Fitting Design

If you design user interfaces and you haven't visited this site, perhaps you should (see the site here). It has a short 10 question quiz (with answers) centered on Fitts's Law: The time to acquire a target is a function of the distance to and size of the target. It is amazing how many people ignore this law and end up designing interfaces that are hard to use.

Once done with that, follow the link to first principles (link here) which goes into greater detail the various other factors that should be remembered in good design.

Kernel Pop

If you are using the Red Hat Linux 7.3 kernel 2.4.18-5 to 2.4.18-9, and you have an Intel motherboard using the 810/815 onboard video you may want to upgrade to the 2.4.18-10 Red Hat kernel as there is a long standing bug that became a show stopper in the 2.4.18-9 kernel.

You can read more about it and download the kernel from Red Hat here.

Scotty, I Need More Power!

As was widely expected, Intel added four new processors to its line, including a 2.8GHz screamer that you can use to heat your apartment this winter. What is interesting to me is that Intel cut the price of the previous speed leader, the 2.53, by 63 percent to a low of $243USD. This price point is lower than the price on the 2.4 ($400) and on par with the 2.2x at $241 (all prices are in lots of 1,000).

It would appear that Intel either wants to dump the 2.54 or drive out the competition at that speed/price. I have no idea which, but in either case, if you are in the market, a 2.54 sure looks good right now. See the complete story here from InfoWorld. Below are some other interesting links found at InfoWorld.

As the Stomach Turns

As many readers know, Microsoft recently changed the EULA for Windows 2000 (Windows XP had the change from the beginning) which allows MS to automatically download files to your PC without your permission or intervention.

It appears there are various types of updates, some of which you can control and some you can not. The problem, of course, are the one you can not control. For example, Brian Livingston (see his column here lists the following:

One thing you can't get around, however -- and a big reason for the latest fears -- is Microsoft's DRM (digital rights management) scheme. This built-in XP feature silently downloads and installs "revocation lists." These lists prevent "revoked" programs from playing DRM-encoded content.

The idea of giving any outside company the ability to remotely turn off something that previously worked on your computer strikes many as lunacy.

Aside from fair-use issues, users fear silent upgrades because Microsoft has pumped out many buggy patches that themselves needed patching. Just this June, Microsoft shipped the Nimda worm in its Korean edition of Visual Studio .Net.

The important thing to remember is that there are various classes of downloads, some of which you get the opportunity to decline, some you don't. I leave it to you to decide whether any of this is a Good Thing. As for me, I will not install SP3 and will never "upgrade" to WinXP. YMMV.

Note This

Well, our great IT folks have done it again. Just as we begin to transition to Lotus Notes, Steve Gillmore (see his column here) says Notes is dead. The new king? Groove (see an article on Groove from ZDNet here).

Stats vs. SPAM

It seems there is a never ending battle against SPAM. One response has been to use filters to detect words or phrases commonly used by spammers. The problem is the number of false positives (emails that appear to be spam but are not) that you get using that method.

Brian Livingston (see his column here) found a company that uses Bayesian analysis that weights 15 "interesting" words within each email and then computes the probability that a message is spam. According to the article, you can achieve a 99.5 percent accuracy rate using this method.

It's Official

I will be taking two classes this semester. The first is the planning seminar, every Wednesday, for my capstone (sort of equivalent to a thesis) next semester. The other is to be a graduate assistant in PUBA 620, Reforming Organizations, every Friday. As such, I will provide real world (local, US, and International) examples of what is being taught in class, and perhaps teach various modules as needed. It is a very exciting opportunity. However, it will mean I will be even busier than I had planned during this semester.

Aloha!

Mo' Mozilla

Version 1.1 of the Mozilla web browser is out. You can get it from Mozilla.org here. Note that the icon is changed from the gecko to a head shot of Mozilla himself. If you rather keep the old icon, you must do the following before installing the new version: save and rename the old mozilla.exe file (I renamed mozilla.exe to mozilla-icon.exe since the new version overwrites the old). Then, after installing the new version, right click on the icon (assuming you have one on the desktop pointing to Mozilla), choose "Properties", then "Change Icon". This will open a window pointing to the current icon (default install at %Program Files%\mozilla.org\Mozilla\mozilla.exe). Click on "Browse", which opens a window centered on the mozilla directory, and choose the old file (i.e., in my case, mozilla-icon.exe). Click on OK, which closes that window and then OK again to close the final window. You should now see the old gecko icon. If you also have a link icon on the quick launch bar, you will have to go through a similar procedure. Rinse again in cold water, do not wring, hang to dry.

