A Web Design Critique of Google News
I recently critiqued the redesign of Newsweek, and was pleased to see the positive response. I sorta promised that this would become a regular feature for me, so I'll try to hold to that.
I'm only looking at homepages. Critiquing a whole site is a lot of work. I'll do it someone wants to pay me though :]
After leading a webinar for CoPress on homepage design, I've done a lot of research into mainstream homepages – what works and what doesn't. For the second go at this, let's look at Google News.
Newspapers Should Repurpose Craigslist to Save Their Classifieds
Craigslist has totally changed the way customers approach classifieds. We now expect to get free ads with an unlimited runtime. They must be searchable, and easily browsable. Print newspapers can’t hold an candle to the easy of use, or the price.
RevenueTwoPointZero, a new consortium (@rev2oh) that aims to invent new business models for the news industry has stated that one of their goals is to "build a better Craigslist." I suggest that this is an exercise in futility.
Craigslist is an established social network. Trying to take them on is a bit like saying you want to build a better facebook. The idea that you can build a website, no matter how much better that doesn't use the old social paradigm is ludicrous. No one is going to use both sites, and no one is going to move to a new site that doesn't have all their friends on it. Same applies to a new craigslist.
But, in looking at newspapers as a platform, a portal to their community, there becomes an obvious way to utilize Craigslist to the mutual benefit of the customer, newsorg, and Craigslist. Read the rest of this post →
Lightroom or Aperture?
Image via Wikipedia
This gets filed under the old news category, but I thought I'd share a demo I did on Lightroom several months ago. (oh, and that's my first submission to slideshare!)
Why the Nikon D3 Sucks (and What the D4 Oughta Be)
I love me the Nikon D3. It's the first camera that I've used where I feel confident going into any situation. The high ISO performance, huge LCD, dual CF card slots, 9 FPS, and 12MP files are amazing. Safe to say, Nikon hit a home run with this camera.
That said, I've got some complaints. Call it a wish list if you will. But after using this camera for about 6 months in a wide variety of situations, it's pretty safe to say that the tool isn't perfect.
With the release of the D3x, I've come to realize that Nikon is advancing technology, but is clearly holding out for the next release to do anything drastic. I might/probably am too late to get into the D4 product cycle, but nonetheless…
What could be fixed for the Nikon D4
The D90 gets the OK button right. Why can't the high ends cameras that came out after it follow suit? (Looking at you D3x)
The OK button is useless. There are two ways to confirm a command in the menu system: hit OK, or hit the center of the 4-way dial. However, most things only require you to hit the 'right' button on the 4-way dial. The OK button, aside from being repetitive, is out of the wa
I'd like to see a repeat of the D90's solution. Replace the 'push the center to confirm' option of the 4-way control with the OK button. This reduces clutter and makes menu navigating a more one-handed operation.
MobileMe Reviewed
I've just gotten my hands on a full MobileMe account (thanks Ramon!) and I thought I'd take the opportunity to compliment and complain.
Features Not Working
As of this writing, the following features of me.com are not working.
- Backup software (download link redirects)
- According to the System Status: Homepage & Groups is currently not operating
- Still experiencing system slow downs, especially when accessing account settings.
MobileMe got off to a rocky start. The dotmac website stated that they system would be offline from 8pm-2am beginning Wednesday evening (Jul 9) to facilitate the transition. The presumption was that me.com would go live at 2am, which did not happen. Me.com went through periods of service and through Friday (the day of the iPhone 3G launch). The system became fast enough to be usable on Saturday (Jul 12, the date
It's so shiiiinyyy
Let's get this clear, me.com is pretty. Really, really pretty. It almost feels like a desktop app. You can use keyboard shortcuts just like a desktop app (replace ⌘ key with the ctrl key and you already know the keyboard shortcuts). You can drag and drop just like a desktop app. Windows slide down just like a desktop app. In case you didn't get it, it feels like a desktop app!
Switching between modules requires a load time, but actions within any one of the modules doesn't seem to incur a load time at all (very cool).
Based on SproutCore, MobileMe feels quick. Yet, there are still a few remaining speed issues. I've tried to upload over 5GB of photos to my iDisk via the desktop interface and the transfer has taken 9+ hours to get half way; reading another 9 hours to complete. (This upload later failed; twice.) Accessing the 'account settings' section of the web interface is hit or miss. Sometimes it pops right up, sometimes it just displays "loading" for eternity. No doubt, these are both symptoms of a freshly launched app, nonetheless, they are annoying.
iDisk
iDisk web interface.
