Upstanding Primate

The Finished Product

2005-05-18T12:54:00.000-07:00

After a bit of a delay (i.e. a hardware crash), I can now present the finished version of my final project, SafetyNet. The entire paper is available as a Word document. I have also posted the presentation pages as images:

SafetyNet Household Device
Command and Control Interface
Viewing Citizen Reports
Evaluating the Situation
Creating a New Alert
Managing Alerts

This will (probably) be my last post relating to STS321, but not my last post. In the upcoming weeks, look for this space to become a little less academic and a little less topic-focused.

Revenge of the iPod, or The White Plastic Noose

2005-05-05T13:12:00.000-07:00

I witnessed a strange, but unsurprising, link between the socialization properties of new technology and Tenner's revenge effects. As we discussed in class, the white headphone cords of Apple's iPod have become a status symbol in our society - instantly identifying iPod users to one another. This signet of the technocracy has become so pronounced that other headphone manufacturers have changed their designs from traditional black and grey to white, not to mention Sony's inclusion of white headphones and a white remote with their new PlayStation Portable. On campus the other day (while wearing my own black and silver headphones), I noticed a young woman handing out fliers. The fliers were invitations to a consumer panel - offering free pizza and the chance to win a 40GB iPod to attendees, in exchange for their views and feedback about the iPod. I listened in to her conversation with another student and discovered that she was inviting only current iPod users... in fact, I noticed she was only approaching iPod users. How could she spot them from 30 feet away? You guessed it - white headphone cords. Who would have guessed that a technology that is, by definition, designed to provide solace and isolation would become an open invitation for targeted marketing?

Stop the crude mocking!

2005-05-01T21:44:00.000-07:00

With my final project in production, I thought that I would share some crude mock-ups of SafetyNet components:

Here is the Command and Control interface:

And a really crude prototype of the consumer device:

SafetyNet in Place

2005-04-30T19:31:00.000-07:00

I have finally decided on a real topic for the semester project. SafetyNet is a networked public information and community reporting system. Here is the proposal, as a Word document.

The Dark Side of Good Design

2005-04-11T19:30:00.000-07:00

I couldn't think of a good example to use for this week's theme writing until one hit me in the face this past weekend. I had been thinking of past situations where I hadn't saved something, and could have been spared a lot of work by the presence of an autosave feature. Coincidentally, it was right about then that I again faced the dark side of autosave. As I was working on some Java code for a class, I realized (much to my chagrin) that I had a pattern of regular errors using our compiler program, BlueJ. Sparing the technical details, every time that you compile your code (that is, have BlueJ make it ready for the computer to use), it is automatically saved. On the one hand, this design makes sense - when you are testing unproven code, it will OFTEN crash the Java system - forcing you to shut down BlueJ and restart. With the code presaved, you don't have to risk losing your changes, and it is easier to see where your mistakes are.

On the other hand (and this is where I keep getting in trouble), if you make changes to a working program, it can drive you crazy. Unless you write two simultaneous copies of the code, with different names, you can lose good work pretty easily. That's what happened to me this weekend. I was writing a program with a fairly complicated algorithm. It was working, but I had a brainstorm on a way to make the code run more efficiently. As it turned out, my brainstorm was closer to heat lightning - flashy, but no result. However, my extensive changes had been autosaved over my working code. Unfortunately, I had changed the structure of the program so much that it took me almost an hour to reassemble the previous version.

This is a situation where a good design doesn't work the same in all cases. I'm not sure if my problem is a slip (it certainly wasn't the first time that I'd faced this situation) or a capture error (I'm sure that I'm not the only one this has ever happened to). Free, education-focused programs like BlueJ are great learning tools, and they make choices that help to save the students from themselves. Most of the big, expensive development software packages actually allow "version" saving, making it easier to revert back to previously working code. The student-focused programs should make greater allowances for experimentation, particularly when one considers the fact that reassembling the old code can be much more time consuming for the beginner or intermediate programmer.

[NOTE: As I started to type the next sentence, I accidentally hit the enter key at the same time as I hit the right shift key - thereby publishing my incomplete post. Adjacent "action" keys weren't a problem when mechanical keys had to be fully depressed, but today's responsive keyboards might need a redesign themselves...]

