UI in the Future

Face it. Computer interfaces have not essentially changed in years. When did the first mouse/keyboard come out? I remember the Apple II and Lisa from the early 80's (although I know it was actually invented by Xerox Park). I'm sure the info is there in Wikipedia, but I meant it as a rhetorical question. The point is that for the most part we still operate computers the same way we did decades ago.

First step. Many people do not realize that using the mouse with the keyboard is slower than using the keyboard alone - when you know the keystrokes. That is why there is a keyboard. Try to imagine instead of typing, using the mouse on an on-screen keypad (for most of us this is not an attractive option). Many kids games are this way because kids haven't learned the keyboard yet. Despite this many people never learn the shortcuts that could really speed up of their work (try pressing Ctrl-S to save in many applications instead of using the mouse to click File->Save). Point - people don't use the fastest method possible because there is effort required to learn it.

The next step. Because people don't know the keystrokes, and because they are more willing to use the mouse the next step was mouse gestures. Quick, how many of you have installed an add-on or utility to allow you to cause actions by "stroking" with your mouse. (Here is an example addon for FireFox.) Not many I bet. Why not? Because it takes effort to learn. Point - people don't use the fastest method possible because there is effort required to learn it.

Intuitive interfaces. So why does the mouse with the graphical user interface (GUI) work? I say it is all about not learning. There is a minimal learning curve to figuring out how to move a mouse, and how to click on objects. That is enough for many people. Indeed if you have ever had the pleasure/pain of teaching a neophyte you will know the real challenge starts with "right click" (Apple users insert ctrl-click, unless you have the new mighty mouse) or "drag" or "scroll" (although this last doesn't seem to be too bad with a scroll wheel). Why does a steering wheel, a light switch, a pair of scissors, work? Because it is hard to use them incorrectly and easy to figure out how to use them without spending much time learning (perhaps scissors are the worst of those examples).

What Nintendo gets right. You knew this was coming (with kudos to Apple as well). They take what we already do and try to mimic it in their interfaces - so the DS has a touch screen that I did NOT have to show my son how to use. I had to show his younger brother how to use the graphical keyboard part, but he was still learning his alphabet... The Wii allows you to point (almost like pointing your finger). You can put the remote in a plastic steering wheel and it is suddenly as easy to use as a (wait for it ... wait) a steering wheel! The iPhone and iTouch are the obvious Apple examples of what can be done right. Did you know you can use a Wii remote with your computer - as long as your computer has a blue tooth connection (Google it)?

In the future. The takeaways so far are - the interface cannot require serious learning and it should reflect things people already do. Partly this will work with current tools - if you haven't tried Google Earth yet, try it. Navigation is pretty simple and it goes beyond simple point and click. People naturally zoom, pan, and even set it scrolling automatically (give the Earth a spin!). More promising work is seen with "surface computing" which is like a really advanced touch screen. Instead of just mimicing a mouse new actions are being developed. The successful new actions will be the ones that are similar to the things people already do. However I think the iPoint 3D interface direction is even more promising. Cameras are used to track your body movements which are interpreted by the computer. Think Wii - without needing a remote! The developers could still screw up though if they are unable to make it work with intuitive body movements (pointing is perhaps the most obvious). Surface computing, body movements, no matter what we come up with as our interface, if people need to work hard at it they won't bother.

Starting to Tweet

Ok - so for the longest time I've tried to avoid joining anything new. Didn't want to have to keep track of one more stream of information. Didn't want to have another login/password, etc. Anyway, a session at a conference last year helped me decide that I should at least try to make myself available for my students and others in as many ways as possible - so they can choose how they interact with me. I'm also working (supposedly) on an M.Sc. thesis that lives in the realm of social networking (technically it is research into the UI, not the networking itself).

So I joined FaceBook, started a blog, and joined Twitter. I was already on ICQ (haven't used it in a long time - does anyone anymore?) MSN Messenger, Google Chat and of course I have about five e-mail addresses I actually pay attention to.

I still wanted to minimize the number of things I have open, paying attention to. I went looking for a Twitter client that would do more than just Tweet. One place I checked out was Gizmo's TechSupportAlert I eventually decided to try Digsby. It tracks everything I listed above (well I didn't try ICQ) and even integrates your Tweets into FaceBook status. I gave it a couple of days, but have now turned it off. Instead I'm just staying my browser (FF). I keep various tabs open for e-mail, and have installed TwitterFox (liking it so far). Unfortunately I still have a separate client for MSN. I've tried a few (Digsby above and Trillian) but for now I'm sticking with the one MS makes.

Mobile Phones & People

I'm sure it doesn't take a math degree to see where this chart is going. I combined numbers from a Gizmag article on 4 billion current mobile phones, with population data from a Wikipedia article. Obviously the growth rate for mobile phones is going to change. That isn't to say that no more phones will be sold, but that the number sold each year will likely level out somewhat.

What teens are doing online

The title of the article is "Teens spend average of 87 hours a year looking at porn online" but it could just have easily read "Teens spend average of 165 hours a year working at homework online" - but how much attention would that attract?

(Geekologie writer says "I thought it would be more..." :-)

It is obviously an article written by adults that have forgotten what it is like to be a teenager. I don't claim to be a guru on the subject but I couldn't help rolling my eyes when I read "... for some reason they find it easier to go online to conduct their research than asking mum and dad for advice [on sexual and other matters]" Oh please! Twas ever thus.

There's a bunch more number such as how much time they might spend chatting (nine hours a week, 468 a year), how much time looking up diets, listening to music, etc.

I think the important take away is that a significant portion of their lives are spent online. Sometimes at things that are worrisome (the article mentions interactions with strangers and online dangers), sometimes at things they want to hide from their parents (but again - how many kids hid Playboy between their mattresses/under the bed, etc. 20 years ago) but this is also one of kids' main sources of information. This point should not be ignored by parents, teachers, or marketing. Unfortunately a lot of parents aren't equipped to guide their children through this and some go so far as to limit/ban access rather than try to assist in trying times.

Article at DailyMail Online.

e-books ready for mainstream?

Mike Elgan is convinced that e-books are poised to take over traditional publishing. Personally I don't think the writing is quite on the wall yet (no pun intended). Latest developments may show that we are moving towards this though. I especially like the comments that young people (I'm not one of them anymore) actually read more than previous generations - just not from paper.

This second article from the Silicon Valley Insider does a little cloud math to show that the NY Times could buy every loyal subscriber an e-book reader (the Amazon Kindle) for less than it takes to publish their dead-tree version. However they don't claim that the Times should do this, they just want to show the economics.

Replace the alternator in your car - improve mpg

Internal combustion engines are notoriously inefficient. Most of the waste goes into creating heat. Now VW intends to use that waste heat to create electricity using thermocouples. These are not new - you may even have seen a fan using this technology sitting on someone's wood stove before. However they are rather inefficient themselves and so haven't been used much for larger applications. The VW claims are 600W from normal driving. The neat thing - this is from waste heat so it does not affect engine performance. On the other hand a traditional alternator steals energy from the motion of the engine - so it takes fuel to turn the alternator. The energy used to power the thermocouple, heat, is already being produced and just being released into the atmosphere (by the radiator). VW claims 5% improvement.

Story on GizMag. (Image from GizMag.)

Follow up: or you could generate electricity from the up/down motion of your vehicle as you go over bumps. Shocks that generate electricity.

Teleportation over three feet

Ok - it's nothing like Star Trek. In fact it isn't even intended to send actual objects. This teleportation is intended to increase communication speeds. Basically scientists are able to set information in one atom, and the same information instantaneously appears on another previously "entangled" atom. So what you might say. The point is "instantaneous." No light speed delay (due to quantum mechanics).

Light speed, schmight speed you say. Consider that my Internet connection has a noticeable light speed lag/delay becuase it is satellite based - approximately 1/4 second in each direction. This means that it takes a 1/4 second for my message to hit the satellite, another quarter second to return to earth. Then the answer has to travel back to the satellite, and then back down to me. Total lag is just under 1 second. Electrical connections across wires are actually even slower than light speed. Connections over fiber optics have a light speed delay, but the distances are much smaller than electrical or satellite.

Link to fairly technical details on FoxNews.

About this blog

About the blog name - it's not about geek porn, it's a reference to a common typo in Java programming. Try searching on it in Google: (over 5 million hits last time I tried it - but that might be different if you turn on "safe search"!)

Although postings will be varied on topic and frequency, expect a geeky tone to them.