Archive for category good design
Pink Noise: It’s out there
Posted by jasonwong in good design on March 2nd, 2010
When I was a graduate student at George Mason University, there was a professor there named Chris Kello. He has moved on to one of the University of California-Merced, but his area of study remains the same: pink noise. What is pink noise? Well, we all know what white noise is: that random noise that we often hear as static. This is different from noise that indicates a clear signal within that random white noise – a radio broadcast, a WiFi signal – something that has a distinct pattern that can be clearly picked out of the noise. Pink noise is essentially a quasi-random yet somehow organized pattern that can be detected in the noise. Think self-organizing systems like the weather. Think chaos theory, think fractals.
Those studying pink noise have found patterns in the stock market, weather patterns, and Chris Kello looked for pink noise in basic cognitive functions. Now, scientists say that movies – namely, the length of scenes as they are shown in order – follow a pink noise pattern.
From The New York Times:
According to the new report, the basic shot structure of the movies, the way film segments of different lengths are bundled together from scene to scene, act to act, has evolved over the years to resemble a rough but recognizably wave-like pattern called 1/f, or one over frequency — or the more Hollywood-friendly metaphor, pink noise. Pink noise is a characteristic signal profile seated somewhere between random and rigid, and for utterly mysterious reasons, our world is ablush with it.
So there you have it: it’s everywhere, waiting to be detected. In our stars, our heartbeats, our thinking, and our movies. Pink noise. It’s out there.
The Apple iPad: Thoughts
Posted by jasonwong in bad design, good design, marketing, thoughts on January 28th, 2010
Disclaimer, in case you didn’t know for some reason: I have a MacBook and an iPhone and I enjoy them very much.
The iPad is intriguing. I have seen many people ask why they would want one. I think Apple essentially presented several use cases (eReading, couch surfing, airplane video watching), but it boils down to this: if you’re in the market for something that’s cheaper and less useful than a laptop but is more expensive and useful than an iPhone, the iPad is your device.
I am just curious as to how big that market is.
A friend of mine has an iPhone and Apple desktop. He doesn’t do work when he’s mobile, so he is interested in this device. For me, I can’t justify one right away. I would not get the more expensive 3G model, so I’d be stuck with just a WiFi connection, which means mostly home use. Since I already have a laptop as my main computer that I can bring with me, I don’t see the iPad use case working for me.
In terms of striking the balance between a cheaper laptop and a more useful iPhone, they leaned more towards the iPhone. However, they brought along many iPhone shortcomings – namely, multitasking and Flash in the browser. Therefore, you cannot have Pandora streaming, have your IM client going, and also work on something in Pages at the same time. With a $500 iPad (which Josh Gruber says is fast, fast, fast), you can only do one thing at a time. This just kills it for me.
I don’t think a big enough deal is being made about the fact that Apple is using its own Apple A4 chip in the device that makes it “fast, fast, fast.” Apple bought P.A. Semi and is now designing their own ARM-based chips in house. So, from this, the iPad is faster. I would like to think the processor can handle more than one application at a time, though. Yes, you could say that the iPad would bog down running too many apps, but so too can the MacBook. People expect multitasking and, if Apple could design an elegant system to do so, they should. Essentially, my argument boils down to this: Apple can’t possibly have unitasking as a written-in-stone design goal; at some point, they are going to have to introduce multitasking. It seemed like the introduction of the iPad, with its wickedly-fast processor, was as good of a time as any.
John Timmer, Science Editor of Ars Technica, nails it for me (scroll to the bottom of the page to read his thoughts directly):
Steve Jobs very explicitly placed the iPad in the category class between the phone and notebook, and it very nicely splits the difference between the two. And that’s precisely why I’m a bit disappointed by it—it doesn’t share enough of the features of either one of those two devices to actually make it useful to me.