The iDisk webapp works much as you'd expect. It's the same column interface that Finder has. Clicking on a folder reveals the files and directories contained. I haven't figured out the pattern yet, but sometimes the app displays a loading icon you click on a folder, and sometimes it doesn't. Also, the app gives no indication that you've clicked on an empty folder. In contrast, Finder tells the user that a directory has "0 items," the iDisk webapp has no visual indication, and frequently left me watching the computer screen hoping something would load.
The interface does not allow for previewing of files. Click on a jpg and the app will tell you that it's a jpg, but it doesn't display a thumbnail. The system also does not recognize RAW files. It would be nice to have a 'quicklook' like functionality so that a user didn't have to download a file to see what it is.
 |
 |
| .jpg: no preview | .nef: not recognized |
Preferences for iDisk are extremely simple. You have the choice of displaying a 'Simple Folder Layout' - only Documents, Public and Movies are shown in iDisk home. The app behaves as you'd expect it too, and in someways is more responsive than the desktop plugin. Which is continually having connection issues. It seems that my iDisk can't stay connect for more than several hours at a time – no big deal until I try to transfer several gigabytes of files.
Deleting files on the iDisk via the desktop takes a very long time. But, the process is fast on the web app, and the changes are reflected nearly instantaneously on the desktop side.
In addition, I was surprised to see the webapp lacking two key features. 1) It is not capable of uploading directories, even though it can upload multiple files. The help instructs users to compress (zip) their directories first – what a poor solution. 2) Even though Contacts and Mail have instant search, iDisk does not. erm… makers of Spotlight – HELLO! I'd like to be able to search my files online too please. K, thanks.
I was impressed at the integration, but constantly frustrated by webapp limitations and the glacial communications times when using the desktop interface. iDisk is not ready for large file transfers but with luck, Apple will fix the bugs and speed will increase in the near future.
Gallery
Gallery web interface
Gallery is the me.com interface for hosting your photos. Think of it as the web based iPhoto.
The frontend is the same that users have come to know and love. It's extremely fast, good looking and offers a variety of options to viewers.
Uploading to Gallery
Uploads are very quick and the interface not only allows the user to upload multiple files at once, but has the option to add more files while an upload is in progress - nifty!
It's possible to sync Gallery with either Aperture or iPhoto but, in my opinion, there is one glaring sync error. Apple gives MobileMe users 20GB of storage to divide between email, iDisk, Gallery, and Backup. 20GB may seem like a lot but when all of these services are taken into account, the space goes fast. Ideally, MobileMe could offer users a complete cloud storage solution for all data. 20GB is simply not enough to accomplish that.
Following that logic, Apple should allow Gallery to use photos placed in the Pictures folder of iDisk. Not only would this ease the storage constraints, but it would simplify the interface between the two apps.
It's worth noting that Gallery has no photo editing capabilities or instant search. I don't think these are features that many users will miss, but as search is a key Apple technology and web-based photo editing is becoming more popular, it would have been nice for Apple to through those features in.
And that is as far as my complaints with Gallery go. It is otherwise and extremely well designed and extremely responsive app.
Calendar
Calendar web interface
Entering info into an event is a bit different on the web than in iCal.
Calendar isn't quite as slick as iCal, but it's still the slickest calendar interface I've seen to date. It has all the simplicity of gCal with fewer pages loads. (Less pages loaded means the app is faster.)
Notably, Calendar falls into the class of MobileMe apps that could use instant search and curiously doesn't have it.
While Calendar has no trouble syncing your iCal calendars, it does not import your subscription calendars. I can't fathom why this is, but it sure is annoying to not have holidays visible.
Aside from the different info panel (see photo, right), Calendar does maintain an interface virtually identical to iCal. This means that Calendar shares the same flaw that I find with iCal - it has poor support for ToDo items. As a simple list, ToDo is horribly uncomplicated and hard to use. There's no way to attach a todo to an event, one can't postpone todo items, and there is no method to group tasks with multiple calendars. Nonetheless, Calendar does what it's supposed to do elegantly and without trouble.
Contacts
Contacts web interface
Contacts should be the simplest app in the suite. Or at least, it makes sense to me that a simple database interface would be ease to do. …so of course, it fell to the bottom of the maintenance list.
