On desktop GUIs for multiple monitors

Uncategorized, ,

OK, this one *will* be short.

I think that I’ve heard a criticism on Digg of the user interface of Mac OS X when it comes to multiple displays. In fact, I think that neither OS X nor Windows are built or created for the multiple-display interface.

For one, both interfaces possess “bars” which span the length of the screen: OS X has the “Apple menu“, while Windows has the “Taskbar.”

IMO, these items, by drawing the mouse icon to the area within the single screen, simply reinforce the single-screen metaphor, while providing no functional space or capacity to the next screen.

Another GUI element that discourages one from effectively using more than one display for a GUI is the application window. It, like the above menubars, spans the length of the screen and has to be dragged from one screen to another if it is being used in a multidisplay.

The fact that all of the visible contents of the application are inside of the window doesn’t help, either. Tabs within windows (especially in most modern web browsers), while allowing one to navigate more than one document without having to close the window, also reinforce the window’s single-purposed feel and look.

The dock might be an answer – maybe a top and bottom dock that don’t span the length of the screen and perform specific functions for the UI – but it is also a very old metaphor, dating from the late 1980’s.

Hopefully, a new GUI element will come in the future that will redefine how we view our user interfaces with an expansion of our displays.

On Kosovo, self-determination, and the deflation of nationhood

Uncategorized

This post will be short.

Kosovo, as I’m sure many of you who are reading this have heard, has declared independence from Serbia, as was expected since around 1999. The Serbs, both resident within Kosovo and resident within Serbia proper, are angry and protesting, while the ethnic Albanian majority of residents have celebrated the coming diplomatic recognition.

I may be a bit biased toward the pro-independence side, since political self-determination is something which I wholeheartedly support, wherever it may be. But I can also agree with the sentiment that Kosovo’s secession will set a precedent that could lead to an increase of the UN’s membership.

The biggest reason why I think that the Kosovo issue is overblown, however, is because of how most sovereign countries are now interdependent, to various degrees, upon each other.

The European Union, while not being the best example or model of the supranation, is probably the best example of this interdependence across borders. The EU’s member states are very wired for cross-border communication, very accessible for cross-border transportation, and very sensitive for cross-border socio-political developments. Thus, those who often cross borders as part of their occupation don’t have to worry that much about border guards or currency exchange rates.

Of course, this setting is not easily duplicable for other supranational organizations, such as the African Union, which spans the second largest continent on Earth, has its highest concentration of transport connectivity in the most southerly regions, and is far behind other regions in terms of communication infrastructure.

And of course, the EU is not a complete panacea for inter-member disputes. Farm subsidies have to be increased regularly in order to prop up competing agricultural markets, for example.

But overall, I doubt that the Serb minority has that much to fear from the Albanian majority. Besides, when the border guards are dismissed when both countries enter into the EU, I doubt that the nationhood of Kosovo or Serbia will matter that much in the greater scheme of things.

Visual programming on (and for) multitouch handhelds

Uncategorized, , , , , ,

I wonder if anyone who’s been following the iPhone, iPod touch, Neo1973 or any other multitouch handheld has considered the possibility of visual programming for these devices?

Since the devices, by nature, aren’t built to be the most adept typing machines (that goes for any mobile, since you can only use one of each finger at a time to type text on it), they are apparently not the best devices on which to create an application with a typed programming language (even the JavaScript that is used for any third-party webapps on the iPhone/iTouch). They are, however, *intensely* graphical, as the screens of these devices, which are used to display the information that is received or generated by the OS, tend to encompass the majority of the device’s front-end.

So if the combination of a graphical interface with an all-fingers interaction method is our only way to make sufficient use of these devices, then what about the applications which could be installed on these devices (the jailbreaking of Apple’s devices is another story)? At the moment, most applications for mobile devices, multitouch or no, are created trough the use of the keyboards for desktop computers, and are created in a variety of programming or scripting languages (sometimes with interfaces which make use of markup, stylesheets and vector graphics) which have to be typed gratuitously and fluidly.

