean it to be; it is simply true that a whole lot of people found it hilarious. Whatever your personal feelings on the matter, it's a movie full of comic grotesques that play off of recognizable archetypes (an overbearing martial arts instructor, weedy nerds who make dubious claims to expertise they almost certainly do not possess, and a self-important, self-deluded main character whose distat for the world around him results in a retreat to fantasy). It consistently underplays gags, drawing absolutely no attention to a grandma feeding eggs to llamas, and it takes place in a world of hermetically-sealed, timeless tackiness. All the bad fashion and decor choices of the last five decades put in an appearance.
Why was it a phenomenon? That's another question. I think it's because it is a movie utterly without an agenda other than itself. It invites you to laugh at its characters, but never really to sneer. There are no villains. A worldly person, a liberal, can look at it and say "this completely accurately depicts the stultifying banality of a depressed, remote small town." A conservative can look at it and say the same thing and mean it as praise - these are the honest, hardworking folk of Real America.
And I think at the time it came out, that was kind of a relief. We still haven't really gotten over some onf the national insanity from 9/11, but it was worse then, and I think people were very much ready for a movie that was blissfully unconcerned with modernity or the world outside of the very tiny slice it depicted.
What is the current interent design obsession with fixed width layouts? YouTube and Facebook have both moved to "people have larger or smaller monitors? I am surprised!" as a design principle it seems.
What is the current interent design obsession with fixed width layouts? YouTube and Facebook have both moved to "people have larger or smaller monitors? I am surprised!" as a design principle it seems.
UI has gone to hell in general in the last several years. I don't know why, but it's just been getting worse and worse.
What is the current interent design obsession with fixed width layouts? YouTube and Facebook have both moved to "people have larger or smaller monitors? I am surprised!" as a design principle it seems.
My gut is it's designing with mobile devices in mind.
+3
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
Nah, a huge component of British comedy, and one of the main things that underlies it's general difference from american comedy, is laughing as people fail. British comedy leans really hard towards flawed characters trying and failing and us laughing as they do so.
What are you thinking of here?
I'd personally agree with Kana's appraisal more for a lot of stuff. A lot of Mitchell and Webb comedies seem to play further off the awkwardness of earlier British comedy by addressing it head-on and laughing at it (e.g. the one about being a people person; at first you're supposed to feel awkward for the guy, but then Mitchell addresses him directly on what he's doing, and that absurdity is part of the joke).
Another example of Jeeves and Wooster; Wooster constantly screws up, but it's always buffoonery, and Jeeves is there to save the day somehow, allowing Wooster to maintain his airheaded happiness.
What is the current interent design obsession with fixed width layouts? YouTube and Facebook have both moved to "people have larger or smaller monitors? I am surprised!" as a design principle it seems.
My gut is it's designing with mobile devices in mind.
They have apps for them though.
My gut is that the design is being done by engineers instead of designers.
I run into obvious examples of design meant to serve experts instead of customers constantly.
What is the current interent design obsession with fixed width layouts? YouTube and Facebook have both moved to "people have larger or smaller monitors? I am surprised!" as a design principle it seems.
My gut is it's designing with mobile devices in mind.
That makes no sense since the design doesn't work on mobile anyway - you have to completely change it.
What is the current interent design obsession with fixed width layouts? YouTube and Facebook have both moved to "people have larger or smaller monitors? I am surprised!" as a design principle it seems.
UI has gone to hell in general in the last several years. I don't know why, but it's just been getting worse and worse.
I'm more of the mind we're well into "change for changes sake". People see UI changes. They don't see backend or feature changes so much.
At the moment I'm waiting for Bootstrap's "look" to go out of fashion. The whole "SUPER LARGE TEXT" thing is getting really irritating.
What is the current interent design obsession with fixed width layouts? YouTube and Facebook have both moved to "people have larger or smaller monitors? I am surprised!" as a design principle it seems.
My gut is it's designing with mobile devices in mind.
Responsive design, fuckers! Detect the resolution and respond with appropriate stylesheets! It's science!
0
Options
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
What is the current interent design obsession with fixed width layouts? YouTube and Facebook have both moved to "people have larger or smaller monitors? I am surprised!" as a design principle it seems.
My gut is it's designing with mobile devices in mind.
They have apps for them though.
My gut is that the design is being done by engineers instead of designers.
I run into obvious examples of design meant to serve experts instead of customers constantly.
A lot of places doing this, people won't install the app for because the effort of that.
0
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
What is the current interent design obsession with fixed width layouts? YouTube and Facebook have both moved to "people have larger or smaller monitors? I am surprised!" as a design principle it seems.
My gut is it's designing with mobile devices in mind.
Responsive design, fuckers! Detect the resolution and respond with appropriate stylesheets! It's science!
Do not mess with the vague mysteries of science. It is a force we should not take lightly.
What is the current interent design obsession with fixed width layouts? YouTube and Facebook have both moved to "people have larger or smaller monitors? I am surprised!" as a design principle it seems.
My gut is it's designing with mobile devices in mind.
They have apps for them though.
My gut is that the design is being done by engineers instead of designers.
I run into obvious examples of design meant to serve experts instead of customers constantly.
A lot of places doing this, people won't install the app for because the effort of that.
True. And the apps are often extremely bad and much worse than navigating the website on a tiny screen.
That makes no sense since the design doesn't work on mobile anyway - you have to completely change it.
Some aspects of the new YT design feature in the mobile site, but it's not a Responsive Web Design.
Dunno about FB, I avoid it like the plague.
YouTube is by far more annoying at the moment. If you shrink it below like, 2/3'rds of a 1080p monitor, the sidebar with all the navigation and lists of things in it disappears.
Nah, a huge component of British comedy, and one of the main things that underlies it's general difference from american comedy, is laughing as people fail. British comedy leans really hard towards flawed characters trying and failing and us laughing as they do so.
What are you thinking of here?
I'd personally agree with Kana's appraisal more for a lot of stuff. A lot of Mitchell and Webb comedies seem to play further off the awkwardness of earlier British comedy by addressing it head-on and laughing at it (e.g. the one about being a people person; at first you're supposed to feel awkward for the guy, but then Mitchell addresses him directly on what he's doing, and that absurdity is part of the joke).
Another example of Jeeves and Wooster; Wooster constantly screws up, but it's always buffoonery, and Jeeves is there to save the day somehow, allowing Wooster to maintain his airheaded happiness.
Blackadder, Steptoe and Son, Keeping Up Appearances, The Office.
Comedy is very often vicious and mean, mocking it's characters aspirations as they fail over and over again. The british produce this kind quite a bit.
There are other strong british comedy traditions too, obviously.
Blackadder, Steptoe and Son, Keeping Up Appearances, The Office.
Comedy is very often vicious and mean, mocking it's characters aspirations as they fail over and over again. The british produce this kind quite a bit.
There are other strong british comedy traditions too, obviously.
In Blackadder, Steptoe and The Office, everyone involved is presented as one sort or another of conniving sons of bitches (perhaps excepting Baldrick, thought he is still extremely flawed). The characters themselves are generally fairly self-obsessed, to the point of not caring much if at all about the others in the show, allowing the viewer to feel a lot more justified in laughing at them when their schemes blow up in their faces.
Same again with Red Dwarf, for that matter. Rimmer and Lister (and even Holly to an extent) all deserve their existential misery.
The shows will also give moments of humanity and redemption for them, before throwing them back into the ring.
By comparison, I felt like none of the cast of ND had any sins, beyond being desperately uncool. It felt - for me at least - bad to laugh at them. But Jacob's perspective on it was pretty incisive. and it does make a lot more sense with that in mind.
...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
0
Options
simonwolfi can feel a differencetoday, a differenceRegistered Userregular
in less than 24 hours I will be on a plane, beginning my journey to Boston
I should, uh
I should probably pack my suitcase
+1
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
But you two, stop the tide of UIs slowly becoming butts.
Well, I am working on that, at least for the stuff i'm involved in. But it's an uphill battle, because our design philosophy so far seems to be "eh, they'll figure it out and if they don't fuck 'em"
Posts
Nah, a huge component of British comedy, and one of the main things that underlies it's general difference from american comedy, is laughing as people fail. British comedy leans really hard towards flawed characters trying and failing and us laughing as they do so.
There are some different questions here. Why do people like Napoleon Dynamite? Well, because it's funny. That sounds flip but I don't mean it to be; it is simply true that a whole lot of people found it hilarious. Whatever your personal feelings on the matter, it's a movie full of comic grotesques that play off of recognizable archetypes (an overbearing martial arts instructor, weedy nerds who make dubious claims to expertise they almost certainly do not possess, and a self-important, self-deluded main character whose distat for the world around him results in a retreat to fantasy). It consistently underplays gags, drawing absolutely no attention to a grandma feeding eggs to llamas, and it takes place in a world of hermetically-sealed, timeless tackiness. All the bad fashion and decor choices of the last five decades put in an appearance.
Why was it a phenomenon? That's another question. I think it's because it is a movie utterly without an agenda other than itself. It invites you to laugh at its characters, but never really to sneer. There are no villains. A worldly person, a liberal, can look at it and say "this completely accurately depicts the stultifying banality of a depressed, remote small town." A conservative can look at it and say the same thing and mean it as praise - these are the honest, hardworking folk of Real America.
And I think at the time it came out, that was kind of a relief. We still haven't really gotten over some onf the national insanity from 9/11, but it was worse then, and I think people were very much ready for a movie that was blissfully unconcerned with modernity or the world outside of the very tiny slice it depicted.
UI has gone to hell in general in the last several years. I don't know why, but it's just been getting worse and worse.
My gut is it's designing with mobile devices in mind.
I'd personally agree with Kana's appraisal more for a lot of stuff. A lot of Mitchell and Webb comedies seem to play further off the awkwardness of earlier British comedy by addressing it head-on and laughing at it (e.g. the one about being a people person; at first you're supposed to feel awkward for the guy, but then Mitchell addresses him directly on what he's doing, and that absurdity is part of the joke).
Another example of Jeeves and Wooster; Wooster constantly screws up, but it's always buffoonery, and Jeeves is there to save the day somehow, allowing Wooster to maintain his airheaded happiness.
They have apps for them though.
My gut is that the design is being done by engineers instead of designers.
I run into obvious examples of design meant to serve experts instead of customers constantly.
That makes no sense since the design doesn't work on mobile anyway - you have to completely change it.
I'm more of the mind we're well into "change for changes sake". People see UI changes. They don't see backend or feature changes so much.
At the moment I'm waiting for Bootstrap's "look" to go out of fashion. The whole "SUPER LARGE TEXT" thing is getting really irritating.
Responsive design, fuckers! Detect the resolution and respond with appropriate stylesheets! It's science!
Dunno about FB, I avoid it like the plague.
Do not mess with the vague mysteries of science. It is a force we should not take lightly.
fake edit: like on http://csstooltip.com/
True. And the apps are often extremely bad and much worse than navigating the website on a tiny screen.
Oh the programmers I would love to lecture....
If writing corporate websites in HTML was still a thing, I could have made a small fortune.
YouTube is by far more annoying at the moment. If you shrink it below like, 2/3'rds of a 1080p monitor, the sidebar with all the navigation and lists of things in it disappears.
I love stuff like Haml for making templates that get compiled into HTML.
Your job is to make things easy for your customers, not to do things how you like them.
Which sounds like an imperial title.
Lord Programmer-Designer Echo
Blackadder, Steptoe and Son, Keeping Up Appearances, The Office.
Comedy is very often vicious and mean, mocking it's characters aspirations as they fail over and over again. The british produce this kind quite a bit.
There are other strong british comedy traditions too, obviously.
Lord is the superior Honorific.
Same again with Red Dwarf, for that matter. Rimmer and Lister (and even Holly to an extent) all deserve their existential misery.
The shows will also give moments of humanity and redemption for them, before throwing them back into the ring.
By comparison, I felt like none of the cast of ND had any sins, beyond being desperately uncool. It felt - for me at least - bad to laugh at them. But Jacob's perspective on it was pretty incisive. and it does make a lot more sense with that in mind.
I should, uh
I should probably pack my suitcase
It seems i am slowly moving into have been in that field for about four years now, especially with regards to UI.
I don't know how this happened, I wanted to work on AI and gameplay.
I didn't ask for this
Help us, Obi-Wan HerrCroni
You're our only hope
But you two, stop the tide of UIs slowly becoming butts.
I think chu already did this
you can just take his
I don't look good in S&M gear, unfortunately
Well, I am working on that, at least for the stuff i'm involved in. But it's an uphill battle, because our design philosophy so far seems to be "eh, they'll figure it out and if they don't fuck 'em"
Which is maddening.
What does it matter if the others wear hoods?
i'm still up working on it 2.2
You ain't the boss of me, Haphazard!
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter