I’ve found this discussion a very interesting one… There’s a lot of conjecture out there that the iPad (and similar devices) shifts use of the Internet away from “creating” and towards “consumption”. To some extent, some of this seems obvious. Activities like music and video are clearly consumptive and these activities often are more convenient (and seem more of a probable use) for portable devices like the iPad. Also, in general, reading is quite easy with the iPad/Kindle but typing is harder than with a regular laptop or keyboard. I find myself definitely being a consumer far more on the iPad. Even with emails, I tend to read and mark for later handling far more with the iPad. On my desktop on the other hand, I tend to immediately reply to the emails that I can knock out in the next minute or two. I might look at pictures on my iPad but I definitely don’t any editing (although the Photoshop Mobile app is kind of neat for really simple tweaking)

So while I can agree with the observation that iPads and other smaller devices are currently being used for consumption vs. creation, I think that this may just be a phase. Computer users have used keyboards for a long time. In fact, the first keyboard appears to date to the 18th century and our current qwerty keyboard dating to 1873. In addition, the mouse, first created in 1963 but not in common use until the 1980's is also ubiquitous in modern systems. One could argue that it's a powerful device for manipulating interfaces, but I don't think it's the end-all of human-machine interfaces.

There will be something new. There always is. Touch-based computing has its strengths and weaknesses. There's an almost nauseating volume of interfaces that can all be summarized as "sort of like the interface used in Minority Report". With faster processors, better algorithms for processing inputs, etc. it simply seems a matter of time before a new breed of general purpose input devices will become standard.

Keyboard input (and to a slightly lesser degree computer mouse input) are currently preferred because they are precise. Learning to type is a relatively easy task and provides a very easy-to-control way of interfacing with systems. Using a mouse is trivial to learn although it is much slower to use for many tasks. Its strength is that it works very well in dealing with graphical environments that involve manipulation of elements that rely on eye-hand coordination. The combination of both in modern systems allows precise control when needed, and manipulation of complex interfaces when needed.

Touch input devices provide a more natural feel for the second type of interface, but not the first. Precise input is slow and painful The value gained is that the iPad and similar devices are instant-on devices that don't require you to sit, position yourself, or even use both hands. A user gains speed, portability, and convenience but loses precision.

Two things really interest me in this area. The first is motion-based systems like (to some extent) the Wii and more importantly the Kinect. Both systems use the concept of movement (one with a controller you hold and the other by simply viewing the user themselves). The second is voice-based systems like Siri. There have been many voice-based systems previously, but Siri seems to have attained a more natural level of interaction that I think finally makes voice control more practical.

The interesting thing about both systems is that both approaches reduce precision in the system and attempt to get at underlying intent of the input. You can ask Siri "What's the weather like", "will it rain today", or "Weather" and it will give the same response. The attempt is to map a number of inputs to the same output. It can handle heavy accents, variations in speed, pitch, and intonation and still give results that make sense. Kinect based systems are looking at standard or typical behavior and are all about averaging inputs to try to get an approximate value rather than working with precise values.

These new technologies can be leveraged in interesting ways. It's clear that games that involve more physical activity are fun and interesting. It's also clear that being able to speak to your phone to perform tasks that would take longer to do with the touch input saves time. But will anything ever replace the keyboard?

I don't have a crystal ball, but I think the important thing is that touch input, voice input, and motion-based input are really not trying to solve that issue. All of these inputs are inherently less precise (just as a mouse is less precise than a keyboard). Although there are some very interesting efforts to use a Kinect to write code in Visual Studio, it seems more likely that at best, motion technology could replace only the mouse or replace the mouse for specialized types of manipulation. Speech seems to be a good way of performing out-of-band or contexual tasks (say for example you're in the middle of a coding task and want to send the current file to a team mate for review without stopping what you're doing and performing this task manually.

Rapid but precise input is what's needed for devices like the iPad to shift the trend from consuming information to creating information. This could be accomplished by new types of one-handed keyboards (which have been attempted); I have a hard time seeing that we will be able to achieve precision with devices not controlled by the human hand. Another option is a radical change in the interfaces themselves. To give an example, instead of writing code using a complex written syntax like that in most modern languages, a special language could be developed that encapsulated the structure of the code but could be represented in a format that could be more easily parsed and understood audibly. Transitions like this have already taken place in languages like LabVIEW which attempts to represent programming code in a visual format vs. a a written syntax. I have a hard time picturing how this could be accomplished, but in theory, I can see that it may be a possibility. There will be naysayers. But there are naysayers now with regards to high-level languages which already abstract an enormous amount of "what really happens" from the user.

Any thoughts on input devices and human-computer interaction as it's currently evolving?

I was delighted to browse through this book recently. A fun read for anyone interested in language. It's not a long or complex book, but really just a nugget about some interesting developments in English with plenty of historical anecdotes and references as well as an interesting list of collective nouns.

The at-first confusing title is simple an example of one of the collective nouns or "terms of venery" that come to us from Medieval hunting tradition. Other examples include a "Murder of Crows" and a "Gaggle of Geese". These collective nouns were used by gentlemen at the time to refer to groups of animals. The terms themselves were somewhat a mix of an argot and an inside joke (as many of the terms are quite playful or imaginative).

The information is not particular practical or useful, but clued me into an aspect of Medieval life that I was previously unaware of.

I've been sort of disappointed. We don't have our promised flying cars yet. But in addition, some of the existing tech that we do have seems sadly lacking. In an era of iPhones, video chat,  Internet video streaming, integrated digital sound systems, etc. it's quite frustrating to observe the current market for car audio devices.

My commute just recently went from a 44-miles-per-day to 130-miles-per-day and obviously, it's nice to have something going in the background be that music, lectures, sermons, podcasts, or NPR (yes, I listen to NPR!). So I've been looking at upgrading from my stock 1998 Toyota Corolla radio with tape deck to something better.

I'm struggling.

This reminds me a lot of how I viewed the pre-Treo 600 cell phone market (although to me, even phones like the Treo were disappointing). You could pick from several hundred choices all of which appeared to be designed without any standardization, attention to detail, solid feel (that horrible crunchy plastic feel that was finally cured with the iPhone), etc. As I survey the current landscape for car audio systems, I'm sort of seeing the same thing.

What I'm frustrated with:

1. HD Radio support -- this is easy, but I hate being nickel-and-dime'd for an extra $80 to take the spiffy "HD Ready" unit to be an ACTUAL HD Radio. Let's just make this standard.
2. Auxiliary input -- this is almost standard across the board but seems to have so many problems on many units. In many cases, it's either a very difficult interface to navigate or really bad noise on the line. With my 12 year old stock unit, I can use a cassette adapter and get sounding audio in less than 5 seconds. Why are modern units worse?
3. Overall interface bizarreness. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and user interfaces are hard to objectively rate, but very few "best practices" are ever followed in interface design for these units. Often there are confusing knobs, multiple buttons that appear to do conflicting things, and odd resets and menu navigation which means you have to press 14 buttons to switch to your iPod input.
4. "Flavor of the week" interfaces. Come on people. iPods are neat, iPhones are neat, but don't sell me a unit because it now supports Pandora ON the iPhone itself. The one advantage is that instead of punching input to the iPhone, you punch on the car audio unit. I'm not seeing justification to drop an extra $50+ on this.

What I'd really like to see is:

