Feedmarker Blog

Ok, this is just silly. Microsoft has put up a page on the Windows Vista Web site that is meant to help laypeople (like me) “get ready” for the release of the long-awaited (and long-delayed) next incarnation of Windows. Here’s a snippet:

Getting ready for Windows Vista, available in early 2007, means choosing the edition that’s right for you and ensuring that you have the right PC to enjoy the experiences you want.

I mean, I’m all in favor of enjoying the experiences I want, but available in early 2007!? That could be January, it could be April. Why in god’s name would I bother getting ready for an operating system that might not be released until almost a year from now?

And then, here’s a nice touch: The Editions (dum dum dum).

The five different editions of Windows Vista are designed to fit the way you intend to use your PC.

WTF? Forgive me if I have a little trouble deciding whether I want to buy Windows Vista Home Premium or just Windows Vista Home Basic. Oh wait, who gives a crap? It’s not coming out this year anyway.

Of course, my frustration is mitigated by the promising new features! Like Windows Vista Aero!

Windows Aero is an environment with an additional level of visual sophistication, one that is even more responsive and manageable, providing a further level of clarity and confidence to Windows users.

Yeah, clarity. As in see-through buttons!

Yay! Just what I’ve always wanted! I can already see my productivity sky-rocketing!

The Whiny Nil is a blog about web development, creativity, and fun. In the next few weeks I’ll move most of the non-Feedmarker related stuff off of this blog and over to The Whiny Nil. I’ll continue posting here on the Feedmarker Blog, but I’ll try to limit the content a little more and stay on topic (Feedmarker, of course!).

Over at the new blog, I’ll be posting about web development, usability, Ruby on Rails, and just about anything else that strikes my fancy. So check it out—a6ebd9d1439cc0fd41eafda2879e3ed7—>

Cedric’s article on why he thinks Rails will never make the mainstream has stirred up a lot of responses. My initial reaction was the same as David’s: would I really want Rails to break into the mainstream?

I don’t think so. This isn’t just some elitist desire to be part of a special club (like listening to bad underground music just because no one else likes it). It’s just that Rails, as an open-source project, is fragile. It’s susceptible to all kinds of dilution and modification at the hands of people who might not care about it as much as the people working on it now.

Even with the Rails ecosystem at its current size, I think there are already conflicts that are tough to resolve. These philosophical debates about how the framework should be built could eventually lead to a split (or branching) in the project. And I think if Rails were to be adopted by the mainstream, it would only hasten those kinds of problems.

The beauty of Rails, I think, is that it’s built by and for people who don’t have to or don’t want to worry about meaningless process requirements or beaurocratic roadblocks. It’s built for people who want to code creatively, unimpeded by all the bullshit that goes along with “enterprise” development.

I, for one, would like to see it stay that way.

Related Links:
Jakob’s take on the discussion – he’s about halfway between the opposing viewpoints.
David’s post from a few months ago, entitled “Ruby On Rails Goes Mainstream” – not sure how this meshes with his response to Cedric’s post.

<—4a1ce33111635ae8e14109d1ed0fe068—>

Jumpcut.com is a suprisingly capable Web-based video editor/mixer. It doesn’t have anywhere near the functionality of a desktop based application (like iMovie), but it has just enough to be dangerous.

You can sequence, transition and trim clips. You can add text and audio. You can control the volume for individual tracks and clips. It’s pretty neat, and kind of addictive.

Here’s a movie I made yesterday (took me about 15 minutes).

A few other applications like this one have come out recently, namely Eyespot and MotionBox. MotionBox isn’t open to the public yet, so I can’t say anything about it. I tried Eyespot, and while it definitely cool (and built in Ruby on Rails), the video mixer doesn’t measure up to Jumpcut’s, which is built entirely in Flash.Whether it’s Jumpcut or someone else, I think one of these applications is going to get it right, and we’re going to see a proliferation of user-created mashups, remixes and cell-phone video movies. Could all of this eventually be used for something more serious, like amateur video reporting or internet-tv shows? I think it could, and probably will.

Lastly, think of this, if someone had told you in 1995 that you’d be able to upload, edit and publish videos in your browser, over a Web connection, what would you have thought? In some ways it’s amazing we can even do this (thanks to ever-increasing availability of high-speed connections). In other ways, I’m not surprised; in fact, I’m even a little disappointed it has taken this long just to get a rudimentary online video editor. Still I think it’s great, and I encourage you to play around with it.

LINK: http://www.jumpcut.com

Some of us are still using the old bookmarklet from the previous version of Feedmarker, but for new users, I’ve added a bookmarklet on the “new source” page that you can use to make posting to Feedmarker a lot easier.

Here it is, just drag it to your browser toolbar:

Save to FM

Rich over at Basement.org has a great post on why it’s important to take a step back from all the buzzwords and think objectively about Web2.0. In it he looks at some traffic stats from a few Web2.0 players and wonders how many of the hundreds out there are even getting noticed (much less turning a profit).

I don’t think he’s trying to downplay the importance of things like AJAX, Ruby On Rails and other cutting edge innovations. But it’s good to hear someone trying to get a little perspective on the situation.

Especially when you start seeing postings like this on the Ruby Jobs list:

Looking for rock star to join rocket ship startup

Don’t get me wrong, maybe it’s a great job (or maybe they’re just being tongue-in-cheek), but “rocket ship startup” is not the kind of thing that, for me at least, inspires confidence. (Note to rocket ship startup: dude, call me)

Anyway, here’s the part that I found really interesting. Rich uses the following graph to illustrate how CNET is still way ahead of guys like Engadget, Boingboing, Techcrunch and Lifehacker (CNET’s in aqua):

Ok, so CNET’s way ahead. But what I find interesting is that everybody got a big bump somewhere toward the end of 2005, and that increase has been sustained thus far in 2006. So what’s going on in the tech/IT world that is making people more interested in technology in general?

I’m not sure what it is. And I agree with’s Rich’s caveats about buzzword intoxication. But I think that bump is a good thing.

Usability is expectation

My boxers need a redesign. Either that or I need to find a different brand of undergarments.

Today, for the seventeenth time this year I showed up to work with my underwear on backward. I discovered this 45 seconds before an important meeting, when I rushed to the bathroom to try a preemptive #1.

Do you know how confusing it is, as a man, to unzip your fly and find your equipment, um, unreachable? It’s so disorienting that it takes a while to figure out what’s wrong, and you stand there searching around in your pants for a cotton flap that just isn’t there.

The other men in the bathroom notice. Their respect for you drops reflexively. Because a man who can’t sucessfuly pee at a urinal without doing a both-hands-down-his-trousers jitterbug deserves ostracization. He is cut off from the pack. A loser.

But I am not a loser. I can urinate with the best of them (one-handed, button-flied, etc.). It’s just that the design of my boxers conflicts with a decades-long established usability standard.

And that is this: when it comes to clothing, and especially to boxer-briefs, the tag goes in the back.

You see, the geniuses at Nautica decided that on this particular model of underwear the tag (washing directions and all) would be in the front.

That means when I wake up, pseudo-comatose, at 6:45 in the morning, and put on some fresh undies, chances are I’m going to put them on wrong.

Because the user interface completely ignores my expectations.

After 24 years (give or take a few diaper-years) of using the product, I’ve come to expect the tag in the back. That, in turn, lets me know where to put my right and left legs, and ensures that I won’t get stuck in the handicapped stall of a restroom 15 seconds before a boss-meeting performing an acrobatic switcheroo while standing on the toilet seat so nobody sees me.

Usability testing would show that my boxers are not intuitive. Consultants would be hired, strategies devised, someone would put in a RFI and someone else would create PowerPoint presentation (imagine the clip art on that one!).

And all of this would lead to the conclusion that, while putting the tag in the front might look nice, and it might even have some advantages (easier to read, etc.), it just doesn’t line up with people’s expectations of how a piece of underwear should work.

So what does that mean?

Usability is impossible unless you understand your users’ expectations. That doesn’t mean you can never innovate, or do an interface that works differently from what’s been done in the past. It just means if you’re going to do that, it has to be a conscious, considered choice, with an understanding of what the consequences might be.

And if you know your design choice goes against the established grain, realize that you’ll have to educate your users. The tag in the front might be a great idea, but if you don’t explain it to me, I’ll just keep putting my damned underwear on backwards and thinking about how next time, I’m going to buy a more intuitive brand of boxers.

How could Nautica have done better? First, make the tag stand out more (it’s a dull blue now). Make it bright red, and big. Then, add a nice bold arrow pointing forward.

Don’t be afraid to make bold design choices, especially if you really think it’s worth it.

But understand your users, and help bridge the gap between their expectations and your innovative design.

PS - Yes, it has occured to me that I’m just unskilled at putting on underwear and this is really more user error than design flaw. But this is my post and I don’t intend to humiliate or embarrass myself in it. Feel free to do that in the comments.