The Better Part of Valor

You'd think, being a computer software consultant (now just what does a computer software consultant do? - ed.), you'd have at least half-a-brain. I mean, there are very few requirements of being a U.S. citizen. Even voting is optional. What is not optional is jury duty.

So when one David Williamson got his notice to appear for jury duty he decided to send an invoice to the court for $16,800 for "court-ordered professional services for the entire month of August 2002."

Needless to say, although someone should definitely have said it to Williamson, the court was not amused. The judge replied to the invoice with a fax telling Williamson that he "is hereby ordered to appear ... to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of the court and jailed accordingly."

I think Williamson got the message because he showed up for duty, sans Alpha-male attitude. Stoooopid. Just plain stooopid. See the story here from Yahoo.

Lots of stuff to do so I gotta go - Aloha!

Blowing Smoke

I spent what little time I had this morning replying to an email from Fellow Daynoter Svenson on my post on smoking. I'll reproduce my reply below but I'm afraid it is not my strongest work. The topic of banning smoking is one full of competing values. As such, it is difficult to come to an answer that is "right". That said, it is a question that is being debated around the country, if not the world.

To: Dan Seto
From: Jan Swijsen
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:58:27 +0200
Subject: smoking

I hate smokers in restaurants while I am eating. Yet I think a ban by law is not the way to go. I mean it now becomes impossible to have a restaurant or bar (exclusive) for smokers. Much better would be the requirement to put a (big ominous) sign up on the outside, that way the landlord can decide to allow or refuse smokers. And customers would know before entering.

I just don't like (most) laws that ban things outright. Tobacco is just one drug. If lobbyists get it banned from all public places (they even try to make smoking out in the streets illegal) they will probably turn to the next legal drug. Now imagine restaurants and bars being forbidden to server alcohol (alcohol fumes are actually poisonous).

Regards,
Svenson.

----- Original Message -----

From: Dan Seto
To: Jan Swijsen
Subject: Re: smoking
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:13:27 -1000

While I can not comment extensively on the Mau'i law, I can say a few things how I think it works on O'ahu. Here, a bar does not have to go smoke free. So if you want to smoke and drink (behaviors that seem to go together, along with gambling), you can do that without problem. The problem occurs when you want to smoke in a restaurant, which also may have a bar attached to it. Things get very messy and full of bureaucratic regulations.

But the bottom line is as I stated, to the extent possible, I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want to do as long as it does not prohibit me from doing what I want to do (and vice versa). For example, I've stated before that I don't think there should be a law requiring people to wear seat belts while driving. Neither do I think there should be a law requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets while riding. Personally, I think a prudent person would do both, and I would support education efforts to persuade then to do so, but I don't see how it harms me if they do not (other than higher medical and vehicle insurance rates).

On the other hand, the problem occurs when there are conflicting wants/needs/values. While there may not be a law against drinking, there is one related to driving after having drunk too much alcohol. Why? Can't you just place a sign on the drinker's car saying "Beware! Drunk driver"? Or why don't we allow everyone to walk around spraying anthrax into the air? As long, that is, they wear orange caps saying "I am trying to kill you"? Or maybe it's okay to have sex offenders to walk free as long as they hang out together in one part of town. Aren't we all for freedom?

Likewise, to breathe the smoke exhaust of a smoker is generally accepted to be unhealthy. So, for example, there are already laws against smoking in the public places and at work. How would you like it if someone could smoke, in the next cubicle to you? In the seat next to you at the soccer stadium? In your child's school room? In the row of seats in front of you in the air plane?

Well, you say, you can create separate areas for smokers and non-smokers. Yes, that's been tried but practically speaking, it just doesn't work. Smoke goes where the winds blow and the economic incentive is to pack as many people as closely as possible to make as much money as possible so don't even think of suggesting of using open space to separate the two groups.

Ah, but that's not what you are suggesting. If I understand what you are saying, there should signage indicating whether or not smoking is allowed and people should decide whether to enter such an establishment or not. It's that personal choice and freedom thing again. Now, I don't want to get into a debate as to whether "separate but equal" is a Good Thing so I'm not going to suggest, as you seem to be, that having some restaurants or other workplaces non-smoking and some to allow smoking is the way to go. I think we've moved past the point where it was okay to have signs saying "Whites Only" but you are "free" to go somewhere else.

Obviously, this is a difficult question full of competing values. And I'm afraid I'm not the best person to debate this question. But I happen to feel a complete ban on smoking is the fairest way to go. Others disagree. So you are free to move to a country that allows what you want <g>. YMMV.

Aloha

Everything You Thought You Knew

Who fired the first shot at Pearl Harbor the morning of December 7, 1941? The Japanese right? Wrong. About an hour before the air attack, the destroyer USS Ward reported that she had fired upon, and sank, a submarine that was in restricted waters off the entrance to the harbor.

Up until yesterday, there had been no direct confirmation of the sinking. That is, until the University of Hawai'i Undersea Research Laboratory (HURL, an unfortunate choice of letters if there ever was one) submersibles Pisces IV and V came upon the wreckage of the mini-submarine. The wreck, in what looks to be one complete piece, appears to be in remarkably good condition for something sitting in 1,200ft (~366m) of ocean water for over 60 years (see the full article and pictures here. Note that the link will likely expire at the end of the day).

Since that day, historians have learned that the submarine was one of five sent by the Japanese to enter the harbor and wait for the air attack. Of the five, one made it into the harbor but was subsequently rammed and sunk by the destroyer USS Monaghan during the attack. A second ended up on the Windward side of the island miles from the target. The third was found in waters off shore. The fourth was found yesterday, leaving one more still unaccounted for.

Is Wrong

A report in the Los Angeles Times (see it here. Note, the link will expire at the end of the day) says, contrary to popular belief, teens become hooked on smoking much faster than previously thought. Typically, after only a few cigarettes, according to a study recently done by the University of Massachusetts Medical Center.

Conversely, the researchers say it takes much longer, perhaps as long as two years before adults become similarly addicted (which sounds wrong to me).

I have to admit I have not read the original study, but if the article is accurate, the study seems flawed in that it bases its results on self-reporting on the part of the teens. Self-reporting, that is someone answering questions you have, is not the preferred way to doing a medical study when you have the alternative of doing physical exams (e.g., blood, toxicology, etc. tests) which are usually more objective.

In fact, asking a teen whether they have symptoms of addiction (e.g., irritability, loss of concentration, or smoking at school) seems a particularly troubling way of getting reproducible data. Note that I'm not saying the conclusions are necessarily inaccurate, just that the data used to reach those conclusions may not stand the test of time.

Hence, any conclusions they have, such as differences between boys and girls, and even to adults, must be taken with a fairly large grain of salt (and a gas mask - ed.).

In either case, the article goes on to report that other studies have shown that the majority of smokers (about 90 percent) begin before age 19. And of those people who started so young (illegally, I might add), it requires an average of 18 years from the time they decide to quit and they are actually successful in doing so (another number I'm not so sure of).

Aloha!

Nothing to See Here

Last night was not particularly restful. Perhaps I'm a little excited about my first class as an assistant. I don't know. But I know that my neck and shoulders are killing me. Oh well, ever onward.

Can't They Sea Straight?

I saw an AP Wire story on the recent finding of the Japanese mini-sub off of Pearl Harbor. Only, the report said it was a battleship, not a destroyer that sank the sub. Can't we get anything right on this? While it is true there were battleships in Pearl Harbor, it would be exceedingly unlikely to have one doing near-shore patrol.

And of course, it was the destroyer USS Ward (see it's history here and the action report here filed on the incident from the CO) that actually was involved in the first shots of Pearl Harbor.

It would be nice, 60 years after the incident, to get our facts straight, but I guess that's too much to ask of the press.

Nothing to See There

Monday is a holiday so no post. I'm also taking Tuesday off to finish cleaning our back house before we start moving in so perhaps no post then either. We will see. Check back just in case but I can't say for sure.

Have a Great Weekend Everyone - Aloha!