My first sync (on Friday) caused some of my contacts to duplicate. I'm not sure why some duplicated and some didn't, but it was sure annoying and not what I expected from a first class sync app. Once I got that problem taken care of, I headed over to the webapp and tried dealing with my contacts there.
As with the rest of the me.com apps, Contacts online is very similar to contacts on the desktop. One glaring thing that is missing the smart contact groups. Normal groups show up online fine, but it's a strange thing to be missing when the instant search works so well. (whoohooo! instant search!)
One strange bug I encountered was that editing a contact name didn't always update the name in the contact list.
I won't say that Contacts is bad, far from it - it looks to be a promising web interface. But, it sure is buggy.
Mail web interface
Let me start by saying this. I really prefer desktop apps for email – I want the ability to search and write messages while offline. To accomplish this, I use Apple's Mail.app. But, I've used Yahoo, AOL, gmail, Comcast, squirrel mail, and a host (20+?) of other email webapps.
Let me say this, for all it's simplicity and flash, the new MoblieMe email app sucks. I like the instant search, but aside from that, there are a lot of serious flaws.
Mail doesn't import other email accounts. The reason I so like Mail.app is that I can have a ton of email accounts in it. I've got 6 active right now. They all do different things and I don't want them confused. Now maybe I'm unique in that respect, but I still want Mail's web interface to show those other accounts. I was quite surprised to find that it didn't. After all, gmail does it.
Mail doesn't support smart folders. Not too much of a surprise in light of Contacts not supporting smart groups, but very disappointing. But, Mail has instant search!
New Message opens a popup. Really Apple? really? Didn't you learn anything from AOL's mistakes and Gmail's success? Lets keep everything in one window, mhhhkay?
New Message doesn't auto-complete the "To:" field. Granted, I ran into this problem when I clicked on the address book, but that doesn't indicate that auot-complete wasn't working. This seems to be an obvious feature that everybody uses.
I count myself lucky that I don't depend on me.com as my primary email. The webapp is easily the weakest in the suite, and needs quick updating.
Other nifty things
In general, the help provided is very good. Clicking on a help link or pressing [ctrl+?] launches a new popup (appropriate in this case) which loads faster than OSX help windows do!
I did all of my testing in Safari Version 3.1.1 (5525.20), so your mileage in a different browser may vary. I'm very interested to know how IE deals with me.com.
You can set me.com to remember who you are for 2 weeks at a time, a good security measure.
This is way improved over dotmac.
It's possible to setup your own domain name to point to your homepage. That means you can get your iWeb site to live at its own URL.
Users can set how they divide storage between their email and their iDisk –very handy!
Aside from where I specifically mentioned, the me.com is fast. Load times are negligible and speed should only increase as Apple works out the kinks.
Syncing a computer with MobileMe is similarly speedy, I could be mistaken, but it seemed snappier than the dotmac sync.
What I really think...
I'm horribly disappointed with iDisk. I really expected better from a cloud storage solution. For now, I'm sticking with Wua.la. I don't doubt that Apple will work out the kinks, but right now, it's broken.
Gallery, Contacts and Calendar are really nifty apps that are well done, but have several bugs.
Though usable, Mail needs a lot of work. Stick with gmail, Yahoo, or a desktop client.
Now for the million dollar question. Is it worth $100 a year?
- Do you need to host a website or share you pictures online, but have little technical know-how?
- Do you already have a dotmac email address?
- Do you want a really slick way of showing off your photos and videos?
- Do you need a really simple way to sync two computers?
- Do you want a set-it-and-forget-it strategy to get an offsite backup of your most essential data?
If you answered yes to any of the above, give me.com a serious think. Note I didn't ask if you need a way to get your calendar, or contacts, or email, or photos, or data, online. There are free solutions for all of these, they're just far more manual than MobileMe.
I really appreciate the approach of MobileMe. And incase you didn't catch it, the interface is slick! I trust that once all of the bugs are worked out, life @me will be really sweet.
A totally arbitrary rating, for those that need a number: 7.45/10
Update
AppleInsider raises an interesting point that I completely missed. MobileMe is marketed as a push solution for all your devices, and it fails at this goal. Though changes made on an iPhone are apparently recognized instantly by the cloud, changes made on a Mac still need to be synced. That is not a push solution, not at all. I suspect that the next version of OSX aliviate, if not fix this issue with support for exchange built into all the necessary apps. Nonetheless, it is a severe disappointment to not have push now – as was promised. Syncing is a 2nd class solution, especially when it duplicates my contacts!
