If I am drinking a can of soda, and I set it down, I dont need to save it as "mysoda7-7-00.pop"
On my desk, right now, I have a dozen "Untitled Soda"s
The excuses that we as developers, designers and implementers use to perpetuate these anomalies are poor. "The user isnt computer literate" "That a training issue" "You arent supposed to do it like THAT"
15 yr olds aren't "driving literate". 5 yr olds aren't "money literate" (the nickle is bigger, but worth less?). We live in an integration of disparate systems. We need to learn how to use (or be used by!) said systems. Cars, money, public transport... computers are no different. By and large, for joe end user they are only marginally more difficult than driving.
normal people dont want to be "computer literate", no more than we want to be "Accounting Literate".
Programmers, sysadmins etc. are the "Accounting Literate" people. End users only need to know how to recognize various denominations, write a cheque and use their bank card.
All they want to do is do their term paper, and not muck about in computer hell for hours.
May I suggest a pen? To write a term paper you need to know several systems. 1. language. Can you speak it? Understand it? Learning time: 4 years. 2. writing. "joiny up" writing optional. A big system with lots of tricks. 'Its' versus 'It's'. 'i before e except after c' (except for science and heinous and... 40 others). Most/. posters don't grok this system yet:) Estimated learning time: 3 yrs basics. University for advanced. 3. typing. Almost mandatory since the 30's. Learning time: 2 yrs
Figguring out that the icon of the document that says "document" on it is your (wait for it...) document can't be that tough after all that.... can it?
You all remember Ted Nelson of Computer Lib fame... right? In case you forgot, a refresher is here
From the text The windows-menus-mouse "desktop" interface, invented by Xerox and Apple and now universal, was a brilliant invention and is now obsolete. It wastes screen-space on meaningless images,
Meaningless? Now, if he was talking about OpenWindows where every damn icon says "/bin/tcsh" on it regardless of what that shell is doing, I'd agree... but the whole point of icons was to distill meaning into a simple, easy to identify image that would take the place of a dozen words. Gee, that icond looks like a hard drive... I suppose it's my hard drive. Meaning transmitted. Mission accomplished. Yale guy wrong.
fails to provide adequate clues to what is inside the files represented by those blurry little images, forces users to choose icons for the desktop when the system could choose them better itself,
If it's blurry, you need a better monitor. My millions-of-colours icons (MacOS 8.5+) are very crisp. If Mr. Yale (oops, Dr. Yale) has a problem with getting appropriate info out of pictographs I weep at the thought of him navigating an airport. Pictographs are far more intuitive and easily understood than written linquistics. All of the original writing systems were based on pictographs and only evolved into alphabetic systems when the need to communicate non-concrete objects became a burden (give me a pictorgraph for "obligation"... sheesh). However, in the OS environment, just about everything is a noun. Nouns lend well to pictographs. If an OS needs to transmit info that doesn't lend itself well to pictographs, there's still text. I don't get what he means by "when the system could choose them better itself". When the system choses stuff for me, I usually get upset ("no, no not Internet Explorer you stupid system!")
and keeps users jockeying windows (like parking attendants rearranging cars in a pint-sized Manhattan lot) in a losing battle for an unimpeded view of the workspace -- which is, ultimately, unattainable. No such unimpeded view exists.
Well, if no such unimpeded view exists, then why dis the desktop metaphor? By his own admission his goal is unattainable. Hm. Yes, window clutter is a serious problem, however it is far from paralyzing because: 1. Screens are big now. My work screen is a whopping 21". The first Mac had a nine inch screen... and that idea managed to catch on. 2. Window management techniques are pretty good. The reduce-to-icon idea (a la CDE or, for a bad example, OpenWidows), the Doc (NeXT and, soon, OS X) and the Window Shade (Mac OS 7.1+ and KDE if you turn it on) all allow for multiple windows to be prioritized and deprioritized nicely. 3. There can only be one focus item at a time. Period. His issue seems to be that finding the item you want to focus, focusing it and keeping it in focus is too tough. Well, as data grows and the number of potential tasks increases, this problem will only increase... typing cd/usr/export/home/foo/ is no easier than playing window-hunt.
As a side note, the single-window mode on OS X (a la DP4) seems a fine way to ameliorate this problem. For a guy who speaks so highly of the Mac OS it seems like he doesn't really look at it.
Here's a question for you, though, will your beloved be recognized and get raises or promotions at this company?
No. I must say that this has more to do with the size and organization of the company than anything else though. The org chart is: suits: top gord: answers to suits everyone else: answers to whoever isn't one of them.
I heard apple are about to release a new keyboard with only one key. "New users are endlessly pressing thewrong key on current keyboards." An Apple spokesman said. "With our new design you no longer have this problem."
I hear Microsoft is about to release a new mouse with 101 keys. "Users demand a new mouse with more features" a msft spokesperson said. "Sure it's basically a second keyboard on wheels.... but it has a full set of F-keys that come premaped to type "lol", "brb" and "gl hf" for online gamers."
Making a UI that's easy to learn is a great way of hooking new users on your product, but it doesn't serve them well in the long run.
That's where the keyboard commands come in... to be frank, for a guy who's generated a lot of debate over mice, I use mine only rarely. The mac allows for just about everything to be done via the keyboard. Sadly, most of it isn't documented... however if you just stop and think "how would I map this to the keyboard?" you'll probably come up with the right answer.
Typical mac finder navigation as done by Frymaster: At blank desktop. Type "mac"... since my harddrive is called "macintosh sylex" that highlights the drive. cmd-O for open. Move to "development" folder by typing "dev" (or just "d" since no other folder start with that letter). Open folder with opt-cmd-O. The opt key closes the first window while opening the second. Navigate to the first folder by hitting the arrow up key (last folder is arrow down). Move down the row of folders with arrow key til I get to the file I want. I need info on this file I have selected so... cmd I. Done with the info? cmd-W closes. The info is unappealing and I would like to delete the file. Cmd-delete moves it to the trash. Time to log out? Cmd Q. Mission accomplished, mouse not even warm. That's how my mac serves me now that I'm no longer a putzing pre-teen with a plus... and, dammit, it's fast.
I think the biggest crippling blow to the open source movement is that it's often peddaled as a moral imperitive. It's the "Right Thing To Do" and those who question it do so with trepidation and caveats. Here's the bottom line: OSS is not an ethical concept, it's a development/business model. This model has two main advantages:
1. The Million Eyes. If you compile it they will come. If you open source it they will come... and fix it. At least that's the plan. Naturally "sexy" products get more attention in this model. 2. PR. Ugly, but true, a big chunk of OSS's benefits come from the PR boost it gives. Sure the stock-frenzy has calmed down a lot in the last while, but investors and customers still think that those of us in the open source camp know something they don't. Gosh, they say, they're giving their stuff away as a business model... they obviously know something we don't... buy their stock/product.
If you need a dose of 1 or 2, open source is for you. If not, open source is still an option as long as it doesn't put you out of business (or if you were never in business in the first place).
So, let's look at both: Number one (million eyes) can be an advantage. If your clients are 5-9s systems (I hear they exist, but working in a system rated as "an 8, a 5 and two 9s" I have a hard time imagining it) a million eyes may be regarded as a bonus. However, if your software is highly priced (as 5-9 stuff tends to be) you may be shooting yourself in the foot. Keep in mind, however, people will pay for the package to appease their boss. Witness my network. We run 250 Mac clients off several Solaris boxen. We use ethershare (about $12k). Netatalk is free. Fortunately for Helios (makers of ethershare) our uberboss would have an aneurism if he thought our workflow was entrusted to "something we downloaded off the net". It's not even a support issue... 80% of support is available in German only. Zum tuffel! ich ein komputererror! The question is: do the number of customers who will pay for peer-reviewed software outweight those who will download it for free. Get out the ouija board.
Does OSS PR matter? The question here is, do you believe that putting the GPL stamp of approval on your company brochure will move it closer to the top of tbe in box on the customer's desk. The PR game is tricky because you have to account for positive and negative publicity. You can have a great product, but if it's not open then all certain reviewers will discuss is your license.... not your software. Open sourcing avoids this bad PR. The good PR is trickier. For some customers it has a strong positive effect. For others, none at all... and for some it's a Bad Thing. If my Dad was shopping for serious corporate software (and god forbid he may one day...) he would definitely be adversely effected by open source. Sure he knows almost nothing about computers, but the vast majority of corporate budget-holders don't either. FUD is reality.
The bottom line IM(sometimes)HO is that you need to poll your customer base. The question is not "do you want open source" but do your customers want open source?
I must admit that my employment history isn't very diversified, but I know a lot of folks in the industry in my city and it is overwhelmingly swm's out there. This strikes home even more today... our new hire showed up for shift one. White, male... straight? Well, a 90% chance.
Don't ask me, ask Mr. Startup Owner... The gist of the whole scene was that women are designed to do women things (clean, raise kids, be secretaries), men are raised to do men things (fight wars, watch sports, play with computers). Mr. Owner is enslaved to these notions contrary to the evidence around him.
Nothing wrong with that job.
No there isn't. The biggest issue was that computergrrrl was hired for one job (programming) and given another (reception). She has no reception skills or training and only had her position altered because of Mr. Owner's afformentioned mentality.
Offhand, I can't think of any non-computer application that requires one to quickly press a button twice in order to get a response.
Rotate car key one notch for electric, 2 notches for ignition. The analogy I make often is to knocking on a door. Knock twice and the app/door is "opened".
The last Mac I really used was a Mac Classic. sosumi if I got it wrong...
five points for the in-joke.
It isn't the instruction that is the problem, it is the speed.
The mouse control panel lets you adjust click speed and tracking speed. I go for fast click, slow track.... although there is now a mac USB "gaming mouse" that has a wheel that is used to adjust the tracking speed on the fly!
Kickass! I gotta get me one of those (I'm a fan of bigger stuff)
You must live in a wide open space. I got the biggest desk in the province (solid steel engineers desk from the 30s) but I have so much crap on it that I need a small keyboard... if you want 3 Os's and don't want LILO... you need the big desk/small computer combo.
I think I bought it because I saw it alone at the Future Shop (like a stripped down, Canadian version of Best Buy)
The mere mention of Future Shop sends me into convulsive fits... That is the "heaps of abuse" outlet I referred to previously.
I think (for fun) I'll write a mouse driver for it... I've love to literally navigate my computer.
Although I can't imagine its implementation, it does sound like a cool hack...
There are some bad points about some Macs (the iMac in particular)
Honestly, I have to say that the only thing that bugs me about the mac is the price and the lower stability. Really. The mouse has its detractors (I among them at one point), but it grows on you. Mind you, I use a G4 tower not an iMac (and have never used an iMac) and have been mind-numbingly happy with it. Of course, were it my only computer I would probably feel differently. I have the option of heading for the Solaris box whenever I need to do "solarisy" things. If that option wasn't there, I probably wouldn't be so satisfied with the G4....
Please be the president of your country
uh, we share a country... and I don't really care who you vote for as long as it is not Stockwell Day....
But, as I'm sure you feel whenever the Mac gets the latest game/application last
Well, uh, I should say that the fact that a lot of bugs get worked out in the port lag time makes it worthwhile... but that's really the consolation prize. Oh, we do get Photoshop stuff first.
So, what does Apple do? "Compromise" and take the ever-so horrid contextual menus and combine them with a two-handed hot key
1. Hot keys are one-handed. Thumb on cmd key, finger-of-choice elsewhere. This is possible because the cmd key is adjacent to the space bar and available on both sides of the keyboard. 2. The contextual menu is basically a bone thrown to Winders users. In the mac community they are heroically under-used. Personally, I thought they were a bad idea to begin with, but if the Winders convert wants contextuals, they're there. 3. I'm not sure if you have used a mac... but to reiterate: All the basic hot keys and menu choices for the system (close, open, paste, undo etc.) are the same across all apps. Furthermore, it is easy to navigate through the finder without touching the mouse. The arrow keys plus close & open allow you to do anything that you could do with the mouse except change views from icon to list, windowshade and spring-load. Personally, I preferr the keyboard navigation... but I'm a freak of nature that way. Ultimately, second/third mouse buttons are unneccessary because the hot key layout is good, can be used with one hand and system menus are universally identical.
