"Invite your neightbors... NOT Craig!"
Well, I have found that Craig gets the job done and the local newspapers, which typically get "delivered" (whether you asked for them or not -- spam, anyone?) by being thrown on your driveway, do not get the job done. I think millions have come to the same conclusion.
"No Craigslist" is not the way to compete. Think different, newspapers!
]]>
I recently had to check in at the Southwest Airlines to get an online boarding pass. A few years ago this was a relatively unsurprising annoyance. Now, it's gotten downright weird.
It used to be that if you timed it right, and got in exactly, precisely 24 hours and 0 minutes and 0 seconds prior to departure time, you could click and print and you'd find that you not only were in boarding group "A" but had a very low number, sometimes single digit. The number never meant anything -- they were always ignored at the gate. What mattered was that you were in group A.
But if you really wanted first dibs on seat choices, say, you preferred the extra legroom of the wing exit seats, then you not only had to pull the 24-hour-prior web stunt, but you had to get to the airport extra early, and be ready to stand at the front of the A line oftentimes long before anyone else -- passengers, gate personnel -- even showed up. if you were that determined, you could get your choice of seat.
(Of course, sometimes you'd discover all that work was for naught: the Southwest flight you'd booked turned out to be a connecting flight, and you'd enter the plane only to find a bunch of passengers, typically disheveled, tired, and eager to continue their journey, taking up many seats already, including, inevitably, all the wing exit seats.)
Fast forward to now. Southwest no longer just checks what boarding group you're in. Now there's a position number within that group. And here's where it gets suspicious. The last few times I've done the exact 24-hour-prior thing with SWA's website, I had a separate browser window with time.gov's official atomic clock running, so I could be fairly confident of the exact time. I'd have pre-entered the confirmation number and first name and last name so all I'd have to do is click at the right moment, and then land on the next page just as the clock struck whatever. And then there'd be the mad hand/eye coordination rush to click the checkbox in the list (stupid and unnecessary if there's only one item in the list and it's your one fight) and then click the button to actually print out the boarding pass. The goal is to click that print button as fast as possible. And you know what? It's no longer like the old days. Now, within perhaps four seconds of the exact 24-hours-prior mark, clicking the print button gets you a boarding group A pass, but you see a position number that's very high, like 60, in my most recent experience.
Which makes me wonder: I simply do not believe that 59 people in San Diego were up at the right time of the early morning doing the same 24-hours-prior trick as I, within the first 3.9 seconds of the appointed hour. I just don't believe it. In this day and age, Occam's Razor suggests far more obvious explanations:
UPDATE. Ok, I did a little more digging and this blog post has the most likely explanation. A1-A15 are reserved for Business Select customers. A16-A60 are for "A List" members (related to their Rapid Rewards program). And then there's Souwthwest's Early Bird program where, you got it, you pay a $10 fee to get an additional 12 hours' advantage over other suckers, er, customers, to complete your online checkin -- but there are no guarantees and you may still wind up with A60.
Bottom line: Southwest's boarding practices are the major reason I deeply dislike the airline. They put all the burden on the customer and still the customer winds up losing. They've strayed so far from the original gimmick that they now require fees and other tricks that just make the whole game too annoying to play. I wish they would abandon the entire practice and just let people go to the website and click on the seat they wish and get it reserved just like most other airlines.
]]>
LOGORAMA is one of the most creative, unusual animated work I've seen in years. Imagine a scrappy, dark Pixar from some parallel universe making a very cynical, weird animation consisting of mostly corporate logos. It perfectly captures what it feels like to drive through the LA sprawl, that's for sure.
In the span of just a few minutes, there's far more than you could possibly catch in a single viewing. It's like the aural equivalent of one of the classic Firesign Theatre skits. Only with repeated listens would you catch all the references. LOGORAMA is the kind of work that you almost need a Blu-Ray DVD player for, so you can watch the film one frame at a time to catch the 2,500 (so I've read) or so logos and brands that are featured. One boggles at the thought of all those corporations suing the living daylights out of these filmmakers -- part of what makes the film so astonishing is its brazen nerve to represent corporate entities in a very, very different way than we've been drilled into thinking.
It also reminds me of what too many MBAs dream of as the ultimate home-page design: the ultimate Nascarization of the web, every pixel sponsored by somebody or something.
