So Google came out with their new Chrome Operating System, loaded it onto a laptop and gave the whole caboodle of people to play with and comment on. While Chrome OS has generated a lot of comments, the largest and most active discussion has been about the Caps Lock key. You see, Google has changed the behavior of the key that used to be Caps Lock to instead call up a search page. I am sure this change was made to pander to keyboard weenies who want to Google without having to lift their hands from the keyboard. Anyway, the change has backfired. Instead of talking about Chrome OS, everyone is engaged in a furious discussion of why the Caps Lock is either essential or should have been disposed of a long time ago.
I have two problems with the Caps Lock, no make that three. The first problem is that it sits right between two important keys. Below is the Shift key whose importance needs no explanation. Above it is the Tab key, used for next field, command completion, automatic indent and plenty of other useful purposes. In the middle sits Caps Lock just waiting to be hit by accident. This brings to the next problem, Caps Lock is modal. Hit the Caps Lock key by accident and you do not make just one typing mistake, rather the whole keyboard is shifted into a new mode and the error compounds. By the time I look at the screen, I have typed half a sentence in the wrong case.
I am a member of the tribe that hates modal user interfaces with a passion. Some of my compatriots physically remove the Caps Lock key or reprogram their keyboard to reduce typing errors. I have only gone as far as to disable that other annoying modal key. The Insert key is used by many editors to switch between insert mode and overtype mode. If you hit Caps Lock by accident, the result is obvious, if you hit Insert by accident you can go on for some time before you realize that you are seriously damaging the document that you are trying to fix up. Of course, the Insert key is slightly off the main keyboard, right above the really useful Delete key and just waiting to be hit by accident.
My final problem with the Caps Lock key is that if you are in Caps Lock mode and you press shift, it reverts back to entering lower case. This means that when I hit cAPS lOCK by accident every key I type is in the wrong case, not just some of them. I happen to have an old typewriter from the 1930's so I know what shift really means. The Shift key causes the whole paper carriage and platen to move so that when the typebar comes down a different type piece strikes the ink ribbon and paper. Shifting the platen is why it is called the Shift key and it is a heavy key to hold, so there is a Shift Lock key that is a mechanical lock to hold the platen in the shifted position. With the platen locked in the shift position, hitting the shift key does nothing, so why has someone gone to the trouble of programming bogus behavior in out modern and supposedly more convenient keyboards?
Now, I know that there are people who love the Caps Lock key and who use it all the time. For my part, given the choice between a key that causes a small typing mistake every time I hit it by accident and a key that brings up a new web page by accident, I will choose the Caps Lock function every time. Caps Lock is annoying but I have lived with it for a long time and it is much smaller surprise than a new page that I do not want.
Showing posts with label UI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UI. Show all posts
Monday, December 20, 2010
Monday, November 30, 2009
Consumerization of IT
A new generation is entering the workforce and they are just not going to take it any more. Brian Gentile, CEO of Jaspersoft, did not say these exact words, but it conveys the intent of the introduction to his talk on "Consumerization of IT" at the November meeting of the SDForum Business Intelligence SIG.
Brian was talking about Generation Y, the first generation to have grown up with computers and instant communication to the extent that they take them for granted. More that that they have expectations about these tools and what they can do with them. Unfortunately, enterprise software has often created systems that are slow, ugly and so difficult to use that it can requires weeks of training. While previous generations have put up with difficult software because they know no better, Gen Y does know that it can be better and is not going to put up with software that does not match up.
Brian identified 4 characteristics that Business Intelligence, or any enterprise software must provide to meet the next generations expectations. They are:
While I have heard people argue that current Business Intelligence software does not provide a good user experience, Brian put a positive light on this trend, as if the change is for the good and the right thing to do. He is certainly positioning JasperSoft to provide these features and meet the requirements of the next generation.
Brian ended with another optimistic note. The cost of Information Technology is coming down with cheaper hardware and Open Source software. CIO's can direct the money they save to new innovative projects. A good example of this movement is Ingres talking about "The New Economics of IT" as they have been doing for some time.
Brian was talking about Generation Y, the first generation to have grown up with computers and instant communication to the extent that they take them for granted. More that that they have expectations about these tools and what they can do with them. Unfortunately, enterprise software has often created systems that are slow, ugly and so difficult to use that it can requires weeks of training. While previous generations have put up with difficult software because they know no better, Gen Y does know that it can be better and is not going to put up with software that does not match up.
Brian identified 4 characteristics that Business Intelligence, or any enterprise software must provide to meet the next generations expectations. They are:
- Elegant presentation.
