Vincent Gable’s Blog

February 23, 2009

Laptop Mats

Filed under: Announcement,Design,Usability | , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 23, 2009

I just really want somebody to make a good portable cooling pad for portable computers.

Laptops1 are too hot to be used on a lap. This Penny Arcade comic says it best, if a little crudely,

Using this Macbook is like putting my dick in a George Foreman Grill. Okay? It’s like making a penis panini.

There’s a real need for something to keep your your lap cool. You can buy gel cooling pads. But I have reservations about them. The biggest is the weight of the gel. And according to reviews, eventually the pad absorbs enough heat to turn into a hot pad.

My solution is inspired by sushi mats:

415ANWJ8X6L._SL160_.jpg

It’s a very simple idea really, instead of bamboo slats, you use hollow aluminum tubes in the mat. That gives you an extremely light pad that’s easy to roll up and carry anywhere. It keeps the hot computer off your lap, draws heat away from the computer. (Aluminum has been used to make heat sinks for decades.)

Oh, and just in case you were wondering I’m using a book to protect my lap as I write this. But books are heavy, so I only carry one if I need to refer to the book.

If you have a better way to stay cool while working on the road, please share!


1
I’m counting netbooks (inexpensive, ultraportable but slow computers) as separate from “laptops”. Certainly many netbooks work just fine on top of the lap. But some people will always need more powerful laptops.

February 20, 2009

Bad Apples

Filed under: Quotes,Research | ,
― Vincent Gable on February 20, 2009

What they found, in short, is that the worst team member is the best predictor of how any team performs. It doesn’t seem to matter how great the best member is, or what the average member of the group is like. It all comes down to what your worst team member is like. The teams with the worst person performed the poorest.

Jeff Atwood

February 19, 2009

Security vs? Usability

Filed under: Design,Programming,Quotes,Security,Usability |
― Vincent Gable on February 19, 2009

In most cases, how an authentication system works when a legitimate user tries to log on is much more important than how it works when an impostor tries to log on. No security system is perfect, and there is some level of fraud associated with any (authentication method). But the instances of fraud are rare compared to the number of times someone tries to log on legitimately.

Bruce Schneier on balancing security and usability

I like thinking about security. But, inspite of all the dramatic headlines, I believe bad usability causes far more damage then the bad security.

A more usable system should make recovering from a security breech easier. It’s easier to make things right, when it’s easier to make things.

Usability limits what people can do with something. Is it just coincidence, or does that sound like a partial definition of security?

Sustainable Design

Filed under: Announcement,Design | , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 19, 2009

Good design is endearing. When people like something, they keep it, and don’t replace it. Well designed products tend to stick around — for generations.

In this way, good design encourages reuse; discourages disposability.

It may be much more costly, monetarily and environmentally, to build something outstanding. An exceptional design can mean exceptionally difficult manufacturing. But savings mount up over time, as the artifact endures, and eliminates many disposable products.

I still shave with straight razors that are 60-80 years old. Although manufacturing, say a new Thiers-Issard razor, is expensive, the legions of disposable shavers it nullifies will grow for decades, possibly centuries.

Good design really is good for the planet.

“Enhanced” Sports

Filed under: Research | , , , , , , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 19, 2009


200px-Oscar_Pistorius-2.jpg


Oscar Pistorius
, “The fastest man on no legs”, uses carbon-fiber prosthetic feet to run … apparently more efficiently then an able-bodied sprinter. And if he isn’t more efficient today, it’s a sure bet that technology will surpass mere flesh in the near future (at least in sprinting).

The cultural, ethical, and even technological, issues surrounding cyborg/transhuman athletes are fascinating.

The Genie is Out of the Bottle

Let’s be blunt, technology plays a roll in every sport today, and there is no going back.

Technology goes into equipment as basic as a shoe — making them lighter, springer, and more adhesive then anything humans have worn before.

The impact of better equipment was popularly recognized by at least the 1920s (if you have an earlier source please share),

Much of Improvement in Baseball Is Attributed to Evolution and Steady Progress of Mechanics and Invention

WHEN Babe Ruth hits three home runs in one game or the home team cracks out a barrage of base hits to score seven or eight times in one inning, it does not necessarily mean that long-distance hitting in modern baseball comes from superiority of today’s players over those of years past. The truth is that much of the improvement in the game itself and in the proficiency of its players has come from evolution and progress in science and invention.

Popular Mechanics, May, 1924

Then there’s the elephant in the room: the athlete’s body, and the “stuff” that goes into it.

The prisoners dilemma essentially forces athletes to dope — because the only way to be sure your opponent does not have an advantage over you is to take advantage as well. (This is the best overview of the doping problem, and solution I have seen.)

But it’s not just drugs and steroids. There’s also nutrition, and sports medicine. Where exactly is the line between a supplement and a drug? More chemical sophistication goes into todays vitamins than the drugs of the past.

Modern training regimens and equipment seem to have more to do with the science of conditioning then the love of a sport. It’s interesting that someone who just played all day would be at a disadvantage compared to someone who used targeted exercise machines.

Genetic engineering might be the most interesting future trend to watch. Obviously genetics are a huge part of determining physical ability.

What do We Want?

We love to watch superhumans compete. Professional athletes are supermen, since they play significantly above average human ability.

But we also want a “fair” and “honorable” fight. I honestly don’t know exactly what it all means. It’s OK to have an unplanned genetic advantage. Drugs are bad, even if everyone has access to them. We love the underdogs the most, yet celebrate the winners who have the most funding going into their training.

What’s Sportsmanlike

It’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you place the blame.

–Oscar Wilde

The problem with giving disabled athletes accommodations, like carbon fiber feet, is that they are only work until they start winning. Then accommodations become an unfair advantage. It doesn’t matter if they are unfair in reality, because they look unfair.

But there’s a quality of life problem with essentially saying, “you cripples can only play with the other cripples”.

Accommodations in the context of sportsmanship is a sticky issue, and I don’t pretend to have the answers. But I’m not necessarily against “play until you win”, as a lesser of many evils. Sometimes playing is more important then winning.

One analogue is gender differences. There is good reason behind having separate men, women, and weight categories for sports. But in recreational play, mixed gender teams are often the norm (Ultimate seems to work very well with mixed gender teams).

But there’s a good case to be made for letting “enabled” athletes to compete separately, but to their fullest — essentially making the Paralympics the Cyberlimpics.

Conclusion

Maybe these pretty women will distract you from realizing I don’t have any answers, (Via Sensory Metrics):

Bilde 1-1.png

17453042_p1_mullins2.jpg

February 18, 2009

Competing Software Engineering Approaches

Filed under: Cocoa,Programming,Quotes,UNIX | , , , , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 18, 2009

Tim Bray,

…Palm’s approach is
radically different from both Android’s and Apple’s. Since they’re all here
at more or less the same time, running the
same Web browser on roughly
equivalent hardware, this represents an unprecedented experiment in
competitive software-engineering approaches.

Language Framework Notes
Apple Objective-C Cocoa Old-school object-oriented language compiled to the metal; general-purpose UI
framework with roots reaching back to NeXT.
Android Java Android Java language, custom VM, built-from-scratch UI
framework aimed at small-form-factor devices, fairly abstraction-free, based
on “Actions” and “Intents”.
web OS JavaScript “Mojo” All Web technology all the time. Innovative and visually-impressive
“card”-based UI.

(I think it’s interesting to see Windows Mobile on the list:

Windows Mobile C/C++ Windows CE/.NET Micro Philosophically tries to bring Windows to the phone. When I did WinCE development it felt like doing C++ for a Windows OS from the past.

)

I see way too many other factors to attribute success/failure of the devices to the language. So I wouldn’t call this an experiment.

But it is interesting how much development for each platform diverges at a fundamental level!

Historically most operating systems —
UNIX, OS/2, Linux, Windows, Solaris, Mac (Classic and OS X) — were predominantly, written in C/C++. While each platform has it’s own frameworks, they all have strong support for C++ development. (Although Mac OS X has is slowly dropping support for it’s C/C++ “Carbon” API, and Windows wants to be moving to C# .NET)

It’s really cool to see mobile platforms doing something radically different from each other. There are good arguments for each approach — may the best one win.