First off, its not the old kind with the funky mousepad...
The comment I was responding to was about Sun's optical mouse of 1991 vintage. It had a funky pad.
Secondly, it would work on a glass table (i dont know why, but i just tested it and it does)
uh, I was being sarcastic... I'll try again.
Oh, yeah? What about on the surface of an exploding volcano?? while your gf shines a highly concentrated particle beam directly at the laser? huh? huh? Gotcha there didn't I?:)
And, if you ask me, hot keys are nothing more than a lameass way to try to speed an app up. If an application is well designed, you won't need hot keys (since this means you take your fingers from the mouse)
uh, you're not talking about a mac obviously. Since Apple has set the command key adjacent to the space bar on either side, all hot keys can be hit with one hand (thumb on cmd key, other finger of user's choice on appropriate key). This leaves one whole hand for the mouse.
We all have our ways, but the windows way seems to be the most popular. Whether that is good or not doesn't matter.
I think it does. I like good things.
I'd love it... I always seem to spend the first hour with new computer users explaining to them they they must quickly, without high force lest something bust, tap the button on the mouse to do things. It would be much easier if I could say "Push the BLUE button, DAMMIT" (ok, I wouldn't swear.)
An hour? hm. Here's my spiel "okay. When I say 'click' you click the mouse. Ready? click click."
Hey, just because someone came up with the better idea light years before apple did doesn't mean it sucks. If you ask me (and I know you didn't:) all computer desks should have come with an optical mousepad design. Optical mice rule.
1. The mere fact that I posted in the first place means I asked you... or anybody reading this... except for that penis bird guy, of course. 2. It's a great idea. The implementation, however, sucks dogs. 3. So now I have to have a special desk to use my computer? Wow, and I thought having to have a special mouse pad was bad...
And copy is Ctrl-Insert, Cut is Shift-Del, and paste is Shift-Insert. I've never seen a decent app mess with those combos before (except to add more)...
But close and quit change like the wind... Of course, I have the sun keyboard with a key labeled "cut" and "paste". A neat idea, except the keyboard is about the same size as my ironing board. My sun keyboard, also, only goes up to F12.
Yeah, I'm serious. And no, I'm not trying to insult you. I'm just telling you what some of the other side thinks
Insulted? Sheesh, mac users have thicker skin than that! Years of heaping amounts of abuse from sales people at Big Daddy's Discount Computer Quonset toughen you up! I know what the other side thinks, btw. The "other side" is 95% of the population... well, except maybe for the foot pedal thing. I must admit that I can't imagine for the life of me why you would have a steering wheel on your computer...
Just for the record: The old optical mice required a special pad with alternating mirror/dark squares.
Yes... and they suck
1. You lose the pad, you can't use your computer. 2. You want a bigger pad? sorry. 3. You want a pad with a picture of yer kids/dog/ouija board on it. See #2. 4. You accidentally rotate the pad more than 45 degrees and gues what the mouse stops working. Really. No shit. Now, I use this a "security feature". I lock my screen and rotate my pad 90 degrees before going home from work every day.
That's why you can use it on any surface
Oh yeah? How about on the glass dining room table while your gf plays with a laser pointer underneath it. huh? huh? gotcha there didn't I?:)
Will Apple finally understand that a second button can be really useful for a whole range of tasks
Like what? I use a mac, a sparc10(solaris) and a winders machine (for solitaire... no, really) and I've come to the conclusion that extra buttons are only there to make up for bad UI design. Let's "do the numbers":
1. The original mice concept as envisioned by Xerox had 3 buttons all doing a vairety of tasks. Apple did a bag o' research that showed that mis-hits were common amongst users learning new tasks. The solution? The double click. Imagine life without the double-click... 2. Two button mice were "developed" (note the quotes) to give users contextual menues. Contextual menues were developed to make up for the fact that a particular OS that shall remained unnamed (ok, windows) had such a terrible set of rules for system menues that it was almost impossible to get stuff done. Menues attached to application windows, menues attached document windows, menues attached to folder windows.... where the $@#%! is "copy" or "paste"? Hence, the second button. 3. Contextual menues were also the saviour to the crisis of badly designed hot keys. I want to close a window... is it ctrl-w, alt-w or alt-F4 (nobel prize for counter-intuitive design to whoever came up with that one). Quitting an application? Could be q, could be x. On the mac, quit is always cmd-Q, close is always cmd-W, undo is always Z. Always. With these commands standardized across all apps, contextual menues are unneccessary... 4. In order to get some mindshare off the Winders flock, Apple caved in and offered contextual menues. Just hold down the control key. No second mouse button required.
The current state of the multi-button-mouse is alarming. First it was two buttons, then three, then a lever, later a wheel. What's next? A second keyboard on wheels? Foot pedals?
...and for the record, I do use the middle button on the sparc mouse (which, incidentally is shaped like a paperback and has a must-use-our-mousepad-and-not-rotate-it-more-than- 45degrees optical design) but only because the keyboard commands are so hoplessly fragmented, counterintuitive and arcane that the alternative is to use the thing as a door stop.
End Rant.
"Why should we limit computers to the lies we tell them with that second mouse button?" Frymaster, 2000, my basement
I must relate the recent tale of woe that has befallen my beloved.