- Easy access to data.
- Extensive Customization.
- Built In Collaboration.
While I have heard people argue that current Business Intelligence software does not provide a good user experience, Brian put a positive light on this trend, as if the change is for the good and the right thing to do. He is certainly positioning JasperSoft to provide these features and meet the requirements of the next generation.
Brian ended with another optimistic note. The cost of Information Technology is coming down with cheaper hardware and Open Source software. CIO's can direct the money they save to new innovative projects. A good example of this movement is Ingres talking about "The New Economics of IT" as they have been doing for some time.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Search User Experience Innovations
Innovations in the Search User Experience was the topic at the September meeting of the SDForum Search SIG. The distinguished panel from Microsoft, Google and Yahoo was chaired by Safa Rashtchy, a long time analyst and commentator on the Search scene.
First, Sean Suchter General Manager of Microsoft's Search Technology Center Silicon Valley told us about the latest innovations in Bing. Sean started out with some numbers, showing that the Internet is still growing at a fast pace and that search is growing faster than the Internet in general. They measure their user's experience and see that about a quarter of searches are failures, resulting in an immediate click back. On the other hand, getting on for a half the search queries are further refined meaning that the user is engaged in a search session. Microsoft will recognize these sessions and use them to improve the user experience.
To simplify the user experience, when they are confident about what a user is searching for, Bing will show one subject on the first page with a number of related links. Sean showed us two examples. Firstly for the search term "target", where they assume the person is looking for the Target chain of stores, they show a complete set of links to Target and shopping related pages with a single link to get other search results that are not related to Target stores. The second example was "ups" where they they only show links related to United Parcel Services and sending parcels on the first page.
Next up was Johanna Wright, Director of Web Search Product Management at Google. Johanna started off by telling us that that 20% of searches have never been seen before, and that Google is dedicated to serving the long tail of web searches as well as more popular ones. To show us how far the search experience has come in the last few years, she applied the search term "how to tie a tie" to an index that they had saved from 2001, and compared it with what you get today. In 2001 you got a miscellaneous collection of links to sites like "The Indus Entrepreneur" with none about tying ties. Now you get relevant links along with image and video links, a tremendous improvement.
Johanna talked about how speed is essential to a good user experience. A couple of years ago, they added related links to popular search terms like "target" to reduce the number of steps a user needs to make to get to the page they want. Google continues to work on helping users with query formulation. She showed us the options panel that you access by clicking the "search options" link on a search results page and how it can be used to refine a search.
Finally, Dr. Larry Cornett, vice president of the Yahoo! Search Consumer Products division spoke. He started by reassuring us that Yahoo! is still in the search business and that if and when the planned combination of Yahoo! Search with Microsoft goes through, they will still provide their own front end and control their user's experience. Yahoo!'s goal has always been to personalize and structure the web. We saw the new layout for Yahoo! search results in the typical Yahoo! busy style.
After the demo's, the floor was thrown open to audience questions. Someone asked about natural language support for queries. Sean told the story as he has been in the search business for a long time. In the early days of search, natural language queries were considered important research area. Then the issue went away as providing relevant answers to queries became the dominant problem. Now that giving good answers is under control, natural language queries are making a comeback. Recently Microsoft bought Powerset to help them in this area.
There were several questions about the sizes of market segments, and growth rates, particularly in the mobile space, to which the panel would not give answers. The audience did manage to uncover the fact that while adult searches are more prevalent than mobile searches, mobile searches have been growing fast since the introduction of the iPhone and other smartphones.
Another set of questions related to real time search. All three search engines have been working on improving the speed with which they update their indexes so that they are current. There is still an open question about whether the major search engines embrace real time search or make it a separate option.
First, Sean Suchter General Manager of Microsoft's Search Technology Center Silicon Valley told us about the latest innovations in Bing. Sean started out with some numbers, showing that the Internet is still growing at a fast pace and that search is growing faster than the Internet in general. They measure their user's experience and see that about a quarter of searches are failures, resulting in an immediate click back. On the other hand, getting on for a half the search queries are further refined meaning that the user is engaged in a search session. Microsoft will recognize these sessions and use them to improve the user experience.
To simplify the user experience, when they are confident about what a user is searching for, Bing will show one subject on the first page with a number of related links. Sean showed us two examples. Firstly for the search term "target", where they assume the person is looking for the Target chain of stores, they show a complete set of links to Target and shopping related pages with a single link to get other search results that are not related to Target stores. The second example was "ups" where they they only show links related to United Parcel Services and sending parcels on the first page.
Next up was Johanna Wright, Director of Web Search Product Management at Google. Johanna started off by telling us that that 20% of searches have never been seen before, and that Google is dedicated to serving the long tail of web searches as well as more popular ones. To show us how far the search experience has come in the last few years, she applied the search term "how to tie a tie" to an index that they had saved from 2001, and compared it with what you get today. In 2001 you got a miscellaneous collection of links to sites like "The Indus Entrepreneur" with none about tying ties. Now you get relevant links along with image and video links, a tremendous improvement.
Johanna talked about how speed is essential to a good user experience. A couple of years ago, they added related links to popular search terms like "target" to reduce the number of steps a user needs to make to get to the page they want. Google continues to work on helping users with query formulation. She showed us the options panel that you access by clicking the "search options" link on a search results page and how it can be used to refine a search.
Finally, Dr. Larry Cornett, vice president of the Yahoo! Search Consumer Products division spoke. He started by reassuring us that Yahoo! is still in the search business and that if and when the planned combination of Yahoo! Search with Microsoft goes through, they will still provide their own front end and control their user's experience. Yahoo!'s goal has always been to personalize and structure the web. We saw the new layout for Yahoo! search results in the typical Yahoo! busy style.
After the demo's, the floor was thrown open to audience questions. Someone asked about natural language support for queries. Sean told the story as he has been in the search business for a long time. In the early days of search, natural language queries were considered important research area. Then the issue went away as providing relevant answers to queries became the dominant problem. Now that giving good answers is under control, natural language queries are making a comeback. Recently Microsoft bought Powerset to help them in this area.
There were several questions about the sizes of market segments, and growth rates, particularly in the mobile space, to which the panel would not give answers. The audience did manage to uncover the fact that while adult searches are more prevalent than mobile searches, mobile searches have been growing fast since the introduction of the iPhone and other smartphones.
Another set of questions related to real time search. All three search engines have been working on improving the speed with which they update their indexes so that they are current. There is still an open question about whether the major search engines embrace real time search or make it a separate option.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Open Source Business Models
The previous post on Open Source reminds we that we have looked at Open Source business models several times in this blog. Here are a couple of case studies in why software became Open Source.
Apache Derby is an Open Source Java database with an interesting history. Cloudscape, was an early Bay area Java startup. Founded in 1996, Cloudscape came out with its first database product in 1997. In 1999 Informix, bought Cloudscape, and in 2001 IBM bought the database side of Informix, including Cloudscape. Under IBM, Cloudscape development continued, and it was used as an embedded database within several IBM Java products and middleware. In 2004 IBM contributed the code to the Apache Software Foundation as Derby where it has found acceptance.
IBM had acquired Cloudscape by accident when it had acquired Informix, and some time after that acquisition IBM had to decide what to do with Cloudscape. On the one hand, Cloudscape did not fit into IBM product hierarchy. They already had a mobile version of DB2, the database brand and did not need another one. Also Cloudscape did not generate enough revenue to support continued development or be an interesting business. On the other hand, Cloudscape had been adopted for use in many IBM middle tier Java projects. By many I mean at least 70 internal projects were using Cloudscape.
In the end, IBM decided to Open Source Cloudscape under the Apache organization with whom they already had a significant relationship. This solved several problems at once. Cloudscape no longer competed with the DB2 brand. A well established Open Source project would provide long term support for Cloudscape at less expense than doing it in house. A donation of valuable software would help with IBM's standing in the Open Source community and the Apache foundation with which it already had a significant relationship.
Eclipse BIRT (Business Intelligence and Reporting Tool) is an Open Source reporting application that is based on the Eclipse Java Open Source framework. I wrote about BIRT in 2006 about 18 months after the project was launched. In that post, I speculated on why Actuate had Open Sourced BIRT. Apart from the reasons that I gave then, all of which still stand, a couple more reasons come to mind.
On the positive side, an open source project could establish the BIRT and Actuate methodology for defining reports as a de facto standard. Standards create defense in depth from competition and and can provide great profitability for those who control them. On the other side, an strong Open Source project with a pliable license is the best possible way to suck the air out of the competitors lungs and prevent any new competitors from springing up.
Finally, releasing BIRT as open Source software has not harmed Actuate. Since the release, Actuate has not grown revenue significantly, but it has become profitable with strong cash flows. In its most recent quarter Actuate reported that BIRT contributed a respectable 12% of revenue.
In summary, there are a lot of reasons that software becomes Open Source. It can be a new home for old software that does not fit, or it can be weapon in the fight to the top of the business totem pole. Whatever reason, be sure you understand why the software is Open Source before committing to it.