(click the image above to go to the official LOGORAMA site where you can glimpse the first minute or so of the film)
]]>Adobe Photoshop Cook from Lait Noir on Vimeo.
]]>"Hmm, I think I might be seeing the beginnings of a slashdot. Wait, hang on," I said on the phone, the other party puzzled as to what I meant. I looked closely at the screen: yep, the referrers flying by were "slashdot.org". I fired up a browser, went to Slashdot, but .... nothing there.
Over the next few minutes there were a few more trickles from slashdot, but nothing to write home abou--- WAIT, OMIGOD, NO, NO, OH THE HUMANITY, OH, HOLY SH--
"Omigod I'm being slashdotted!" I said on the phone, "This is awesome!"
I watched as the web log spewed out new requests, the window scrolling madly as The Eye of Sauron turned its gaze on my lowly platohistory website. Being slashdotted is a thing to behold.
All during the night, every hour or so, Slashdot would publish a yet-newer article that would push the PLATO article further down their homepage. Witness, I pray thee, the consequences of being pushed down the Slashdot homepage: the traffic goes down precisely as one's link goes down. And then, around 10am, the firehose becomes a garden hose, and then a straw, where it remains probably for the rest of the day.
That was fun. Must try that again sometime.
]]>Eight years later and the State of CA still says they have a total of $753.82 in unclaimed funds waiting for Andy.
]]>
Find more videos like this on AdGabber
]]>
He argues that all the vehement "ravings" against the iPad from "apparently technologically sophisticated people" are the result of these technology shamans fearing the end of their superiority over "Normals", you know, "the rest of us", the non-techie people who represent, oh, 99% of the population on earth.
Here's Frasier:
For years we've all held to the belief that computing had to be made simpler for the 'average person'. I find it difficult to come to any conclusion other than that we have totally failed in this effort.
Secretly, I suspect, we technologists quite liked the idea that Normals would be dependent on us for our technological shamanism. Those incantations that only we can perform to heal their computers, those oracular proclamations that we make over the future and the blessings we bestow on purchasing choices.
He explains that the iPad is aimed at helping normal people get real work done, and that the real work is "not formatting the margins, installing the printer driver, uploading the document, finishing the PowerPoint slides, running the software update or reinstalling the OS" but rather,
The Real Work is teaching the child, healing the patient, selling the house, logging the road defects, fixing the car at the roadside, capturing the table's order, designing the house and organising the party.
Okay, point taken. But I think Fraser forgets one important thing, and I suspect at least part of the techie concern -- that I share -- about the iPad is, how do I ever become an advanced user of it? Put another way, how do I fully develop and exploit a symbolic mentality about the iPad that will help me be the most productive I can be? Or am i supposed to just reach a certain mediocre level of productivity -- somewhere slower than the speed of thought -- and that's it, with the iPad?
A Brief Review of the Three Mentalities.
When I first met Alan Kay back in 1987, he told me all about learning theorist Jerome Bruner and Bruner's three mentalities: enactive, iconic, and symbolic. The enactive refers to the kinesthetic, physical doing, where your body is involved with the activity. On a computer, Kay and company at Xerox PARC provided for enactive learning and representation by means of Engelbart's mouse which you physically manipulate in the real world, but at the same time, causes a "cursor" to move around in the digital "world" on the screen. Iconic means the visual, image-based representation of concepts and objects, which on the computer means icons, pictures, drawings, and illustrations. Symbolic, the most advanced representation, refers to a higher-level abstraction of concepts, objects, and actions, often represented on the computer by command-line sequences, menu systems, programming and script languages, and so on. Kay and company at PARC pushed to merge all three mentalities for the best, most successful interaction with a computer. The Macintosh has always reflected this.
Some Examples of Symbolic Representation We All Use.
Speirs seems to argue that only tech-savvy users care about advanced stuff like the symbolic level of interaction with a computer. Not so. For example: macros in spreadsheets. Rules in Mail, that tell the app where to store incoming messages based on what's in the subject or who it's from, etc. iTunes is a beautiful example of the mixture of enactive, iconic, and symbolic. Smart playlists are like the rules in Mail -- they let you create playlists based on some logical rules and SQL-like SELECT WHERE statements that make it possible to get even more out of your iTunes experience. There are countless more examples. All kinds of apps on our computers have advanced features that we may not use or even want to know about until we get more proficient with the app. But eventually we all become proficient with some apps -- even if they're games. And that is where support for symbolic-level thinking makes the app really worthwhile, or not.
The Rise of Mobile and Handheld Devices.
And then the iPhone came along. Gorgeous support for enactive engagement with the device, via the multi-touch interface. And world-class eye candy iconic engagement as well. Indeed, the whole iPhone experience is iconic and enactive… very little symbolic.
A sidenote: think about Twitter for a moment. What started as short blurbs and link posts by users quickly became conversation threads and snippets, and in order to keep track, the user community invented things like #hashtags and retweets (RTs). This shows how a community of users, who get more sophisticated with a system, evolve from the simple to the more abstract levels of mentality and representation. In twitter, as users got more comfortable with the system, the short-hands evolved quickly and now there is a whole symbolic language that enables people to be productive within the 140-character confines of that environment.
Right now I am typing this document in TextEdit on my Mac. I'm not on my iPhone trying to type this -- it'd take forever and nobody in their right mind would. And now we get back to the iPad. Would I be able to compose the article on the iPad? Should I? Is what I am doing "real work" that Fraser Speirs would approve of?
What Speirs Hasn't Taken Into Account.
What Fraser Speirs has not addressed in his essay is something that I suspect techies like me immediately noticed and were disappointed with upon learning about the iPad and its set of features and capabilities. Not a sense of "future shock" at all, but an intuitive sense that we find it difficult to see a pathway that lets us reach a symbolic level of interaction with the iPad. I don't necessarily mean a command-line interface (though a Terminal.app on the iPad would be nice), but being able to engage with the iPad at a more advanced level -- through higher order abstractions represented in words and symbols that the system understands and that enable the user to be highly productive.
My central complaint with the iPad is the very thing that makes it so attractive to Speirs' "Normals". Sure, it's going to be an incredibly fun tool for "teaching the child, healing the patient, selling the house, logging the road defects, fixing the car at the roadside," etc. For doing stuff. Lots of stuff. In a fun, deeply enactive/iconic way.
What has made it possible to approach working almost "at the speed of thought" is a fast computer, fast software, fast remote servers and high bandwidth, and a rich mixture of enactive, iconic, and symbolic representation where users can, over time, evolve their skills to ever-higher levels of abstraction, so that they can become ever more productive.
I wanted the iPad to be the replacement for my MacBook Pro. I wanted Jobs to show, through his demonstration of the iPad last week, how this new device truly is revolutionary and the next step in computing. But for it to be that, there better be a good story about how one can be productive at the speed of thought with this new device. There better be a good story about how this new device's user interface reflects a lot of deep thinking and care about not only the enactive and iconic mentalities, but also the symbolic.
Now, I suspect the people inside Apple have indeed thought of these things. And I suspect that over time, we will see new product updates that reflect high-level abstractions in the user inteface that will appeal to people who hang out at the symbolic level, as it were. For example, what we have not seen yet in the iPad's operating system (as far as I know) is a set of customizable hand gestures, or a custom menu of commands and scripts a la AppleScript, that let you do things quickly with the iPad that otherwise would require a lot of navigation.
But none of that roadmap was laid out at Steve's announcement. All the flashy hype so far is about how you can play media, and look at pictures, and watch movies, and listen to music, and sure, type the occasional short document or memo, and maybe move numbers around in a simple spreadsheet, but, nothing that really addresses what happens when I become an expert at the iPad, how do I keep becoming more and more productive. Do you just reach a certain point and then hit a wall in terms of furthering your productivity? Is Apple saying if you really wanna be productive, you're going to obviously need to keep using your Mac?
Steve repeatedly talked about how the iPad is "the internet in your hands". Great. But what about the internet in my mind? How do I get more and more deep into engaging with people and things via the Internet without having to depend on my hands so much? How is the computer going to do more on my behalf, and in what language can I convey to the system how I want things done?
My Future Shock.
If I am experiencing a kind of "future shock", it's a fear that the future of computing may be limited more to enactive and iconic levels of interaction with systems, with less attention paid to the symbolic level where experts thrive.
I consider myself an expert of my iPhone -- I use it at least an hour if not two per day -- and I am continually frustrated by how I have to work at enactive and iconic levels when I could be doing more at the symbolic level. I don't know what the symbolic levels are yet for such devices. Does anyone? Who's doing research on such stuff?