February 17, 2009

Hard-to-Say Names Feel more Dangerous

Filed under: Design | ,
― Vincent Gable on February 17, 2009

Via Schneier on Security, in two tests, ostensible food-additives were rated as more novel and dangerous when their names were harder to pronounce. In another test, amusement park rides were rated as more thrilling, but more sickening, when their names were harder to pronounce.

Here’s a link to the abstract, but I can’t figure out how to find the real article.

February 16, 2009

Simplifying by Adding Features

Filed under: Accessibility,Design,Programming,Quotes,Usability | , , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 16, 2009

One of the oldest canards in the interface business is the one that says “Maximizing functionality and maintaining simplicity work against each other in the interface” (Microsoft 1995, p.8). What is true is that adding ad hoc features works against simplicity. But that’s just bad design. It is often, but not always, possible to increase functionality without increasing difficulty at a greater rate. Often, added functionality can be had without any added interface complexity; note the difference between interface complexity and task complexity. If the added functionality unifies what had previously been disparate features, the interface can get simpler.

— Jeff Raskin, The Humane Interface (page 201)

Examples of this are the exception, not the rule. Usually, more features means more complexity.

The best example I can think of is Coda, an award-winning web development IDE.

text editor + file transfer + svn + css + terminal + books + more = whoah.

The story of Coda.

So, we code web sites by hand. And one day, it hit us: our web workflow was wonky. We’d have our text editor open, with Transmit open to save files to the server. We’d be previewing in Safari, adjusting SQL in a Terminal, using a CSS editor and reading references on the web. “This could be easier,” we declared. “And much cooler.”

(To really get a sense of Coda you should check out the website, or try it for free).

Even though Coda’s interface is more complicated because it does more then just edit code, it simplifies the task of web-design, by unifying tasks that used to be done in different applications with different interfaces.

What other examples of things becoming simpler through added functionality can you think of? Please share in the comments below.

February 12, 2009

The Values of Science

Filed under: Quotes,Research | , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 12, 2009

Science is not a monument of received Truth but something that people do to look for truth.

That endeavor, which has transformed the world in the last few centuries, does indeed teach values. Those values, among others, are honesty, doubt, respect for evidence, openness, accountability and tolerance and indeed hunger for opposing points of view. These are the unabashedly pragmatic working principles that guide the buzzing, testing, poking, probing, argumentative, gossiping, gadgety, joking, dreaming and tendentious cloud of activity — the writer and biologist Lewis Thomas once likened it to an anthill — that is slowly and thoroughly penetrating every nook and cranny of the world.

…It is no coincidence that these are the same qualities that make for democracy and that they arose as a collective behavior about the same time that parliamentary democracies were appearing. If there is anything democracy requires and thrives on, it is the willingness to embrace debate and respect one another and the freedom to shun received wisdom. Science and democracy have always been twins.

Dennis Overbye

February 11, 2009

Asking Nicely Works

Filed under: Design,Programming,Quotes | ,
― Vincent Gable on February 11, 2009

Panic did some experimentation … a little over a year ago, when they released Candy Bar 3.1 They have a phone-home system for serial numbers — not for any sort of Adobe- or Microsoft-style “activation” scheme, but simply to check whether a serial number is valid or known to be circulating on bootleg message boards and forums. They experimented with different dialog boxes that appeared when a user entered a known-to-be-pirated serial number. One message was staid and serious (“Microsoft-style”, in Cabel Sasser’s words), along the lines of “It appears someone gave you an invalid serial number…”; the other two messages were more personal, along the lines of “Please don’t pirate Candy Bar. We’re a small company making software for you, and software sales are what keep our company going.

They got better results with the more personal messages — about 10 percent of would-be-bootleggers presented with those dialogs clicked the button and immediately bought a legitimate license for the app. But even the staid, impersonal message had a 5 percent sell-through rate — far higher than Panic expected.

John Gruber

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress