[Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Mark Woodward]

I have always been the tech guru. Running the film projector in the 
early 1970s in school because the teachers never understood how. Many of 
us have an innate ability to understand mechanisms. We see things and 
they make sense to us.


So, I have used Windows, Macintosh, Linux, FreeBSD, SunOS, CP/M, and so 
on. I have come to the conclusion that there is NOTHING that can make a 
user's life easier or a computer more "usable" in any significant way. 
Sure, you can help with some incremental aids, icons, menus, and such, 
but not much more than that.


Here's the problem

(q) How do I get my pictures on my computer.
(a) Run a program to download them to your computer.
(q) Why can't I just use them on the camera?
(a) You might be able to, but it depends on the application or the 
camera

(q) what?
(a) Some cameras look like disks to the computer and some don't
(q) What?
(a) The people that make the cameras decide how the cameras 
work


And this goes on for a while

(q) "I want to upload some pictures to the internet." or "I want to 
email some pictures" but it always stops

(a) The pictures are too big, you need to reduce their size
(q) Why are they too big/
(a) The camera creates really big pictures in case you want to 
print them like a photo

(q) what do you mean, pictures are small
(a) sigh

and this can go on for a while

(q) How do I get music on my computer/music player
(a) rip a CD or download music you can convert to something your music 
player can use


  This too will go on and on


I don't believe the problem is that people can't use the computer, 
because computers, especially today, are fairly trivially easy to use. 
In fact, I think we are more or less at the limit of the current 
paradigms and anything done to improve them will actually make them 
harder to use.


No the real problem isn't the computer, the real problem is the user's 
understanding of the task they wish to accomplish. Copying music from a 
CD to an [MP3,OGG,FLAAC] is an operation with choices. These choices 
have pros and cons, benefits and drawbacks. There often times is no 
"best" choice. The same goes for pictures, email, word processing, 
printing, etc.


User's don't want to know how to do what they want to do and blame the 
computer for not being easy enough. If we stepped back to the 1970s, 
we'd have the same problem with recording music off the radio. You'd use 
a cassette or a reel to reel tape recorder.  Most people wouldn't 
understand how to do that either. It wasn't because of a computer, it 
was because you had a process that had a few steps and to perform the 
operation you had to have some background knowledge on how things worked 
so you would know what to do.


Problems with computers are mostly over at this point. It isn't about 
computers at all. It is about the tasks the users want to accomplish. 
You can't make them easier without changing the nature of the task.




___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Jerry Feldman]

I think the issue with computers is the large number of choices as well
as interoperability. For instance,m I asked the question on ripping CDs
just to get some opinions, which I did. I didn't think in terms of
lossless. In my new car, they no longer have the 6-CD changer, but you
can use your phone through either BT or via the data cable. Ripping CDs
is easy, but the choice of which format requires some knowledge. Linux
and FOSS present the user with a multitude of choices where Windows
tends to provide fewer.

On 01/12/2013 02:55 PM, Mark Woodward wrote:
> I have always been the tech guru. Running the film projector in the
> early 1970s in school because the teachers never understood how. Many
> of us have an innate ability to understand mechanisms. We see things
> and they make sense to us.
>
> So, I have used Windows, Macintosh, Linux, FreeBSD, SunOS, CP/M, and
> so on. I have come to the conclusion that there is NOTHING that can
> make a user's life easier or a computer more "usable" in any
> significant way. Sure, you can help with some incremental aids, icons,
> menus, and such, but not much more than that.
>
> Here's the problem
>
> (q) How do I get my pictures on my computer.
> (a) Run a program to download them to your computer.
> (q) Why can't I just use them on the camera?
> (a) You might be able to, but it depends on the application or the
> camera
> (q) what?
> (a) Some cameras look like disks to the computer and some don't
> (q) What?
> (a) The people that make the cameras decide how the
> cameras work
>
> And this goes on for a while
>
> (q) "I want to upload some pictures to the internet." or "I want to
> email some pictures" but it always stops
> (a) The pictures are too big, you need to reduce their size
> (q) Why are they too big/
> (a) The camera creates really big pictures in case you want to
> print them like a photo
> (q) what do you mean, pictures are small
> (a) sigh
>
> and this can go on for a while
>
> (q) How do I get music on my computer/music player
> (a) rip a CD or download music you can convert to something your music
> player can use
>
>   This too will go on and on
>
>
> I don't believe the problem is that people can't use the computer,
> because computers, especially today, are fairly trivially easy to use.
> In fact, I think we are more or less at the limit of the current
> paradigms and anything done to improve them will actually make them
> harder to use.
>
> No the real problem isn't the computer, the real problem is the user's
> understanding of the task they wish to accomplish. Copying music from
> a CD to an [MP3,OGG,FLAAC] is an operation with choices. These choices
> have pros and cons, benefits and drawbacks. There often times is no
> "best" choice. The same goes for pictures, email, word processing,
> printing, etc.
>
> User's don't want to know how to do what they want to do and blame the
> computer for not being easy enough. If we stepped back to the 1970s,
> we'd have the same problem with recording music off the radio. You'd
> use a cassette or a reel to reel tape recorder.  Most people wouldn't
> understand how to do that either. It wasn't because of a computer, it
> was because you had a process that had a few steps and to perform the
> operation you had to have some background knowledge on how things
> worked so you would know what to do.
>
> Problems with computers are mostly over at this point. It isn't about
> computers at all. It is about the tasks the users want to accomplish.
> You can't make them easier without changing the nature of the task.
>
>


-- 
Jerry Feldman 
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id:3BC1EB90 
PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66  C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Rich Pieri]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:55:26 -0500
Mark Woodward  wrote:

> Problems with computers are mostly over at this point. It isn't about 
> computers at all. It is about the tasks the users want to accomplish. 
> You can't make them easier without changing the nature of the task.

I recently wrote, in another thread, that consumers don't want choice.
They don't want to have to make choices. They don't want to have to
make decisions. They just want it -- whatever "it" happens to be -- to
work without them having to think about it.

Joe Consumer doesn't care about the relative merits of various audio
formats and compression ratios. He just wants to play his music on his
generic-just-like-his-neighbor's shiny thing. You can make it easier
for Joe: remove choices.

As Jerry pointed out, FOSS offers a multitude of choices while Windows
offers just a few. Apple offers just one which is really no choice at
all. Which of these is at the top of the market share pig-pile?

o/~ Freedom of choice
Is what you've got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want

Give Joe Consumer a one size fits all appliance and he'll be happy.

-- 
Rich P.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Mark Woodward]

On 01/13/2013 12:52 PM, Rich Pieri wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:55:26 -0500
Mark Woodward  wrote:


Problems with computers are mostly over at this point. It isn't about
computers at all. It is about the tasks the users want to accomplish.
You can't make them easier without changing the nature of the task.

I recently wrote, in another thread, that consumers don't want choice.
They don't want to have to make choices. They don't want to have to
make decisions. They just want it -- whatever "it" happens to be -- to
work without them having to think about it.


Well, that is a paradox for sure. If you've ever dealt with "users," you 
know that they don't even know what they want.


I have a story from early in my career. I was a young tech, and the vp 
of engineering wanted to give all the engineers a serial connection to 
their computers so that they could dial out and connect to BBS systems 
like compuserve for reference. Like we all do today with the internet.


The total spec was "I just want to dial out from my computer."

I did a *LOT* of research, I did a lot of testing. I found an add-on 
board for our phone system that would allow an RS-232 connection to 
every computer. The phone system would manage the dial-up and allocation 
of phone lines. It was easy to expand simultaneous connections, just add 
phone lines. At the time it is was, I believe, a pretty good solution to 
the stated goals.


We did a small trial and role-out. It was well received by the testers. 
We ended up buying the system.


The vp of engineering was excited, I wired him up. Started his BBS app, 
and couldn't connect. The serial system wasn't Hayes compatible. I got a 
shit storm because it wasn't hayes compatible. The fact that I pointed 
out that he never said that was a requirement didn't change anything.


User's don't know what they want and really don't understand what they 
need. Having something "just work" is impossible unless the entire world 
and every technology in it is forced to work as a single unit.


Music trans-coding has issues. size vs quality legitimate user choice. 
Interoperability is also important not all music players play the same 
formats.


Joe Consumer doesn't care about the relative merits of various audio
formats and compression ratios. He just wants to play his music on his
generic-just-like-his-neighbor's shiny thing. You can make it easier
for Joe: remove choices.


The problem with "Joe Consumer" is that you are right, they don't know 
or care about "it" as long as it works, but they get bent out of shape 
when it doesn't.


A legitimate "default" set of settings for music, video, etc. *always* 
has exceptions because of the nature of the task.


As Jerry pointed out, FOSS offers a multitude of choices while Windows
offers just a few. Apple offers just one which is really no choice at
all. Which of these is at the top of the market share pig-pile?

o/~ Freedom of choice
 Is what you've got
 Freedom from choice
 Is what you want

Give Joe Consumer a one size fits all appliance and he'll be happy






___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[David Kramer]

On 01/13/2013 12:52 PM, Rich Pieri wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:55:26 -0500 Mark Woodward
>  wrote:
>
> o/~ Freedom of choice Is what you've got Freedom from choice Is what
> you want
>
> Give Joe Consumer a one size fits all appliance and he'll be happy.
>
This.  And nice Devo, reference.  The chorus of that song also contains
"In ancient Rome
there was a poem
about a dog
who had two bones
He licked the one
He licked the other
He ran in circles
He is now dead"

(Ancient Music Counterpoint: Rush: "If you choose not to decide you
still have made a choice")

I remember stories when the US and India started trading very heavy in
consumer goods, they now had so many options in the supermarkets where
there were none before, that they would find shoppers completely
vapor-locked in the aisles because there was no discernible difference
between two or more options for something they wanted to buy.  And
that's food, not a computer.

It's very hard for us geeks to put ourselves in the mindset of the
common person who wants "a computer".  Or "a TV".  Or "a stereo".  But
that's what most people do.  But us geeks are just as vulnerable to this
problem; just from the other end.  When we buy one of these "one size
fits all appliances" and put hours and hours getting it to work the way
we want, cursing its lack of configurablilty, it's because we can't
understand why someone would build something like that, when in fact
it's what most people want.

Sadly, this ties in nicely with the recent, and very enlightening,
thread on the Gnome team.  Here's an interesting case of a company
trying to treat something that is typically thought of as "for geeks, or
at least geek wanabees", expending a lot of energy turning it into a
product more suited for the masses.  Personally I don't feel that's the
right way for Linux to gain more adoption on the desktop.  I'm very
happy using Kubuntu now and leaving that idiocy behind me.


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Rich Pieri]

Mark,

Your anecdote is amusing, after a fashion, because it is a reference
example of terrible customer support. You put all that effort into
meeting "the spec" without a lick of understanding of what the
customer wanted. I'm not surprised that you got chewed out over it.
You screwed it up.

My counter-anecdote is this. I support 13 research groups at MIT. One
of these groups is conducting an experiment in a deep mine in New
Mexico. They need to get data from there to the their computers in
Cambridge. They asked for something, I don't remember precisely what it
was. Instead of blindly implementing whatever it was, I sat down with
them, discussed what they were doing and what they needed. We all agree
that the solution that I provided based on that discussion works MUCH
better than what they would have had I blindly done what they asked.

I've been dealing with non-technical users for around 25 years. They do
know what they want. They frequently don't know how to ask for it but
that's something else entirely.


> The problem with "Joe Consumer" is that you are right, they don't
> know or care about "it" as long as it works, but they get bent out of
> shape when it doesn't.

This isn't Joe's problem. It's yours. When you agree to deliver
something it gives Joe the impression that you understand what he
wants. If you don't actually understand Joe's desire then what you
deliver isn't going to work the way Joe expects. You promised him "X"
even if his words requested "Y" and you delivered "Y" instead of "X".
Of course he's going to be cranky about it.

I do think that Joe is an idiot and I think even less of him because he
has no desire to improve his technical understanding. Even so, this
does not exonerate me, or you, or anyone reading this, of failure to
meet Joe's needs.

-- 
Rich P.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Matthew Gillen]

On 01/13/2013 12:52 PM, Rich Pieri wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:55:26 -0500
Mark Woodward  wrote:


Problems with computers are mostly over at this point. It isn't about
computers at all. It is about the tasks the users want to accomplish.
You can't make them easier without changing the nature of the task.


