The iPod's white earbuds would be easier to use if one of the earbuds was colored.
The only way to determine which piece is for Right Ear versus Left Ear is to hold one of the pieces close to the eye, turning the piece to view the single letter ("L" or "R") faintly marked on its inner-side.
Ironically, Apple celebrates its releasing of various colors for various products, but the lack of an additional color Within an existing item makes it less usable.
You almost get the feeling that the geniuses would 'rectify' this problem, by releasing an all-green ear buds....amen.
What you can do: use a marker to color one of the buds. Or, use high-quality stereo headphones.
In that case, the Left and Right sides is known / derived from the shape of the phones.
Even if still ambiguous, at least the quality sound makes up for the momentary confusion. Not something that can be said of the shabby iPod phones.
(My editor just informed me that any mention of iPod phones must include the word "ubiquitous." )
The iPod earbuds are ubiquitous but far from perfect.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Google Kind of Wants Us to Use iGoogle
Google won cheers this summer by adding a set of context links to its search page, but due to a major flaw--a single Link that does 2 different things, an omitted Link, lack of Navigation Labels, the user is often stranded and confused.
At issue is iGoogle, which can serve as a homepage to house short cuts, collections of links, and RSS feeds. I like iGoogle. I have added some content to it. I try to visit when I can... but how do I get there? Hmmm. Well, I just had a hunch, and typed in "igoogle.com," which worked!
Once you login to Google.com, you can use the link in the top right corner to go to "iGoogle."
Terrfic. I see my homepage. I also see a row of links on the left corner:
Web (unlinked, because I am there) | Images | Video | News | Maps | Gmail More (drop-down list of other services)
So, I have gathered that "Web" equals where I am.. And that's the error Google made: it denotes "Web" to mean 2 things: iGoogle, but this same link also means a type of Search (regular web search as opposed to those other types of Searches:images, video,maps). This is both unintuitive and leads to inconsistent results.
Here's is a typical sequence of events:
1. I've gotten to iGoogle.
2. I click 'Images'.
3. It leads to Image Search.
4. I choose not to Search. I click "Web" to return to iGoogle (the only link to iGoogle).
5. I click Books from the "More" drop-down list.
6. From the menu of Book categories, I choose "Linguistics."
7. This auto-populates the Search Input field with 'subject:"Linguistics"'
8. I want to return to iGoogle, so I click "Web."
9. This brings up an Empty Search Results page, as if I had meant to do a web search for "Subject:Linguistics." (this will always bring up an empty search because, as the page notes: subject:" Linguistics " was dropped from your search because it is not supported for this type of search.)
** See Bottom of this Post, to see Screen Shots of the Above Sequence **
That is not a good experience, and it is due to poor design.
The heart of the problem is failure to resolve a common issue wrested with by web site designers: should links be Verbs or Nouns or Adjectives? It is important to be consistent at least within a given group of links? Usually, a designer thinks through the logical ramifications, and chooses One and Sticks to it. Google, although guilty of omitting a heading for its disparate groups of links, does offer consistent logic/English in its Left top corner grouping IF VIEWED IN ONE CONTEXT.
But, amazingly, Google gives the word "Web" two meanings: a Place (iGoogle) and a type of Search, and it uses the very same Link to enforce both meanings. A dedicated link to "iGoogle" would go a long way to address this (the company has bought up half of the Carolinas to house its new data centers--but it doesn't have 40 pixels of space for an iGoogle link? )
If you look further at that Left Corner group of Links, just within the context of Search Type, it is not actually sensible. What is Google implying by these words?
Does "Web" imply "web pages?" Or is it not the 'parent' of the other search types?
The word used for each link within a group should be able to fit into One commonly structured sentence, which need not be displayed, but can be inferred from the group heading. At Google Left Corner, what would that sentence be?
"Search the Web for Web ".. no. What if we use them each as adjectives for the word 'search?'
"Web search".... "Images search" .... Wait! Pluralize image? Is that consistent? Is that hip? (Aren't only older citizens charged with inappropriate pluralizing of words?) Maybe the unstated sentence formula is: "Search All (of the world's known) X for ____". That would make sense, because "Video" does not need to take the "s" to become plural. But again, that word "Web" doesn't fit.
This brings up the need for a Group Label. It is important for designers to Label things not only because it helps the user, but it then helps the designer by keeping him mindful of what he is doing/putting together.
The Internet is still new, and different organizations and users have different ideas and views. This is accepted by all, and thus, we expect and even embrace different arrangements, viewpoints--so long as the viewpoint is Clear and consistent.
Google has built up heaps of goodwill. Most people defer to it, and will give it a break. If it wants to organize a set of Links, or Methods to view content, in a given way, then users will follow the way.. The problem is, the Way is not Understood.
There is a limit to how much can be Implied, rather than expressed, in web site navigation. There is a lot of information and communication made available by Google: it enables self-expression and labeling/tagging, and it itself develops and rolls out a lot of content. Further more, Google provides a lot of FAQs, and How-tos throughout its services, such as this Blogger. For some reason, they let things slide on the single most visited page that contains the single most important function.
Google's stated mission is to organize the world's information. But in the rush to do so, it hasn't properly organized itself.
1. from iGoogle, went to Image Search
3. Used the "More" list to go to "Book Search"
4. Clicked a category from the Left, which auto-filled the search input field.
6. Clicked "Web" to return to iGoogle. But, in this case, since the Form was auto-filled, and since Google took it to be a Search Request, it brought up a No Search Results page. (and always will, because of the syntax of Book search is not recognized by Web Search).
At issue is iGoogle, which can serve as a homepage to house short cuts, collections of links, and RSS feeds. I like iGoogle. I have added some content to it. I try to visit when I can... but how do I get there? Hmmm. Well, I just had a hunch, and typed in "igoogle.com," which worked!
Once you login to Google.com, you can use the link in the top right corner to go to "iGoogle."
Terrfic. I see my homepage. I also see a row of links on the left corner:
Web (unlinked, because I am there) | Images | Video | News | Maps | Gmail More (drop-down list of other services)
So, I have gathered that "Web" equals where I am.. And that's the error Google made: it denotes "Web" to mean 2 things: iGoogle, but this same link also means a type of Search (regular web search as opposed to those other types of Searches:images, video,maps). This is both unintuitive and leads to inconsistent results.
Here's is a typical sequence of events:
1. I've gotten to iGoogle.
2. I click 'Images'.
3. It leads to Image Search.
4. I choose not to Search. I click "Web" to return to iGoogle (the only link to iGoogle).
5. I click Books from the "More" drop-down list.
6. From the menu of Book categories, I choose "Linguistics."
7. This auto-populates the Search Input field with 'subject:"Linguistics"'
8. I want to return to iGoogle, so I click "Web."
9. This brings up an Empty Search Results page, as if I had meant to do a web search for "Subject:Linguistics." (this will always bring up an empty search because, as the page notes: subject:" Linguistics " was dropped from your search because it is not supported for this type of search.)
** See Bottom of this Post, to see Screen Shots of the Above Sequence **
That is not a good experience, and it is due to poor design.
The heart of the problem is failure to resolve a common issue wrested with by web site designers: should links be Verbs or Nouns or Adjectives? It is important to be consistent at least within a given group of links? Usually, a designer thinks through the logical ramifications, and chooses One and Sticks to it. Google, although guilty of omitting a heading for its disparate groups of links, does offer consistent logic/English in its Left top corner grouping IF VIEWED IN ONE CONTEXT.
But, amazingly, Google gives the word "Web" two meanings: a Place (iGoogle) and a type of Search, and it uses the very same Link to enforce both meanings. A dedicated link to "iGoogle" would go a long way to address this (the company has bought up half of the Carolinas to house its new data centers--but it doesn't have 40 pixels of space for an iGoogle link? )
If you look further at that Left Corner group of Links, just within the context of Search Type, it is not actually sensible. What is Google implying by these words?
Does "Web" imply "web pages?" Or is it not the 'parent' of the other search types?
The word used for each link within a group should be able to fit into One commonly structured sentence, which need not be displayed, but can be inferred from the group heading. At Google Left Corner, what would that sentence be?
"Search the Web for Web ".. no. What if we use them each as adjectives for the word 'search?'
"Web search".... "Images search" .... Wait! Pluralize image? Is that consistent? Is that hip? (Aren't only older citizens charged with inappropriate pluralizing of words?) Maybe the unstated sentence formula is: "Search All (of the world's known) X for ____". That would make sense, because "Video" does not need to take the "s" to become plural. But again, that word "Web" doesn't fit.
This brings up the need for a Group Label. It is important for designers to Label things not only because it helps the user, but it then helps the designer by keeping him mindful of what he is doing/putting together.
The Internet is still new, and different organizations and users have different ideas and views. This is accepted by all, and thus, we expect and even embrace different arrangements, viewpoints--so long as the viewpoint is Clear and consistent.
Google has built up heaps of goodwill. Most people defer to it, and will give it a break. If it wants to organize a set of Links, or Methods to view content, in a given way, then users will follow the way.. The problem is, the Way is not Understood.
There is a limit to how much can be Implied, rather than expressed, in web site navigation. There is a lot of information and communication made available by Google: it enables self-expression and labeling/tagging, and it itself develops and rolls out a lot of content. Further more, Google provides a lot of FAQs, and How-tos throughout its services, such as this Blogger. For some reason, they let things slide on the single most visited page that contains the single most important function.
Google's stated mission is to organize the world's information. But in the rush to do so, it hasn't properly organized itself.
1. from iGoogle, went to Image Search
2. Used the Left Corner "Web" link to return to iGoogle. No other link visible.
3. Used the "More" list to go to "Book Search"
4. Clicked a category from the Left, which auto-filled the search input field.
6. Clicked "Web" to return to iGoogle. But, in this case, since the Form was auto-filled, and since Google took it to be a Search Request, it brought up a No Search Results page. (and always will, because of the syntax of Book search is not recognized by Web Search).
Friday, August 31, 2007
How Pandora Mimics The Worst Aspect of Cable's Music Choice
Cable provides a valuable set of 24/7 commercial free music channels. These channels are only laughable when you look at the TV screen, which displays random artist facts and DMV-quality photography per song. For a more enjoyable Audio and Video marriage, VH1's "Popup Video" fared better. Maybe Music Choice should employ some of that team.
My main peeve with Music Choice's screen display is in how it provides basic song/album data. Its practice is to assign a song to an album on which it recently appeared, and its corresponding year of release. Such info is helpful if I want to walk down to the nearest Sam Goody and pick up the compact disc, but it doesn't convey the track's history. Here's a Music Choice example: while playing "Good Vibrations" it will show the album "Best of the Beach Boys (2002)." True enough--but when was the song recorded?
Many music fans like myself want to know when a track was recorded, and on what 'product' it first appeared (a single, EP, album, soundtrack). It is understood that over time, a track will be remixed, remastered, and appear on new compilations. We are told that we are in a "post-album" era. All the more reason to not assign a track to a random compilation or re-release--unless you give the full history. Since Music Choice is unmarried to commerce--not only does it lack commericials, but it has no means to 'click and purchase,' then you would think it would want to share History of the Track (and since it shares so much random artist info, i.e. "The Hart sisters ran a lemonade stand in Tennesse as pre-teens").
The web offers ample space to provide a full History of a track, and to list all available methods to purchase the track. iTunes does a good job of listing the many variations of a song, per release. (Search for 'Walk the Line')
Pandora does not.
Pandora is an excellent free web radio service that combines scientifically-inspired music research ("the music genome project") with personal preferences to play songs it thinks you will like. For all the work it does in correlating and suggesting similar tracks, it lacks track history. Odd, because even on a per track basis, it offers a lot of information: a Review, a list of attributes, a link to Band Bio. Somewhere it forgot to offer Track history. It should nail down the meanings of "Recording" "Track" "song" "cut" "mixed" and "record" "album" so that we know what we are learning and seeking info about.
The standard measurement, from which the others relate, would be 'track.' That way, Pandora could state:
"This track (Good Vibrations) was cut (mixed down to record) May 1966 (based on various recording sessions).
"It first appeared as a single May 1966."
"The first album on which it appeared: 'Smiley Smile', which is offered by Capitol as a 2fer ("Smiley Smile/Wild Honey") (note: that info is relevant only to offline shoppers, unless you're interested in record company packagings...although, those re-releases often coincide with remastering).
"This version is a stereo remix released 1990, when full album was remastered."
"You can purchase this version online via ...."
"You can purchase other mixes of this song,(click ->)."
"Other bands that have recorded this song include..."
"To view other recordings of this song..."
Whew. Lot of info... TMI? Welp, that's what the Internet offers. If one requests it ("More Info" link) one should be able to obtain this depth of info.
Now, in Part II I will explore the Pandora's limitations in seeking to assign each track to an album.
My main peeve with Music Choice's screen display is in how it provides basic song/album data. Its practice is to assign a song to an album on which it recently appeared, and its corresponding year of release. Such info is helpful if I want to walk down to the nearest Sam Goody and pick up the compact disc, but it doesn't convey the track's history. Here's a Music Choice example: while playing "Good Vibrations" it will show the album "Best of the Beach Boys (2002)." True enough--but when was the song recorded?
Many music fans like myself want to know when a track was recorded, and on what 'product' it first appeared (a single, EP, album, soundtrack). It is understood that over time, a track will be remixed, remastered, and appear on new compilations. We are told that we are in a "post-album" era. All the more reason to not assign a track to a random compilation or re-release--unless you give the full history. Since Music Choice is unmarried to commerce--not only does it lack commericials, but it has no means to 'click and purchase,' then you would think it would want to share History of the Track (and since it shares so much random artist info, i.e. "The Hart sisters ran a lemonade stand in Tennesse as pre-teens").
The web offers ample space to provide a full History of a track, and to list all available methods to purchase the track. iTunes does a good job of listing the many variations of a song, per release. (Search for 'Walk the Line')
Pandora does not.
Pandora is an excellent free web radio service that combines scientifically-inspired music research ("the music genome project") with personal preferences to play songs it thinks you will like. For all the work it does in correlating and suggesting similar tracks, it lacks track history. Odd, because even on a per track basis, it offers a lot of information: a Review, a list of attributes, a link to Band Bio. Somewhere it forgot to offer Track history. It should nail down the meanings of "Recording" "Track" "song" "cut" "mixed" and "record" "album" so that we know what we are learning and seeking info about.
The standard measurement, from which the others relate, would be 'track.' That way, Pandora could state:
"This track (Good Vibrations) was cut (mixed down to record) May 1966 (based on various recording sessions).
"It first appeared as a single May 1966."
"The first album on which it appeared: 'Smiley Smile', which is offered by Capitol as a 2fer ("Smiley Smile/Wild Honey") (note: that info is relevant only to offline shoppers, unless you're interested in record company packagings...although, those re-releases often coincide with remastering).
"This version is a stereo remix released 1990, when full album was remastered."
"You can purchase this version online via ...."
"You can purchase other mixes of this song,(click ->)."
"Other bands that have recorded this song include..."
"To view other recordings of this song..."
Whew. Lot of info... TMI? Welp, that's what the Internet offers. If one requests it ("More Info" link) one should be able to obtain this depth of info.
Now, in Part II I will explore the Pandora's limitations in seeking to assign each track to an album.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
YouTube Full Screen View Means Re-Start
If you are watching a YouTube video, and wish to view it in Full-Screen mode, you have to click an icon in the bottom-right corner of the Player. The icon, as well as the other icon in that corner, attempt to symbolize the concept of 'Go to Full Screen' (and the other, 'Go to Letterbox').
I would say that these buttons are not self-evident.
When you do go to full screen mode, a message overlays the video player: "Click ESC to exit Full Screen Mode." That is helpful information. Why then, not have a similar Text prompt, when in Regular mode?
"Click (x) to go to Full Screen Mode."
It would help. The bigger issue to address, re. Full Screen Mode, is that it returns the Playback cursor to the Beginning of the video. Why? Windows Media Player has for many years offered the 'Full Screen' method (also via iconography) which continues to play the video. Can't the Google Gang at least match that work from Redmond?
YouTube: As awesome as your awesome tools are, can you please make some tweaks that would enable users to easily find the way to Full Screen, and when they do so, to not have to restart the movie?
I would say that these buttons are not self-evident.
When you do go to full screen mode, a message overlays the video player: "Click ESC to exit Full Screen Mode." That is helpful information. Why then, not have a similar Text prompt, when in Regular mode?
"Click (x) to go to Full Screen Mode."
It would help. The bigger issue to address, re. Full Screen Mode, is that it returns the Playback cursor to the Beginning of the video. Why? Windows Media Player has for many years offered the 'Full Screen' method (also via iconography) which continues to play the video. Can't the Google Gang at least match that work from Redmond?
YouTube: As awesome as your awesome tools are, can you please make some tweaks that would enable users to easily find the way to Full Screen, and when they do so, to not have to restart the movie?
Friday, August 10, 2007
The Soft Terrorism of Tunnel Stoppages
Summary:
The usability of our cities' bridges, tunnels, and subways is compromised when any and all users are granted a veto to shut down the system. Authorities must prevent abuse of the veto and screen perpetrators for potential to cause greater harm to the people and infrastructure.
****
Terrorists need not cause fatalities, only anger borne of inconvenience. It is possible that Al Queda has targeted bridges and tunnels in
The Lincoln Tunnel, which connects
A car need not be broken to cause a roadblock. "Disabled" is only one of several explanations for an immobile car. There has to be a rewording of the situation. The media and the authorities are not only guilty of reporting too little; they report assumptions. We would all have a better sense of what is going on if the media and police discovered and reported on discovery. Just the facts, please.
Wrong: (present phrasing): Traffic is delayed 40 minutes in the Lincoln Tunnel due to a disabled vehicle.
More Accurate: Traffic is delayed 40 minutes in the Lincoln Tunnel because a vehicle in the right lane is not moving.
Most Accurate: Traffic is delayed 40 minutes in the Lincoln Tunnel because a vehicle in the right lane is not moving. The driver has cut off the engine and abandoned the vehicle.
The authorities must not jump to conclusions, prematurely exclude possibilities, or conceal specifics. We can not ignore the possibility that some people, for whatever reason, get a kick out of causing havoc with our roadways.
When a given action is neither difficult to execute nor punishable, then an actor, if he desires, will indulge in it repeatedly. The insurance industry calls such situations as causing a "moral hazard" of overuse. The simple action of deserting a car causes inordinate suffering to a city. The Port Authority of New York/New Jersey should investigate who is behind these disabled vehicles, and whether a punishment should be levied that would deter future occurrences. In short, the police must catch the perpetrators and be able to levy fines based on the degree of fault by the driver, and the resulting community inconvenience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)