When I leave the apartment for anything beyond local errands, I’m almost invariably carrying both a cell phone for communicating and a laptop for getting work done. A truly useful device would be one that could let me leave one of those devices and its added bulk, cables, and worries about charge status at home. The iPhone went a little way towards that dream—it was a phone, but its ability to handle a bit of web browsing and some light e-mail meant that leaving the laptop at home was possible in a few additional circumstances—but, for the most part, I’m still stuck lugging two devices.
The iPad doesn’t fix that. It’s clearly not a phone, so my phone would still have to come with me. It would do a better job of e-mail and web browsing than the iPhone but, if I’m carrying one of those anyway, that’s not a huge help. On the other side of its category divide, the iPad might add a few more cases where a laptop is unnecessary, but very few. I’m a touch typist; I take notes on presentations while watching the speaker, and I am often writing in one application while looking over a document in a second. With no physical keyboard and no multitasking, the iPad simply wouldn’t work for me. It’s just too limited to mean I could leave my laptop home any more often than I already do.
Apple looks like it nailed its target of creating a truly distinct device that’s somewhere in between the phone and the laptop. And, for precisely that reason, it doesn’t seem like it would be all that useful to me.
I am giving a Google Tech Talk today!
Posted by jasonwong in attention, bad design, clutter, eye movements, good design, visual search on December 16th, 2009
My friend from graduate school, Ricardo Prada, now works at Google in the User Experience Group. He saw that I was in the Palo Alto area for a week on a work project, and he invited me to give a Google Tech Talk. It was an opportunity that I could not turn down (not that I would ever want to!). After about a month of work on this talk and hours of practice, today is the day. Here is the talk announcement:
Google tends to record these talks on video and put them up on YouTube, so I hope this occurs with mine. I’ll link to it as soon as it’s up.
Movie User Interfaces
Posted by jasonwong in bad design, data visualization, good design on December 3rd, 2009
Gizmodo says it perfectly:
What do The Bourne Identity, Mission Impossible 3, Mr & Mrs Smith, Children of Men, and Agent Cody Banks 2 have in common? Absurd, futuristic, and totally fake software interfaces, designed in part by one man: Mark Coleran.
Designing a fake dashboard for an imagined supercomputer or a hovering control panel for a worldwide surveillance system is a different process than creating a genuinely usable UI. Your goal is to imply things: that a machine is powerful; that a villain is formidable; that the software is intuitive, but that the breadth of its powers borders on unknowable. At no point does real-world usability factor in, and nor should it—this is pure fantasy, for an audience raised on Start Buttons, desktop icons and tree menus. Here’s a gallery of some of the most famous interfaces; see how many you recognize.
Coleran Reel 2008.06 HD from Mark Coleran on Vimeo.
HFES 2009 Trip Report
Posted by jasonwong in good design, thoughts, training on October 26th, 2009
I have just returned from the 2009 Human Factors and Ergonomics Conference in San Antonio, TX. The entire conference was fantastic, with some great talks and discussion panels. I met a lot of new people and reconnected with friends, and I even have a couple of new research ideas.
The hotel we stayed at was fantastic – a four-diamond hotel at the government rate, and it was right on the Riverwalk.
Speaking of the Riverwalk, this was a large walking area right on the river filled with shops, restaurants, and a big mall. It was a really convenient way to get around.
The conference was good, but we were overshadowed by a bigger, apparently more important conference called GeoInt. How could I tell we were less important? Well, look at the welcome that GeoInt received versus the welcome given to HFES.
As mentioned before, I met lots of new people, specifically at the Navy, but I also reconnected with friends. There was a big George Mason University alumni dinner on Wednesday night, featuring at least 30 people. I was one of the first ones there!
San Antonio itself is beautiful, with real Texas landscaping and a wonderful cave only 30 minutes away that was fun to explore.
And, of course, you could not go to San Antonio without seeing the Alamo.
Alas, the conference came to an end, and I flew back to Rhode Island. The Providence airport has little booths for advertisements from local businesses, and NUWC had something up! A little reminder of work.
All in all, it was a fantastic conference, and I hope to go again next year.