I recently wrote, in another thread, that consumers don't want choice.
They don't want to have to make choices. They don't want to have to
make decisions. They just want it -- whatever "it" happens to be -- to
work without them having to think about it.

Joe Consumer doesn't care about the relative merits of various audio
formats and compression ratios. He just wants to play his music on his
generic-just-like-his-neighbor's shiny thing. You can make it easier
for Joe: remove choices.


I don't think that's quite right.  It's not that people don't want 
choices, it's that they don't want to make choices where they don't 
understand the options, and there is a high learning curve (esp. when 
options interact with each other in non-trivial ways).


Take video encoding for instance.  Check the man page for 
mencoder/mplayer.  Mine is 6908 lines long.  That's a lot of information 
for a single tool.  Most users (admittedly I'm extrapolating 'me' as 
'most people') don't want to /have/ to know all that stuff.  Most users 
would love it if there were a handful of pre-sets: min-file size, max 
quality, a few in between.  I think a lot of people would love to have 
those options.  Most people who have at least some technical competence 
are able to understand file-size, and why they may want to minimize it.


Music is somewhat easier, in that the formats available either work or 
they don't on a given device; it isn't like video where the format 
itself is supported but has a lot of jitter in playback depending on 
some of the options used in the encoding and/or playback utility.


Matt
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Rich Pieri]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:41:26 -0500
Matthew Gillen  wrote:

> I don't think that's quite right.  It's not that people don't want 
> choices, it's that they don't want to make choices where they don't 
> understand the options, and there is a high learning curve (esp. when 
> options interact with each other in non-trivial ways).

It's not that Joe doesn't understand the options. It's that Joe sees no
point to them.

When Joe goes to the gas pump he sees three numbers that don't mean
anything beyond "expensive shit", "cheap swill", and "the stuff in
between". Joe pushes the button he can afford and fills the tank.

Joe sees the music ripper the same way: push the button that makes his
music fit on his shiny thing and fill the tank. Offering him an array
of codecs and quality settings and what-not is unnecessary. They just
get in the way and make the computer hard to use when it should be as
easy as pumping gas.

-- 
Rich P.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Mark Woodward]

On 01/14/2013 11:47 AM, Rich Pieri wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:41:26 -0500
Matthew Gillen  wrote:


I don't think that's quite right.  It's not that people don't want
choices, it's that they don't want to make choices where they don't
understand the options, and there is a high learning curve (esp. when
options interact with each other in non-trivial ways).


The problem with generalities is that they are always wrong to some degree.

It's not that Joe doesn't understand the options. It's that Joe sees no
point to them.


That depends on the particular "joe" you are talking about. For some 
quantity of joe, you will have a range from "don't know, don't care" to 
"knows, and cares." If you go too simple, then only the "don't know, 
don't care" joe will be happy. If you add too many options without 
making something "easy by default" you alienate DKDC joe, but make KC 
joe happy.



When Joe goes to the gas pump he sees three numbers that don't mean
anything beyond "expensive shit", "cheap swill", and "the stuff in
between". Joe pushes the button he can afford and fills the tank.


Now, that isn't true. *at all*. Many high end car drivers have to buy 
premium because their cars knock.  Performance cars typically need the 
extra octane. Many "joes" drive cars like mustangs and such.


Joe sees the music ripper the same way: push the button that makes his
music fit on his shiny thing and fill the tank. Offering him an array
of codecs and quality settings and what-not is unnecessary. They just
get in the way and make the computer hard to use when it should be as
easy as pumping gas.


Again, what about the joes that put in really really great audio systems 
in their cars?




___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Rich Pieri]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:35:18 -0500
Mark Woodward  wrote:

> That depends on the particular "joe" you are talking about. For some 
> quantity of joe, you will have a range from "don't know, don't care"
> to "knows, and cares." If you go too simple, then only the "don't

The guy who "knows, and cares" isn't Joe Consumer.


> Now, that isn't true. *at all*. Many high end car drivers have to buy 
> premium because their cars knock.  Performance cars typically need
> the extra octane. Many "joes" drive cars like mustangs and such.

Mustangs run just fine on regular (87 octane) gasoline. This is
precisely what Ford recommends. If you put higher octane gasoline in
the tank then you're an idiot who's wasting money and gasoline.


> Again, what about the joes that put in really really great audio
> systems in their cars?

Likewise an idiot. A car interior -- any car interior -- has some of
the worst acoustics of any enclosed space you could ever encounter. See
also, "anyone who believes Bose marketing."

-- 
Rich P.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Derek Martin]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 01:27:34PM -0500, Rich Pieri wrote:
> The guy who "knows, and cares" isn't Joe Consumer.

In that specific area, yes.  Though, that doesn't preclude the notion
that the same guy could be Joe Consumer with regard to anything or
everything else...  

I think it's reasonable to define Joe Consumer as the guy who doesn't
know.  He might care if he knew enough to, but he does not, so caring
is largely irrelevant.  A buyer may know but not care; that is really
still a different case.  That buyer can generally figure out what they
need to do to "make it work" regardless of what they end up with.

> > Now, that isn't true. *at all*. Many high end car drivers have to buy 
> > premium because their cars knock.  Performance cars typically need
> > the extra octane. Many "joes" drive cars like mustangs and such.
> 
> Mustangs run just fine on regular (87 octane) gasoline. 

Only the base (V6) does.  Every other model of Mustang (GT, Boss,
Shelby) require premium gas.

> This is precisely what Ford recommends. 

  http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/specifications/engine/

See for yourself.

> > Again, what about the joes that put in really really great audio
> > systems in their cars?
> 
> Likewise an idiot. A car interior -- any car interior -- has some of
> the worst acoustics of any enclosed space you could ever encounter. 

That's largely true, but it's also not to say that the quality of your
car audio makes no difference.  Some stereos are just crap, and will
sound like crap, where others... don't.  In the same car.  The stock
audio in my car sounds like crap at low volumes, but sounds OK at
higher volumes.  That's not universally true, and I've considered
upgrading so I don't have to go deaf to enjoy listening to music while
I'm driving.

My car also requires premium gas... but it's not a Mustang.

-- 
Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Rich Pieri]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:47:24 -0600
Derek Martin  wrote:

> Only the base (V6) does.  Every other model of Mustang (GT, Boss,
> Shelby) require premium gas.