1. Let's be honest, I'd like to see Apple design an interface. They do this amazingly well. Some people may not love it (hey, everyone's different) but it would reset the industry as the development and release of the iPod and iPhone did. The combination of simple interfaces, never being "far" from common tasks, and reasonably strong and durable hardware design would be simply amazing.
2. Upgradable firmware. Everyone has wireless these days. Many if not most people could receive wireless in their garage. Even better, why not integrate 3G/4G into these units directly? If you have connectivity, it seems quite reasonable to allow new software interfaces, new protocols, new "apps" of some sort to be used. For that matter, why reinvent the wheel -- let's use iOS or Android as the OS for these devices. If an iPad can sell for $600 with free WiFi or a $30/month 3G subscription, surely a head unit could be at the same price point. Currently, many of these units are $1,000+ and from what I've seen, offer few if any of these benefits.
3. Get standard -- allow USB Bluetooth dongles to be used, allow WiFi USB dongles to expand simple systems, provide a web interface so you can use your laptop or home computer to configure settings and features.
4. Related to the above, a true separation between hardware and software. I should be able to buy a unit and then buy 8 different navigation systems or audio players that all run on the same hardware. I don't want to be stuck with some name-brand piece of junk "solution" that I can never upgrade or change.

It's much easier to complain than to actually do research. I may have completely missed some models out there or companies who are actually moving in this direction. If so, please leave a comment with any details.

I know very little about Microsoft's foray into this sort of thing. Mainly because from what I understand, their Sync technology is exclusive for Ford vehicles. It sounds cool, but it's only a first step in my opinion. Voice control is great, but they seem to just be replaying the same paradigm of older systems with a few Microsoft-ish bells and whistles.

As a final note, I'll just say that I like the stock units the most -- high-end cars come with some pretty amazing units that are hard to beat so far as making the interface blend perfectly with the car itself. In addition, integrated Bluetooth that's tidily hidden away, steering wheel volume control, etc. are all great features. And maybe it's the presence of reasonable built-in units that's hurting the development of this market. Unless a big name company cuts a deal with a major car maker, it seems unlikely that after-market sales would drive enough sales to warrant some serious investment in this technology.

Any thoughts?

So I'm listening to a new Pandora station this morning (Thanks Robert for the suggestion -- good stuff). The music of the particular track that I'm listening to at the moment reminds me so much of an old MS-DOS game called Privateer by Origin Systems. I remember distinctly getting the game from my Dad in 1993 and loading all 7 or so diskettes into our ancient beast of a computer. After some tweaking to fix some memory issues, we finally got it up and running. The basic gameplay is as a pilot of [initially] a small ship, flying between planets, space stations, asteroids, and other bases while choosing to play as a trader, a mercenary, or whatever you chose.

This game was amazing. The graphics of course look awful now as I review the site. But the game play was incredible. The joystick took some skill to use effectively whether you chose life as a merchant or a gun for hire. Interaction and AI wasn't great, but for the time, it was pretty good. I spent many hours playing the game and really enjoyed it. The music was "futuristic" synthesized music, probably not the best quality, but it always felt so fitting for the game. The game created an incredibly immersive world that sucked you in despite the relative simplicity compared to modern games like EVE Online. It was a good balance. I was inspired, intrigued, and entertained but not to the point that I forgot about reality altogether. Newer games definitely provide more depth than this old-time game, but I can't afford to spend an average of 2.5 hours per day (which apparently is average for EVE Online players).

I did also play Freelancer (made by the same designer after Origin was acquired by Electronic Arts) but it just didn't feel the same.

Anyone out there know or or can recommend any games like this that can balance a high level of fascination with a certain restraint that still encourages reality?

I begin this post having spent almost no time looking at what options may already exist. However, I see the need for a piece of software (preferrably open-source) that could accomplish some of these tasks:

• Manage church events and calendar items (ideally through interaction with a solid interface like Google Calendar, 30 boxes, Airset, etc.). Would be nice if event planning could include RSVP-type capabilities to alleviate manual planning (e.g. "Are you attending this Saturday? Click here...").
• Management of scheduling/duties at a church (Similar to many calendaring options but perhaps a little more "duty roster" focused). Some features might include automatic rescheduling via email (replying with a "cancel" to an event would trigger a notification to admins to find a replacement -- that sort of thing)
• "CRM"-like capabilities for sending emails, announcements, etc. to the church body while providing church leaders with the ability to make notes, add  prayer requests and other very church-specific type features.
• Some sort of document management (possibly again through simple integration with an existing, reliable document management source) for things like procedures, newsletters, meetings, etc. as well as every-week things like bulletins.
• Newsletter options -- email and web version of all "newsletters". Providing users with the ability to opt-out of email listings but also view old newsletters archived on the website
• Audio handling. Some interface that would streamline the ability to upload and manage sermon/lecture/class recordings that doesn't require too much technical knowledge.
• Budget-related financials -- not a full-blown piece of accounting software, but that something that could provide instant feedback to leadership on details of the budget and perhaps summary information to members.
• Online church directory (not public)
• Private portal (I know "portal" is such archaic jargon) -- but some sort of interface that would allow more insight to member-only items (like the church directory) as well as details like Annual Reports, etc. that may not be intended for the public.