What we need, industry-wide, not just from Apple, and I mean from the entire user community as well, is more thinking about what the future portends for the symbolic level of interaction with hand-held devices that lack a keyboard.
When Apple used to promote the Mac as the computer "for the rest of us" they were appealing to "Normals." But Apple smartly embraced and supported all three levels of representation and interaction in the user interface. All these years, this is the way it has been. And suddenly, the wave of hand-held tablet and mobile devices suggest that the future might not have decent support for the most advanced forms of representation and interaction.
What then?
]]>
I was a fan of electric car startup Aptera from the earliest days. It was the summer of 2008 when I first heard about the new car company and its radical three-wheeled prototype that looked like a fancy streamlined airplane without wings. When Aptera let people place $500 down-payments to order a car, I signed right up.
Email Activity
That was August 2008. Around that time they were promising to deliver their first production vehicle by the end of 2008. Things were looking bright.
At the end of September 2008 I got an "Aptera newsletter" email. "There's lots going on here at Aptera," the newsletter began, under a headline of "Getting Closer and Closer to Rollout." "We're getting ready for our big move to our new building," they continued. The newsletter spoke about how they'd hired 21 people between May and August 2008. Things were still looking bright.
There wasn't another "Aptera newsletter" email December 23, 2008. Remember, as of August they were saying that the first production vehicle would ship by end of 2008. Here we are at December 23, with a new email newsletter, and there's no mention of the car going into production. Not a good sign.
In January 2009 they sent an email entitled "Letter to Reservation Holders" saying they'd missed their end-of-2008 deadline, and worse, the first car wouldn't be going to a customer like planned. Worse yet, they were going to push volume production back to a new date, ten months off, of October 1, 2009. The email also offered a new "Lock-in Program" which would allow a someone who, like me, had already placed an order, to "voluntarily convert" my $500 deposit from a refundable state to a "firm, non-refundable" state. No thank you. I didn't sign up for the lock-in.
The next Aptera newsletter didn't get emailed until July 28, 2009. Sure, there was a blurb from the founder, and an interview with one of the execs, and a sneak-peek of the production car's interior, but as someone who put money down to buy one of the cars, what I wanted to know, first and foremost always, as soon as I got a newsletter, was WHEN? When will my car be ready? What is the latest? How is it coming along? Not a word on the subject.
The next newsletter arrived on November 23. Oddly, it as designated as "Vol 1, Issue 1". Not an encouraging sign for a customer who plunked down $500 for their car in August 2008, and who has been receiving newsletters since September 2008. Who's running the show, I was wondering. And sure enough: no answer to my question of WHEN. When will my car be ready? What happened to the much-promised October 1, 2009 date for official volume production to commence? No mention of it in this newsletter. Does Aptera think its customers are stupid? Or is Aptera stupid? Someone's stupid, and in this instance I don't think it's me.
Surprisingly, on December 31, 2009, Aptera sent out a new email newsletter. This one was Vol 1, Issue 2, and right up front, they explained "why we elected to restart the counter on the Newsletter." Apparently, "many of you had written us" asking about it. This time, the newsletter rattled on about how the car body is composite, how the DOE loan program is progressing, more detail about composites, and news about the X Prize. But no answer to my question of WHEN WILL MY CAR BE READY.
Blog Activity
Aptera's blog, called "The Daily Charge", started on March 2, 2009, was a hopeful sign: numerous blog posts on a variety of subjects all on the first day. Wow, if they keep this up, there could very well be hope! I love when a company is transparent and is telling their story and bringing their customers along in real-time. But then there was no news for three weeks -- the next blog post wasn't until March 23. Not good for a blog that calls itself "The Daily Charge". And then the next post was a week after that. And then there was silence until May 19.
And so it went during the course of 2009 -- what started out as an active blog, trickled down to an occasional new post, sometimes entire months skipped without an update.
Remember, in January 2009 they'd promised that October 1, 2009 was the date that the cars would actually go into volume production. That date quietly came and passed. Nothing mentioned on the blog.
The last Aptera blog post was October 27th. Since then: silence.
Twitter Activity
In February 2009, @aptera started posting on Twitter. Between then and October 12th, 2009, they posted 367 tweets. Since then, silence.
Meanwhile, In the News...
Eventually, news of what was really going on at Aptera started trickling out. In November 2009, WIRED News ran an article, "Aptera Founders Ousted in Boardroom Showdown.
It was a grim article for someone who'd plunked down $500 to buy one of these cars, expecting to take possession in 2009. At this point I was reminded far too painfully of the story told in the Francis Ford Coppola film "Tucker", about the revolutionary 1950s car that Detroit set out to destroy. I sent in a cancellation order on December 20th. It just wasn't worth it, and I told Aptera that I was no longer confident at all that the company was ever going to actually ship my car. They did respond and they did refund my money in full, so I have to credit them for that. It's a shame it came to this, however.
This weekend I have gotten two emails from Aptera -- both unexpected, and both basically the same thing: the latest newsletter. How's this for cheering up your languishing customer base, many of whom are I am sure still trying to get an answer, like I was, to the question of WHEN?: the first headline: "Aptera founder to lead from the boardroom while pursuing new ventures". Heh. I have to chuckle. Been there, done that. Translated, it means, company fires founder, founder manages to keep a board seat. The newsletter quotes the CEO praising the "vision" of the founder and how "we value" his "continued support." Right.
And then the next article is headlined, "David Oakley steps down". This is Aptera's VP of manufacturing. Heads are rolling.
Then a long article about Aptera's chassis. You know what? I don't care at this point about the chassis. What I cared about was when was I gonna get my car? And here you are, dicking around with your customers on the last weekend of January 2010, going on for dense paragraphs about the car's damn chassis ("if you didn't get it by now", the article ends, "we are really proud of our chassis") when the Aptera world seems to be crashing all around you.
So as we enter February, all one can say about Aptera is that Detroit bigwigs have swept in and taken over ("Tucker", anyone?), there is no date in sight for actual production, the blog is dead, the Twitter account is silent, and they love their damn chassis.
Aptera. How not to market a car.
]]>
Some quotes from the software engineer one:
In times of low revenue I believe I can give perfect satisfaction and to the equal of any other in maintenance and the refactoring of code public and private; and in guiding data from one warehouse to another.
I know how, when a website is besieged, to shard data onto the cloud, and make endless variety of mirrors, and fault tolerant disks and RAIDs, and other machines pertaining to such concerns.
Again, I have kinds of functions; most convenient and easy to ftp; and with these I can spawn lots of data almost resembling a torrent; and with the download of these cause great terror to the competitor, to his great detriment and confusion.
]]>
I do not see this device as being revolutionary. Apple approached this product very conservatively, deliberately omitting must-have features and new ways of thinking. Instead, it's a bigger iPod Touch, it expands the market for the App Store.
What did I hope for with the iPad?
I'm sure I'll be adding to this list, but that's it for now.
]]>
In other words, for many web sites, I find that my intended action of touching the screen to scroll up or down to read more of a news article, say, gets misinterpreted by Safari as me wanting to "click" on a link. So right in the middle of scrolling -- while my finger is still trying to drag the page up or down -- the browser, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that because I happened to unfortunately touch the screen exactly where there happened to be a hyperlink, I surely wished to "click" on that link and jump to that link's page.
But no! Many, many times this is NOT what I wanted to do, and I find that I have to wait for the browser to access the other page, then I have to press the 'Back' icon, wait some more, and return to the previous page. When not connected with WiFi this can be a very time-consuming experience. Put another way: a very negative experience.
How many others experience this? Surely it's not just me.
I would say for every 5 minutes I use Safari on my iPhone, I get burned by Safari and experience this "false click" syndrome about 3-4 times. Over the course of the day, perhaps a dozen or two dozen times. Over the course of a month, perhaps 500 times. Since I've owned the iPhone, perhaps 15000 times.
It all seems so preventable, which is the part that bugs me. Seems to me, the operating system should be modified such that there are multiple types of touch: if there is a touch followed by a dragging motion, the program should take that into account and do the right thing. For example, in a browser, if it receives a touch request and it notices that the touch is on or very near a hyperlink, then duh, activate that link. BUT, if it receives a touch request and that is followed by a DRAG up or down, then even if the touch landed on a hyperlink, treat the touch as a scroll request by the user, NOT a link request. Oh, if only Apple would make this change.
I truly hope that the new Tablet computer will behave better when it comes to the touch interface for Safari or other apps.
It amazes me that Apple has not addressed a huge productivity / user experience problem that should be readily fixable.
]]>