But what if one doesn’t have a desktop or laptop device available, but has a multitouch handheld to, well, handle? What if the user feels like creating an application that isn’t already available on the device, like a plugin for a built-in audio player interface?

I think that, in this case, an on-device visual programming environment, one that is made for multitouch interaction, may be the best solution for creating applications on the device.

Since visual programming is, from my supposition, less driven by the keyboard and more driven by the mouse on a desktop computer (drag n’ drop and all that), then such a programming environment form could possibly be easily driven by fingers as well. This would make it extremely easy for the users of these devices to create installable programs and applications from within the devices rather than from without.

Now if only Firefox was ported to the iPhone so we could try this theory out.

Demo of visual programming, using Quartz Composer:

The lack of free SVG animation editors

Uncategorized, ,

OK, 

[info]dragon_punk

, I find that Opera tends to possess greater capabilities with SVG and CSS than Firefox.

In fact, at the moment, I’m trying to learn more about SVG animation using Opera.

SVG, as very few people know, is the W3C standard for vector graphics which was first created in the late 1990s. With the development of the specification to its current state, SVG certainly rivals Flash in its graphical, animated and scripted capabilites; at the same time, it is dwarfed by Flash in market penetration, brand recoginition, Web predominance and scale of implementation. At best, it has found the most usage among free software projects (with whom Flash has long held a troubled history) and mobile device manufacturers.

So, what is the biggest issue with SVG animation at the moment?

To be honest, there are NO free SVG animation editors, as of 2008.

In other words, there is no easy and free means by which you can create animations in SVG. Unless you have the money to buy one of the shareware SVG editors, you’re stuck with having to learn and code SVG animations by hand.

So those who may be looking to create SVG animations for, say, Opera widgets will be out of luck.

Also, speaking of Flash:

Uninformed: Mozilla – the Intel of browsers?

Uncategorized, , , ,

Is Mozilla the Intel of web browser makers?

As I’ve probably said before, I find the foundation/corporation to be rather set in its ways, convinced that the Mozilla platform, which has been ported for use on a number of operating systems, offers enough clout for them to continue development of their flagship web browser. Any issues that the users of the browser may face is the cause for further improvement of parts of the platform, rather than total replacement of these components.

For instance, Mozilla’s proponents and developers felt slighted when Apple passed over the Gecko layout engine in favor of KDE’s KHTML/KJS for their WebKit platform.

Furthermore, Mozilla tends to view itself as the vanguard of the web, and has promoted the Gecko engine as being more “compatible” with a variety of web sites and web standards than other layout engines, including the WebKit/KHTML engines.

But on another note, the comparison between Gecko and WebKit should take into account the folks who support, use or promote either engine. While Mozilla, a cross-platform browser maker, is the largest promoter and supporter of Gecko, WebKit tends to be supported and promoted by a variety of groups: the most monied of these supporters are the mobile device or software makers, such as Nokia/Trolltech, Apple, and Google (via Android).

Does this mean that Mozilla and Gecko is similar to Intel and its 30-year-old x86 chip architecture, while WebKit and its promoters are similar to the PowerPC architecture and its supporters (IBM, Freescale)?

Short: Dynamic tangible user interfaces

Uncategorized, ,

I think that the next-generation dynamic tangible user interfaces (programmed computer expressions which are shown in a changing-by-the-second physical form) can make use of the toys of yesteryear, such as these:

Imagine trying to send needle imprint data from one side of the continent to a needle bed at the other side, which will then interpret the data in a form that will result in the above pictures.

That’s my idea of a tangible user interface, where physical impressions can be transmitted over a network to a separate tangible medium which then duplicates the physical impressions, and vice versa.

Short: Rethinking “hate”

Uncategorized, , ,

I think we should rethink the emotion of hate.

Those who are often described as hatemongers are described in manners which show them as soulless entities with reprehensible, unjustifiable agendas who use grotesque and anti-human means to achieve their goals.

But aren’t these “hatemongers” human as well? Aren’t they possessive of drives and ambitions which may motivate any individual who finds him or herself in such similar straits?