Some of the design goals would include:

• Lightweight -- keep it simple and straightforward
• No "registration" required -- most features would be available to members even if they don't want to register on the site.
• Solid and reliable authentication
• Extensible -- I'd be building this for our church, but it would be nice if the concerns of both larger and smaller congregations with different leadership styles could be taken into account.
• Possibly integrated into an existing CRM (like WordPress) as a plugin.

Want to know something scary? There are bugs living on your eyelashes! Yes, that's right: little parasitic mites that are similar in some ways to spiders. They enjoy a hardy diet of skin oils and fluids around hair follicles. Yum! They're mostly harmless but apparently can cause some problems in some folks, in particular a rash (demodicosis or Demodex mite bite) or some inflammation of the eyelid (Blepharitis). Interestingly, the older you get, the more likely that you have these. These little guys are less than a millimeter in length but sure do look scary up close. Here are some photos for your viewing pleasure.

Here are three of these little bugs, embedded head-first in a hair follicle:

And a nice shot showing the whole body:

There's some neat information on Wikipedia and also quite a few anecdotes on Google of people dealing with bites and solutions for them. For most of us, they're just disgusting little reminders that we're not as clean as we like to think.

Also, "Demodex and the Mitey Blepharitis" would be a sweet name for a rock band.

... in the context of coding that is.

I'm intrigued to know how often developers reading this commit code and why? Frequent commits are trendy these days, the "hip" developers are all doing it (I don't know if I qualify as "hip" but I'll pretend I do). Especially with the advent (or at least wide-spread adoption) of distributing revision control systems like Git, frequent commits seem like a great idea. All of the backing up of code and high level of granularity in changes without the pain of constant difficult merges.

I work with a lot of older developers who have been coding since before I was born. These developers (who have a lot of experience and knowledge) always seem very reluctant to make frequent commits and also seem annoyed that they're expected to comment their commits. To me, it's very natural and I find it confusing and bewildering working even a relatively small project without any commits that are at least tied to requirements or specific major features of the application.

Any war stories with regards to version control systems, older developers, and general crankiness with the combination of these two?

A good StackOverflow post here has some good thoughts.

(The screenshot is on revision 40. Or commit de9f2c7f d25e1b3a fad3e85a 0bd17d9b 100db4b3 if you're using Git. When I said frequent, I meant it! )

Had some fun this morning playing around a little bit with Illustrator. The intent was to make an insignia similar to the one that D'Harans use in the "Legend of the Seeker".

Specifically this one:

And also a variant of which is on their breastplate:

Ok, so it's a little morbid, but I thought it would be super cool if my 3rd-born could have a cape like this (oddly, it really reminds me of him) and so we'd need a pattern to cut out.

I'm very new at Illustrator (but understand the basics) so spent about 30 minutes to create this:

... and then touched it up in Photoshop:

Reminds me a little bit of the Storm Trooper helmet in Star Wars  in a way, but I like the end result. I'll take some pictures of the cape if/when we complete it.

Well, OK, maybe it's a little premature to call it dead, But I'm barely using it anymore. With some notable exceptions, I'm finding my new Windows 7 box to fill most of my day-to-day needs. I still love my Mac and I still mostly despise Microsoft but there are creeping doubts and uncertainties towards Apple at this point. I'm not liking their decisions regarding Google, I'm not liking the direction they're heading, and it seems like maybe the glory days are now behind them.

