A while back Google changed the way their search engine works on the iPad. And I'm reminded of how much I dislike the change several times every day, because I use the iPad a lot, and of course I use Google search a lot too.

Here's the problem, illustrated in a screen shot.

Look at all the wasted space. There is a link at the bottom of the page that takes you to "Classic" view, which is the normal Google search results page.

I wouldn't mind this if it remembered my preference. Or if the Classic link was at the top of the page.

Or if they just skipped the feature.

Designers really need to hear the following, loud and clear: The iPad browser is fully capable. It doesn't need you to treat it differently. You're fighting with users when you get fancy. Just stick with what works on the desktop. And if you must screw around, then make the opt-out obvious and painless.

 11/16/2011; 10:16:48 AM.   .

The Times certainly loves itself. No problem there.

But it also cannot criticize itself. And that's a major problem.

It's really odd that they can't do it, because the Times is really good at criticizing other forms of writing and creative work. Their book critics, movie, theater and TV critics, even their critiques of software lead their fields and are considered by many to be authoritative.

But when they decided to criticize themselves, through the public editor who is supposed to speak for the readers, what you end up with is apologies and explanations, never anything remotely like what the Times deserves. As a result the editorial coverage of the Times suffers.

That's why I'm glad to see the blogosphere has embraced the problem with the NY Times Examiner site.

This morning they took apart a Bill Keller piece that I had read, and had not considered who wrote it. I accepted at face value the facts they recited. Even thought to myself a few times "Oh I didn't know that." Turns out there's a lot in the Keller piece that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

To get an idea of how bad this is, imagine developing software without bug reports from users. That's the problem they're dealing with.

One day the Times will have the courage to devote a serious amount of their space to self-criticism. To teach the readers how to file bug reports, and actually learn how to listen to them. And their product quality will soar. Until then, we should all be following the Examiner so there's at least some balance to the reporting in the Times.

http://www.nytexaminer.com/feed/

 11/16/2011; 9:46:35 AM.   .

A brief note of congratulations to Readability, for releasing what appears to be a comprehensive and useful API.

Reading is a big part of what we do on the web. It's good that they're investing in making it work better. And of course it's important that those features are available to other developers to build on.

I plan to integrate their URL-shortener with my minimal blogging tool.

I released a glue table for it just now. It has one entry-point, that shortens a URL.

Here's an example of a short URL that was created with Readability.

Again, congrats, and thanks!

Update: There's a problem. About half the time I get sent to a page that's definitely not readable. Example.

 11/16/2011; 9:19:55 AM.   .