So here I am in between photo shoots, working on my computer. I've got a bunch of windows open, including some web pages which I'd opened at home, but will need to reference here where I don't have internet access.
My computer has been asking me to reboot (or rather, keeps telling me it's going to, and I keep telling it not to) all afternoon. First, once I say no, it shouldn't keep asking me every 10 minutes. What part of 'no' doesn't it understand? I suspended the machine for a while, and when I turned it back on, it took an unusually long time to start. I began to suspect it was rebooting. Sure enough, I was right. Now, I've been using computers for long enough to know to save my work periodically, which I did, especially before I suspended the machine, so I didn't lose any work. However, it's annoying to have to go back and open up all the programs and files I was working on. And more frustrating at the moment is that the web pages I had up, which I need to reference in order to do some of the homework I was going to work on until my next shoot, are gone. And without internet access, I can't access them again.
Is "the computer ate my resources" a valid excuse for turning homework in late?
Why does Windows say "Saving your settings" when it's shutting down when it's not? If it was saving my settings, it should start back up exactly as I left it - all the programs open, all the files open, even cursors in the same place. Why can't they build updates that don't require re-boots? And if there really is some fundamental reason they have to reboot my computer, why can't they write code to really put my work environment back the way I left it when it's done? I shouldn't even need to know the computer re-booted.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Monday, May 21, 2007
More seemingly benign equipment problems
So the other piece of photo equipment I wanted to write about is not technologically oriented at all. In fact, it's an old style piece of completely non-technical equipment.
We use a bracket whith each camera, which is a piece of metal which attaches along the bottom of the camera, then runs a few inches beyond the end and has a piece that allows you to mount a flash on it, so the flash comes up above the camera. If you can't picture it, don't worry. The setup isn't so important to my story.
So this bracket attaches to the camera with a screw which screws into a hole built into the bottom of nearly all cameras - or at least professional and semi-professional ones (your point and shoot might not have, but all higher end ones do). So the screw usually has a large plate on the bottom which is slightly larger than the size of the bracket and allows you to twist the screw to tighten the camera to the bracket (see photos).
Somehow, one of the brackets I was sent had a screw that did not extend over the sides of the bracket, which made it very difficult to twist. Then, it was octagonal, not the usual round shape, which meant it had nice sharp pointy corners, which made it painful to try and twist it.
The point of these screws is to tighten the camera on so that when you hold it up with the flash, everything stays together in the configuration you've placed it. I couldn't tighten the screw enough so everything went flopping forward when I picked it up.
Luckily they sent me a new one before my next shoot. Not so useful the way it was.
We use a bracket whith each camera, which is a piece of metal which attaches along the bottom of the camera, then runs a few inches beyond the end and has a piece that allows you to mount a flash on it, so the flash comes up above the camera. If you can't picture it, don't worry. The setup isn't so important to my story.
So this bracket attaches to the camera with a screw which screws into a hole built into the bottom of nearly all cameras - or at least professional and semi-professional ones (your point and shoot might not have, but all higher end ones do). So the screw usually has a large plate on the bottom which is slightly larger than the size of the bracket and allows you to twist the screw to tighten the camera to the bracket (see photos).
Somehow, one of the brackets I was sent had a screw that did not extend over the sides of the bracket, which made it very difficult to twist. Then, it was octagonal, not the usual round shape, which meant it had nice sharp pointy corners, which made it painful to try and twist it.
The point of these screws is to tighten the camera on so that when you hold it up with the flash, everything stays together in the configuration you've placed it. I couldn't tighten the screw enough so everything went flopping forward when I picked it up.
Luckily they sent me a new one before my next shoot. Not so useful the way it was.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Design Important Even in Benign Objects
One of the (many) jobs I have is as a photographer. A company I do a lot of work for sends me equipment to use. This year, they made some changes to what they sent.
The one which is relevant to this blog is one of the battery rechargers. The old charger was big and heavy (a major concern when you're carrying equipment on public transit). It made lots of noise when it was charging - so I usually put it in another room, and then inevitably forgot it was there, and left batteries charging for too long. There was no feedback to know when it was done. The instructions from the photo company for the charger were along the lines of:
"slowly plug in the battery. if the indicator light blinks fast, unplug the battery and plug it in again. if it blinks slowly, the battery is charging. don't let it charge for more than 1/2 hr (which was later changed to 1 hr). If the battery gets hot, unplug it immediately." Not very useful for knowing when your batteries are charged.
The new charger is much better designed. First, there's no fan continually cycling off and on. So I can leave it in the same room as I am, and keep an eye on it. Second, when you plug in the battery, there's a button marked 'Start'. Press it, and it beeps at you to tell you it's charging. The first thing it does is test the battery - which it tells you it's doing with the word "TEST"
on the display. An indicator light above the word "start" blinks off and on. When it's done testing, it starts charging. You know it's switched modes because the word "TEST" changes to "CHARGE". The red light above the "start" button goes solid. And there's a diagram of a battery which, as the battery charges, "fills up" to visually show you it's getting fuller. And there's a blinking smiley face in the corner to tell you everything is working well.
When the charge is complete, the charger beeps 3 times to tell you it's done. It also shows a completely full battery in the display. The indicator light over the word "start" goes back to blinking. And the smiley face is still there. Certainly much better than the old charger. In general, it's a well-thought-out interface, with lots of visual feedback to let the user know what's going on and what state it's in. Much, much better than the old charger!
Things that could be improved: Display "DONE" where "CHARGE" and "TEST" were.
Tell you how much more time (in minutes) it has until it's done. Although there is something of a visual clue with the image of a battery getting fuller, it's hard to know how long it will take until it's done. I suppose as I use it more, I'll have a feel for how long it takes total, and therefore how much longer it has. Perhaps this is an item for novice users only, and intermediates develop a feel for how long it takes from use over time.
The one which is relevant to this blog is one of the battery rechargers. The old charger was big and heavy (a major concern when you're carrying equipment on public transit). It made lots of noise when it was charging - so I usually put it in another room, and then inevitably forgot it was there, and left batteries charging for too long. There was no feedback to know when it was done. The instructions from the photo company for the charger were along the lines of:
"slowly plug in the battery. if the indicator light blinks fast, unplug the battery and plug it in again. if it blinks slowly, the battery is charging. don't let it charge for more than 1/2 hr (which was later changed to 1 hr). If the battery gets hot, unplug it immediately." Not very useful for knowing when your batteries are charged.
The new charger is much better designed. First, there's no fan continually cycling off and on. So I can leave it in the same room as I am, and keep an eye on it. Second, when you plug in the battery, there's a button marked 'Start'. Press it, and it beeps at you to tell you it's charging. The first thing it does is test the battery - which it tells you it's doing with the word "TEST"
on the display. An indicator light above the word "start" blinks off and on. When it's done testing, it starts charging. You know it's switched modes because the word "TEST" changes to "CHARGE". The red light above the "start" button goes solid. And there's a diagram of a battery which, as the battery charges, "fills up" to visually show you it's getting fuller. And there's a blinking smiley face in the corner to tell you everything is working well.
When the charge is complete, the charger beeps 3 times to tell you it's done. It also shows a completely full battery in the display. The indicator light over the word "start" goes back to blinking. And the smiley face is still there. Certainly much better than the old charger. In general, it's a well-thought-out interface, with lots of visual feedback to let the user know what's going on and what state it's in. Much, much better than the old charger!
Things that could be improved: Display "DONE" where "CHARGE" and "TEST" were.
Tell you how much more time (in minutes) it has until it's done. Although there is something of a visual clue with the image of a battery getting fuller, it's hard to know how long it will take until it's done. I suppose as I use it more, I'll have a feel for how long it takes total, and therefore how much longer it has. Perhaps this is an item for novice users only, and intermediates develop a feel for how long it takes from use over time.
Of Mice, Part II
One of my favorite technology toys is the mouse for my laptop. It's one of the best designed devices I have. It's small, but not too small, and fits comfortably in my hand (a previous laptop mouse went back to the store because, among other problems, it was too small to comfortably use). The top of the mouse has your standard left and right buttons, as well as a roller in the middle for easy scrolling. So far, all pretty standard.
The best part is when you flip the mouse over. The USB connector, which allows the mouse to wirelessly communicate with the laptop, has a docking port on the bottom where it not only fits snuggly into the mouse so it doesn't get lost, it also turns the mouse off. Nice way to not drain the batteries.
Other nice features: the mouse turns off after a short amount of time, again not to drain the batteries. Just click on one of the buttons when you want to use it again, and it wakes back up. There's also a small light on the top which tells you when your battery is getting low. No wondering why the mouse is acting strange (as mine was this morning - light told me it was out of juice.)
The best part is when you flip the mouse over. The USB connector, which allows the mouse to wirelessly communicate with the laptop, has a docking port on the bottom where it not only fits snuggly into the mouse so it doesn't get lost, it also turns the mouse off. Nice way to not drain the batteries.
Other nice features: the mouse turns off after a short amount of time, again not to drain the batteries. Just click on one of the buttons when you want to use it again, and it wakes back up. There's also a small light on the top which tells you when your battery is getting low. No wondering why the mouse is acting strange (as mine was this morning - light told me it was out of juice.)
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Of Mice & Motor Control
Yesterday, I was working in Visio, trying to line up boxes and re-size them. I was finding it very difficult to move things only a few pixels at a time, so kept over-shooting where I wanted to go, or not moving things far enough.
I use a trackball mouse, which I love (prevents problems with my wrists, and when I was working, kept other people off my computer). In general, I feel like it gives me more control than a regular mouse, but still was having problems. My solution was, when possible, to highlight the object and move it around using the arrow keys, which move in small increments so alignment is much easier. It was not an ideal solution, because required moving back and forth from the keyboard to the mouse, but at least it lined things up where I needed them.
While I was struggling with this, I started thinking about other ways of interacting with the monitor. Over the weekend I had been reading one of the chapters in About Face 2.0 - The Essentials of Interaction Design by Alan Cooper and Robert Reimann that talked about manipulation devices and motor control. The book talks about several different types of
devices, including light pens, touchpads, trackballs, and of course, mice. In the book, they discuss how pens aren't practical when using vertical displays, since our motor skills don't allow us to have much fine motor control when also holding our arms vertical. Pens work well on horizontal surfaces (paper laying on a desk), but not on vertical computer screens. Which had me wondering why computer screens are vertical at all. We develop all sorts of problems from sitting at computers improperly - back problems, eye strain, carpal tunnel syndrome. None of these existed when we worked with pen and paper on a desk. Why don't we change the way computers are designed, so they mimic these? Why not have the monitor flat on the desk? Technology now enables touch screens, so why have to have a keyboard at all? Why not let me just point to what I need directly, instead of with the intermediary of a mouse, and write directly on the screen, instead of having to use a keyboard? Spending a short time teaching the software to recognize a user's handwriting would certainly be faster than teaching the user to type as quickly as they write. It would solve the physical problems a lot of people have developed from sitting at a computer all day, and would probably make parts of interaction design much easier because users would have much more fine motor control than they do with a mouse.
I use a trackball mouse, which I love (prevents problems with my wrists, and when I was working, kept other people off my computer). In general, I feel like it gives me more control than a regular mouse, but still was having problems. My solution was, when possible, to highlight the object and move it around using the arrow keys, which move in small increments so alignment is much easier. It was not an ideal solution, because required moving back and forth from the keyboard to the mouse, but at least it lined things up where I needed them.
While I was struggling with this, I started thinking about other ways of interacting with the monitor. Over the weekend I had been reading one of the chapters in About Face 2.0 - The Essentials of Interaction Design by Alan Cooper and Robert Reimann that talked about manipulation devices and motor control. The book talks about several different types of
devices, including light pens, touchpads, trackballs, and of course, mice. In the book, they discuss how pens aren't practical when using vertical displays, since our motor skills don't allow us to have much fine motor control when also holding our arms vertical. Pens work well on horizontal surfaces (paper laying on a desk), but not on vertical computer screens. Which had me wondering why computer screens are vertical at all. We develop all sorts of problems from sitting at computers improperly - back problems, eye strain, carpal tunnel syndrome. None of these existed when we worked with pen and paper on a desk. Why don't we change the way computers are designed, so they mimic these? Why not have the monitor flat on the desk? Technology now enables touch screens, so why have to have a keyboard at all? Why not let me just point to what I need directly, instead of with the intermediary of a mouse, and write directly on the screen, instead of having to use a keyboard? Spending a short time teaching the software to recognize a user's handwriting would certainly be faster than teaching the user to type as quickly as they write. It would solve the physical problems a lot of people have developed from sitting at a computer all day, and would probably make parts of interaction design much easier because users would have much more fine motor control than they do with a mouse.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)