Act One: Computergrrrl meets the patriarchy Computergrrrl has been a geek of many stripes for most of her life. About 2 yrs ago, she decided to actually pursue computer programming at school. She went, saw and conquered, and with her freshly-minted diploma in hand, landed a job at an internet startup. Her job description was titled "junior programmer". The immediate reality, however, was different. This company made two hires in the same week, both fresh grads; one was computergrrrl, the other was a boy who we'll call Rob (well, that's his name). Rob was plopped down at a desk in the "back room" and set to work on ASP stuff immediately. Computergrrrl was plopped down at the reception desk and told to answer the phones and compile a list of office supplies. When computergrrrl pointed out to her new employers that she had no secreatrial training whatsoever, she was told that she should find "it came naturally" and that they "couldn't possible have one of the guys do reception"
Act Two: Geeks ride to the rescue This company is divided into two layers. Business guys who have the money and call the shots, and coders who write the product (service?) and get free pop. After a few days, the "head coder" who we'll call Gord (well, that's his name) started to realize what was going on. At the end of a week, he confronted the owners and told them that they were denying him a valuable resource (computergrrrl) and that this "misallocation of talent"(his quote) was unacceptable. The owners hummed and hawed over transferring her, finally prompting gord to ask them why they had chosen to hire a woman in the first place, if they really felt her gender precluded her from doing her job. The answer: "We figgured she could do the reception work and help you out with little things in her spare time."
Act Three: making a loooong story short(er) The ultimate compromise, was that computergrrrl was moved to web design (it's artsy! girls are good at artsy!) and, over time, into some backend coding (computergrrrl to owners "java is a new language. I have a talent for languages." language=artsy.)
The long-awaited moral of the story Geeks tend to work on a merit-ocracy. You're judged on your chops, not your sex, race, religion (unless it's linux) etc. Sadly, a lot of the hire decisions are made by the money people. They can't tell good code from bad code (hmmm. I can't decipher it. It must be a good code...) and tend to have more "traditional" views of women in the work place. If you're a girl and you're a geek, find a boss who's into computers more than s/he's into money.
but in theory, just about anything else should work fine
Word on the street is that Classic apps "work"... but are butt ugly and generally not the most elegant chunks o' code. If there is one thing that Apple has provided it's users and it's users have come to expect/demand, it's elegance. Look at the labels on icons in OS8.5+... they're translucent. Mac users (me included) demand that sort of attention to detail... anything less is, in our eyes, clumsy and ugly. I figgure that within 2 months of the consumer release, Classic is going to be relegated to "for emergencies only".
Let him get dependent on some program that runs under MacOS 7/8/9 and then for some reason breaks under MacOS X
Actually, that's not a bad intro for even very novice programmers. Apple provides a tool called Carbon Dater that runs through your Classic source file and then, essentially, gives you a list of things that are non-carbon compliant.... and there's a fair stack o' docs on how to carbonize from there. This is almost a sort of "paint by numbers" approach.... but it does do a lot of good in that
a. It gets newbies used to fiddling with stuff in CW/MPW b. The most commonly "broken" part is the event handling... and that has always been the bane of mac developing. Memory management is also a popular broken spot (no more masters!!) c. It's a confidence builder... and, with god and his lawyers as my witness, you need confidence to program a mac...
So, how does that help open source? Programmers want source. End users want bins. More programmers = more source. Get people into programming, and you'll develop a user base that also cares about source.
As the saying goes: "If you compile it, they will come... if you open the source, they will come and fix it"
And here I was under the impression that IBM had something called OS/2 out back then
Ya know, the minute I hit submit I realized I'd forgotten the ol' S/2.... oops. Personally, I chose to avoid it because it was a Big Blue project. The late 70' - early 80's (when my somewhat prejudicial views on operating systems were formed) was a time when BB was regarded by anyone who didn't wear sta-prest as being Evil Incarnate.... of course now I'm a slobbering fan of the ppc chips. My how times have changed:)
The new Amiga can use linux device drivers so there is no problem with hardware support
The issue I was addressing wasn't so much hardware support as mindshare. Firstly, I agree that this is a Good Thing. Secondly, I am a fan of diversity... one person's "chaos" is usually everybody else's "choice". My lament, was that a certain operating system which shall remain nameless (oh hell, windows) managed to gain a massive mindshare in the mid-90's because the alternatives were underdeveloped. I recall with great clarity hearing over and over again in the mid-90's that Amiga was working on Wonderful Things in some secret European laboratory and that one day they would ride over the hill to save us from the... uh, evil wizard. Anyway, poor analogies aside, I must admit I feel a little disappointed. In '96 the options were: Mac (my choice... but near-bankrupt), BeOS (with two device drivers... and run by Gasse! ack!), NeXT (for less money than a BMW... and less software than Be), Linux (I admit I thought it was a science fair project... or a repackaged Xenix... how was I supposed to know?) or Winders. Really, I was waiting for Moses Amiga...
Now that it's here; the "Mac is Back" (nice hardware, my choice of colour), BeOS can be hooked up to a printer finally (and do all sorts of other fine things), NeXT is OS X (and if DP4 is in indicator, it is going to be, at the very least, a lot of fun) and Linux is, uh, well you know Linux.
Anyway, the white knight showed up only to find three other tin guys fighting the dragon... and the princess is already dead. That's all I had to say....
The best vision of the Internet was made by the people at Community Memory in San Francisco in the early '70's... Really, I would have to drive out to my "storage locker of books and papers" to dig up the names and dates.... but if I recall correctly, the mission statement of this group was bang-on a description of the Internet.
Okay, mod me down for not being prepared, but I will be back with my facts, figgures and quotes...
For The Prodigal OS (Amiga) to return from exile across the sea. For the first time since the early 90's we actually have competition in the OS market... to the point where it may actually be getting overcrowded. One more OS (even the Amiga) is only going to get lost in the noise of screaming evangelists from the Linux/BeOS/MacOS9/MacOSX/*BSD camps (and the clomping of MS jackboots...) If they had made their re-appearance back in, say '96, when Linux was tiny, Apple near-bankrupt and BeOS gestating, they could have made a serious dent.
Sadly, I think this is destined to be an "also ran" in the race sheet of history.
The question is: would you rather be totally anthropomorphic or just get the job done?
Well, for honda, anthropomorphic is obviously the goal.
1. Anthro has more promo value. A cart that just wheels around looks too much like the Radio Shack remote-controlled toys to John Q. TVwatcher... a robot that walks and acts like a human, otoh, gets a big wow for honda. This is imporant, since bleeding-edge research projects get canned unless they can a) promise sell-able, profit-making results in the forseeable future or b) generate enough jaw-dropping to be considered good PR. In the post-reganomics world, projects that don't do either or both get canned.
