Skip navigation.

The Stripy Strudel's Journal

July 2008

( Monthly archive )

A Brief Classification of Realities

,

Under one of the possible interpretations of existence, every fiction is somebody's reality. Each time a thought crosses your mind that it would be good if that nice girl looked your way, you create a reality where exactly that happens. That reality has both past and future, and it's inhabited by people with real consciousness who have no idea that their existence is caused by someone from another world.

But if a reality spawned by someone's imagination is as existentially complete as the “real” one, how can you tell in what kind of universe you live? For those reading my blog in alternative worlds, here are some tips; though they won't give a definite answer, in many cases they help rule out improbable options. So what isn't your reality?

  • If your speech doesn't rhyme, you're not a hero of a poem.
  • If you have no horse, you're not in a western.
  • If you say something funny and don't hear any laughter, it's not a sitcom.
  • If there is crime, poverty, corruption in your country, you're not in pre-election promises.
  • If you have genitals, you're not in a children's book.
  • If you can see anybody who isn't sexually attractive, you're not in someone's erotic fantasy.
  • If you have at least one pimple, you're not in a commercial.
  • If your mouth takes intermediate positions between completely open and completely closed when you speak, you're not an anime character.
  • If neither you nor your relatives are famous, you're most likely not in a newspaper hoax.
  • If you work at least sometimes, you're hardly a character in a Latin American TV series.
  • If your or your friends' names don't begin with the first three or four letters of the alphabet, you're not in a cryptography book.
  • If there are people with the same first name around you, it's quite unlikely that you are a character in fiction or cinema at all.
По-русски: Краткий определитель реальностей

Barest Necessity

, , ,

It's well known that while the population of the planet grows, the total IQ stays the same. This applies to Internet users, too. As the number of users grows, the average intelligence plummets, and the software has to adapt. Let's continue the trend into the future and imagine what the browser will be like in, say, 2030. Increase this if you're optimistic, decrease if you're pessimistic.

(Close) (Back) Flickr: art (Reload) // Flickr loves you // (Google | lolcatz (103 000)) (Flickr) (LiveJournal | bradfitz) (Gmail | 14) (Opera Software) (eBay) (facebook) (YouTube)

After numerous improvements aimed at achieving user-friendliness, the browser has become as simple as it can be. It has no menus (neither main nor context), no toolbars with many buttons, no sidebars, no status bar, no dialog windows with settings. All of this was too complex for most users anyway, and scared the poor average Joe away from computers. The future browser will hardly be do a tenth of what today's browsers can do, but it will finally be usable by everyone. Speaking about visual appearance, shadows and rounded corners will still be in fashion. Thanks to the lack of any text in the interface, the browser doesn't need translation.

A browser ships with the operating system, an operating system ships with the computer. A regular user has no reason to change any of these, so the only choice among competing products that he makes is when buying a computer. This choice determines both the operating system and the browser. The browser doesn't even have a name because it's not a separately marketed product. The browser window lacks a title bar because nobody cares about the name of the program. The only button pertaining to the window itself is the red close button, and even that one looks superfluous. The window always has standard size, and web pages are usually designed for that size. Saving of pages and images as well as opening of local files is accomplished by dragging between the browser and the file manager, and printing is done by dragging to the printer.

At the top of the window is a universal field that combines an address bar, a security indicator, a window title bar and a search field. The URL is technical information uninteresting to the user; they only care on what website and what page they are. The website name is automatically verified through its certificate. The only security indication is the color of this bar: green means OK, red means problem. The user can't be expected to know about SSL or domain names, and judging whether the web page is safe enough has to be the browser's job. When it's unsafe, the main working area turns red as well because it's not easy to draw the user's attention. When the bar is clicked, it becomes white and empty, and the user can type in it. The text is always looked up in the search engine (the one with which the browser vendor has made an agreement). If an eccentric user types a URL (where would he get one in the first place?), it will work, too.

To the left of the universal field is the Back button. Its size makes it easy to find. To the right there's a button that changes its function. Usually it's Reload, but during loading it turns into a Stop button (red “No entry” sign), and while typing in the bar it's Go (green right arrow). There's no progress indicator. Instead, while the page is loading, the incomplete document isn't rendered, and the main area displays a “loading” animation instead. It's better to not render incomplete documents because their strange behavior confuses users. Fortunately, thanks to future technologies, loading will rarely take long. There are no scrollbars, either; to scroll, one grabs any part of the page that isn't a link and drags. To find text within the current page, it's enough to start typing.