If I had my druthers (whatever they are), I'd still prefer a new MacBook Pro (or Mac Pro) over virtually any system. They're pretty, the OS is immaculate and I feel productive, secure, and efficient. But there are some issues. I know these are super, super specific issues that many users don't care about. But it means something to me:

• Non-finalized CD support. I'm talking specifically about the application ISObuster for Windows here. OS X tends to be easy to use and simplified but sometimes you need something a little closer to the metal. I know of no such tool on OS X that can open up non-finalized CDs. This seems to be a common issue in some cases. OS X works beautifully for 99% of the time, but it seems impossible to do certain tasks. Know of a tool that will do this under OS X? I'd love to know.

But there are some real advantages of OS X too that I've hit:

• Sound routing. I love the Soundflower application. It allows you to virtually route sound around the OS. It presents as a playback and  recording device and it just plain works. When I want to record something from a YouTube video that I'm listening to, I can pop open my preferences, route to the Soundflower device and then record from that device in Audacity. It takes just seconds and it works nicely (incidentally this is how I convert MIDI to MP3 as well).
• Command line tools that work. Putty works OK on Windows for SSH'ing but why can't it just be part of the base OS? Grep, Cat, etc. I love my command line and Windows just doesn't have the same depth. I know Cygwin exists. It never seems to work that well, always seems to have some issues here or there but I suppose it's better than nothing.

In addition to the above (and the fact that OS X is clearly just way cooler), I'm really enjoying my new iPad. How can you not like it? It's magical! I find myself doing a lot of the typical blog reading, email checking, and movie watching on this. It's powerful, quick, and the battery lasts a long time. Not the easiest for input (as in replying to long emails or making blog posts) but with an Apple Bluetooth keyboard, it definitely comes close.

Update: As I was finalizing this, I realized that in fact, the Macbook may be toast. My oldest son (who I love dearly, but still) may have destroyed it. It won't boot and this is just AFTER I replaced the screen (which I cracked on our last road trip). I'll probably try to salvage it and maybe get it booting again if that's possible, but I think I'll be posting it soon on Craigslist. Anyone want a "well-loved" black Macbook? I'd be willing to sell for a good price...

I have another project in the works... I bought a security camera and some accouterments recently with the hope that I can easily configure up to 4 for my house. We live in a safe [relatively] neighborhood and I'm really much more into this for the geekery of it rather than the practical value although I think it may have some value down the road if any of my customers are interested in security solutions.

Here's the gear:

540TVL, LED 30pcs, 4.3mm Fixed Lens, 1/3 inch Sony Super HAD II CCD IR Bullet Camera ($62.61 at Monoprice)

Seems like a good price for a camera as solid as this is. I just got this on Tuesday but haven't got it set up. I'm impressed with the construction and I did verify that the IR is working great (if you want to check for IR, you can set this up to shine its IR LEDs, turn on a digital camera and see the room bathed in "light"). As a side note, I've been REALLY pleased with Monoprice. Great prices and solid products. Their camera line is new as of this summer and so far, I'm impressed.

I also picked up some video baluns so I can run the power and video over Cat5e instead of running video and power separately. A lot easier to manage and install and you can terminate them using typical keystone jacks (which makes for a nice clear install).

PV-149 - 4 port video capture card (120FPS) ($154.95 at BlueCherry)

Might be overkill, but it looks like a nice solution. I haven't purchase this yet, but hope to soon. I may stick with the 4 port model and save a few bucks. This should allow me to use 4 cameras at about 30 frames/second, which is ideal.

I'm planning on using ZoneMinder for the DVR solution. I've not used this before, so I'll definitely do a writeup when I get it up and running. The hope is to get this streaming data to disk but also presenting the video display on a simple web server. I've been really irritated by the somewhat more expensive turn-key DVR's that support video streaming using an ActiveX control. Not that friendly unless you happen to be running Internet Explorer. Yuck.

As I progress, I'll post details on the install, additional hardware, ZoneMinder installation and configuration, and overall evaluation.