Sometimes, no matter how well we user-center our designs, there are situations that are unavoidable with the current feature set. If there is a threat to productivity or a possible loss of the user's data, good designers should always make allowances to prevent this. In my opinion, allowing multiple levels of "undo," even for saving, should be standard in every piece of software. It should also be standard in every personal relationship, but that's a different post about slips and errors...

Designing for Disaster

2005-04-05T18:05:00.000-07:00

For my final project, I have designed a low-cost system that should reduce the injury and casualty rate for any type of disaster to nearly 0%. I have provided a short DivX video that provides more details about my plan. (right click the link and "save target as...")

If you need the DivX codec / player, click here.

An Unnatural Mapping

2005-04-03T20:26:00.000-07:00

Here is a larger view of the bass, treble, balance, and fader controls from my car's stereo. At first glance, it doesn't seem like the worst interface mapping ever - it's analog, well labeled, and has limited modes. Beyond the fact that the fader control doesn't map logically to the front/back nature of the control, there is another problem with these controls. Despite the obvious "pull" label between the controls, neither knob can be pulled! Specifically, they can't be pulled from the "rest" state, as shown. In fact, you can't control anything by simply turing the knobs. In a design that would drive Donald Normal crazy, the knobs must first be pushed in to move them out (like a "hidden" cabinet door catch) for use. It is at this point that the knobs can finally be pulled to invoke the mode change between bass and balance or treble and fader.

I have owned this car for 3 years, and never noticed how ridiculous this design decision was until now. I'm now predicting my eventual insanity as a result of STS 321. Thanks a lot, Stefan!

Recreating the Web Browser - A Look Back

2005-03-24T13:03:00.000-08:00

The Netscape web browser first appeared in October, 1994. A decade letter, we are reconsidering the format of this ubiquitous window on the world. To see where we have been, dejavu.org has emulations of a number of older browsers that you can try. You may also want to visit evolt's archive of just about every flavor of web browser, all available for download.

For those of you who have "googled" but never "gophered", these sites are a great resource for understanding the evolution of the browser.

The Pattern on the Stone

2005-03-23T11:34:00.000-08:00

Because there is nothing more compelling than a PowerPoint presentation, here are the PowerPoint slides from Tuesday's discussion of W. Daniel Hillis' The Pattern on the Stone.

Enjoy!

Hot New Technology: The Tablet

2005-03-07T20:16:00.000-08:00

Is writing technology? In my opinion, this isn't even a question. Writing is not only the first technology, it is very likely the most important. The introduction of writing into human society was essential to the development of nearly every subsequent technology. Additionally, the technologies that it didn't directly affect were still cultivated by the rapid and accurate sharing of ideas and knowledge that was afforded by the written word.

Without writing, we would not have (or would have primitive versions of):
-math
-political science and the nation-state
-law
-computer science
-commerce and the free market system
-real estate
-economics
-natural sciences
-history
-literature
-for the sake of space, pick any aspect of a "civilized" society and insert it here

Moreover, writing provided the things that every good technology and gadget provides today. The majority of our new tech and electronic products are really just extensions of the benefits of writing - persistence, portability, storage, and manipulation of information. The PC, laptop, PDA, and most of the features of a cellphone are all designed to accomplish these four tasks. Our desire as modern humans to have access to information drives entire industries. The introduction of the TabletPC shows the direct spiritual connection of modern technology and the original tablet. The first one just ran on Windows BC - and when it crashed, it crashed.

Nature of the Artificial

2005-02-28T20:46:00.000-08:00

Let's get it out of the way up front - there are three things that computers are really good at:
- Manipulating characters very quickly
- Working with large numbers and complex equations very quickly
- Storing, sorting, and retrieving large amounts of data very quickly

You will notice that the theme here is very quickly. In fairness, it can be added, very accurately. Computers can work with huge sets of data in a incomprehensibly short period of time, and (barring human error) without mistakes. Lest you think I am pigeonholing the abilities of our silicon-based friends, these three skills can be applied to a huge range of tasks. Photo manipulation, video editing, and word processing are all tasks that would (in the human world) involve no numbers or math whatsoever. But, in the world of logic and switches, it's all numbers (so to speak) at the core. Performing tedious and repetitive tasks digitally allows for great strides in productivity, quality of output, and preservation of resources. If it can be reliably modeled with numbers and logic, a computer can potentially perform any task asked of it.