Even the Shelby will run fine with 87 octane. It won't knock if the
engine sensors are working properly. You lose 10 HP at the high end
with regular gasoline. That's the real reason Ford recommends premium
gasoline for the V8s.

-- 
Rich P.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Mark Woodward]

On 01/14/2013 03:09 PM, Rich Pieri wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:47:24 -0600
Derek Martin  wrote:


Only the base (V6) does.  Every other model of Mustang (GT, Boss,
Shelby) require premium gas.

Even the Shelby will run fine with 87 octane. It won't knock if the
engine sensors are working properly. You lose 10 HP at the high end
with regular gasoline. That's the real reason Ford recommends premium
gasoline for the V8s.


It should be noted that "knock sensors" detect a gas detonation and 
cause the control system to retard the engine timing. Two things about 
this: The detonation damages the engine and the time retardation reduces 
engine performance and efficiency.


The *real* reason why ford recommends premium gasoline is that the 
increased octane reduces the tendency to detonate at higher compression 
ratios (used by higher performance engines) by reducing the burn speed 
of the air/fuel mixture. If you want to use cheap gas in a performance 
car, a *good* mechanic can usually adjust the timing to be slightly 
retarded so that the spark is later.


This is exactly why you can't help users. User's do not know what they 
do not know and somehow expect the world to take care of them.


Even Apple is getting spanked for being too simple. More people use 
android than iPhone.




___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Daniel C.]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Mark Woodward  wrote:
> This is exactly why you can't help users. User's do not know what they do
> not know and somehow expect the world to take care of them.
>
> Even Apple is getting spanked for being too simple. More people use android
> than iPhone.

The Android is just as simple to use as an iPhone, to be honest.  Even
my girlfriend (who is wonderful, but simply cannot use a computer to
save her life) has had success with her Android.

Your thesis (that you can't help users because the world is just too
complicated) is confounded daily by the billions of people who spend
their lives interacting successfully with phenomenally complex systems
and devices despite not understanding their inner workings.  Do you
make allowances for that somehow?  Is software fundamentally different
from other things?  If so, why?

I agree with you that making "slick" user interfaces for software is a
serious problem.  Howerver, you seem to be saying that the problem is
fundamentally intractable which I think is overstating your case.

-Dan
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Rich Pieri]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:35:02 -0500
Mark Woodward  wrote:

> It should be noted that "knock sensors" detect a gas detonation and 
> cause the control system to retard the engine timing. Two things
> about this: The detonation damages the engine

A single detonation won't damage the engine. Repeated detonations will.
"It won't knock if the engine sensors are working properly."

> and the time retardation reduces engine performance and efficiency.

"You lose 10 HP at the high end." Less octane equals less engine
performance.

Certainly, higher octane gasoline makes high performance engines work
better but it isn't necessary (with some exceptions which won't work
*at all* without very high octane content). No, the *real* real reason
is Ford advertises 650HP @ 6,250RPM for the Shelby. The 10 HP reduction
from regular gasoline would lead to a false advertising lawsuit. Or Ford
would have to down-rate the performance to 640HP @ 6,250RPM which looks
less impressive on the spec sheets. It's all marketing.


> Even Apple is getting spanked for being too simple. More people use 
> android than iPhone.

On the other hand, more people buy Apple than buy Samsung or HTC or
Motorola. The three combined might beat Apple but Apple still beats each
of them separately.

-- 
Rich P.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Mark Woodward]

On 01/14/2013 03:50 PM, Daniel C. wrote:

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Mark Woodward  wrote:

This is exactly why you can't help users. User's do not know what they do
not know and somehow expect the world to take care of them.

Even Apple is getting spanked for being too simple. More people use android
than iPhone.

The Android is just as simple to use as an iPhone, to be honest.  Even
my girlfriend (who is wonderful, but simply cannot use a computer to
save her life) has had success with her Android.

Your thesis (that you can't help users because the world is just too
complicated) is confounded daily by the billions of people who spend
their lives interacting successfully with phenomenally complex systems
and devices despite not understanding their inner workings.  Do you
make allowances for that somehow?  Is software fundamentally different
from other things?  If so, why?

I agree with you that making "slick" user interfaces for software is a
serious problem.  Howerver, you seem to be saying that the problem is
fundamentally intractable which I think is overstating your case.


The problem is that the world and all the things in it are complex. 
Almost anyone with OK health can climb a small mountain, everest, on the 
other hand, not so much.


I alluded to the notion that things are as simple as they can be without 
changing the nature of what the thing is that you wish to do. Images, 
songs, videos, etc. each embody a knowledge set. For a very limited 
range of options, simple defaults may suffice. For anything out of the 
ordinary, the drive for simplicity makes tasks more difficult.


You do not need to know how a car works to know that you need premium 
gas, just read the owners manual. If, however, you do not wish to buy 
premium gas, it becomes an expert level option.



-Dan
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Mark Woodward]

On 01/14/2013 04:00 PM, Rich Pieri wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:35:02 -0500
Mark Woodward  wrote:


It should be noted that "knock sensors" detect a gas detonation and
cause the control system to retard the engine timing. Two things
about this: The detonation damages the engine

A single detonation won't damage the engine.


A single detonation won't damage an engine much. The timing retard that 
happens after a know is temporary. You will get repeated knocking even 
with sensors. You just won't notice it except for the lack of power and 
fuel efficiency.

Repeated detonations will.
"It won't knock if the engine sensors are working properly."


You won't hear it know, but it will knock.



and the time retardation reduces engine performance and efficiency.

"You lose 10 HP at the high end." Less octane equals less engine
performance.


Octane is interesting, it reduces gasoline's ability to ignite causing 
it to burn more slowly. Because of this, high performance engines need 
to advance the timing to the point where it is likely still compressing 
the air/fuel mixture when the spark kicks off.  It is paradoxical, but 
lower octane fuel is more combustible.


Certainly, higher octane gasoline makes high performance engines work
better but it isn't necessary


That's not true. If your engine is tuned for high octane gas, that's 
what you should use. If you don't want to use it, you can have a 
mechanic de-tune your engine for lower grade gas. Just putting low 
octane in your system will harm it.



(with some exceptions which won't work
*at all* without very high octane content). No, the *real* real reason
is Ford advertises 650HP @ 6,250RPM for the Shelby.


Yes, and the power plant is tuned for the higher octane gas.


The 10 HP reduction
from regular gasoline would lead to a false advertising lawsuit.



No doubt that people would be upset if their car failed to live up to 
the hype. Mazda had just such an issue. I'm sure it is probably a 
serious concern, but not the sole reason.



Or Ford
would have to down-rate the performance to 640HP @ 6,250RPM which looks
less impressive on the spec sheets. It's all marketing.


It is not all marketing. There is some serious science here that should 
not be ignored.




Even Apple is getting spanked for being too simple. More people use
android than iPhone.

On the other hand, more people buy Apple than buy Samsung or HTC or
Motorola. The three combined might beat Apple but Apple still beats each
of them separately.


Actually, Samsung has 23% of the phone market and Apple has 9%

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/05/samsung-apple-continue-smartphone-marketshare-tug-of-war/




___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Shirley Márquez Dúlcey]

On modern cars there is no timing that a mechanic can adjust; that's a
throwback to the days of carburetors and camshafts. Nowadays cars have
electronic fuel injection and electronically controlled valves and the
timing is all done by the engine computer. If the computer is
programmed competently, when it notices repeated knocking it will
change the engine timing to make it stop; it's already making changes
to deal with engine temperature, altitude, and mechanical wear. The
catch is that this may cause a severe performance drop in an engine
designed for high octane fuel, not the mere 10HP that somebody alluded
to.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Rich Pieri]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 16:37:53 -0500
Mark Woodward  wrote:

> A single detonation won't damage an engine much. The timing retard
> that happens after a know is temporary. You will get repeated
> knocking even with sensors. You just won't notice it except for the
> lack of power and fuel efficiency.

This is not how it works. Adaptive tuning "sticks" until something
happens to cause it to readjust. Or it's broken.


> Actually, Samsung has 23% of the phone market and Apple has 9%
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/05/samsung-apple-continue-smartphone-marketshare-tug-of-war/

Ah... that's misleading. Samsung is bigger world wide, sure, but not
all of Samsung's smartphones run Android. Your assertion was that
Android was bigger than iOS so it's not fair to include Windows Phone
and Bada in Samsung's market share figures.


On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:39:10 -0500
Shirley Márquez Dúlcey  wrote:

> The
> catch is that this may cause a severe performance drop in an engine
> designed for high octane fuel, not the mere 10HP that somebody alluded
> to.

That was me, and it shouldn't be more than about 10HP at the high end
under normal circumstances.


ANYWAY. Joe Consumer doesn't give a damn about any of this. He just
wants to push a button, fill the tank, and go.

-- 
Rich P.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Derek Martin]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 06:21:59PM -0500, Rich Pieri wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:39:10 -0500
> Shirley Márquez Dúlcey  wrote:
> 
> > The catch is that this may cause a severe performance drop in an
> > engine designed for high octane fuel, not the mere 10HP that
> > somebody alluded to.
> 
> That was me, and it shouldn't be more than about 10HP at the high end
> under normal circumstances.
>
> ANYWAY. Joe Consumer doesn't give a damn about any of this. He just
> wants to push a button, fill the tank, and go.

Yes, but this kind of speaks to Mark's points (regarding things being
complicated and Joe Consumer not knowing what he doesn't know).  Your
assertions quite differ from everything I personally have read on the
subject (which is a fair number of articles at this point) and even if
you ARE right, my owner's manual states quite clearly that running on
low octane gas will damage the engine, and the catalytic converter,
and void my warranty.  I'll choose to believe the folks who'll make me
pay hand over fist to repair my car for doing what they expressly told
me not to... 

I'm not about to trust that YOU know what you don't know, since it's
nearly impossible to know that something you think you know is
wrong.  I (fortunately) lack the empirical experience to KNOW whether
you're right, and acquiring that experience is not worth the expense
of doing so, should you turn out to be wrong.   Sources of information
are plentiful; sources of CORRECT information are few, and even those
may be open to interpretation.  

Why does this matter to this discussion?  In part, it's because most
people aren't interested in reading their owner's manual, and as a
result are more likely to listen to, say, trusted friends who may or
may not have any idea what they're talking about.  Worse yet, they'll
listen to people they recognize on the internet...  But either way,
they got their info from someone whom at some point they decided they
trust; so when they come to you, the well-informed support person,
they're not in a hurry to believe you, if what you're telling them
differs from what they think they know.  I like to call this "who got
there first" syndrome.

-- 
Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Mark Woodward]

On 01/14/2013 05:39 PM, Shirley Márquez Dúlcey wrote:

On modern cars there is no timing that a mechanic can adjust; that's a
throwback to the days of carburetors and camshafts. Nowadays cars have
electronic fuel injection and electronically controlled valves and the
timing is all done by the engine computer. If the computer is
programmed competently, when it notices repeated knocking it will
change the engine timing to make it stop; it's already making changes
to deal with engine temperature, altitude, and mechanical wear. The
catch is that this may cause a severe performance drop in an engine
designed for high octane fuel, not the mere 10HP that somebody alluded
to.


You are mostly correct. The only difference is that the "chip" (It's 
really/usually just a [EE]PROM) contains the tuning parameters for the 
engine. If you want to run on economical fuel you need to modify/change 
this chip. Most modern cars can use a programmer like this:


http://www.jegs.com/i/Superchips/848/1950/10002/-1

Like I said, knock sensors only detect knocks after the fact. They do 
reduce knock damage, but do not eliminate it.

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Mark Woodward]

On 01/14/2013 08:47 PM, Derek Martin wrote:

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 06:21:59PM -0500, Rich Pieri wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:39:10 -0500
Shirley Márquez Dúlcey  wrote:


The catch is that this may cause a severe performance drop in an
engine designed for high octane fuel, not the mere 10HP that
somebody alluded to.

That was me, and it shouldn't be more than about 10HP at the high end
under normal circumstances.

ANYWAY. Joe Consumer doesn't give a damn about any of this. He just
wants to push a button, fill the tank, and go.