Update 2
Check out this for a great look at how Apple is fixing the problem.
Make Money by Removing Ads
The TrustE numbers cited by eMarketer said that only 12.6 percent of respondents said that more than a quarter of the targeted ads they were delivered were relevant. Ouch.
-Survey: Advertisers should acknowledge targeted ad concerns | The Social - CNET News.com
I was on facebook today (a rarity for me) and I happened to notice the ad to the right.
Yes, it's fairly creepy, but that wasn't what caught my eye. Notice the links below the ad? That "Advertise' link is fairly commonly found on sites, if you want to advertise through Facebook, click that and off you go. (By the way, Facebook makes it insanely simple to do that.)
But, the other links are, in my experience, rather unique. The "More Ads" link gets you to the full listing of ads that Facebook might provide you. Users can pick their own advertising. Nifty.
But wait, there's more!
Facebook also has those two nifty thumbs up/thumbs down buttons. Unfortunately I couldn't get them to work. I clicked on them multiple times on multiple browsers and nothing happened. But… I really like the idea.
Imagine a site (newspapers, listen up!) that targets advertising to users, in part,
based directly on what they decide they want. The links should be simple and unobtrusive like Facebook's example.
Why would anybody bother to spend the time telling a site which ads they like (or more likely, which ads they don't like)?
Simple. The site can give them the reward of removing the ads they don't like -- completely.
If a user clicks on the 'thumbs down' button, the site shouldn't simply replace that ad with another. Give the user the incentive – remove the ad; remove the hole on the page that was made for it. Get rid of it completely, make it a sort of "sorry to bother you with that trash" message to the user.
Design
As a sidenote of sorts:
Facebook's ads are great in part because they all conform to a similar design standard that in turn conforms with the rest of the site. Facebook insures ads are un-obtrusive.
One common complaint about online ads that they are not nearly as "informative" as print ads are.
a recent survey of American consumers which found that more than three-quarters of respondents said online ads were more annoying than those in print.
-Hard sell - The Economist.com
In general people don't like flashy moving ads and prefer smaller, Google-like, text ads.
"Ironically, the one type of ads that really work on the Web are the small, text-only ads on search engines.
-New online ads squeeze news pages - CNet.com
Make online ads more like print
Therefore, online ads should be made to looks more like print ads. In my own, non-scientific observations of print newspaper ads, there's an obvious pattern that appears in print that does not appear online.
Print ads, generally, list prices, provide coupons, or tell the consumer when a sale is going to be. In contrast, online ads try to get you to make 'free money.' No wonder people prefer print.
The ads newspapers carry are necessarily focused on a local market. Fortunately, this is easy to replicate online.
Faulty logic
I recall watching a video (I can't remember where, otherwise I'd link to it), where an expert explained the newspaper advertising is struggling because of the way advertisers determine the total percentage of the site's visitors that might be interested in their ads.
The gentleman presented the following logic: if the San Francisco Chronicle has an online readership of 1 million, but only half live in the SF Bay Area, then a car dealership that wants to advertise on the paper's site assumes that their ads are only applicable to half of the paper's audience and therefore worth half as much.
This is ludicrous!
If the car dealership has places a print ad, it misses out on the the half million people who visit the site, but have no chance of seeing the print edition. The dealership has effectively doubled its audience.
Not only can the Newspaper offer a greater audience, but technology allows it to localize ads - automatically. If that dealership doesn't want to pay for ads that don't effect users outside the Bay Area, then the newspaper doesn't have to show that ad to the irrelevant users. Instead, they can find car dealerships that are applicable to their non-local users.
A theoretical step
I have no idea how much of the above is already done (or not done), but I here is a proposition for something that surely is not occuring.
A way to solve this problem:
Newspapers need to team up. Not in the media conglomeration sense, but in the Ohio sense. If national newspapers cooperated on advertising, a user from San Francisco visiting the NY Times site could still see advertising from that car dealership near San Francisco.
The NY Times can pocket the revenue and pay a small commission to The Chronicle for arranging the whole deal. The user gets relevant ads that are informative.
The key here is to provide relevant, local, ads that users find helpful, not gaudy.
I Know What I Want!
attn: John Nack
Black Stroke!
Oh, and by the way, lest I forget: yes, we’re changing the default stroke color to black. Just thought you’d want to know.
-Photoshop Insider » It's Guest Blog Wednesday Featuring: Photoshop Senior Product Manager, John Nack
Thank god! That red stroke is just plain annoying.
(Yes, that is a forum topic about the stupid red stroke default on a site dedicated to people who typically complain about broadband speeds. That choice is clearly unpopular.)
The quote ends an article that is an interesting read if you're curious about the direction Photoshop is developing.
It's written by one of the top dogs in the Adobe world, John Nack (sorry couldn't find a wikipedia page), who has a blog of his own, which is interesting reading in its own right.
Nack's article argues that Photoshop developers know what users want better than themselves. He uses the classic example of the history palette and history brush coming out of the comparatively simple user request for multiple undos.
Adobe, what's wrong? You sick?
Yet, he also protests Adobe's finite set of resources,
Much to my eternal frustration (and probably yours), we’ll never have enough time to implement even 10% of the good ideas that come our way.
…and that his team puts in a lot of backend work which doesn't immediately benefit the average user.
These things take a while. (I’m reminded of the line, “It might look like I’m doing nothing, but at the cellular level, I’m really quite busy.”)
I'm perfectly willing to grant that Adobe can't hire every developer in the world. I also grant that backend coding is a lot of hard work. And, I certainly am not going to argue that, "what customers say they want and what they actually need often differ." (By the way Mr. Nack, that "cellular level" line is used to refer to lazy people who actually are doing nothing.)
Yet, Adobe should be leading the image editing development sphere, not slowly adopting it's technology. 64-bit apps are not a new thing, Apple's Aperture has had the ability to leverage the GPU from it's first launch, Carbon is on it's way out, and Photoshop is facing all sorts of problems because Adobe hasn't ported it over yet.
What happened to the desire to lead the way? Remember when the Healing Brush was introduced in Photoshop 7? That was an awesome new feature. It also came with the shiny new file browser.
...Which is where we start to get into trouble, the file browser was poorly implemented, and its successor, Bridge, is still slow. And, It's not like a file browser is a radical new idea. It's a pretty basic thing that Adobe has only managed to get right with Lightroom.
It seems like every creative I know is on a Mac or, like most people I know, switching to one. I can't remember the last time I even saw Photoshop on a Windows box. If you're spending so much time under the hood, why can't Photoshop CS4 be 64-bit on the Mac?
Some Cough Medicine
My complaint is this: Adobe, I don't care what resources aren't available to you. You're the top dog in this market by a long shot. If you don't have resources, get them. Not having competition seems to have made you lazy, and operating at the cellular level isn't enough.
Enough with the excuses, you've proven that you can produce a great 64-bit, Cocoa, app that intelligently employs Smart Layers, utilizes the GPU, has a fast file browser, and is capable of implementing user feedback. Lightroom.
Your ability to improve upon user feedback is important, keep that up. Yet, the following disturbs me a bit:
It’s interesting that faster performance didn’t rate higher on the list. [of top ten requests] On the one hand, I’d like to take this as a good sign that our work in CS3 to speed up Photoshop’s launch time, take advantage of multi-core systems, etc. has paid off & that people are happy. On the other, there’s no such thing as “too fast,” and quicker performance is the best possible feature: there’s nothing to learn. Therefore I think all the muscle we’re pouring into R&D to leverage graphics hardware acceleration & 64-bit computing will make folks happy.
Mr. Nack, I do indeed want Photoshop to be as fast as possible. It does need to go 64-bit, it should be able to use the GPU, it should be a Cocoa app. But I expect all of this to happen without a cost to the user. Adobe via Mr. Nack seems to be resistant to adopting all of these technologies.
I hesitate to say that Photoshop is 'fast enough,' but if you're creating a list of priorities, speed isn't in the top 10. Lightroom's technologies are (7 of the 10 features in the top 10 list). A real noise filter is.
Oh sure, I want speed. I want the 3.5 gig RAM limit removed (you need 64-bit for that), but these are all things that I expect from any company that is keeping pace with technology. I also expect that once you've developed technology for one application, it can appear across all of your apps. Don't sacrifice one expectation in the name of another. They both need to happen concurrently.
Go back to surprising us with cool new features. Stay ahead of the curve instead of slightly behind. We want more surprises like the Healing Brush. We don't want to be told why waiting to get what we want is a good thing.
Adobe, you're doing better now than you ever have before. Just because you have a virtual monopoly, you don't get to slack off. There are companies biting at your heels.
Things aren't that bad…
Sure, that top 10 list wasn't a scientific sampling. Yea, it was probably weighted down by non-profesional users of Photoshop. Still, it's sampling of the market, and Adobe attention is warranted.
Photoshop is still best in class software. I still prefer Lightroom for my photo workflow needs. Adobe's efforts with Flash are highly appreciated. InDesign is my goto app for all layout work. I'll even use Bridge in a pinch.
Adobe products are fantastic, but I'm discouraged. I feel like Adobe needs a Canon.
Update:
It seems that Adobe's Acrobat Reader 9, which has just hit the wild, is a good example of Adobe getting lazy.
How I Want My Data: Locality & Cloud Aware
Boy, do I wish I had written this down first. The op-ed talks about 'syncing.' Or more appropriately, dealing with getting your data on any of your devices (smartphone, laptops, desktops, DVRs, etc…) whenever you want without any hassle.
This is something that I (and I'm sure many others) have been struggling with for a while. I personally own a boatload of devices; several computers, portable devices, and such; all of which I want to stay in sync. I've got a theoretical solution to the problem which I'll detail below.
Jon Stoke's article points out several obvious problems: there is currently no easy way to sync your data, the stop-gap solutions that exist now are poorly done and anything but set-and-forget, and that computers should be very good at performing a simple repetitive task (just like syncing files). However, Stokes forgets to tackle on important issue. Yes, I want my data to be the synced across all my devices. It's horribly inconvenient to have to deal with multiple versions of files and its a tragedy when I realize that the file that I need is not on the machine that I'm working on right now. Yet, the data that I want on each device is not identical.
The bigger issue
For instance, I've got a rather large iTunes library. Last I checked, it's over 115GB. It lives happily on my desktop which has more than enough storage available to handle that amount of frivolous data happily. The obvious problem is that I do not want all that music on my laptop which only has a 80GB hard drive, and it certainly won't all fit on my iPod Nano.
Or, take my photo library. It's as large as my music library and then some. I do want some of it on my laptop: current work, my portfolio, the images I have up on my site; but some random shoot from 3 years ago? There's no need to carry that with me (at least until SSD reach multi-terabyte capacities).
Solution
The problem is not that I need a solution to have all my data all the time. If I did or could, the solution would be fairly easy – the technology to sync two equally sized devices together already exists. No, the problem is that I want certain data to go to certain devices and not to others. My solution, and suggestion for those that can make this happen is this:
- Time Machine by Apple is a ready-made solution for syncing to devices. It already syncs one hard drive with versions itself. It can even do it across a network. All that needs to be done is to transition it from a backup utility to a sync utility. I'm no engineer, but I don't imagine it would be a very hard task to accomplish. Especially if you consider the underling technology behind time machine.
- As Stokes suggests, the 'drive' paradigm is very cumbersome once you get more than a couple of hard drives floating around. Changing this to the 'cloud' paradigm would be fantastic.Think about it like this: Google has tons (literally) of hard drives in their servers which provide the space for them to provide all their services to their millions of users. But as a user, you have no idea where your data is actually physically stored. It's somewhere, but you don't actually know where your gmail emails are stored, nor do you care.Introducing a similar solution at the personal level is a logical evolution. No, it's not really applicable to the 'average user' who only has a laptop and perhaps one external hard drive, but for small businesses or power users it could be a god-send.Again, I'm no engineer, but I imagine it working something like this:
You're home has a network setup, or at least one computer that is 'cloud-aware.' When you plug a drive into the system for the first time, it will ask you if you'd like to make this disk a part of the cloud – akin to the way Time Machine asks if you'd like to make a new disk a time machine backup drive. This is to ensure that portable storage (like a hard drive that's meant to travel with your laptop, or a flash card) won't get data stored on them that belongs in the cloud.Once configured, the cloud would be just be similar to a RAID 5 array. It handles all of your backup for you, it presents itself as one drive, if you unplug a drive from the system, or one dies, the cloud automatically compensates – all without you worrying about it.
Furthermore, the cloud is accessible to all of your devices. It's online, so if you have a password, you can get your data anywhere. Think, Back to My Mac, but simpler. If your device is connected to the internet, it automatically connects to your cloud.
Not into dealing with a mess of hard drives? Perhaps third-party companies can offer cloud storage for a price. Amazon and Google (among others) are already perfectly positioned to do this. Apple's iDisk already offers an omni-present storage space, and approaches this paradigm.
Cloud storage can help to solve many of the syncing problems, your data is always accessible, no matter where you are.
- There is one glaring disadvantage though – what if you're offline? Or what if the files are huge and would take too long (even over broadband) to access remotely?Here's where my solution gets a new twist.I propose a new kind of metadata that I'll call 'Locality.'
This is what I Imagine the interface looking like. Click for a large view.
Every file has metadata attached to it. It's how the computer knows what date it was created, who last opened it, etc... What I'm proposing is an addition that keeps track of what devices a file is supposed to be stored on. All of your devices will know about all of your other devices. Your smartphone, iPod, laptop, DVR, desktop, and so on, will all know that each other exist. That way, they will be able to automatically keep track of what data is supposed to be on each device – automatically.
The 'Save' dialog in every OS functions basically the same. It asks you what you want to name the file, where you want to put it, and the file type. A system that is 'locality-aware,' would ask you one more thing: which devices you want your data on. It could for instance, default to storing everything on your cloud. If you're offline, then it stores the file locally, until you can connect. However, the user can also decide which other devices get the data stored locally – in other words – you can decide right in a save dialog where you want to always access your data.
For example, If you're saving a new Word (or Pages) document, you can set it to save on your cloud and also go to your smartphone. The next time your computer comes in to contact with either your smartphone or your cloud, it sends that file off. That way if your smartphone contacts your cloud (more likely that it contacting your laptop) it gets the file right away.
The advantage to this system is that you can decide to keep a huge library of pictures safely on your cloud. Where it can be accessed by any of your devices, but isn't stored on them, so space isn't an issue. If you choose, however, you can tell any of your locality-aware devices to set the locality of a file however you choose. You can set some songs to go to your desktop and your iPod, but not to your smartphone.
Apple is most likely going to rebrand .Mac, mostly likely calling it "mobile me." In theory, it will tie the iPhone more closely to Mac computers via a cloud interface. Who knows, maybe Apple is on the right track.
I seriously doubt that Apple will present a solution as complete as what I've just suggested. I'm certain that my solution requires a re-wiring of an OS. Nonetheless, here's hoping that it's a step in the right direction.
TIME.Com: Cheers
In reviewing my previous posts in the last month or so, I've noticed that TIME.com has frequently been the starting point for many of my posts. I remember filling out a survey that TIME had on their website back in either October or November 2007 (thereabouts), which said that TIME was attempting to drastically change their online content – for the better. I faithfully filled out the survey which asked real questions like: rate the site's multimedia content, timeliness of content, and so on.
Lo and behold, it appears that they've been good to their word. Content in the last couple of months has been fantastic. Multimedia has been very well done and timely.
So, TIME – here's to a job well done. Good on you for following through.
Photography ➔ Video
"The model for the future is somebody who can go out and capture content, the imagery that tells the story correctly in a narrative, and then on the back end produce it -- put it together in a program like FinalCutPro," says Pancho Bernasconi, director of photography for Getty's worldwide news division. "That's key, to have that quick turnaround. Time is always an issue, so if you have someone who can do it all themselves, that's a really attractive thing."
The Photographer As Director – American Photo
This is a really great article to read if you're considering or are in a career in photography. Mark my words. Within 10 years, the professions of photography and videography will be so fused, it will be hard to tell the difference.
Proof? Well, first off there's the progression of major news outlets towards multimedia. It's slowly becoming expected that photographers know something about audio if not video too.
Second, there's that inevitable increase in technology. The still sort of new Red One Camera, has the potential to revolutionize the way small budget films are shot – which is to say higher than HD quailty. 12mp, as a matter of fact. Yea, 12mp, that's good enough for me for stills. Once these guys figure out how to make this camera portable (as in you can record for hours without the need for a bunch of hard drive arrays tethered to the camera), there's almost no reason to shoot stills. Just shoot this sucker (the Red Five or so?) at full res at the already available 60FPS and life is good.
Lastly, I'll blame the internet. Thanks to youtube, people are so used to seeing video online, that looking at a simple photo is the least they expect. They want to be entertained, and amazed by moving pictures. It's easy enough to understand why too. There's something about movement that you just can't get from a still frame. (Visa versa is true too of course, but why have only one when you can have both?)
Right. Not too sure where to end this, except to say that this is an argument/discussion that I've been having with many people for a while now and this has really only been a splurge of thought onto the keyboard.
The Photographer’s Right: UK Style
I'm a big fan of the Photographer's Rights PDF. I carry a copy around in my camera bag at all times, and tell all photogs that I know about it. If you're going to photograph in today's security conscious society, you have to know what you can and can't shoot. I've just come across the UK version of this leaflet which is important as the laws in this regard are drastically different between the two countries. Link below:UK photographer's rights
Appalling Spread of False Information Requires Stronger Media Accountability | MediaCulture | AlterNet
The media didn't do this kind of "immune system" work when it reported on the run-up to the Iraq war. As a result, more than 70 percent of Americans were convinced that Saddam Hussein was involved in the massacre of September 11. More than 4,000 Americans and over one million Iraqis have been killed in the violence that perhaps could have been averted with better journalism.
Article from the leftist Alternet, but addresses one of the key problems of today's media/government/world. The Press is doing a poor job of being a watch dog, the Iraq war is a case in point.
Most Americans just don't care about politics, current news, etc… that's why Paris Hilton gets as much play on CNN as the election. Mass media has to cater to their customers and not just cover the news.
And that's the problem. Major media outlets are no longer just interested in covering the news for the sake of coverage. They're about making money; and that means that there are all kinds of internal issues over what gets play. Add into this mix this administration's propensity to 'control the news' (read: lie) and the media just can't be as effective as it should be.
Dangerous times indeed.
How Google’s Counterculture Changes Everything | the Digital Home – Don Reisinger’s Take on the Tech Closest to Home – CNET Blogs
I don't intend to talk about a lot of negative things, but this one really struck my cord. First off: c|net blogs. Some are okay, some are bad, and some are awful. When these started several years ago, the idea was to have experts talk tech to a general audience. The problem is that blogs require 2 things: an opinion, and constant updating. That's a recipe for disaster. The link below should prove my point.
This guy's post not only has nothing to do with tech in the home, but it has no point. Maybe I'm completely missing his point here, but I hardly see how services that are meant to compete with other services are aimed at getting people to navigate away from a google page. He's either wrong or not making his point clearly. A example of why he shouldn't have to come up with new content all the time.
…which brings me to the second thing that's been pissing me off: all of the blogging/talk/whatever about Google. don't get me wrong – I do like me the Google. They're in my opinion, the best at what they do. But Mr. Digital Home, has no place praising them in a random, poorly worded blog post. It's just the latest example of how web culture works – talk about the hot thing just to increase hits (or some similar motivation, like having nothing better to write about).
Right. done.
The Wire’s War on the Drug War – TIME
First off, great photo. The lighting is great, the location is great (watch the show to really appreciate it).
The article that accompanies this photo is an editorial authored by the three writers of HBO's TV show The Wire. In it they argue the uselessness of the US drug war. Citing a statistic:
A new report by the Pew Center shows that 1 of every 100 adults in the U.S. — and 1 in 15 black men over 18 — is currently incarcerated. That's the world's highest rate of imprisonment.
I had actually run across this stat several weeks ago, thought, "Man, that's a little extreme," and then carried on with my life here in London. When put into this context though, the information just becomes annoying. So many of these prisoners are behind bars for a drug charge.
I am of the opinion the US drug policy needs to be changed. We need to explore the options behind legalizing some of the 'illegal' drugs out there today. (I'd start with cannabis, but that's just me.) And, I say this is a person who does not do drugs. At all. I enjoy a drink or two, but drugs, just like cigarettes remain on the untouchable list for me.
Our leaders? There aren't any politicians — Democrat or Republican — willing to speak truth on this. Instead, politicians compete to prove themselves more draconian than thou, to embrace America's most profound and enduring policy failure.
If asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence presented. Save for a prosecution in which acts of violence or intended violence are alleged, we will — to borrow Justice Harry Blackmun's manifesto against the death penalty — no longer tinker with the machinery of the drug war. No longer can we collaborate with a government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens.