Apache Derby is an Open Source Java database with an interesting history. Cloudscape, was an early Bay area Java startup. Founded in 1996, Cloudscape came out with its first database product in 1997. In 1999 Informix, bought Cloudscape, and in 2001 IBM bought the database side of Informix, including Cloudscape. Under IBM, Cloudscape development continued, and it was used as an embedded database within several IBM Java products and middleware. In 2004 IBM contributed the code to the Apache Software Foundation as Derby where it has found acceptance.
IBM had acquired Cloudscape by accident when it had acquired Informix, and some time after that acquisition IBM had to decide what to do with Cloudscape. On the one hand, Cloudscape did not fit into IBM product hierarchy. They already had a mobile version of DB2, the database brand and did not need another one. Also Cloudscape did not generate enough revenue to support continued development or be an interesting business. On the other hand, Cloudscape had been adopted for use in many IBM middle tier Java projects. By many I mean at least 70 internal projects were using Cloudscape.
In the end, IBM decided to Open Source Cloudscape under the Apache organization with whom they already had a significant relationship. This solved several problems at once. Cloudscape no longer competed with the DB2 brand. A well established Open Source project would provide long term support for Cloudscape at less expense than doing it in house. A donation of valuable software would help with IBM's standing in the Open Source community and the Apache foundation with which it already had a significant relationship.
Eclipse BIRT (Business Intelligence and Reporting Tool) is an Open Source reporting application that is based on the Eclipse Java Open Source framework. I wrote about BIRT in 2006 about 18 months after the project was launched. In that post, I speculated on why Actuate had Open Sourced BIRT. Apart from the reasons that I gave then, all of which still stand, a couple more reasons come to mind.
On the positive side, an open source project could establish the BIRT and Actuate methodology for defining reports as a de facto standard. Standards create defense in depth from competition and and can provide great profitability for those who control them. On the other side, an strong Open Source project with a pliable license is the best possible way to suck the air out of the competitors lungs and prevent any new competitors from springing up.
Finally, releasing BIRT as open Source software has not harmed Actuate. Since the release, Actuate has not grown revenue significantly, but it has become profitable with strong cash flows. In its most recent quarter Actuate reported that BIRT contributed a respectable 12% of revenue.
In summary, there are a lot of reasons that software becomes Open Source. It can be a new home for old software that does not fit, or it can be weapon in the fight to the top of the business totem pole. Whatever reason, be sure you understand why the software is Open Source before committing to it.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Develop Smarter Products
When someone asks me about Business Intelligence, I will usually say that it is about analyzing the data that a business already has, and the truth is that businesses collect huge amounts of useful data. However, there are many interesting applications where we go out and collect specific data for analysis. We heard about one such application at the February meeting of the SDForum Business Intelligence SIG where Cameron Turner, CEO of ClickStream Technologies, spoke on "Software Instrumentation: How to Develop Smarter Products with Built-in Customer Intelligence".
ClickStream Technologies has a data collector that collects user interactions with GUI based user interfaces. That data is loaded into a data warehouse for analysis of the user experience. Contrast the ClickStream method with other techniques for for analyzing program usage. The most common method is to analyze the logs generated by a program, but logs are typically recorded some distance from the user interface and tends to capture the end result of what the user did rather than how the user did it. For example, if there are several ways in which a function can be invoked, programs logs normally record that the function has been invoked, but not how it was invoked. Also collecting more information involves modifying the program to increase the log data that it produces, which is not always practical. The ClickStream data collector runs as a stand alone program and collects its data with minimum intrusion into the running of the program being instrumented. Another technique for gathering user experience data is to have someone stand behind the user and record what they do, but this is labor intensive and does not allow for large scale studies.
There are many reasons for evaluating the user experience with a program. Cameron lists them in his presentation which you can get a copy of by visiting the files area of the Business Intelligence SIG Yahoo Group. The one that is closest to my heart is providing feedback to the designers of a program that their design leaves a lot to be desired. There are many times when I have become frustrated with a program because I cannot find out how to do the the simplest and most obvious thing. This is when I wish that someone was recording my problems and feeding them back to the development team.
ClickStream Technologies started off as a consulting company. They are moving their offering towards something that is more standardized with the idea that eventually customers will be able to use it on a self service basis. Currently each engagement requires configuring the data collector and writing reports for the analysis. Also for each engagement they recruit a panel of testers who download the data collector. As such, is it more suitable for medium to large sized companies that want to do large scale studies.
