Skip navigation.

The Stripy Strudel's Journal

Posts tagged with "web"

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

<meta name="keywords" content="future, technology, abuse">

,

What can you do when a vaguely familiar melody has taken over your head and threatens to not leave you alone until you recall where you heard it? You can try your friends and colleagues — it works sometimes. Doesn't help me, though: few of my current colleagues have heard, for example, the “Yeralash” TV show theme which I happened to remember today. But wouldn't it be cool if, say, Google indexed all the music published on the web and implemented searching among it! The user sings a fragment of a tune into the microphone, and the search engine finds melodies containing similar parts.

Theoretically, it's quite possible, though I doubt it would be commercially justified today. However, human is an ingenious creature, though this ingenuity doesn't always work for the mankind. There isn't a single technological achievement which man wouldn't find a way to abuse! Developers of the e-mail protocols didn't foresee spam, developers of HTTP didn't think of phishing (fraud using fake pages looking like banking websites). Some time ago, using meta keywords to find relevant web pages looked like a reasonable idea. With our present experience in the modern web, it's not that hard to imagine how the new type of search would be abused.

The simplest and mildest abuse would be recording and publishing advertisement songs to popular melodies. Such ads can easily be targeted, for example, Britney Spears' music could be used to target teenagers. A more aggressive approach: a commercial medley matching several different queries. An extreme case would be search spam, nonsensical sound files without a general musical structure, containing sequences of notes similar to those found in hundreds of popular songs; the only purpose of search spam is to redirect the user to the advertised website, often a fraudulent one, regardless of what they were searching for.

Of course, it's possible to devise technical measures against abuse, new ways to abuse against those technical measures, and so on. Given the modern pace of IT development, this scenario looks likely and usual. Typical sci-fi literature often misses out this important aspect of future technologies. It's hard to imagine holographic TV without annoying commercials, a “global data bank” (Internet, that is) without “search engine optimization” (it's a modern politically correct term for purposeful distortion of search results in favor of your web resources), and a future e-mail without spam. But I'm also sure that future will bring us conceptually new methods of abuse, impossible with the current technologies. We'll see.

По-русски: <meta name="keywords" content="технологии, будущее, злоупотребление">

First in English

With this blog post, I'm officially starting to eat our own dogfood by using My Opera. Generally, I like it, though I'd prefer LiveJournal's HTML subset over self-invented markup. The only thing that bothers me is that my blog is going to have the word Opera in the URL, and I don't like to endorse a product with my personal blog, even though I'm making it.

I've had a blog in Russian for a long time, and it shall remain as my primary journal for Russian-speaking readers. This blog at My Opera will mostly contain English translations of selected entries from my main blog, and probably also some local stuff which isn't ineresting to my friends in Russia.

I'll start with translating some of the older posts, from 2004 on. Those are the ones I consider worth reading, but the older an entry, the more the chances are that I don't hold to these opinions that much anymore. Please also take care when interpreting words like “now” and “recently” in these oldies. The original entry and its translation will always link to each other.

UPDATE: I've cleared the backlog of older entries to translate now. Newer entries will follow above this one.

On Interpretation of Results and Quotation out of Context

,

You have most probably read someone's recommendations on interviewing job candidates, or, conversely, on attending interviews as a candidate. Starting from year 2000, when Joel Spolsky published “The Guerrilla Guide to Interviewing”, these recommendations often include the advise to to ask an impossible question. The numerous advisers reprinting this recommendation from each other's articles offer various ways to pose such a question, but Spolsky has several examples in his article, including this: “How many piano tuners are there in New York?” (I think if I hear this in an interview, I'll reply “Just as many as there are cliche users in Novosibirsk”.)

It turns out that the author of this question is Enrico Fermi. Here is the original version of the problem as well as the solution: Fermi's Piano Tuner Problem. The solution is similar to what Spolsky describes, and the answer comes out to be 150. I'll quote the last paragraph from Fermi's solution.
This method does not guarantee correct results; but it does establish a first estimate which might be off by no more than a factor of 2 or 3 — certainly well within a factor of, say, 10. We know, for example, that we should not expect 15 piano tuners, or 1,500 piano tuners. (A factor of 10 error, by the way, is referred to as being ‘to within cosmological accuracy.’ Cosmologists are a somewhat different breed from physicists, evidently!!!)
In my opinion, this last paragraph about interpretation of results is the most important. Without realizing what such a solution is and what it is not, the solution turns into guesswork, and the problem becomes something like a test for quick wit. Joel says that a candidate who starts solving such a problem is a good candidate; I'd rather say that one who immediately starts estimating how many gas stations there are in Moscow and cheerfully answers, say, 2500, is either self-assertive (you can't verify if the result is correct anyway) or reads too much Joel Spolsky.

Quotation out of context is a powerful tool indeed. If only for the well-known Lenin's pronouncement: “The most important of all arts for us is cinema”, the full context of which is: “While the nation is illiterate, the most important of all arts for us are cinema and circus.” Seems like Joel isn't a stranger to it as well.

Thanks to rimpocha for the food for thought.

See also:
UPDATE: Mr. Spolsky has left the advise to ask an impossible question out of the third revision of his article.

По-русски: Об интерпретации результатов и о выдёргивании из контекста