2. Sell-ability. Honda would like to, one day, put one of these in the homes of lazy geeks who would like to have a machine that can mow the lawn or help them move that couch downstairs... Sure the cart-bot is "easy", but people are more attracted to anthro forms. Witness the Sony dog-o-matic (or whatever it was called). People like robots because they are mechanical people. If it's not a mechanical person, it's just another machine. At least that's the public perception.
This approach probably wouldn't work for industrial robotic assembly
This is a totally different thing compared to industrial assembly. Most industrial robots are specialized, ie, they are designed to do one task or type of task and do it to exacting specifications ("don't tighten the screw too tight"). This robot is a generalist. It doesn't do anything particularly well but it does a wide variety of types of tasks. Industrial robots are like Peterbilts. They're good for one thing (driving heavy, big things long distances) but suck at anything outside of that realm (parallel parking, drag racing). This guy is more like a pickup: It can haul goods (although not as well as a Peterbilt), it can parallel park (although it needs a biggish spot) and it can drag race (although it won't win... at least it beats the Peterbilt).
Back on topic:
Okay, you seem to have a much more detailed history with robotics than I.... so maybe this is a dumb question but... what about radar or some other non-visible em wave? At the very least that would eliminate the venetian blind noise. Failing that, is a sonar-based approach a viable option?
Slashdot Mirror
add iCab to your list...
On my desk, right now, I have a dozen "Untitled Soda"s
The excuses that we as developers, designers and implementers use to perpetuate these anomalies are poor.
"The user isnt computer literate"
"That a training issue"
"You arent supposed to do it like THAT"
15 yr olds aren't "driving literate". 5 yr olds aren't "money literate" (the nickle is bigger, but worth less?). We live in an integration of disparate systems. We need to learn how to use (or be used by!) said systems. Cars, money, public transport... computers are no different. By and large, for joe end user they are only marginally more difficult than driving.
normal people dont want to be "computer literate", no more than we want to be "Accounting Literate".
Programmers, sysadmins etc. are the "Accounting Literate" people. End users only need to know how to recognize various denominations, write a cheque and use their bank card.
All they want to do is do their term paper, and not muck about in computer hell for hours.
May I suggest a pen? To write a term paper you need to know several systems. /. posters don't grok this system yet :) Estimated learning time: 3 yrs basics. University for advanced.
1. language. Can you speak it? Understand it? Learning time: 4 years.
2. writing. "joiny up" writing optional. A big system with lots of tricks. 'Its' versus 'It's'. 'i before e except after c' (except for science and heinous and... 40 others). Most
3. typing. Almost mandatory since the 30's. Learning time: 2 yrs
Figguring out that the icon of the document that says "document" on it is your (wait for it...) document can't be that tough after all that.... can it?
From the text
The windows-menus-mouse "desktop" interface, invented by Xerox and Apple and now universal, was a brilliant invention and is now obsolete. It wastes screen-space on meaningless images,
Meaningless? Now, if he was talking about OpenWindows where every damn icon says "/bin/tcsh" on it regardless of what that shell is doing, I'd agree... but the whole point of icons was to distill meaning into a simple, easy to identify image that would take the place of a dozen words. Gee, that icond looks like a hard drive... I suppose it's my hard drive. Meaning transmitted. Mission accomplished. Yale guy wrong.
fails to provide adequate clues to what is inside the files represented by those blurry little images, forces users to choose icons for the desktop when the system could choose them better itself,
If it's blurry, you need a better monitor. My millions-of-colours icons (MacOS 8.5+) are very crisp. If Mr. Yale (oops, Dr. Yale) has a problem with getting appropriate info out of pictographs I weep at the thought of him navigating an airport. Pictographs are far more intuitive and easily understood than written linquistics. All of the original writing systems were based on pictographs and only evolved into alphabetic systems when the need to communicate non-concrete objects became a burden (give me a pictorgraph for "obligation"... sheesh). However, in the OS environment, just about everything is a noun. Nouns lend well to pictographs. If an OS needs to transmit info that doesn't lend itself well to pictographs, there's still text. I don't get what he means by "when the system could choose them better itself". When the system choses stuff for me, I usually get upset ("no, no not Internet Explorer you stupid system!")
and keeps users jockeying windows (like parking attendants rearranging cars in a pint-sized Manhattan lot) in a losing battle for an unimpeded view of the workspace -- which is, ultimately, unattainable. No such unimpeded view exists.
Well, if no such unimpeded view exists, then why dis the desktop metaphor? By his own admission his goal is unattainable. Hm. Yes, window clutter is a serious problem, however it is far from paralyzing because: /usr/export/home/foo/ is no easier than playing window-hunt.
1. Screens are big now. My work screen is a whopping 21". The first Mac had a nine inch screen... and that idea managed to catch on.
2. Window management techniques are pretty good. The reduce-to-icon idea (a la CDE or, for a bad example, OpenWidows), the Doc (NeXT and, soon, OS X) and the Window Shade (Mac OS 7.1+ and KDE if you turn it on) all allow for multiple windows to be prioritized and deprioritized nicely.
3. There can only be one focus item at a time. Period. His issue seems to be that finding the item you want to focus, focusing it and keeping it in focus is too tough. Well, as data grows and the number of potential tasks increases, this problem will only increase... typing cd
As a side note, the single-window mode on OS X (a la DP4) seems a fine way to ameliorate this problem. For a guy who speaks so highly of the Mac OS it seems like he doesn't really look at it.
Now go look at Ted Nelson's stuff....
No. I must say that this has more to do with the size and organization of the company than anything else though. The org chart is: suits: top gord: answers to suits everyone else: answers to whoever isn't one of them.
I hear Microsoft is about to release a new mouse with 101 keys. "Users demand a new mouse with more features" a msft spokesperson said. "Sure it's basically a second keyboard on wheels.... but it has a full set of F-keys that come premaped to type "lol", "brb" and "gl hf" for online gamers."
That's where the keyboard commands come in... to be frank, for a guy who's generated a lot of debate over mice, I use mine only rarely. The mac allows for just about everything to be done via the keyboard. Sadly, most of it isn't documented... however if you just stop and think "how would I map this to the keyboard?" you'll probably come up with the right answer.
Typical mac finder navigation as done by Frymaster: At blank desktop. Type "mac"... since my harddrive is called "macintosh sylex" that highlights the drive. cmd-O for open. Move to "development" folder by typing "dev" (or just "d" since no other folder start with that letter). Open folder with opt-cmd-O. The opt key closes the first window while opening the second. Navigate to the first folder by hitting the arrow up key (last folder is arrow down). Move down the row of folders with arrow key til I get to the file I want. I need info on this file I have selected so... cmd I. Done with the info? cmd-W closes. The info is unappealing and I would like to delete the file. Cmd-delete moves it to the trash. Time to log out? Cmd Q. Mission accomplished, mouse not even warm. That's how my mac serves me now that I'm no longer a putzing pre-teen with a plus... and, dammit, it's fast.
1. The Million Eyes. If you compile it they will come. If you open source it they will come... and fix it. At least that's the plan. Naturally "sexy" products get more attention in this model.
2. PR. Ugly, but true, a big chunk of OSS's benefits come from the PR boost it gives. Sure the stock-frenzy has calmed down a lot in the last while, but investors and customers still think that those of us in the open source camp know something they don't. Gosh, they say, they're giving their stuff away as a business model... they obviously know something we don't... buy their stock/product.
If you need a dose of 1 or 2, open source is for you. If not, open source is still an option as long as it doesn't put you out of business (or if you were never in business in the first place).
So, let's look at both: Number one (million eyes) can be an advantage. If your clients are 5-9s systems (I hear they exist, but working in a system rated as "an 8, a 5 and two 9s" I have a hard time imagining it) a million eyes may be regarded as a bonus. However, if your software is highly priced (as 5-9 stuff tends to be) you may be shooting yourself in the foot. Keep in mind, however, people will pay for the package to appease their boss. Witness my network. We run 250 Mac clients off several Solaris boxen. We use ethershare (about $12k). Netatalk is free. Fortunately for Helios (makers of ethershare) our uberboss would have an aneurism if he thought our workflow was entrusted to "something we downloaded off the net". It's not even a support issue... 80% of support is available in German only. Zum tuffel! ich ein komputererror! The question is: do the number of customers who will pay for peer-reviewed software outweight those who will download it for free. Get out the ouija board.
Does OSS PR matter? The question here is, do you believe that putting the GPL stamp of approval on your company brochure will move it closer to the top of tbe in box on the customer's desk. The PR game is tricky because you have to account for positive and negative publicity. You can have a great product, but if it's not open then all certain reviewers will discuss is your license.... not your software. Open sourcing avoids this bad PR. The good PR is trickier. For some customers it has a strong positive effect. For others, none at all... and for some it's a Bad Thing. If my Dad was shopping for serious corporate software (and god forbid he may one day...) he would definitely be adversely effected by open source. Sure he knows almost nothing about computers, but the vast majority of corporate budget-holders don't either. FUD is reality.
The bottom line IM(sometimes)HO is that you need to poll your customer base. The question is not "do you want open source" but do your customers want open source?
Somebody mod this guy up.
I must admit that my employment history isn't very diversified, but I know a lot of folks in the industry in my city and it is overwhelmingly swm's out there. This strikes home even more today... our new hire showed up for shift one. White, male... straight? Well, a 90% chance.
Don't ask me, ask Mr. Startup Owner... The gist of the whole scene was that women are designed to do women things (clean, raise kids, be secretaries), men are raised to do men things (fight wars, watch sports, play with computers). Mr. Owner is enslaved to these notions contrary to the evidence around him.
Nothing wrong with that job.
No there isn't. The biggest issue was that computergrrrl was hired for one job (programming) and given another (reception). She has no reception skills or training and only had her position altered because of Mr. Owner's afformentioned mentality.
NB. I answer my own phones.
Rotate car key one notch for electric, 2 notches for ignition. The analogy I make often is to knocking on a door. Knock twice and the app/door is "opened".
five points for the in-joke.
It isn't the instruction that is the problem, it is the speed.
The mouse control panel lets you adjust click speed and tracking speed. I go for fast click, slow track.... although there is now a mac USB "gaming mouse" that has a wheel that is used to adjust the tracking speed on the fly!
Kickass! I gotta get me one of those (I'm a fan of bigger stuff)
You must live in a wide open space. I got the biggest desk in the province (solid steel engineers desk from the 30s) but I have so much crap on it that I need a small keyboard... if you want 3 Os's and don't want LILO... you need the big desk/small computer combo.
I think I bought it because I saw it alone at the Future Shop (like a stripped down, Canadian version of Best Buy)
The mere mention of Future Shop sends me into convulsive fits... That is the "heaps of abuse" outlet I referred to previously.
I think (for fun) I'll write a mouse driver for it... I've love to literally navigate my computer.
Although I can't imagine its implementation, it does sound like a cool hack...
There are some bad points about some Macs (the iMac in particular)
Honestly, I have to say that the only thing that bugs me about the mac is the price and the lower stability. Really. The mouse has its detractors (I among them at one point), but it grows on you. Mind you, I use a G4 tower not an iMac (and have never used an iMac) and have been mind-numbingly happy with it. Of course, were it my only computer I would probably feel differently. I have the option of heading for the Solaris box whenever I need to do "solarisy" things. If that option wasn't there, I probably wouldn't be so satisfied with the G4....
Please be the president of your country
uh, we share a country... and I don't really care who you vote for as long as it is not Stockwell Day....
But, as I'm sure you feel whenever the Mac gets the latest game/application last
Well, uh, I should say that the fact that a lot of bugs get worked out in the port lag time makes it worthwhile... but that's really the consolation prize. Oh, we do get Photoshop stuff first.
1. Hot keys are one-handed. Thumb on cmd key, finger-of-choice elsewhere. This is possible because the cmd key is adjacent to the space bar and available on both sides of the keyboard.
2. The contextual menu is basically a bone thrown to Winders users. In the mac community they are heroically under-used. Personally, I thought they were a bad idea to begin with, but if the Winders convert wants contextuals, they're there.
3. I'm not sure if you have used a mac... but to reiterate: All the basic hot keys and menu choices for the system (close, open, paste, undo etc.) are the same across all apps. Furthermore, it is easy to navigate through the finder without touching the mouse. The arrow keys plus close & open allow you to do anything that you could do with the mouse except change views from icon to list, windowshade and spring-load. Personally, I preferr the keyboard navigation... but I'm a freak of nature that way. Ultimately, second/third mouse buttons are unneccessary because the hot key layout is good, can be used with one hand and system menus are universally identical.
end rant.
The comment I was responding to was about Sun's optical mouse of 1991 vintage. It had a funky pad.
Secondly, it would work on a glass table (i dont know why, but i just tested it and it does)
uh, I was being sarcastic... I'll try again.
Oh, yeah? What about on the surface of an exploding volcano?? while your gf shines a highly concentrated particle beam directly at the laser? huh? huh? Gotcha there didn't I? :)
uh, you're not talking about a mac obviously. Since Apple has set the command key adjacent to the space bar on either side, all hot keys can be hit with one hand (thumb on cmd key, other finger of user's choice on appropriate key). This leaves one whole hand for the mouse.
We all have our ways, but the windows way seems to be the most popular. Whether that is good or not doesn't matter.
I think it does. I like good things.
I'd love it... I always seem to spend the first hour with new computer users explaining to them they they must quickly, without high force lest something bust, tap the button on the mouse to do things. It would be much easier if I could say "Push the BLUE button, DAMMIT" (ok, I wouldn't swear.)
An hour? hm. Here's my spiel "okay. When I say 'click' you click the mouse. Ready? click click."
Hey, just because someone came up with the better idea light years before apple did doesn't mean it sucks. If you ask me (and I know you didn't :) all computer desks should have come with an optical mousepad design. Optical mice rule.
1. The mere fact that I posted in the first place means I asked you... or anybody reading this... except for that penis bird guy, of course.
2. It's a great idea. The implementation, however, sucks dogs. 3. So now I have to have a special desk to use my computer? Wow, and I thought having to have a special mouse pad was bad...
And copy is Ctrl-Insert, Cut is Shift-Del, and paste is Shift-Insert. I've never seen a decent app mess with those combos before (except to add more)...
But close and quit change like the wind... Of course, I have the sun keyboard with a key labeled "cut" and "paste". A neat idea, except the keyboard is about the same size as my ironing board. My sun keyboard, also, only goes up to F12.
Yeah, I'm serious. And no, I'm not trying to insult you. I'm just telling you what some of the other side thinks
Insulted? Sheesh, mac users have thicker skin than that! Years of heaping amounts of abuse from sales people at Big Daddy's Discount Computer Quonset toughen you up! I know what the other side thinks, btw. The "other side" is 95% of the population... well, except maybe for the foot pedal thing. I must admit that I can't imagine for the life of me why you would have a steering wheel on your computer...
Yes... and they suck
1. You lose the pad, you can't use your computer.
2. You want a bigger pad? sorry.
3. You want a pad with a picture of yer kids/dog/ouija board on it. See #2. 4. You accidentally rotate the pad more than 45 degrees and gues what the mouse stops working. Really. No shit. Now, I use this a "security feature". I lock my screen and rotate my pad 90 degrees before going home from work every day.
That's why you can use it on any surface
Oh yeah? How about on the glass dining room table while your gf plays with a laser pointer underneath it. huh? huh? gotcha there didn't I? :)
Like what? I use a mac, a sparc10(solaris) and a winders machine (for solitaire... no, really) and I've come to the conclusion that extra buttons are only there to make up for bad UI design. Let's "do the numbers":
1. The original mice concept as envisioned by Xerox had 3 buttons all doing a vairety of tasks. Apple did a bag o' research that showed that mis-hits were common amongst users learning new tasks. The solution? The double click. Imagine life without the double-click...
2. Two button mice were "developed" (note the quotes) to give users contextual menues. Contextual menues were developed to make up for the fact that a particular OS that shall remained unnamed (ok, windows) had such a terrible set of rules for system menues that it was almost impossible to get stuff done. Menues attached to application windows, menues attached document windows, menues attached to folder windows.... where the $@#%! is "copy" or "paste"? Hence, the second button.
3. Contextual menues were also the saviour to the crisis of badly designed hot keys. I want to close a window... is it ctrl-w, alt-w or alt-F4 (nobel prize for counter-intuitive design to whoever came up with that one). Quitting an application? Could be q, could be x. On the mac, quit is always cmd-Q, close is always cmd-W, undo is always Z. Always. With these commands standardized across all apps, contextual menues are unneccessary...
4. In order to get some mindshare off the Winders flock, Apple caved in and offered contextual menues. Just hold down the control key. No second mouse button required.
The current state of the multi-button-mouse is alarming. First it was two buttons, then three, then a lever, later a wheel. What's next? A second keyboard on wheels? Foot pedals?
End Rant.
"Why should we limit computers to the lies we tell them with that second mouse button?"
Frymaster, 2000, my basement
Act One: Computergrrrl meets the patriarchy
Computergrrrl has been a geek of many stripes for most of her life. About 2 yrs ago, she decided to actually pursue computer programming at school. She went, saw and conquered, and with her freshly-minted diploma in hand, landed a job at an internet startup. Her job description was titled "junior programmer". The immediate reality, however, was different. This company made two hires in the same week, both fresh grads; one was computergrrrl, the other was a boy who we'll call Rob (well, that's his name). Rob was plopped down at a desk in the "back room" and set to work on ASP stuff immediately. Computergrrrl was plopped down at the reception desk and told to answer the phones and compile a list of office supplies. When computergrrrl pointed out to her new employers that she had no secreatrial training whatsoever, she was told that she should find "it came naturally" and that they "couldn't possible have one of the guys do reception"
Act Two: Geeks ride to the rescue
This company is divided into two layers. Business guys who have the money and call the shots, and coders who write the product (service?) and get free pop. After a few days, the "head coder" who we'll call Gord (well, that's his name) started to realize what was going on. At the end of a week, he confronted the owners and told them that they were denying him a valuable resource (computergrrrl) and that this "misallocation of talent"(his quote) was unacceptable. The owners hummed and hawed over transferring her, finally prompting gord to ask them why they had chosen to hire a woman in the first place, if they really felt her gender precluded her from doing her job. The answer: "We figgured she could do the reception work and help you out with little things in her spare time."
Act Three: making a loooong story short(er)
The ultimate compromise, was that computergrrrl was moved to web design (it's artsy! girls are good at artsy!) and, over time, into some backend coding (computergrrrl to owners "java is a new language. I have a talent for languages." language=artsy.)
The long-awaited moral of the story
Geeks tend to work on a merit-ocracy. You're judged on your chops, not your sex, race, religion (unless it's linux) etc. Sadly, a lot of the hire decisions are made by the money people. They can't tell good code from bad code (hmmm. I can't decipher it. It must be a good code...) and tend to have more "traditional" views of women in the work place. If you're a girl and you're a geek, find a boss who's into computers more than s/he's into money.
thank you for your patience.
Word on the street is that Classic apps "work"... but are butt ugly and generally not the most elegant chunks o' code. If there is one thing that Apple has provided it's users and it's users have come to expect/demand, it's elegance. Look at the labels on icons in OS8.5+... they're translucent. Mac users (me included) demand that sort of attention to detail... anything less is, in our eyes, clumsy and ugly. I figgure that within 2 months of the consumer release, Classic is going to be relegated to "for emergencies only".
Actually, that's not a bad intro for even very novice programmers. Apple provides a tool called Carbon Dater that runs through your Classic source file and then, essentially, gives you a list of things that are non-carbon compliant.... and there's a fair stack o' docs on how to carbonize from there. This is almost a sort of "paint by numbers" approach.... but it does do a lot of good in that
a. It gets newbies used to fiddling with stuff in CW/MPW
b. The most commonly "broken" part is the event handling... and that has always been the bane of mac developing. Memory management is also a popular broken spot (no more masters!!)
c. It's a confidence builder... and, with god and his lawyers as my witness, you need confidence to program a mac...
So, how does that help open source? Programmers want source. End users want bins. More programmers = more source. Get people into programming, and you'll develop a user base that also cares about source.
As the saying goes: "If you compile it, they will come... if you open the source, they will come and fix it"
Ya know, the minute I hit submit I realized I'd forgotten the ol' S/2.... oops. Personally, I chose to avoid it because it was a Big Blue project. The late 70' - early 80's (when my somewhat prejudicial views on operating systems were formed) was a time when BB was regarded by anyone who didn't wear sta-prest as being Evil Incarnate.... of course now I'm a slobbering fan of the ppc chips. My how times have changed :)
The issue I was addressing wasn't so much hardware support as mindshare. Firstly, I agree that this is a Good Thing. Secondly, I am a fan of diversity... one person's "chaos" is usually everybody else's "choice". My lament, was that a certain operating system which shall remain nameless (oh hell, windows) managed to gain a massive mindshare in the mid-90's because the alternatives were underdeveloped. I recall with great clarity hearing over and over again in the mid-90's that Amiga was working on Wonderful Things in some secret European laboratory and that one day they would ride over the hill to save us from the... uh, evil wizard. Anyway, poor analogies aside, I must admit I feel a little disappointed. In '96 the options were: Mac (my choice... but near-bankrupt), BeOS (with two device drivers... and run by Gasse! ack!), NeXT (for less money than a BMW... and less software than Be), Linux (I admit I thought it was a science fair project... or a repackaged Xenix... how was I supposed to know?) or Winders. Really, I was waiting for Moses Amiga...
Now that it's here; the "Mac is Back" (nice hardware, my choice of colour), BeOS can be hooked up to a printer finally (and do all sorts of other fine things), NeXT is OS X (and if DP4 is in indicator, it is going to be, at the very least, a lot of fun) and Linux is, uh, well you know Linux.
Anyway, the white knight showed up only to find three other tin guys fighting the dragon... and the princess is already dead. That's all I had to say....
Okay, mod me down for not being prepared, but I will be back with my facts, figgures and quotes...
Sadly, I think this is destined to be an "also ran" in the race sheet of history.
Well, for honda, anthropomorphic is obviously the goal.
1. Anthro has more promo value. A cart that just wheels around looks too much like the Radio Shack remote-controlled toys to John Q. TVwatcher... a robot that walks and acts like a human, otoh, gets a big wow for honda. This is imporant, since bleeding-edge research projects get canned unless they can a) promise sell-able, profit-making results in the forseeable future or b) generate enough jaw-dropping to be considered good PR. In the post-reganomics world, projects that don't do either or both get canned.
2. Sell-ability. Honda would like to, one day, put one of these in the homes of lazy geeks who would like to have a machine that can mow the lawn or help them move that couch downstairs... Sure the cart-bot is "easy", but people are more attracted to anthro forms. Witness the Sony dog-o-matic (or whatever it was called). People like robots because they are mechanical people. If it's not a mechanical person, it's just another machine. At least that's the public perception.
This approach probably wouldn't work for industrial robotic assembly
This is a totally different thing compared to industrial assembly. Most industrial robots are specialized, ie, they are designed to do one task or type of task and do it to exacting specifications ("don't tighten the screw too tight"). This robot is a generalist. It doesn't do anything particularly well but it does a wide variety of types of tasks. Industrial robots are like Peterbilts. They're good for one thing (driving heavy, big things long distances) but suck at anything outside of that realm (parallel parking, drag racing). This guy is more like a pickup: It can haul goods (although not as well as a Peterbilt), it can parallel park (although it needs a biggish spot) and it can drag race (although it won't win... at least it beats the Peterbilt).
Back on topic:
Okay, you seem to have a much more detailed history with robotics than I.... so maybe this is a dumb question but... what about radar or some other non-visible em wave? At the very least that would eliminate the venetian blind noise. Failing that, is a sonar-based approach a viable option?