The bottom part of the window contains eight slots replacing both tabs and bookmarks. Technically they're closer to tabs: each of the eight slots is like a separate browser window with its own navigation history. Clicking a slot activates it, dragging reorders, and dragging a link to an inactive slot opens the link in that slot. The active slot is marked with a contour as well as with the arrow-like shape of the main area. There are always eight slots, you can't add or remove one. A regular user doesn't need more than eight, and the controls for adding, removing and scrolling them would add unnecessary complexity. On the first start, the slots are filled with recommended popular websites, and on subsequent starts they keep their content as well as navigation history. This way, they also replace bookmarks: you can simply keep a frequently visited website in one of the slots.

For the future user, pictures are so much better than text, that's why the slots display website logos. For older websites, heuristics will be used to detect where the logo is on the page, while modern sites will be able to take advantage of the new API. The API will allow the page to tell the browser what exactly should be shown in the slot, and even update that dynamically. In the figure, Google shows the search text and the number of hits, LiveJournal shows the name of the user whose journal is open, and Gmail shows the number of unread messages; the latter keeps updating even in an inactive slot.

The split percent users who aren't satisfied with this functionality will be part of a community going further and further away from the mass market. They will have their own browsers and operating systems. Some of those who develop web services for the mass market will be parts of that community, but most webmasters will use rapid visual development tools close in spirit to the “folk's” browser.

The Russian version of this entry (see link below) features a poll. I have included English translations in the poll and encourage all readers to participate. You'll need to register a free LiveJournal account to vote.

По-русски: Минимум необходимого

Hammering Screws with Wrenches

,

The development of information technologies sometimes looks like the eternal fight between Good and Reason. Whatever great technical solutions people invent, others always come up with creative ways to abuse them. I tried to compile a list of ten things surrounding today's regular computer user that are often misused, often to the harm of the user. The criterion was that the misuse should be so widespread that the very usefulness of the particular technology is questioned, and software authors develop technical means to restrict or disable its use. As it's a hit parade, I'll start from the end.

10. <meta name="keywords">. This HTML element was intended to list the keywords for the web page to help search engines find pages relevant to given keywords. Of course, some webmasters were so eager to advertise their sites, “helped” so much that a search for a popular keyword would bring you anything but what you were looking for. Since 1998, search engines started ignoring <meta name="keywords">. The last search engine still honoring the keywords finally gave up on them in 2002.

9. Quoting in e-mail. Quoting fragments of an e-mail when replying to it helps the reader match particular statements in the original message with replies to them. Because an e-mail application doesn't know which parts of the message the user is going to reply, it has no other choice but to begin with quoting the entire message and let the user remove unwanted parts. Those users who don't adhere to selective quoting as means of providing context, as well as those who don't know how to use it, leave the entire quotation intact. As a result, correspondence between two such users is an ever-growing chain containing all the messages they've previously sent each other. Some modern e-mail applications implement automatic hiding of quotations.

8. Windows desktop. The desktop was conceived as a place where the user can temporarily store documents and other files being worked on, shortcuts to often-used applications and other frequently used items. And that's what happens, but every other application somehow thinks it will (or should) be used often, and therefore it deserves a shortcut on the user's desktop. This kind of rubbish gets mixed with the really useful items, turning the desktop into a mess. One version of Windows introduced a new feature: Desktop cleanup wizard that tries to guess what on the desktop the user needs and what is actually rubbish.

7. Notification area of Windows taskbar. This area, often incorrectly referred to as system tray, is a good place for running programs to display their realtime status because it's always visible. Today's typical Windows user has about ten icons there and doesn't know what most of them are for. Those small applets do anything (their author wants): preload “their” application for quick launch, notify about updates, show ads — except for actually showing any kind of realtime status. In Windows XP, Microsoft implemented a solution as brilliant as treating appendicitis with painkillers: they hide the icons the user doesn't want to see instead of providing an easy way to identify and remove the offending rubbishware.

6. Automatic startup on Windows logon. Some programs, such as a keyboard layout switcher, really make sense to start automatically, but the possibility for a program to put itself into the automatic startup list is really appreciated by authors of adware, spyware and other evil programs. To make it worse, there are several such lists, and a typical user doesn't even know about most of them. Plenty of programs exist for cleaning those up. Surprising is the inaction of Microsoft who, despite their increased attention to security in Windows Vista, still allow programs to get comfortable in a startup list without the user knowing.

5. Word processing software. These applications were invented to make preparation of documents with prevailing text and no special requirements for typography easier than it is with desktop publishing programs. For many modern users, “word processor” has become synonymous with “text editor”, and the complex, heavy formats of word processors are now widely used to store, and, even worse, transfer any text at all. An extreme case is an empty e-mail message with a Microsoft Word file attached. Many mailing list servers automatically delete such messages or strip these attachments to avoid annoying the subscribers and wasting bandwidth. Here one can also mention using spreadsheets to keep and transfer simple lists without any calculations.

4. HTML e-mail. Emphasizing important parts of a message, marking up headers and creating hyperlinks are really useful features. I'd love to have them if only they didn't come bundled with the usability disaster of HTML in e-mail. Authors of e-mail software who implement HTML message composition seem to think that the point of HTML is that the user can specify the color, font and background for his e-mail. Instead of logical markup describing the structure of a message we got means of decoration so much loved by teenagers and advertisers but so much annoying for everyone else. To make it worse, images loaded by HTML messages from remove servers are often used by spammers to track who actually opens their e-mails. Though the idea was that the plaintext alternative would only be used by old e-mail clients that don't support HTML, all those clients which do still have an option to use the plaintext version instead of HTML.

3. Browser detection. All web browsers introduce themselves to servers, so that those can detect what browser the user has and serve an appropriately “optimized” version. I don't know where webmasters got that idea, but many of them decided that, since they “support” a particular set of browsers, everybody else should simply be denied access: apparently, no web page at all is better than a web page that possibly doesn't work. There is a number of ways to detect the browser, some of which are based on particular distinctive features to check for. All modern browsers can spoof themselves for more popular ones to avoid being denied service. Even the current market leader isn't an exception: during the first episode of the browser wars, they had to make Internet Explorer identify as “Mozilla 4.0 (compatible; MSIE …)”, and that's what it still does after ten years.

2. Pop-up web pages. Opening a web page in a pop-up browser window can be useful when viewing enlarged images in a photo gallery, online help on using a web service or a shopping cart. Yet the most popular use of pop-up windows is to display in-your-face advertisement. Most modern browsers either come with a built-in pop-up blocker or have an add-on for that purpose. These pop-up blockers have to be smart enough to guess which pop-ups are legitimate and which are advertising rubbish.

1. E-mail. E-mail, one of the most important today's communication means, is plagued by the most severe technology abuse problem. The volume of spam is estimated to be 85–90% of all e-mail transferred in the world. The total losses from spam, including lost productivity, wasted technical resources and measures for dealing with spam is an order of hundreds of billions of dollars per year, while the costs for spammers are laughable. Technical means for dealing with spam are diverse, but none of them is able to solve the problem completely. Spam makes the practice of publishing your e-mail address as a means of communication questionable. In fear of robots harvesting e-mail addresses from public web pages, many users avoid publishing their addresses on open message boards or mangle them, for example by replacing @ with “at”.

По-русски: Забивание шурупов гаечными ключами

iSocket

, ,

Some people ask me why I dislike Apple when they make good things, nice and comfortable, which “just work”.

In order for things to work (and especially “just work”) with other things, there are standards. All electrical appliances have plugs of the same shape, and that's why they can be plugged into any socket of the same standard. You don't need a Siemens socket to plug a Siemens hoover. Anyone can make a socket into which a Siemens hoover can be plugged. Any hoover can be plugged into the same socket. The owner of the apartment chooses the electric power supplier or even produces their own power. A Siemens hoover will still work in a new apartment after moving because the sockets there are the same. Even Eskimos who live in igloo and herd penguins have sockets into which a Siemens hoover can be plugged.

An Apple hoover can only be plugged into an Apple socket. There is no publicly available schematic for Apple sockets. Chinese manufacturers have disassembled a sample and started making sockets into which Apple hoovers can be plugged, but using such sockets voids the warranty on your hoover. Not every hoover can be plugged into an Apple socket. Electric power in Apple sockets is supplied by Apple's partners and is more expensive than on the free market. Apple sockets cannot be found in every apartment, but I must admit that Apple builds beautiful apartments. Apple sockets are never found in igloo because Apple has no interest in that market. Nobody knows what the plugs of the next generation Apple hoovers will look like, and whether they can be plugged into Chinese sockets.

EU: please investigate // Nei til nye stikkontakter
© Martin Bekkelund, 2008.

This is a picture from the photo-report about the demonstration in Oslo against accepting the OOXML format pushed by Microsoft as an ISO standard. A banner can be seen in the picture: «Nei til nye stikkontakter» («No to new sockets»). On the right, with a megaphone in his hands, is Håkon Wium Lie, CTO of Opera Software and the inventor of the CSS technology. To him I'm grateful for the idea of the plug-and-socket analogy which I somewhat developed here.

By the way, here is an article in the Norwegian newspaper VG where the bottom picture captures yours truly taking part in the demonstration.

UPDATE: No, it's not a Siemens advertisement. I just needed some placeholder.

UPDATE: For the sake of justice I must admit I've got no complaint against Apple's browser department. Thanks to these guys for their decent and fair competition, for active participation in the web standardization process and for active cooperation with fellow browser makers on security issues.

По-русски: iРозетка