In my opinion, those who write media for a cause or purpose, professional or casual, tend to dehumanize, to various degrees, their opponents, sometimes throwing their names into such pools of steaming, stinking, seething acid water as the “liberals”, “neocons”, “Jews”, “Gays”, “fascists”, “fanboys”, “shills”, “big government”, “big tobacco”, “big oil”, “big telecom”, “Rothschilds”, “Freemasons”, “Godbags” and other such appellations.

Instead, why can’t we simply practice a separation of concerns? By that, I mean:

  • form from function
  • content from layout
  • people from personality
  • motive from action
  • emotion from judicial process

Maybe that will come in due time, but for now, the current reality is depressing.

A third option for net neutrality: Government, corporation, and….?

Uncategorized, , , ,

 New article from Ars Technica.

Lessee, the current debate concerning Net Neutrality is over the necessity of government regulation of telecommunication companies’ actions concerning their customers.

Those who are against the Net Neutrality idea are undoubtedly anti-government, viewing the institution as a thieving, corrupt, violent and cowardly threat to human rights and freedom. Some may not be necessarily supportive of total corporate freedom, but may view government interference as an enabler for corporate excesses.

Those who are supportive of the Net Neutrality may not necessarily share such aforementioned anarchist or libertarian views, but may only show support of government regulation as a means – a messy means – to an end; very rarely will they view the government as a benevolent institution, primarily because of the bodies which serve or exist in the government’s name, including the military. Some, however, may view the anarchist/libertarian opposition to government influence in light of previous opposition to government interference in other, defunct social institutions, such as slavery and cross-racial civil rights.

However, is there a third way between governments and corporations in regards to such a public service as the Internet?

Governments tend to move slowly in regards to the ensurance of human rights for citizens (compared to those of its own employees), while moving at a fast pace for, say, military expenditures and acquisitions in order to boost their nationalism and land property. Corporations, as well, tend to be rather socially inept institutions, being slow at the ensurance of human rights or recognition for their customers (compared to those of its own employees), while moving at a fast pace for the sake of, say, technological expenditures and acquisitions in order to boost their brand and their intellectual property (i.e., patents).

Now, they both have their benefits. Governments can serve as a final resort for citizens who have been slighted by the actions of corporations, and can serve as founts for corporate standards; corporations, on the other hand, can serve as founts for new technological innovations and approaches, and can provide “gray areas” of techological development that sucessfully subvert the government’s stances.

Ultimately, the natures of both corporations and governments, tendencies which harken to prior centuries rather than forge an insight into the future, leave much to be desired as far as a potential ensurer of freedom, human rights and development on the Internet is concerned.

Maybe there is a need for a third type of institution that is relevant to this service-intensive era in which we’re currently residing. This one shouldn’t be driven by product/patent acquisition (corporation) or land/arms acquisition (goovernment), but by information/service acquisition.

Idea: Visualizing magnetic fields

Uncategorized, ,

You know what they haven’t created yet? A way to digitally visualize the variations and intensity of a magnetic force or field.

Like, for instance, how to visualize whatever force that is holding up this frog:

Or this strawberry:

Or this water droplet:

Of course, those are simply amplified examples of diamagnetism, which is a non-superconducting magnetic state which is, actually, a ubiquitous form of magnetism that is exhibited in extremely weak forms in most “non-magnetic” substances, even plastic and gold. Diamagnetism, if exhibited in a particularly strong form, can levitate such objects, even as large as living beings like frogs.

So my question is: what if we were able to *view* the diamagnetic force that is levitating these objects? Is it possible to detect the frequency and strength of the force in a manner that could be rendered dynamically in a digitally graphic form?

I’m certain that I saw an instrument that can detect a magnetic field’s strength in gausses last night, so I guess we simply need to stick a number of these around a diamagnetic field in action; then the detectors can be connected to a device (which is far away from the diamagnetic field) that translates the measurements of the detectors into computer-interpretable form, which then results in a dynamic graphic representation of the field.

I’m certain that once we can get such a combo working, then we will be on our way to other useful developments, such as spontaneous/dynamically-created mass, which would be useful for network-generated augmented reality object data.