What can't computers do, at this point in their development? MIT's Marvin Minsky has some feelings about this. Right now, there are a variety of tasks that computer systems are just lousy at performing. Visual distinction, predictive behaviors, original "creative" production, even basic conversation is a huge barrier for the digital system. As Dr. Minsky points out, we need to improve the computer's ability to learn and do basic tasks - these are not only a loftier goal, but in many cases they may show us the way to a higher plane of digital "intelligence." It's much easier to write a program to calculate Drake's equation to a reliable result than to direct a computer to "put the red block on top of the 2 green blocks." We need to determine the set of operations that can be mathematically modeled - and then focus on the outliers.

We have spent the last 50 years focused on increasing the speed of our systems and then utilizing that speed to perform more complex operations. That's great, but we are already approaching the great speed bump in system design - the incredibly slow speed at which humans process similar data. If we hope to achieve any sort of "intelligence" in computers, we must focus on the things that our brain does very quickly; things like sight, scanning, grouping, behavior modification, and object recognition. These traits are the key variables in what we recognize as intelligence - we must understand what is in our nature before we can understand how we can recreate it artificially.

Now is the time to prove the existence of Natural Intelligence.

History of the Apple Logo

2005-02-28T20:30:00.000-08:00

Here is a brief history of the Apple logo and marketing by Bill Kelley, who handled Apple advertising and marketing in the early years.

Mind If I Play?

2005-02-22T21:41:00.000-08:00

Here are a few stories about neurofeedback controls and the ways they're being used:

A simple newspaper story from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

A more in-depth, technical report on neurofeedback

One of the companies working in this field. Make sure to read about their games

Engelbart and the Split Screen

2005-02-22T17:34:00.000-08:00

I couldn't find the quote that inspired me to think about the split-screen video in the Englebart presentation from 1968, but I think the argument can be made pretty convincingly. These are the factors that I considered:

- The digital (still) camera didn't even exist yet - Texas Instruments would patent it in 1972. The digital video camera in the earliest form would be another 10 years later.
- The two images (video and computer) are running at significantly different resolutions - which isn't really possible without software emulation.
- Even if we grant that they had a computer capable of processing this image (they didn't) at 30 frames per second and capable of dynamically resizing it, network protocols at the time couldn't have transmitted it. Even if the image were only 100 pixels x 100 pixels (generous), and if each pixel was only one bit (not even), that would still be 300,000 bits of information per second. The fastest networks at the time were 50 Kbps (50,000 bits per second) and most high-end modems in use were only 2.4 Kbps. Now add audio to that equation...

For those who are interested, here's a good website on the History of the Internet, which covers many of the topics that we are talking about in class.

Also, for the real story, here's an interview with Doug Engelbart about his demonstration at the 1968 Fall Joint Computer Conference.

Technology for Art's Sake

2005-02-21T19:52:00.000-08:00

Thus far in this course, we have explored the connection between science and art primarily in one realm - the "flatland" of canvas, paper, and interactive displays. We have seen the abilities and limitations of trying to represent a multi-dimensional world with a two-dimensional medium. Despite the many significant achievements in this arena, display technology is in its infancy when compared with another medium's ability to recreate a multidimensional experience - audio.

The work done by people like Ray Dolby and his associates and companies such as DTS is orders of magnitude beyond anything currently seen in the flatland space. At its best, visual technology presents us with a single perspective of a moment in time. No matter the fidelity of the image or the creativity of the presentation, viewing visual media is inherently a static and constructed experience. The best current technology and the best theoretical technology will, at their most ambitious, be able to do little to change an experience that has been essentially the same for thousands of years.

In contrast, the technological advances in audio over the last 150 years have been astounding. One must consider that, only 100 years ago, the average person had no way to hear a Beethoven symphony or a Presidential speech without physically being in the presence of the performer. When really considered by modern people, that fact must be staggering. In the short existence of sound recording, this technology-driven industry has already been able to provide experiences that the visual arts cannot conceive of. Multi-speaker, multi-frequency sound systems are able to recreate a sound field in multiple dimensions. The audio portion of the average summer blockbuster is infinitely more immersive than the images on the screen, no matter how pretty or moving they might be. Ten years ago, when the American cinema industry began to upgrade to digital sound systems, it had a real impact on which theaters people chose to patronize. You've never heard anyone say, "I want to go to the Cinematron 18 instead - they have much more reflective screens and their projectors are brighter!" But, give that same person a choice between stereo and DTS...

More importantly, audio technology gives us more than just a recording of an arrangement of sound waves. Through multi-channel systems and digital signal processing, modern audio can give us an experience - and allow us to tailor that experience for ourselves. With a high-level audio system, the listener's position in the room can affect the sounds they hear and change the interactions of those various sounds. The dynamic of an auditory experience, rather than a visual moment, is the difference that technology has given us. In my living room at home, I can look at a reproduction of the Mona Lisa and imagine DaVinci's studio - or the Salle des Etats at the Louvre (current renovations notwithstanding). However, with one touch of a button, I can listen to Beethoven's Ninth. As it would have sounded at the 1824 premiere at the Kärntnertortheater in Vienna. Sitting in a fifth row orchestra seat. Now, that's an experience.

Interesting technology fact of the day - the Compact Disc format was changed from 60 minutes to 74 minutes during the finalization of the the CD standard by Sony and Philips. Why 74 minutes? To accommodate the entire length of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony on one disc.

User-friendly, Developer-hateful

2005-02-20T19:24:00.000-08:00

Sony, IBM, and Toshiba have finally introduced the long-awaited "Cell" Processor, which will be the heart of Sony's forthcoming PlayStation 3 game console. Once again, Sony has employed the Apple / Nintendo technique of bringing to market beautiful, powerful, user-friendly products that are heavily proprietary and difficult to develop software for. In their continuing effort to keep things Sony-only (see BetaMax, MiniDisc, ATRAC audio, etc.) they have short-changed consumers once again. Like the PS2's highly-vaunted and painfully under-utilized "Emotion" chipset, PS3 developers will have to learn yet another unique processor configuration. Will it be powerful? Sure. Will it be flexible enough to power a wide array of products, from TVs to refrigerators? Absolutely. Is it really a good choice for a software-dependent consumer product that has a realistic life-span of 3-4 years? No way.

In the span of a generation of game consoles, the average development team will work on 4 games, tops. With each new title, the team learns a little more about how the hardware works. By the time that the development community finds the system's "sweet spot," it's usually been two years since the product's launch. Fortunately, this year of great software usually coincides with the second or third price reduction for the hardware - allowing a wider audience to enjoy the best games. Which makes the consumers excited to pay full price for the next generation of hardware - hardware that will then have to wait another couple of years before it hits its stride. It's a great cycle for making money, but consumers are already beginning to wise up. How did the XBox have great games in years one and two? By using a development environment that was essentially Windows, which most developers already knew thoroughly. Microsoft has shown a commitment to continue to support developers by creating a unified architecture, known as XNA, for both Windows games and the next XBox. There's no reason that the unquestionable market leader can't come up with something similar...

C'mon, Sony - innovation is great, but at the end of the day consumers just want software that justifies the $400 that they just gave you. While you're at it, they'd probably like the first version of the hardware to come without a deadly design flaw that will kick in weeks after the warranty expires. It'll be more than 10 years since the PlayStation and 5 since the PS2 when the PS3 comes out - call QA now and ask them to check the vent placement (PS1), optical drive (PS2), and software package (PSX), before your next artificially-understocked launch event drives people to pay $1000 on eBay for a PS3.

A Change of Perspective

2005-02-14T20:30:00.000-08:00

As digital technology becomes a larger part of the way we convey visual information, there will be a fundamental shift in the technique and focus of visual storytelling. All art - or, for that matter, printed words - had a unifying characteristic until the end of the last century. Since the first cave drawings, through thousands of years and thousands of artists, one thing was fixed - perspective. No matter the medium or the subject matter, the viewer's perspective was always predetermined by the artist. In the minds of many, this is the primary purpose of the artist. Not simply to render an object, or a person, or a moment - but to guide the viewer in how to see that moment. Perspective is more than just foreshortening and vanishing points. In a larger sense, perspective is composition and timing, inclusion and exclusion, point of view and pointed view. Traditionally, the artist has been responsible for setting the scene for us, and giving us indications - through the greater definition of perspective - as to what is important and meaningful in this moment.

The greatest impact of digital imaging is not paperless photos or red-eye reduction; it is the ability to pass perspective control to the viewer. For the artist who chooses to relinquish this control, their process may evolve into increasing visual "realism" (or a stylized version thereof) without the implication of composition. For example, a 3D-rendered scene can be viewed "on the fly" by anyone. The user controls scope, zoom, framing, and even real or implied motion. A successful artist in this medium doesn't need to be able to convey a story in a single 2D image. The successful artist needs only to provide the most visually consistent rendition of this moment or moments in time. The art of videogame design, the art of filmmaking, and even simple "still" photography are all affected by the increasing number of options for viewing media.

While taking perspective control out of the hands of artists may seem cruel, it actually has the potential to finally, really achieve the only thing that artists ever truly want. In allowing the viewer to see the sunset OR the glow reflected off of the cliffs; allowing them to see the superhero chatting up the girl OR the villain plotting in the next building; by letting them see what Mona Lisa was smirking at - the artist achieves engagement. No longer is the viewer of art merely a passive bystander. The viewer will become personally invested in the piece because it becomes theirs, even if only for a moment. That connection is truly artful.

Gaining Perspective

2005-02-08T14:25:00.000-08:00

In considering the workings of Durer's perspective machine, I imagine that it would work something like this:

A string, representing the viewer, is attached to the wall behind the artist. The string would then pass through the "door" in the machine, to a point on the item (the lute, in this case). While the end of the string is held by the assistant, the artist would mentally record the point where it passes through the door; this process could be made easier by the presence of a grid or guidelines in the opening of the door. Once the artist had fixed the position, the assistant could release the string and swing the door shut - allowing the artist to mark the point on the canvas attached to the inside of the door. The process would be repeated for as many points as necessary for the artist to feel confident that the image of the object can be rendered in the correct perspective. Removing the canvas from the door, the artist would then transfer it to the easel, where he could then begin the process of finishing the image in his medium of choice.

It's not KinderVision TM - but it seemed to get the job done in the middle ages...

What's Next?

2005-02-07T21:14:00.000-08:00

As we look into the future of information design, I see a significant shift approaching in the way we interact with "flatland" information displays. The development of "electronic paper" and Flexible OLED displays will allow us to have dynamic information in a host of new locations. Additionally, companies such as Sony and Alpine are already looking at new ways to interact with displays that traditionally conveyed sight-only information. These companies are using piezo-electric interfaces to give touch-screen LCDs a simulated tactile feedback system, such as the PulseTouch technology in some of Alpine's new flagship car stereo systems, giving the user a stronger sense of interaction with their video displays.

As video processing speeds and accuracy increase, I think that we may also see new ways to represent visual information in a more dynamic fashion...

Imagine a video display composed of a grid of fiber optic ends (each one a pixel), with each fiber attached a small motor that can extend or retract the fiber a small amount(less than 1 cm). A video processor embedded in the display unit could then generate a 3D interpretation of the source video and extend or retract each fiber based on its visual depth within the image. The accuracy of this process could be improved by having content producers prerender the 3D and include the information as a separate track within the source video. The system would look something like this (my low quality art is developed exclusively in KinderVision TM):

source image

display image from front

display image from side

The result would be a simulated 3D image without special glasses or viewing angles. Instead of a flat surface, the video would be more like a subtle, moving, relief sculpture or frieze. Using individual fiber pixels would also help to avoid the distortion that would be unavoidable if you were to simply bend a flexible screen, in addition to improving the viewing angle.

While I can't predict with any certainty that displays such as the Fiber3D (yeah, I'm copyrighting that RIGHT NOW) will ever see the light of day, I feel certain that in the next 10 years we will significantly reevaluate the way we interact with an information delivery system still based mostly on the work of Philo Farnsworth and John Baird.

A Bolder, Better Butterfly

2005-02-01T14:46:00.000-08:00

Only 5 years too late - a different take on the infamous "Butterfly Ballot":

My Dog Burt

2005-02-01T00:50:00.000-08:00

Because, hey, who doesn't like a cute dog picture?

Posting an image from UT Webspace

2005-01-31T23:24:00.000-08:00

To post an image from your UT Webspace, first go to your Webspace page. After logging in with your UTEID, create a new directory - give it a name like "shared" or "web files." Click on the name of your new directory, and look for the icon of a hand with a piece of paper (it is next to the directory name, just to the right of the lock icon). Click on the icon, which will bring up a chart of the access permissions for this directory. Click on "change," and in the new page, change the box under "Read" and across from "Public" to Yes. Making sure that "Apply changed settings to..." is marked, click Apply Now. Go back to the main page for your new directory. Use the Upload button to bring up a file browser to select the file or files that you want to upload to the folder for use on your blog. Make sure to pay attention to the size (in inches or pixels) of the files you use, as you want them to display in a useable size on your blog. If you have an image program like Microsoft Digital Image Pro or Photoshop, using "Save for Web" in small or medium format will probably be about right. Also, make sure that the image is in a web-friendly format, such as .jpg or .gif (see the comments on my "Primate at Play" post to see the pitfalls of using other formats). Once you have finished uploading files, click on the name of one of them from the directory listing. The file should be visible, and the web address in your browser's address bar is the address that you will want to use to link to this file. Make a note of it, and go to the Blogger site to create a new post. Inside the posting window, you will use an HTML tag (img src=) - with the web address that you wrote down - to include the picture. The tag will look something like:

img src="https://webspace.utexas.edu/UTEID/WEB/mypic.jpg"

inside of < and > (I can't include those in place here, or else Blogger will think I'm trying to post this fake image file)

Publish your new post, and your photo should be right there in living color!

Bill Gates, Master Blacksmith

2005-01-31T21:16:00.000-08:00

As good, upstanding primates, we are a society of tool-users. Despite the many benefits these tools have brought to bear, we are quick to blame the tools when things go awry - particularly high-tech tools. While the carpenter doesn't blame Craftsman when the garden shed won't stand up straight, businesspeople everywhere are all too happy to blame the Devils of Redmond when they start to nod off during slide 28 (of 105) of the annual budget PowerPoint. Somehow they forget - even the best tool is dangerous in the hands of an unskilled user!

PowerPoint, as a set of tools, has positively affected the way office workers and students alike approach presentations. Used properly, PowerPoint forces brevity and thorough analysis of what points are truly important from the mass of source material that one may be starting with. Visual aids are easy to create and have a uniform, professional appearance - allowing the speaker to concentrate on developing their points and message without worrying about a lack of art skills (or whether or not Kinko's is still open). As it should be used, PowerPoint is incredibly useful for developing more engaging presentations and integrating handouts, notes, and insightful visual aids. One day, I hope that this new approach to business and academic meetings will result in a better way of sharing information and ideas, even when we are away from the laptop and projector.

Unfortunately, this is the exception in darkened boardrooms and classrooms across the country. There have always been bad public speakers, the difference now is that they have literal illustrations of what bad speakers they are. PowerPoint is used as a crutch to avoid investing too much thought into what one has to say. "If I just cram every bit of info onto as many slides as I think are expected of me, then everyone will think that I'm smart and well-prepared!" No one would ever consider writing up a stack of poster-size cue-cards and reading directly from them in a meeting, story-time style. However, most presenters don't think twice about doing exactly that when the cue cards are six feet wide at 2000 lumens. If people would just write the speech first, and then use PowerPoint to emphasize the highlights and illustrate complex or significant data, we could dramatically reduce the rate of meeting-based narcolepsy in our society.

Tool makers give clear indications of the purpose of a tool right in the name - a nail gun is a gun that shoots nails. Similarly, PowerPoint is intended to give Power to your Points. If Microsoft just wanted to create a tool to write a list of words that you could read in a meeting, they would have made a program called Word.

The best presentations ever can be ruined by bad PowerPoint.

Poor Information Design

2005-01-27T15:07:00.000-08:00

Here's an example of a visual aid that doesn't really aid the viewer:

For another example, view the Best Search Tools Chart

Primate at Play

2005-01-25T15:48:00.000-08:00

Hello World!

2005-01-20T15:18:00.000-08:00

STS 321 Course Site