Yes, but this kind of speaks to Mark's points (regarding things being
complicated and Joe Consumer not knowing what he doesn't know).  Your
assertions quite differ from everything I personally have read on the
subject (which is a fair number of articles at this point) and even if
you ARE right, my owner's manual states quite clearly that running on
low octane gas will damage the engine, and the catalytic converter,
and void my warranty.  I'll choose to believe the folks who'll make me
pay hand over fist to repair my car for doing what they expressly told
me not to...


Well, there is a lot of science in modern cars. The retardation of the 
ignition timing could allow unburned gas to reach the catalytic 
converter.  This could cause some damage. Sure.


I'm not about to trust that YOU know what you don't know, since it's
nearly impossible to know that something you think you know is
wrong.  I (fortunately) lack the empirical experience to KNOW whether
you're right, and acquiring that experience is not worth the expense
of doing so, should you turn out to be wrong.   Sources of information
are plentiful; sources of CORRECT information are few, and even those
may be open to interpretation.

Why does this matter to this discussion?  In part, it's because most
people aren't interested in reading their owner's manual, and as a
result are more likely to listen to, say, trusted friends who may or
may not have any idea what they're talking about.  Worse yet, they'll
listen to people they recognize on the internet...  But either way,
they got their info from someone whom at some point they decided they
trust; so when they come to you, the well-informed support person,
they're not in a hurry to believe you, if what you're telling them
differs from what they think they know.  I like to call this "who got
there first" syndrome.



___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Rich Pieri]

Derek,

A coworker of mine pointed out to me that there are a small number of
car engines out there that really can't run on low octane gasoline. He
was specific about the new BMWs (he's a BMW guy) requiring 89 octane
gasoline.

So yes, there are exceptions. Such exceptions are documented (at least
they'd better be). Also, I looked up some of the BMW documents about
this. I quote:

"The minimum AKI Rating is 89.
If you use gasoline with this minimum AKI Rating, the engine may
produce knocking sounds when starting at high outside temperatures.
This has no effect on the engine life.

Minimum fuel grade
Do not use any gasoline below the minimum fuel grade; otherwise, engine
damage may occur."

And then BMW recommends BP gasoline. That aside, yes, if you run a 2012
or 2013 BMW with 87 octane gasoline you may well ruin the engine, void
the warranty, etc.

-- 
Rich P.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Rich Braun]

All that talk about cars and smart-phone marketshare led me to two thoughts:

1)  Back in the days when "regular" gas meant leaded, my mom got a car as part
of a divorce settlement.  Riding in her car on a weekend home from college,
she pulled up to a gas pump and filled up with "unleaded".  I looked at her
and ask, how long have you been doing this?  You realize you're killing your
engine, don't you?  The valves will melt!  She'd been doing this for the
several months since my dad gave her the car.  Alas, it was too late:  the
valves were already too far gone and the motor died just a few weeks later.

In an effort to make pumping gas more user-friendly, manufacturers had the
forethought to make the nozzles and filler spouts smaller on (newer) cars that
required unleaded, so the car owner couldn't make the mistake of putting
leaded gas in one of these new-fangled unleaded-only cars.  Unfortunately this
didn't prevent neophyte used-car owners like my mom from making the opposite
mistake.  Score one for the manufacturers, in her case, because they won the
opportunity to sell her a new car. ;-/

2) Market-share, like so many statistics, lies in how you quote the stats.  At
my last employer, we were kind of the Apple of online male-dating sites:  the
biggest market-share as measured in dollars.  Over time about 30 (probably
more by now) competitors have emerged, some of which claim more users.  But
first-mover advantage meant that my (now former) employer had already gobbled
up the people who were actually willing to /pay/ a monthly fee for service
(like all those fanboys who stand in line outside retail stores for reasons
that mystify me):  the newer companies have to get by on the scraps of
advertising dollars.  So I would ask:  if you're owner/shareholder of a
company claiming leading market-share, which would you rather have?  The
biggest number of customers, or the biggest number of dollars?  Kudos to
Samsung for gaining customers, but IMHO they still have catching-up to do.

-rich




___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Jerry Feldman]

On 01/14/2013 10:08 PM, Rich Pieri wrote:
> Derek,
>
> A coworker of mine pointed out to me that there are a small number of
> car engines out there that really can't run on low octane gasoline. He
> was specific about the new BMWs (he's a BMW guy) requiring 89 octane
> gasoline.
>
> So yes, there are exceptions. Such exceptions are documented (at least
> they'd better be). Also, I looked up some of the BMW documents about
> this. I quote:
>
> "The minimum AKI Rating is 89.
> If you use gasoline with this minimum AKI Rating, the engine may
> produce knocking sounds when starting at high outside temperatures.
> This has no effect on the engine life.
>
> Minimum fuel grade
> Do not use any gasoline below the minimum fuel grade; otherwise, engine
> damage may occur."
>
> And then BMW recommends BP gasoline. That aside, yes, if you run a 2012
> or 2013 BMW with 87 octane gasoline you may well ruin the engine, void
> the warranty, etc.
>
I guess that is why I don't see BMWs in Hess stations :-)

-- 
Jerry Feldman 
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id:3BC1EB90 
PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66  C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Kent Borg]

A trio of late-in-the-thread observations:

 - There is a trade-off between simple and powerful, but one can always 
make both worse by adding a serving of "stupid", conversely, one can 
always make something both simpler *and* more powerful by removing some 
of the unnecessary "stupid" (eventually you might run low on stupidities 
to harvest, so there can be limits, but don't give up too soon using the 
trade-off argument as your excuse). Occasionally one can change the game 
with a hunk of "clever" that later makes the previous idea look stupid.


 - There are some extremely powerful and easy to use technologies out 
there that are made possible by standardization, both in defining what 
the product does and by using powerful standard components. Good 
examples are indeed cars. And phone calls. Note that there sometimes 
needs to be a lot of education about the properties of the product for 
this to happen. Even morons know a lot about what cars are good for and 
what they are not good for, similarly the properties of a phone call are 
well defined, though the phone example has been in a lot of flux in 
recent years. GPS is an amazing set of physics and technologies, yet it 
can be packaged into extremely easy-to-use products once one defines the 
product and engineers it carefully.


 - People do want choice, but they are too busy and ignorant to really 
deal with all that choice. But they still want some choice: I overheard 
two young women in Target the other week, they talking about something 
unknown to me, and the second one didn't need whatever the first one 
suggested because she already had it and "mine has ionic power". God 
maybe knows what that meant, I would be willing to bet a hell of a lot 
of money that she had no idea what that meant, but it gave her the 
impression that it was good, and maybe the term does correlate with some 
real feature. I was once impressed by the name "Formula-409", but that 
was when it was new and I was a pretty little kid--I give myself a pass. 
I am weird because know a lot about how the things around me work (as 
does this BLU crowd), but I don't know how degreasers work beyond a 
basic understanding of soap. Formula-409 is still magic to me. I think I 
know of a better and improved competing product that we have at home and 
if only it had a catchier name I could tell you what it is.


-kb, the once very young Kent who was attracted to technology 
specifically because of the superficial wiz-bang trappings that he now 
scorns.


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Bill Bogstad]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Rich Braun  wrote:
> All that talk about cars and smart-phone marketshare led me to two thoughts:
>

> 2) Market-share, like so many statistics, lies in how you quote the stats.  At
> my last employer, we were kind of the Apple of online male-dating sites:  the
> biggest market-share as measured in dollars.  Over time about 30 (probably
> more by now) competitors have emerged, some of which claim more users.  But
> first-mover advantage meant that my (now former) employer had already gobbled
> up the people who were actually willing to /pay/ a monthly fee for service
> (like all those fanboys who stand in line outside retail stores for reasons
> that mystify me):  the newer companies have to get by on the scraps of
> advertising dollars.  So I would ask:  if you're owner/shareholder of a
> company claiming leading market-share, which would you rather have?  The
> biggest number of customers, or the biggest number of dollars?  Kudos to
> Samsung for gaining customers, but IMHO they still have catching-up to do.

If they are both making a profit off their customer base, then the
company managing to eek out profits even though each customer is
paying less might very well win out in the end.   I would liken the
situation to be similar to what was described in the "The Innovator's
Dilemma" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma).
The low earnings per customer company might very well be able to move
upscale profitably, but the high earnings per customer company may
very well have developed an internal cost structure that make going in
the opposite direction infeasible.

Bill Bogstad
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Mark Woodward]

On 01/15/2013 09:08 AM, Kent Borg wrote:

A trio of late-in-the-thread observations:

 - There is a trade-off between simple and powerful, but one can 
always make both worse by adding a serving of "stupid", conversely, 
one can always make something both simpler *and* more powerful by 
removing some of the unnecessary "stupid" (eventually you might run 
low on stupidities to harvest, so there can be limits, but don't give 
up too soon using the trade-off argument as your excuse). Occasionally 
one can change the game with a hunk of "clever" that later makes the 
previous idea look stupid.


Albert Einstein: Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.



 - There are some extremely powerful and easy to use technologies out 
there that are made possible by standardization, both in defining what 
the product does and by using powerful standard components. Good 
examples are indeed cars. And phone calls. Note that there sometimes 
needs to be a lot of education about the properties of the product for 
this to happen. Even morons know a lot about what cars are good for 
and what they are not good for, similarly the properties of a phone 
call are well defined, though the phone example has been in a lot of 
flux in recent years. GPS is an amazing set of physics and 
technologies, yet it can be packaged into extremely easy-to-use 
products once one defines the product and engineers it carefully.


One of the "hard to see" aspects of this discussion is the variation of 
the goal set for the task. In the case of phones calls, GPS systems, and 
cars, there is very little variability in the goal set, therefore it is 
possible to engineer a simple solution because the number of legitimate 
options are quite small.


Where we get in to trouble is when the "goal set" starts to vary. With 
music, we have formats, quality, size, and proprietary technologies. 
This complicates the viable solution.


This is why I think people get confused about computers. Computers are 
not DVD players. Yes, they *can* play DVDs, but they can also do almost 
anything else. You can't think of a general purpose computer as an 
appliance. You can think of a particular app, designed to handle a 
particular goal set, as an appliance.




 - People do want choice, but they are too busy and ignorant to really 
deal with all that choice. But they still want some choice: I 
overheard two young women in Target the other week, they talking about 
something unknown to me, and the second one didn't need whatever the 
first one suggested because she already had it and "mine has ionic 
power". God maybe knows what that meant, I would be willing to bet a 
hell of a lot of money that she had no idea what that meant, but it 
gave her the impression that it was good, and maybe the term does 
correlate with some real feature. I was once impressed by the name 
"Formula-409", but that was when it was new and I was a pretty little 
kid--I give myself a pass. I am weird because know a lot about how the 
things around me work (as does this BLU crowd), but I don't know how 
degreasers work beyond a basic understanding of soap. Formula-409 is 
still magic to me. I think I know of a better and improved competing 
product that we have at home and if only it had a catchier name I 
could tell you what it is.


-kb, the once very young Kent who was attracted to technology 
specifically because of the superficial wiz-bang trappings that he now 
scorns.


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Kent Borg]

On 01/15/2013 09:55 AM, Mark Woodward wrote:
This is why I think people get confused about computers. Computers are 
not DVD players. Yes, they *can* play DVDs, but they can also do 
almost anything else. You can't think of a general purpose computer as 
an appliance. You can think of a particular app, designed to handle a 
particular goal set, as an appliance.


You paint too tidy a picture. This distinction is getting muddy and this 
is going to be very interesting to watch.


We are seeing a decline of general purpose computers (to the point of 
civilians maybe not being allowed to program their own computers? Apple 
is toying with that future...) and the rise of the so-called smartphones.


These phones might look like appliances to you, but they are so 
impressive in part because "There's an app for that."; they are powerful 
because underneath they are still general purpose and some nerd is 
programming up new features that we can install (if Apple agrees or if 
the nerd programmed on Android).


I suspect that people use a greater number of "apps" on their phones 
than they did "programs" on their general purpose computers. Ironic, the 
appliance is being used in a less narrow, less appliance-like way?


How confused are people by their phones vs. their computers? Which is 
being used for more purposes?


When I take a picture with my "camera" and put it on my computer and 
e-mail it, I have to make lots of decisions and follow lots of steps. 
When I take a picture with my Galaxy Nexus "telephone" it is simpler and 
I have far fewer decisions to make.  Google has removed a lot of the 
"stupid" and made the whole process both simpler *and* more powerful.  
My "real" camera still takes better pictures, but it is a tough, little 
clamshell model that is easy to have with me, and not a heavy, big beast 
that can clearly win the picture quality fight. The phone is a very nice 
camera that is elbowing its way into my life...


Yes, my computer, with its bigger screen, mouse and keyboard, and geeky 
programs like Gimp, will let me do things with pictures that I cannot do 
on my phone, but much of that is the bigger screen, mouse and keyboard. 
Gimp is a lot like an appliance with a lot accessories, and the ability 
to script.


And with scripting, I get to a nice feature of a "real" computer: the 
possibility for a nerd to do a little, ad hoc, light weight programming 
in the form of a macro or shell script or Perl snippet, etc. We 
associate this with "general purpose" computers. But most people are not 
nerds and have never done this on their "general purpose" computers.


And, because I have an Android phone, I have the app Frink that lets me 
do a little programming if I like (Apple won't allow such things on 
their phone).


Another distinction is between whether you can alter the basic 
factory-crafted way a device operates. Here I argue that an Android 
device is more customizable than is a computer running Microsoft Windows.


The distinction between an appliance (at least a non-Apple appliance) 
and a computer is not as clean as one might expect. Your distinction 
seems to be between civilians and nerds, and whether a product is 
attractive to you.


-kb

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[John Abreau]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Kent Borg  wrote:

> When I take a picture with my "camera" and put it on my computer and
> e-mail it, I have to make lots of decisions and follow lots of steps. When
> I take a picture with my Galaxy Nexus "telephone" it is simpler and I have
> far fewer decisions to make.



When I first got my DSLR, I had a lot of decisions and a lot of steps, but
I made those decisions once and set up the infrastructure to implement
those decisions, and I also scripted the steps to the point where the
process is simple and easy and does exactly what I want.

It's actually more cumbersome and labor-intensive for me to get photos from
an iOS device into my system than it is to pull them off my DSLR. It would
be dead simple if I could access the iOS device as a file system and just
copy the photo files like I do with the DSLR.

Also, the difference in quality is not something I can just dismiss. The
photos from every iOS device and every smartphone camera that I've ever
seen have been total crap in comparison to what the DSLR provides.



-- 
John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix
PGP KeyID: 32A492D8 / Email: abre...@gmail.com
PGP FP: 7834 AEC2 EFA3 565C A4B6  9BA4 0ACB AD85 32A4 92D8
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Kent Borg]

On 01/15/2013 01:55 PM, John Abreau wrote:
Also, the difference in quality is not something I can just dismiss. 
The photos from every iOS device and every smartphone camera that I've 
ever seen have been total crap in comparison to what the DSLR provides.


Ah, I was talking about the little camera I have that fits in my pocket. 
It takes better pictures than does my phone--a little bit better--but 
when I take a picture likely I want to "show it to someone", which in 
2013 frequently means e-mailing it. A few taps with my phone, but a 
production with my camera.


I would *love* to have a fancy DSLR, with a couple lenses, and a few 
other toys. I have seriously thought about getting one. But then I 
imagine where it would spend its time: sitting safely at home. I would 
mostly never have it with me unless I had decided to go on a photo 
safari for the day. A tiny camera, on the other hand, can be in the 
little bag I carry with me everywhere I go. I don't have to decide to 
bring my camera. I have lots of swell stuff in my little bag, in 
addition to a camera, and the bag is easily smaller than an DSLR bag.


I know full well that modern DSLRs are stunning things. Did you see that 
New York Magazine cover helicopter photo of Manhattan partially blacked 
out?  1/40 of a second. 25,000 ISO!  Stunning.


http://www.complex.com/art-design/2012/11/photographer-of-new-york-magazines-hurricane-sandy-cover-explains-how-he-did-it

-kb, the Kent who thinks he will soon upgrade his aged camera, but the 
replacement still needs to be little enough to always have with him, 
maybe get one of the models that run Android, so he can e-mail directly 
from the camera.

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[John Abreau]

I bought my DSLR back in 2006 with my Christmas bonus. I also have a
smaller "real" pocket-size camera which takes pictures that are much better
than the iOS and smartphone cameras, but even so, they're still crap
compared to the DSLR.

I try to bring the DSLR with me as often as possible, even if it just sits
in the trunk of my car. If it's in the trunk, then at least it's close by
if I need it.


On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Kent Borg  wrote:

> On 01/15/2013 01:55 PM, John Abreau wrote:
>
>> Also, the difference in quality is not something I can just dismiss. The
>> photos from every iOS device and every smartphone camera that I've ever
>> seen have been total crap in comparison to what the DSLR provides.
>>
>
> Ah, I was talking about the little camera I have that fits in my pocket.
> It takes better pictures than does my phone--a little bit better--but when
> I take a picture likely I want to "show it to someone", which in 2013
> frequently means e-mailing it. A few taps with my phone, but a production
> with my camera.
>
> I would *love* to have a fancy DSLR, with a couple lenses, and a few other
> toys. I have seriously thought about getting one. But then I imagine where
> it would spend its time: sitting safely at home. I would mostly never have
> it with me unless I had decided to go on a photo safari for the day. A tiny
> camera, on the other hand, can be in the little bag I carry with me
> everywhere I go. I don't have to decide to bring my camera. I have lots of
> swell stuff in my little bag, in addition to a camera, and the bag is
> easily smaller than an DSLR bag.
>
> I know full well that modern DSLRs are stunning things. Did you see that
> New York Magazine cover helicopter photo of Manhattan partially blacked
> out?  1/40 of a second. 25,000 ISO!  Stunning.
>
> http://www.complex.com/art-**design/2012/11/photographer-**
> of-new-york-magazines-**hurricane-sandy-cover-**explains-how-he-did-it
>
> -kb, the Kent who thinks he will soon upgrade his aged camera, but the
> replacement still needs to be little enough to always have with him, maybe
> get one of the models that run Android, so he can e-mail directly from the
> camera.
>



-- 
John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix
PGP KeyID: 32A492D8 / Email: abre...@gmail.com
PGP FP: 7834 AEC2 EFA3 565C A4B6  9BA4 0ACB AD85 32A4 92D8
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[Rich Pieri]

Apropos of cameras, a truism I learned many years ago:

  The best camera in the world is the one you have with you.

-- 
Rich P.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss