Confusability

Knuth's advice for young people

Donald Knuth - Computer Scientist - Peoples Archive

If somebody said what advice would I give to a young person, they always ask that funny kind of a question. And I think one of the things that I would, that would sort of come first to me is this idea of, don't just believe that because something is trendy, that it's good. I'd probably go the other extreme where if something, if I find too many people adopting a certain idea I'd probably think it's wrong or if, you know, if my work had become too popular I'd probably think I'd have to change. That's of course ridiculous but I see the other side of it too often where people will do something against their own gut instincts because they think the community wants them to do it that way, so people will work on a certain subject even though they aren't terribly interested in it because they think that they'll get more prestige by working on it. I think you get more prestige by doing good science than by doing popular science because if you go with what you really think is important then it's a higher chance that it really is important in the long run and it's the long run which has the most benefit to the world. So usually when I'm writing a book or publishing a book it's different from books that have been done before because I feel there's a need for such a book, not because there was somebody saying please write such a book, you know, or that other people have already done that kind of thing. So follow your own instincts it seems to me is better than follow the herd. My friend Peter Wegner told me in the '60s that I should, for "The Art of Computer Programming" I shouldn't write the whole series first, I should first write a reader's digest of it and then expand on the parts afterwards. That would probably work for him better than me, much better, but I work in a completely different way. I have to see something to the point where I've surrounded it and totally understood it before I can write about it with any confidence and so that's the way I work, I don't want to write about a high level thing unless I've fully understood a low level thing. Other people have completely different strengths I know but for me, you know, I wrote a book about a few verses of the Bible, once I understood those verses and sort of everything I could find in the library about a small part of the Bible, all of a sudden I had firm pegs on which I could hang other knowledge about it. But if I went through my whole life only on, without any in depth knowledge of any part then it all seems to be flimsy and to me doesn't given me some satisfaction. The classic phrase is that liberal education is to learn something about everything and everything about something and I like this idea about learning everything about an area before you feel, if you don't know something real solid then you never have enough confidence. A lot of times I'll have to read through a lot of material just in order to write one sentence somehow because my sentence will then have, I'll choose words that make it more convincing than if I, if I really don't have the knowledge it'll somehow come out implicitly in my writing. These are little sort-of-vague thoughts that I have when reflecting over some of the directions that distinguish what I've done from what I've seen other people doing.

Blogging About Work

The TUC have published some very well written, common sense guidelines for blogging about work:

• What are the rules on blogging about work?  more...
• Can I avoid getting the sack for blogging about work?  more...
• Do any employers encourage blogging? Why?  more...
• If I am sacked for blogging, what are my rights?  more...

I choose not to blog about work as I like to keep my work and personal life completely separate.

Bribery, Gifts and Corruption

I just won a competition and have won a Slingbox. Now I just have to work out what I am going to use it for!

After that piece of good luck, I would like someone to tell me how I can get hold of the Vista PC that Joel Spolsky turned down.

Here is Joel's advice on Vista:

1. Do not, under any circumstances, consider upgrading an XP system to Vista... even if it's fairly new and even if it's Vista Supremo Premium Ultra-Capable.
2. When you get a new computer, if it comes with Vista pre-installed, that's when you'll upgrade.
3. Don't buy a new computer now just to get Vista. If your current system meets your needs, stick with it until you really need a new system. Vista is not reason enough for a new PC.

It's heartening to see Joel setting a good example on bribery and corruption.

The Future Of Software Engineering

From an interview with Grady Booch:

FJ: Do you think the innovation in software engineering is diminishing or thriving? What's the Best Practice in software innovation?

GB: Software is perhaps the world's most important industry: what we do touches upon every other industry, and both create new businesses as well as greater efficiencies in existing ones. Some areas of the field are mature; some are still in a stage of vibrant innovation, some areas need a bit of new vitality.

FJ: What's your career advice for people who work in software industry?

GB: Being a software developer is both a privilege and a responsibility. In this field, there are so many places to grow and contribute. Learn by studying the work of others; follow your passion. Most of all, be sure you have fun in the process.

Agile Arrogance on the wane?

In his latest Agile Newsletter Scott Abmler writes:

A few months ago I attended a user group meeting and the person giving the presentation had some incredible insights into software development. After the presentation a bunch of us went out to a local pub where I had the opportunity to speak one-on-one with the presenter. I told him that his techniques, which had been proven in practice many times over, would be of great interest to the agile community and I invited him to share his ideas with the community. He snorted and said that he had tried to do exactly that, but had been all but banned from the discussion lists which he had joined. He said that he'd been treated so poorly by the "close-minded agilists" that he wasn't interested in even trying to get involved with us any more.

I myself have seen abhorrent behavior occur on several of our most popular discussion forums, conferences, and user group meetings. It seems that there are several "favorite whipping boys" that are commonly attacked on agile discussion lists, regardless of experience in those topics on the part of the discussers. I'm often astounded at how stupid and incompetent management is portrayed to be, ignoring the fact that these are often very intelligent people doing the best that they can in often less-than-ideal situations. Everyone knows that the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is the root of all evil, even though some interesting work is being done in Agile CMM and in (egads!) an Agile Maturity Model itself. The Unified Process (UP) is also commonly attacked, regardless of the numerous case studies written about how it's been instantiated in an agile manner, not to mention freely available agile versions such as the Agile Unified Process (AUP), Open Unified Process (OpenUP), and Essential Unified Process (EssUP). A lot of people on the lists "just know" that quality assurance (QA) and data management (DM) groups within organizations are simply incapable of being effective members of agile teams. It seems to me that our community has many unwarranted prejudices, prejudices that could very likely turn potential converts away from agile software development.

Truth be told, I'm no saint; I've been known to give data professionals a relatively hard time (okay, a really hard time), but at least I make a conscious attempt to understand and present the philosophies and techniques of the traditional DM community in a fair light.

Full Article: An Agile New Year's Resolution for All of Us

Can we have co-operation without organisations?

Scott W Ambler wrote a review of Dark Ages in his Dr Dobbs Agile Newsletter this week:

So why should you care? First, like all of Jacob's other books, this book is a really provocative read which will get you really thinking about the society in which we live. Second, for IT professionals the chapters on education and certification, as well as on self-policing of the professions, provides significant insight into how we need to evolve our profession. Are we really providing computer science graduates with an education, or are we merely certifying that graduates are worthy of a job interview? Do our existing certification programs provide any real value, or are they simply a money grab on the part of the certifiers? Should we set up a body which polices IT professionals? Would we be able to do so in a manner which provides any value at all? These are all interesting questions, and although this book may not directly provide the answers it will provide interesting insight.

Dark Age Ahead by Jane Jacobs

From the Wikipedia entry for Information Ethics:

Dilemmas regarding the life of information are becoming increasingly important in a society that is defined as "the information society". Information transmission and literacy are essential concerns in establishing an ethical foundation that promotes fair, equitable, and responsible practices. Information ethics broadly examines issues related to ownership, access, privacy, security, and community.

Information technology affects fundamental rights involving copyright protection, intellectual freedom, accountability, and security.

Professional codes offer a basis for making ethical decisions and applying ethical solutions to situations involving information provision and use which reflect an organization’s commitment to responsible information service. Evolving information formats and needs require continual reconsideration of ethical principles and how these codes are applied. Considerations regarding information ethics influence “personal decisions, professional practice, and public policy” (Elrod & Smith, 2005). Therefore, ethical analysis must provide a framework to take into consideration “many, diverse domains” (ibid.) regarding how information is distributed.

How much do know about the Computer Professionals For Social Responsibility (CPSR) ?

Mission: CPSR is a public-interest alliance of people concerned about the impact of information and communications technology on society. We work to influence decisions regarding the development and use of computers because those decisions have far-reaching consequences and reflect our basic values and priorities. As experts on ICT issues, CPSR members provide realistic assessments of the power, promise, and limitations of computer technology. As concerned citizens, we direct public attention to critical choices concerning the applications of computing and how those choices affect society.

Terry Winograd had this to say about Advocacy Organisations and the CPSR:

These groups exist to promote the interests (direct or indirect) of a particular constituency. The most obvious relevant ones to CPSR are professional organizations, such as ACM, IEEE, Association for Software Design, Usability Professional Association, etc. Other examples that aren't professional include organizations such as AARP and those for particular ethnic or regional groups.

People who join or support advocacy groups are generally members of the benefited constituency. The group need not be selfishly devoted to only that group, but the measure of whether an issue is relevant or not is how it will affect the specific group.

CPSR has explicitly stated that we are not an advocacy group for computer professionals, and that has been one of the things that has distinguished us from groups like those listed above.

If you search for CPSR and UPA on you are point to Keith Instone and Jeff Johnson. Jeff was involved in the Election Incident Reporting System (EIRS) where they admitted that:

User interface and usability experts joined the project only after design and development had already begun.  This ruled out a conventional front-loaded user-centered process.  The early EIRS team did start with requirements analysis and use-cases, but developed minimal conceptual design or UI design specifications prior to starting implementation.

The UI and usability team usually found itself in the position of playing “catch-up”:  trying to ensure the usability of an application for which design was being done mainly by programmers, and on which implementation was proceeding rapidly.  Therefore, usability evaluation played a more prominent role in ensuring EIRS’ usability than did conventional up-front interaction design methods.

Open Source Usability seems to be a 2.0 artifact:

In 2005, Aspiration and Blue Oxen Associates organized two FLOSS Usability Sprints. Our motivation was simple, but grandiose: We wanted to make open source software more usable. By all accounts, the sprints were successful, and we plan to do more of them in 2006. However, the sprints were only meant to be the first steps in a much larger strategy for improving the usability of open source software. This paper describes the larger vision for how we expect to achieve this goal and the next steps for fulfilling this vision.

Our strategy for improving the usability of FLOSS is to attack the entire system, not just individual projects within the system. In particular, we want to bring the already established, but siloed usability and open source communities together and catalyze collaboration between them.

Community collaboration is a sustainable strategy for improving FLOSS usability with a number of concrete benefits.

My questions are these:

1. Are the old style of organisations getting in the way of our different disciplines collaborating? 
2. Should we be organising around single issues in multi disciplinary groups?
3. Can we put aside our differences and work together to try and humanise this thing we call technology?

Chris McEvoy - December 2006

Talkin bout a Permanent Revolution.

Five years ago today I unleashed usabilitymustdie.com on an unsuspecting world. I have spent the subsequent half decade contributing in a more slightly more positive manner, but I am glad that I published this heretical site because the issues are still being discussed today.

I am now wondering if IA is going through the same growth pains?

These three recent events may be more than coincidence:

IA or not IA, Adam Greenfield, 4th October 2006.
Rest in peace, iaslash , Michael Angeles, 30th October 2006.
Why am I so angry?, Christina Wodtke, 11th November 2006.

Permanent revolution anyone?   

Putting your money where your (accessible) mouth is

Support Joe in his quest for a research project

I’m appealing to supporters to donate small amounts to support me while I start up a research project.

Micropatronage is a form of fundraising in which many donors give small amounts of money. You can donate as much or as little as you want to support me for a limited period of time (nominally, four months) as I try to raise about $7 million Canadian for an accessibility research project. You aren’t funding the project; you are not contributing to the $7 million. You’re funding me while I try to raise the money for the project. You are supporting me, not the project.

My donation goal (the amount I am trying to raise) is a convenient $7,777, which, apart from being a lucky number, will keep me afloat at a subsistence level for four months. No honeymoons in Hong Kong here.

The Open & Closed Project

lf only 1,111 people each donated $7 then Joe would reach his target.

IA or not IA by Adam Greenfield

v-2 Organisation : Adam Greenfield 4th October 2006

Given how very much this community has given to me, though, I feel like I owe folks an explanation for my increasing alienation...even if nobody's asked for one. If I'm able to express myself correctly, it should shed some light on why I have been so reluctant to endorse, let alone embrace, the various events and causes to which more a few of you have invited me to lend support over the last few years.

Please bear in mind, as you read the following, that in this case all the usual disclaimers are utterly sincere. I really do respect the hell out of the parties involved, and equally, I mean this criticism - however blunt - to be both constructive and useful.

A lot of this distance is a healthy, and probably inevitable, structural consequence of the field's reaching maturity. The stirring challenges of those first couple of years are now largely resolved, and to the extent that those challenges were constructed as dialectics, most of them broke against the "big IA" viewpoint I was personally most invested in. Practitioners in the field, by and large, now spend their time and energy not in abstract definitional debates but in the nitty-gritty, day-to-day details of managing information flow in the large-scale enterprise. Given that this was never anything I found particularly captivating, it's understandable why I'd look elsewhere for inspiration.

http://www.v-2.org/displayArticle.php?article_num=1037

Bloug : Lou Rosenfeld - 31 Oct 2006

I admire Adam, not only for his broad and obvious intellect, but for the almost tender sincerity he displays while admonishing the field of IA for its lack of intellectual curiosity. Many of his criticisms are spot on. He notes that we've collectively constructed "an environment in which pointed criticism is rarely heard or countenanced". We definitely can be too nice, although let's face it: we're typically not the kind of people who like to make a fuss. And in his understandable impatience, Adam is right to urge us to go further in how we define our problem space, pushing beyond the obvious challenges of intranets, enterprise settings, and so on.

Really, as I read his posting, I find it hard to disagree with much of what Adam has to offer. But when I think about how new fields naturally evolve, much of his thesis falls apart. He's making a common mistake, really: he's forgetting history and his role in it.

http://louisrosenfeld.com/home/bloug_archive/000498.html

Holiday Dogme - Down with digital vacations (again)

The real trouble started when I considered taking my laptop on holiday with me last year. I knew it was wrong, but I had to be able to edit my digital holiday photos and update my holiday blog at the end of each day so that I could create the most complete digital imprint of my holiday that was possible.

This got me worried, so I didn't take the laptop and I started to think about problems with the ever increasing digitisation of the holiday experience.

more ...

NoGoDaddy

Adam Greenfield draws our attention to Bob Parsons post stating his support for the use of torture in Guantánamo Bay:

Key prisoners at Gitmo still have not talked -- because our interrogation methods are so weak.
Given the type of individuals we have incarcerated at Gitmo (all of them would love to gouge out your eyes --- and most certainly my eyes), the interrogation techniques we are using there are incredibly mild. All of the prisoners receive regular medical attention. In contrast, Americans who are captured in the Middle East have their heads hacked off. The point here is that there’s just no comparison.
Bob Parsons Blog

Bob seems to be saying that "Torture by Americans Good, Torture of Americans Bad".

Well, I will join the boycott and stop using or recommending GoDaddy. I notice that TypePad mention GoDaddy in their help files as one of four "popular registrars". Whilst not actually recommending GoDaddy, I wonder if the people at SixApart would remove the implied support of GoDaddy and remove the reference from their site. I'll e-mail Anil and see what happens.

Guantánamo detentions enter fourth year as torture allegations mount
"Along with the individual detainees and their families, the rule of law is falling victim to this disdain for the judiciary", Amnesty International said. "The example being set by Guantánamo is of a world where basic human rights are negotiable, and where arbitrary detention and selective second-class justice become acceptable in the name of security."

Amnesty International reiterates its call for the Guantánamo detainees to be brought to fair trial or released -- with proposed trials by military commission terminated once and for all. All allegations of torture or ill-treatment in Guantánamo or elsewhere must be independently investigated, and anyone responsible for torture or ill-treatment brought to justice. All secret and incommunicado detention must be ended immediately, as must secret transfers of detainees between countries.
Amnesty International Press Release

Halliburton given $30m to expand Guantanamo Bay
Not only Democrats but also several prominent Republicans - among them Mel Martinez, Florida Senator and former Bush cabinet member - have publicly argued that the damage to America's image caused by the prison now outweighs any practical benefits it might have. Joe Biden, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has described the prison's image as a "recruiting agent" for al-Qa'ida.
The Independent

BBC News Item or Death Race 2000 Remake?

Every working day for the past ten years I have travelled between Bristol and Swindon on the M4 motorway.

Today I had to extra careful with my speed as cameras had been placed along the section of the M4 I use every day which would be used to automatically fine people £60 and give then three penalty points on their license if they followed the majority practice of travelling at 80 or 90 miles an hour.

There was a story on the BBC News site entitled "Cameras stem from huge death toll", which explained that the cameras were being introuduced to try and reduce the number of fatalaties on that section of the M4. The story stated that "240 people died on the M4 in Wiltshire last year ".

That meant that almost five people died every week on my route to work in 2003. Now I may be a bit forgetful, but I am sure that I would have noticed if hundreds of people were being killed in motorway accidents. There was obviously something wrong with this story, but when I read the next sentence I was even more bemused to read this quote from Saira Khan a spokeswoman for the Swindon & Wiltshire Speed Camera Partnership where she said "If those 240 people had been wiped out in one day there would have been an outcry."

Yes Saira, and there would also have been an outcry if 240 people had died in dribs and drabs over twelve months let alone all in one go. After a quick google search I found an article from The Times that "There were 18 deaths, 69 serious injuries and 641 slight injuries between junctions 15 and 17 between 2001 and 2004."

Now this was evidence that the BBC story was way off the mark, perhaps they had added a zero to 24 by mistake, or perhaps they were talking about the number of badgers that had been killed on the M4 last year.

After e-mailing the BBC with my concerns the story was changed very, very quickly.

The title was changed to "Cameras used to slow drivers down" and the fatalities statement was changed to a more reasonable "240 people died or were seriously hurt on the M4".

But the change that shocked me was the change to the quote from Saira Khan which had been changed from:

"If those 240 people had been wiped out in one day there would have been an outcry."

to:

"If those 240 people had been involved in in one incident in one day there would have been an outcry."

You can see captured images of the two stories side by side by clicking on the image below:

http://usability.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/montage.jpg

I can understand that a reporter might had mis-read the statistic about the 240 people, but how did they mis-read or mis-hear the quote from Saira Khan?

Trust is very hard to earn, but it can be damaged very easily.

BBC News Story : Cameras used to slow drivers down - 13 April 2005 10:24 GMT

I then noticed that there was another version of the story on a different section of the BBC site that had a more reasonable title of "Speed cameras target M4 drivers". It contained almost the same content as the other story, the number of deaths and injuries were described as "more than 200 people had died or were seriously injured on the M4 in the past year", but the Sahira quote was still "240 people died on the M4 in Wiltshire last year ".

These two stories hadn't even been changed in a consistent manner and it changes the view I have of BBC journalists as being ethical and measured in their reporting.

BBC News Story : Speed cameras target M4 drivers - 13 April 2005 10:56 GMT

I will pass this complaint onto the BBC and see what happens.