Vincent Gable’s Blog

February 15, 2010

Usability Problems are Cultural

Filed under: Accessibility,Programming,Quotes,Usability | , , , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 15, 2010

Obstacles to getting real feedback are now mainly cultural, not technological; any business that isn’t learning from their users doesn’t want to learn from their users.

Clay Shirky, on Meetup’s Dead Simple User Testing

February 9, 2010

This Usually Makes Me Feel Better

Filed under: Announcement,Bug Bite,Design,Programming,Quotes,Usability | , , , , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 9, 2010

February 4, 2010

Deus Ex Ignorantia

Filed under: Design,Quotes | , , , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 4, 2010
Felten’s Third Law
Given an intractable and complex policy problem, people tend to look to areas they are not experts in to save the day.

For example,

Given a difficult technology policy problem, lawyers will tend to seek technology solutions and technologists will tend to seek legal solutions. … It’s easy to reject non-solutions in your own area because you have the knowledge to recognize why they will fail; but there must be a solution lurking somewhere in the unexplored wilderness of the other area.

Ed Felton.

December 18, 2009

Guess Towards the Middle

Filed under: Design,Quotes | , ,
― Vincent Gable on December 18, 2009

Survey researchers call this kind of behavior satisficing – it happens when people taking a survey use cognitive shortcuts to answer questions. In the case of questions about personal behaviors that we’re not used to quantifying (like the time we spend online), we tend to shape our responses based on what we perceive as “normal.” If you don’t know what normal is in advance, you define it based on the midpoint of the answer range.

Aaron Shaw, writing for Dolores Labs

Related:

Acquiescence Response Bias

the tendency to agree with any assertion, regardless of its content

November 15, 2009

Social Engineering iPhone Ratings

Filed under: iPhone,Quotes | , , ,
― Vincent Gable on November 15, 2009

The “Sex Jokes Lite” application is clever/manipulative about their ratings. They push people to give 5 star reviews with this little bit of a social contract: in their app-description they say,

“IMPORTANT: If you think the jokes are TOO dirty, please give a 1-star review. If you want them dirtier, give a 5-star review. This way we know what direction to take in the upcoming updates !”

Dan Grigsby

Clever, but a bit of a dirty trick *rimshot*.

November 14, 2009

You Can’t Please Everyone

Filed under: Design,Programming,Quotes,Tips,Usability | , , ,
― Vincent Gable on November 14, 2009

I did a project years ago called the “Dollar Dudes”, where we got on the subway with a bucket of dollar bills and announced that we were in the lucky “Dollar Train” and that everyone gets a dollar. Most everyone was delighted (at both the dollar and the ridiculousness of it all) but one guy refused to take the money and snapped at me. I was bummed out to get that reaction, but at the end of the day I didn’t feel that one guy getting irritated made the whole project a failure. The other 40 people had fun. I imagine the type of person who gets mad when offered a dollar by a stranger probably gets mad quite a bit throughout his day. I’m not trying or pretending to please every single person we encounter.

Charlie Todd (of Improv Everywhere fame)

Yes, handing out a bucket of money really does upset someone. You have no chance of pleasing everyone. Make tradeoffs accordingly.

November 9, 2009

Spurious

What’s a spurious relationship?

Here’s one: People who eat ice cream are more likely to drown. Both incidence of ice cream eating and rates of drowning are related to summertime. The relationship between ice cream and drowning is spurious. That is, there is no relationship. Yet they appear related because they are both related to a third variable.

Lisa Wade

untitled5sk.jpg

(Image via the amazing Superdickery)

November 4, 2009

Tolerance

Filed under: Announcement,Quotes | , , ,
― Vincent Gable on November 4, 2009

The Principle of Uncertainty is a bad name. In science or outside of it we are not uncertain; our knowledge is merely confined, within a certain tolerance. We should call it the Principle of Tolerance.

And I propose that name in two senses: First, in the engineering sense, science has progressed, step by step, the most successful enterprise in the ascent of man, because it has understood that the exchange of information between man and nature, and man and man, can only take place with a certain tolerance.

But second, I also use the word, passionately, about the real world. All knowledge, all information between human beings, can only be exchanged within a play of tolerance. And that is true whether the exchange is in science, or in literature, or in religion, or in politics, or in any form of thought that aspires to dogma.

It’s a major tragedy of my lifetime and yours that scientists were refining, to the most exquisite precision, the Principle of Tolerance, and turning their backs on the fact that all around them, tolerance was crashing to the ground beyond repair.

The Principle of Uncertainty or, in my phrase, the Principle of Tolerance, fixed once for all the realization that all knowledge is limited. It is an irony of history that at the very time when this was being worked out there should rise, under Hitler in Germany and other tyrants elsewhere, a counter-conception: a principle of monstrous certainty.

When the future looks back on the 1930s, it will think of them as a crucial confrontation of culture as I have been expounding it, the ascent of man, against the throwback to the despots’ belief that they have absolute certainty.

It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers.

That is false: tragically false. Look for yourself.

This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers.

Into this pond were flushed the ashes of four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance.

When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.

Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error, and is personal.

Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: ‘I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken.’ We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to touch people.

–Jacob Bronowski, “Knowledge or Certainty” episode of the 1973 BBC series The Ascent of Man
(Transcription source, formatting and emphasis mine).

October 26, 2009

Threading is Wrong

Filed under: Programming,Quotes,Usability | , , , ,
― Vincent Gable on October 26, 2009

I’m taking the following as an axiom: Exposing real pre-emptive threading with shared mutable data structures to application programmers is wrong. …It gets very hard to find humans who can actually reason about threads well enough to be usefully productive.

When I give talks about this stuff, I assert that threads are a recipe for deadlocks, race conditions, horrible non-reproducible bugs that take endless pain to find, and hard-to-diagnose performance problems. Nobody ever pushes back.

Tim Bray

October 24, 2009

Ignorance is Moral Strength

Filed under: Design,Quotes,Security | , , , , ,
― Vincent Gable on October 24, 2009

I have long been impressed with the casino industry’s ability to, in the case of blackjack, convince the gambling public that using strategy equals cheating.

Bruce Schneier

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress