Vincent Gable’s Blog

February 11, 2009

Black on White, White on Black

Filed under: Announcement,MacOSX,Sample Code,Tips,Usability | , , , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 11, 2009

Command-Option-Control-8 will invert your screen. It’s a cool looking effect (and quite a prank if you do it to someone else’s machine), but most importantly it makes tiny-white-text-on-black webpages easier to read. Command Plus/Minus makes text larger/smaller, which helps too.

I’ve known for some time that dark text on a white background is most readable. But it until recently it was just “book learnin”. I’m young, my eyes are healthy, and I can read both color schemes just fine. I didn’t have proof I could see.

But I have trouble sleeping sometimes. A few days ago I had an “accident” with a 2L bottle of Mountain Dew and a late-night dinner of salty pizza. Look, the details of blame aren’t important here, the point is I didn’t get to sleep that night. Now, when you are very tired, it’s harder to focus your eyes — and having to focus them on a computer screen doesn’t help. About 3 in the afternoon it got downright painful to read trendy looking webpages with midnight backgrounds and petite white text. Remembering the color theory behind contrast, I gave Command-Option-Control-8 a shot, and holy shit, it worked! My screen looked like an adventure in black-lighting gone horribly wrong. But I could focus on those webpage’s text more clearly. Degraded vision from eye-fatigue gave me proof that I could see.

Now please don’t take this as anything but a biased anecdote. Trust the science, not me! But it was a neat (and painful) experience. I can see why Command-Option-Control-8 is there now. Give it a try sometime, and see if it helps for you. The most you have to lose is impressing any shoulder surfers with your computer wizardry. (Honestly though Command-Plus — make text bigger — will probably do more to enhance readability.)

Just in case you want to inver the screen programatically, this Apple Script will do the job:
tell application "System Events" to tell application processes to key code 28 using {command down, option down, control down}

February 10, 2009

Good engineering is necessary, but good design has a more direct impact on helping people do amazing things with computers

Filed under: Design,Programming,Quotes,Usability | , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 10, 2009

…the thinking that ultimately sunk Douglas Engelbart’s visionary but incredibly complicated OLS (online system): Engelbart didn’t consider it all that necessary to develop an easy-to-use interface because, he felt, people invested years in learning human languages, so why not invest 6 months in learning his system’s powerful, language-size command structure? It’s an interesting argument when you think about it that way, but it ultimately doomed his design to obscurity, while his proteges who left for Xerox PARC and designed a system people could learn to use in a hour went on to change the world. Frictionless user experience is paramount, engineering concerns are secondary.

Buzz Andersen, summarizing John Markoff’s What the Dormouse Said, a history of the early personal computer industry

The title this post is something I’ve been saying as part of my personal statement on hirevincent.com for years.

February 9, 2009

Resolution Independent Screenshots

Filed under: Announcement,MacOSX,Programming | , , , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 9, 2009

Leopard includes technology that generates (mostly) resolution independent screenshots. That means when you enlarge the pictures, they won’t get pixelated, and more importantly, they will stay sharp when printed.

I don’t know if you’ve ever seen a printout of text mixed with a screenshot of text, but it looks like ass. That’s because even a very cheap printer is much higher resolution then your screen. It prints text very sharply. But when it prints the screen shot, it reproduces the low resolution display in high-fedelity — which actually makes it look worse. Plus, computers use tricks (eg sub pixel antialiasing) to make text look sharper on LCD screens — but those tricks can backfire on other media. A screenshot grabs exactly the pixels shown on the screen. And those pixels are optimized to be shown on a screen, not paper.

Example

Here’s an example screenshot (PDF). It looks like this:
Preview.png

If you open it, and zoom in, you will see that the text stays sharp, while some (but not all) of the interface gets pixelated.

PreviewBlownUp.png

How it Was Made

When Automator.app (click to open) saves a workflow, it puts a (mostly) resolution-independent screenshot of the workflow’s UI inside it. The screenshot is at SomeWorkflow.workflow/Contents/QuickLook/Preview.pdf. (In Finder, right-click a .workflow file, and choose “Show Package Contents” to look inside it).

If you print a workflow to a PDF file, it has the same limited resolution-independence. So I suspect Automator.app generates this PDF in much the same way files are printed. I have not investigated why the gray border is vectorized as well as the text. If anyone has an insight there, I’d love to hear it.

In the future, I expect text, and most UI elements, to be represented as vectors at every level of the OS. Screenshots will capture those vector-elements, as as they capture pixel-elements (pixels) today.

Google Monoculture

Filed under: Announcement | , , , , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 9, 2009

Jeff Atwood remarked,

Google delivers 350x the traffic to Stack Overflow that the next best so-called “search engine” does. Three hundred and fifty times!

All I can say is that’s a Belgium big number!

Here’s his data:

Search Engine Visits
Google 3,417,919
Yahoo 9,779
Live 5,638
Search 2,961
AOL 1,274
Ask 1,186
MSN 1,177
Altavista 202
Yandex 191
Seznam 103

The server logs for vgable.com, for 2008, show google giving me a much more modest 3.6x of my traffic.

13 different refering search engines Pages Percent Hits Percent
Google 3039 72.8 % 3047 72.3 %
Windows Live 1055 25.3 % 1055 25 %
Google (Images) 40 0.9 % 41 0.9 %
Yahoo! 12 0.2 % 12 0.2 %
MSN Search 7 0.1 % 7 0.1 %
Unknown search engines 4 0 % 4 0 %
Google (cache) 3 0 % 35 0.8 %
Scroogle 3 0 % 3 0 %
del.icio.us (Social Bookmark) 2 0 % 2 0 %
AOL 1 0 % 1 0 %
Clusty 1 0 % 1 0 %
Dogpile 1 0 % 1 0 %
AltaVista 1 0 % 1 0 %

Of course, having 3.6x as much market share as everyone else combined is still market domination.

I can’t speculate why the numbers for my niche website are different from Attwood’s niche website (especially w.r.t Live Search).

But Yahoo’s consistently irrelevant 0.3% and 0.2% of referrals looks especially bad for them. Google has too few competitors.

No Ducking Way!

Filed under: Design,Quotes,Uncategorized | , , , , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 9, 2009

I’ve finally found an example of, someone intentionally typing “ducking” on their iPhone,

Plotting routes to meetings based on who I’m currently ducking. It’s good for exercise. Also that time iPhone was correct- I meant ducking.

Obviously we can’t have a spellchecker suggesting profanity. But is it really so wrong to just leave it alone? Can we trust that if someone says something that strongly they really meant it?

Word 2008 seems to try, bless it’s heart. It won’t suggest or correct, “Mike Lee” (at least when it’s written as two words).

But it still can’t stand one of the heavy seven (original MP3). Word gives it the scarlet underline. That strikes me as odd. I wish I knew the story behind it. Is it actually a dangerously common typo? Is it statistically more taboo? Did someone just make a Puritan judgement call, and decide people wanted to be corrected for writing it? (UPDATE 2009-11-18: apparently it is the worst swear word in the World, at least according to that cute story.)

Ask yourself, are obscenity filters a Bad Idea, or an Incredibly Intercoursing Bad Idea?

Color Blindness

Filed under: Accessibility,Design,MacOSX,Programming,Usability | , , , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 9, 2009

Roughly 10% of men are color blind to some degree. You need to be sure your interfaces are accessible to them. (Unless you are designing exclusively for women I suppose, since women are about 20x less likely to be color blind.)

Sim Daltonism is the best way to test an interface on Mac OS X I’ve seen.

Here is a web-based colorblindness simulator. Here is another. Personally I prefer a native program though. It’s faster and more versatile.

If you are curious, you can test yourself for colorblindness. I have no idea how accurate that test is, but since different displays and operating systems usually show colors differently I’d be a little skeptical.

ADDITION 2009-10-11: WeAreColorBlind.com is a website dedicated to design patterns for the colorblind.

Now Recognizing President Barrack Abeam

Filed under: Design,Programming,Usability | , , , , , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 9, 2009

President “Barack Obama” is not recognized by my Mac’s spellchecker. Firefox, Microsoft Word1, Mac OS X — each of them has a built in spellchecker, and none of them know how to say our president’s name. Spell checker dictionaries need to be updated more frequently — to keep up with the emails we write.

Things have improved since 1995, but there’s still a long way to go.

There’s more to say about how to fix things, but someone has already said it. The future looks bright,

(Microsoft) now scans through trillions of words, including anonymized text from Hotmail messages, in the hunt for dictionary candidates. On top of this, they monitor words that people manually instruct Word to recognize. “It’s becoming rarer and rarer that anything that comes to us ad hoc isn’t already on our list” from Hotmail or user data, Calcagno says. According to a July 14, 2006, bug report, for example, the Natural Language Group harvested the following words that had appeared more than 10 times in Hotmail user dictionaries: Netflix, Radiohead, Lipitor, glucosamine, waitressing, taekwondo, and all-nighter.

I think the next step in spellchecking is to follow Mac OS X’s lead, and adopt a system-wide spellchecker. When there’s only one instance of a spellchecker running (not a separate one for every program that might work with text) we can make it much smarter, without requiring a supercomputer.


1


Microsoft added Barack and Obama to Office’s dictionary back in April 2007, but unfortunately, that change hasn’t yet made it to the Mac Ghetto, ahem, “Mac BU”. Or at least I haven’t seen it in Word yet.

More Terms = More Specific (Assume AND, not OR)

Filed under: Design,Programming,Quotes,Usability | , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 9, 2009

Assumed-And is the way Google does it, with the more search terms added, the narrower the results. The other way around can be argued in the abstract, but your customers are not living in the abstract. The world has voted, and Assumed-And is the way it is. Having additional terms widen, rather than narrow, the scope confuses people in the extreme. They will leave you and find a site with a search function that “works.” This blunder alone could put a company out of business.

Bruce Tognazzini

February 5, 2009

If You Don’t Know How to Help, You Can Still Do Good by Getting Out of the Way

Filed under: Design,Quotes,Usability | , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 5, 2009

Learning happens when attention is focused. …
If you don’t have a good theory of learning, then you can still get it to happen by helping the person focus. One of the ways you can help a person focus is by removing interference.

–Alan Kay, Doing With Images Makes Symbols.

Point Of View is 80 IQ Points

Filed under: Design,Quotes | ,
― Vincent Gable on February 5, 2009

Point of view is worth 80 IQ points … it’s not logic that is powerful. Logic is actually a weak method because it depends on fragile chains of inference. And people have used logic throughout history but mostly in inappropriate context.

There’s nothing illogical about the way the alchemists did things, it was that they were in a context where there logic couldn’t do much. so it’s this notion that the context is powerful, and if you want to be able to be good at solving problems and acting much smarter then you are then you have to find the context that will do the thinking for you.

Most computer scientists know this because it goes under another heading “choose the appropriate data structure before you start tinkering around with the algorithm”. If you choose the right data structure it will have most of the result computed almost automatically as part of its inherent structure.

–Alan Kay, Doing With Images Makes Symbols.

There are many related anecdotes about solving the right problem.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress