VIZ Media | San Francisco | Android Software Engineer | Full-time | Onsite
VIZ Media is an anime/manga publisher based in San Francisco. We're one of the largest comics publishers in the English market (rivaling Marvel & DC), also known for anime hits (like One Punch Man, Sailor Moon, and Pokémon), and we recently launched the groundbreaking Shonen Jump subscription manga service. We're looking for an Android engineer to join our small engineering team that builds our growing web and mobile platforms.
The position is onsite in our San Francisco office, but we would also consider San Diego-based developers to work with staff based in San Diego.
VIZ Media | San Francisco | Software Engineer | Full-time | Onsite
VIZ Media is the leading company for anime and manga localization and distribution. We’re looking for someone to join our small engineering team, where we work on web and mobile apps to purchase and consume anime and manga titles. Some of our well-known titles include One Punch Man, Naruto, and Sailor Moon, in addition to lots of other content across new devices and platforms.
VIZ Media | San Francisco | Software Engineer | Full-time | Onsite
VIZ Media is the leading company for anime and manga localization and distribution. We’re looking for someone to join our small engineering team, where we work on web and mobile apps to extend the reach of renowned anime and manga titles. Some of our well-known titles include One Punch Man, Naruto, and Sailor Moon, in addition to lots of other content across new devices and platforms.
Software Engineer at VIZ Media, the leading company for anime and manga localization and distribution
ONSITE - Mid Market, San Francisco
Works on web and mobile app development to improve and extend the reach of renowned anime and manga titles, including One Punch Man, Naruto, and Sailor Moon, and other content across new devices and platforms. Acts as a key contributor as part of our small development team responsible for maintaining and extending VIZ Media’s digital presence.
Hiring process includes: 1) Initial screening questions. 2) Phone screen and interview for qualified applicants with hiring team. 3) Second round interviews will be in person with more hands-on testing.
In case it wasn't obvious, the word "female" is an adjective, and referring to a group of people by an adjective instead of a noun has a demeaning connotation in English, especially when it's primarily used for one group and not another.
Notice how the word "male" is only mentioned in this article as an adjective ("male/female mix", "male/female interests"), but "females" is often used as a synonym for "women" ("% of females", "people likely to trust females", "females in career", "likes from females"). "Female" is not a drop-in replacement for "women".
> Using "female" in this way is contrary to how we generally communicate. As noted above, "female" as a noun erases the subject—making "female" the subject of the sentence. In the most technical sense, it's correct, but by employing this word that is usually an adjective as a noun, you're reducing her whole personhood to the confines of that adjective. It's calling someone "a white" instead of a white person, "a black" instead of a black person, and so on.[0]
Not really trying to judge this article—it's been a while since I've dealt with research jargon, and I can't judge whether referring to groups as adjectives like this is standard practice in that field. And the Jezebel article I've linked to even mentions that "females" has a clinical feel, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's standard in this setting. But this bias is pretty prevalent in everyday speech and is worth being aware of and trying to prevent.
I assume they're aggregating similar terms, so is this just a case of choosing the wrong aggregate name? Google Trends reports "playstation" is MUCH more common than "play station" (looks like at least 10:1).
Looks great. I can only imagine that this is the first step towards allowing users to store their credit card information securely with Stripe and not have to pass it through every merchant site. I can't wait until the day that Stripe's ease of use for developers meets (and exceeds) Paypal's ease of use for customers.
Spending more time doing X is correlated with spending more time talking about X?
Spending more time talking about X is correlated with spending more time arguing about X?
Spending more time arguing is correlated with higher relationship conflict?
All completely obvious results, strung together with logical fallacies to conclude that video games are correlated with relationship conflict. Although I do have to give the article credit for not implying causation—wait, they do, never mind.
For example, I can assure you that: 1) men who cook more also talk about cooking more, 2) men who talk about cooking more (all other things, including amount talked about in other areas, equal) argue about cooking more, and 3) men who argue about cooking more (all other things, including levels of argument in other areas, equal) exhibit more physical aggression towards their partners. Using the exact same logic, I can conclude that cooking causes relationship abuse.
Stripe gets a lot of love here on HN, and it's almost universally praised as having no faults and being better than Paypal in every single way. And yet I never see anyone discuss the experience for users. I actually really like the ability to use Paypal on a site to pay without entering my credit card information to yet another source of potential hacking. If a site that allowed Paypal payments moved to Stripe, I would actually find that frustrating and inconvenient. Developers seem quick to praise Stripe as perfect because it does seem to be close to that in the facet they deal with (on the development and merchant end); I understand that developers save a ton more time by switching to Stripe than users lose by having to enter their payment information, but your users really shouldn't have to be concerned with that detail. That being said, I do really like Stripe, but I worry that they'll grow complacent and never expand into the user-facing features because the huge success they've had in other aspects means no one is really pushing them to grow into those areas.
> Baskerville seems to be the king of fonts. What I did is I pushed and pulled at the data and threw nasty criteria at it. But it is clear in the data that Baskerville is different from the other fonts in terms of the response it is soliciting.
No amount of 'pushing' and 'pulling' at data can compensate for a poorly designed experiment. Georgia can't be used as both the control and a measure of how effective Georgia is—clearly fonts that stood out from the rest of the page would have a different effect than the one that looks exactly like the rest of the page. To give any of this credence, the sample should have stood alone, or the typeface of the surrounding page should have been randomized as well. What we're looking at here is "Are there certain typefaces that compel a belief that the sentences they are written in are true when contrasted with Georgia?".
More realistically, Visa was probably hoping that many consumers would, like the author, already have the option of and be forced into using their Visa card.
I agree that this seems, in addition to being extremely frustrating to almost all consumers, a silly marketing move, but I'm sure that Visa has run the numbers and has a sound business reason for doing this. Since, judging by mthoms's post, this seems to be a tradition at Olympics, my reasoning may be off, but I imagine that forcing all vendors to only accept Visa must cost a lot more than a sponsorship without that condition—and I really think that they wouldn't blindly jump into that without a sound reason.
There's the obvious trade-off of how much extra money Visa makes from users who have multiple cards and are forced into using Visa where they wouldn't have otherwise vs. money lost from Visa-owners who who are pissed off. But there are probably much more subtle, long-term effects. Maybe 75% of consumers present have a Visa, and 50% of those Visa-owners feel entitled and empowered by having the ability to use their card while others are frustrated; and then there's the trade-off of the 'entitled' Visa-owning 37.5% of consumers spending more with their Visa cards over the following months/years vs. the money lost due to the 25% of consumers who didn't have a Visa at the olympics and possibly hold a grudge and never own a Visa card because of the experience. Not to mention the fact that a similar sponsorship would likely be arranged if Visa decided not to do it; for all we know, MasterCard had a clear business incentive to do this but refrained because of moral reasons, but are we (consumers as a whole) discussing how valiant MasterCard is and how much they respect us as consumers or have we all forgotten a little bit about MasterCard because everyone's talking about Visa?
Again, I don't agree with this idea; I think it's bad and annoying. But I think it's silly and a bit ignorant for all of us (many of whom have no marketing experience, and most of whom don't on this scale) to assume we know more than the marketers making these decisions because we're annoyed.
As I was ranting a bit about Fog Creek's choice of label colors in Trello (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4330851), I started to wonder: do development shops of 30+ people typically not include anyone who is red-green colorblind? Typically all that's required is to show someone a screenshot and say "does this work?". In the case of Trello labels, I have to assume that no one on the team at Fog Creek was colorblind, and that (i) the palette choice was done lazily, (ii) there was no one with red-green colorblindness at Fog Creek to do a quick "do these work?" check, or (iii) there were very strict design restrictions on what colors could be chosen to fit in with the rest of the site's aesthetic (personally, I think this is a bit silly, because the wacky patterns of colorblind-friendly mode clash a lot with the rest of the site's design, but 92% of users seeing a non-clashing experience may have taken priority). (ii) seems the most likely option. As a left-handed colorblind redhead, sometimes I take my 'deficiencies' for granted, but that just seems odd.
The biggest irony? Assuming statistical independence and that 8% of the population is colorblind, there's an 8% chance that a group of 30 people would not include anyone with colorblindness.
The only situations I've really run across problems with color is with labeling or tagging, if colors play a critical role in distinguishing the tags. This was particularly bad in Trello before they introduced a color-blind mode. I actually dislike the way they handled it. Trello only allows 6 predefined colors for labels, and the colors they picked were particularly bad for those with red-green colorblindness (I could barely distinguish between the blue and purple, and could distinguish the red and orange side-by-side but not identify in isolation); they then introduced a color blind friendly mode that adds unique patterns to the most problematic colors (blue, orange, green). What bothers me about this is that it would have been extremely easy to just pick 6 colors that weren't problematic (red, dark blue, light blue, yellow, black; there, that took me under a minute, and the least you could do is consult a representative of 8% of your users for 30 seconds). Once they realized the colors they'd chosen were a problem for red-green color blind users, I understand why they introduced a new mode instead of changing the colors for everyone, since that would disrupt and confuse many people ("I don't know where I put the card, I just made it purple, and now there's no purple!"), but the problem could have been much more elegantly solved with a bit more forethought.
Summary: color blindness is only a handicap in situations where identifying color is critical. Situations like this aren't that common, but there are cases, and when you're going to put significant thought into picking a color palette it just comes off as lazy and irresponsible (unless there really isn't a good solution—e.g., picking a palette of 50 colors).
Looking at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1072027/Screenshots/1z.png, I find the comment about "perfect spacing and clean typography" almost laughable. I also prefer design that incorporates smart typography to convey importance and structure. His app mockups seem to show an understanding of this, but the site layout in general (especially this section) does not.
(1) why is the "We spend a huge amount of our day..." text in red? (2) why is that text smaller than the previous chunk of text? (3) why is that entire previous chunk of text italicized? (4) how is "Mark as read is useless..." at all related to "Emails aren't just emails anymore"? why are these in the same paragraph? "Mark as read" seems like it should be the beginning of a list of complaints about email, not the supporting sentence for "Emails aren't just emails anymore" -- this just comes off as extremely bad flow of thought, and the typography makes it more confusing. (5) why is the heading for each of the boxes split into all-caps tiny text and no-caps large text? the idea in itself isn't terrible, but the tiny text is too tiny, and the splitting into tiny and large text isn't consistent -- clearly it's meant so that the large text can be read on its own and the tiny text adds to the experience upon closer inspection, and so putting the "and" at the end of the "A clean and" tiny text for the first box makes sense, but then why is the "and" at the beginning of the "and clean typograhpy" large text in the second box?
all of those are significantly more complicated. you really can't argue that a shape made up of one very simple shape is only slightly less complicated than a shape made up of a couple/several simple shapes. by that logic, you could argue that every letter in the Latin alphabet is very simple; I'm sure everyone would agree that there is a significant difference in complexity between a rectangle and an uppercase 'F'.
Am I the only one who sees a clear, functional difference between "todo" and "list" apps?
Todo apps: Any.do, Orchestra, 2Do, Do It Tomorrow, TeuxDeux
List apps: Clear, Cheddar, Listary
I always keep one of each one my phone, because they serve entirely different purposes. While they both work by storing lists, there's a big difference for me between tasks and items in a list. When I'm tracking tasks, I want things organized based on timeframes (maybe also assigning priorities, due dates, or categories), and an interface designed around that principle is always going to do that better; you could use Clear or Cheddar to store "Today", "Tomorrow", and "Soon" lists, but that's a poor hack. When I'm simply maintaining a list of things to remember (e.g., grocery list, debts to friends, items I need to buy after moving, songs to buy, 100 push-ups program), all I want is several (separate) lists with items I can add, edit, rearrange, and delete.
I currently use Any.do as my tasks app and Clear as my list app. I really like the design of both of them, but I have reservations of both. Any.do takes a very nice approach of sorting tasks into bins of Today, Tomorrow, This Week, and Later, but aggressively bubbles tasks up (the idea is nice if Tomorrow tasks moved into Today after a day, and This Week into Tomorrow after 6 days, and Later always stayed in Later, but I've had to push the same tasks back into Later and This Week 4+ times per week). Clear lacks syncing of any kind -- this is extremely frustrating because it could easily hook into something like SimpleNote. I really like the focus on syncing from Cheddar, but I have major reservations about the subscription concept (even though experience shows that I move between these apps frequently and will likely not need to pay for many months, a subscription feels like a significant investment whereas a <$5 app doesn't), and I find myself missing Any.do and Clear's gestures.