ClickStream Technologies has a data collector that collects user interactions with GUI based user interfaces. That data is loaded into a data warehouse for analysis of the user experience. Contrast the ClickStream method with other techniques for for analyzing program usage. The most common method is to analyze the logs generated by a program, but logs are typically recorded some distance from the user interface and tends to capture the end result of what the user did rather than how the user did it. For example, if there are several ways in which a function can be invoked, programs logs normally record that the function has been invoked, but not how it was invoked. Also collecting more information involves modifying the program to increase the log data that it produces, which is not always practical. The ClickStream data collector runs as a stand alone program and collects its data with minimum intrusion into the running of the program being instrumented. Another technique for gathering user experience data is to have someone stand behind the user and record what they do, but this is labor intensive and does not allow for large scale studies.
There are many reasons for evaluating the user experience with a program. Cameron lists them in his presentation which you can get a copy of by visiting the files area of the Business Intelligence SIG Yahoo Group. The one that is closest to my heart is providing feedback to the designers of a program that their design leaves a lot to be desired. There are many times when I have become frustrated with a program because I cannot find out how to do the the simplest and most obvious thing. This is when I wish that someone was recording my problems and feeding them back to the development team.
ClickStream Technologies started off as a consulting company. They are moving their offering towards something that is more standardized with the idea that eventually customers will be able to use it on a self service basis. Currently each engagement requires configuring the data collector and writing reports for the analysis. Also for each engagement they recruit a panel of testers who download the data collector. As such, is it more suitable for medium to large sized companies that want to do large scale studies.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Cut and Paste
It is the little details in a User Interface that make the difference between something that is straightforward and something that is frustrating. For example, lets take the simplest editing function, cut and paste. If text appears on my screen, I want to be able to select the text and paste it into a document, message or whatever. However, there is a lot of text that appears on my screen that I cannot select. There are title bars, menu items and worst of all, all the interesting text in dialog boxes.
Imagine this scenario: a modal dialog box appears on my screen with an important error message. What do I do? Well I cannot select and copy the text, and with a truly modal dialog box, I cannot do anything else until I have dismissed the box, so if I want to preserve the message in the box, I have to find a piece of PAPER to write down what it says, and later transcribe my written notes into the email sent to support. I have been on the receiving end of software errors and so I know that the first question is "What EXACTLY does the message say?". So this is why you need to keep a piece of paper and pencil handy when you use a computer!
I was reminded of this problem today by another frustrating problem with cut and paste. A colleague IMed me to ask for an email address of a third party. As I had to send the third party an email as well, I brought up Outlook (ugg) typed the first three letters of the persons name and auto-completed. Feeling happy that everything could be done in a few keystrokes, I selected the email address in the To: part of the message, copied it and pasted into the IM window. Imagine my surprise when the name of the person appeared in the IM window but not their email address. I had copied the text "name <email>" and when I pasted all that appeared was "name". After 3 goes, I gave up and had to type the email address that appeared in one window into another. Who invented this feature, and what were they thinking?
On reflection, I suppose that I could have gone through the option and disabled all the ones that call themselves intelligent or smart. I did not and I will not. As I have said before in this blog, software should do the right thing out of the box. Anyway, life is too short to customize all the software tools that I use, especially as I am expected to upgrade to new and more complicated versions every few years.
Imagine this scenario: a modal dialog box appears on my screen with an important error message. What do I do? Well I cannot select and copy the text, and with a truly modal dialog box, I cannot do anything else until I have dismissed the box, so if I want to preserve the message in the box, I have to find a piece of PAPER to write down what it says, and later transcribe my written notes into the email sent to support. I have been on the receiving end of software errors and so I know that the first question is "What EXACTLY does the message say?". So this is why you need to keep a piece of paper and pencil handy when you use a computer!
I was reminded of this problem today by another frustrating problem with cut and paste. A colleague IMed me to ask for an email address of a third party. As I had to send the third party an email as well, I brought up Outlook (ugg) typed the first three letters of the persons name and auto-completed. Feeling happy that everything could be done in a few keystrokes, I selected the email address in the To: part of the message, copied it and pasted into the IM window. Imagine my surprise when the name of the person appeared in the IM window but not their email address. I had copied the text "name <email>" and when I pasted all that appeared was "name". After 3 goes, I gave up and had to type the email address that appeared in one window into another. Who invented this feature, and what were they thinking?
On reflection, I suppose that I could have gone through the option and disabled all the ones that call themselves intelligent or smart. I did not and I will not. As I have said before in this blog, software should do the right thing out of the box. Anyway, life is too short to customize all the software tools that I use, especially as I am expected to upgrade to new and more complicated versions every few years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
