From: Lucian Mogosanu Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 10:59:15 +0000 (+0200) Subject: posts: 02f, 030 X-Git-Tag: v0.4~10 X-Git-Url: https://git.mogosanu.ro/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=03e97a194de69995dac9f6dd36e1c03441a00367;p=thetarpit.git posts: 02f, 030 --- diff --git a/posts/y01/02f-on-usability-a-case-study.markdown b/posts/y01/02f-on-usability-a-case-study.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fa99d4b --- /dev/null +++ b/posts/y01/02f-on-usability-a-case-study.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,111 @@ +--- +postid: 02f +title: On usability, a case study +date: December 6, 2014 +author: Lucian Mogoșanu +tags: tech +--- + +Given nowadays' popularity of the web, usability is, I suppose, still something +of a hot topic in the field of human-computer interaction. More than half a +decade since the first electronic computer, the concepts behind making our +computing devices usable are still largely left to exploration. But what is +"usable"? I will defer to my friend, [Merriam-Webster][merriam-webster]: + +> us·able +> 1: capable of being used +> 2: convenient and practicable for use + +So, is a hammer usable? Well, it is, in the sense that I can use it to drive +nails into pieces of wood. Is then a guitar usable? Well, it generally is, in +the sense that it allows me to make music; in particular, it might or might not +be, depending on the guitar's neck and the length and width of my fingers. So, +is the computer, a general-purpose device typically comprising a keyboard, a +mouse and a monitor as input/output tools, usable? It's hard to say, this +depends on what I want to do with it, on the operating system and the user +interface it implements and so on; if I intend to play a game, maybe I'm better +off using a gamepad or some other type of specialized controller[^1]. + +Getting back to the World Wide Web, in the last few decades companies such as +Google have been pushing to move at least a part of their applications on the +web. JavaScript has become the most widely used programming language on the web +for exactly this purpose: the web had an untapped potential for improved +interaction from the very beginning, as semantic content can be easily +implemented on top of it using pages, hyperlinks and "rich text" elements. +JavaScript merely allows this content to be modified dynamically, allowing, for +example, the browser to change a section of a page when the user presses a +button, as opposed to reloading the entire page. Along with the great potential +for developing web applications, this has also opened a few more perverse +avenues for developers; for the sake of sticking to the subject, I won't go +into any details regarding this aspect. + +I wish to present a comparative case study for the purpose of illustrating the +usability of web applications. I will dive into the bowels of one of the web's +most widely used applications, Gmail, comparing it with Mutt. I've been using +both of them extensively for at least one year now, so I am quite able to +distinguish between the pros and cons of both. + +Firstly, I should mention that Gmail comes with many features in comparison to +Mutt. For example Mutt doesn't have filters and it doesn't offer any interface +for editing mail by itself; it doesn't have any support for built-in chat, nor +does it allow configuration for multiple accounts, since it doesn't really have +a well-defined concept of "accounts". Fortunately, that functionality can be +integrated using many third-party applications, which is why I will focus on +the basics, i.e. reading mail and making sense of the great e-mail organization +mess of which we are all aware. + +One major advantage that Gmail has over all the other clients is that it +replaces folders with labels. This is compatible with the IMAP folder view, but +with the addition that you can have a single mail residing in multiple folders +(or under multiple labels, to use Gmail terminology) at the same time. This is +indeed very useful, mostly because you can keep an e-mail in the inbox *and* in +another folder simultaneously. However, Gmail's biggest and greatest advantage +is the search function, allowing anyone to find e-mails almost +instantaneously[^2]. + +Mutt on the other hand was created back in the 1990s, when folders weren't very +popular, so the focus of the main window is on the current folder and only +it[^3]. Mutt's main disadvantage is the steep learning curve: you have to sit a +few hours to [configure][mutt] it before obtaining a usable interface. After +you waste that time, however, the interface will be blazingly fast, albeit +keyboard-driven instead of mouse driven. This feature is so useful that it was +borrowed by Gmail's keyboard shortcut interface, whose documentation, in case +you're not aware, can be accessed using the question mark (`?`) key. + +Regarding composing and answering to mails, I mentioned earlier that Mutt +doesn't have a built-in editor. Well, no, but it simply opens your system's +default text editor whenever you want to edit an e-mail. This hard separation +is, I believe, Mutt's greatest strength and Gmail's greatest weakness. Did you +ever open a draft in Gmail's big, shiny "composer", started writing, focusing +some other window, then re-focusing the "composer" window, pressing `enter` and +finding out that your draft was just sent? Well, that, dear reader, is the very +opposite of usability: an e-mail client should never, ever, **ever** send your +e-mail when you press `enter`, because that's one of the largest keys on your +keyboard and one of the most commonly used. Not to mention that when I write +e-mails, I want to write e-mails in that precise context, without any useless +clutter. + +Mutt's greatest disadvantage is that it sucks. However, as its author +[mentions][mutt2], "All mail clients suck. This one just sucks less". + +So, is Gmail usable? Mostly. Is Mutt usable? Not much more than the previously +mentioned client, but it does the same essential stuff at a much lower price. +At the end of the day we use whatever we feel comfortable with, regardless of +their usability. Or "usability". + +[^1]: Although I personally never enjoyed using controllers to play games. The +mouse and the keyboard are the perfect interface for, say, a first person +shooter. + +[^2]: Note that this is also partly a feature of e-mail being text-driven, +rather than HTML-driven or whatever nonsense "modern" "enterprise" e-mail tries +to push nowadays. HTML isn't usable in e-mail, because not everyone can or +wants to look at HTML, and not everyone wants cross-site scripting embedded as +a "feature" in e-mails. Also note that this is not a matter of preference, +despite how much your mileage may vary. + +[^3]: Although certain forks come with support for sidebars. + +[merriam-webster]: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usability +[mutt]: /posts/y00/00a-conversation-view-in-mutt.html +[mutt2]: http://www.mutt.org/ diff --git a/posts/y01/030-interstellar.markdown b/posts/y01/030-interstellar.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..08bb738 --- /dev/null +++ b/posts/y01/030-interstellar.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,177 @@ +--- +postid: 030 +title: Interstellar, or why deus ex machinae in science fiction are a bad idea +date: December 20, 2014 +author: Lucian Mogoșanu +tags: video +--- + +I'd like to start this by stating that this isn't about how Interstellar is a +good or a bad movie; it's a pretty good movie and it also has its bad parts, +obviously, but all that doesn't matter. What matters is stripping it down naked +in front of everyone and whipping it until we get down to its core, assuming +that it is more than form without substance. I know how these kinds of +discourses, dialogues and debates are frowned upon more and more in various +parts of the "civilized world" nowadays, but I don't see how that's gonna stop +us sane people doing it. + +I went to see Interstellar more out of curiosity than anything else. Once the +news about Kip Thorne and the [accurate simulation][sciencemag] of a black hole +became public, and later, when people started discussing the movie's more or +less sciencey stuff, I became interested, despite having to go to the cinema +and sit through all the 3D "immersion" crap, because this fad hasn't gone away +yet. + +The movie's action takes place in a not-so-far-away future, when the population +growth and other important stuff such as, y'know, "global warming", forces the +move from an industrial society to an agrarian one, where people are mostly +farmers and all the military is gone from the face of the Earth. This isn't +such a bad scenario, but it's a highly optimistic one: I for one would rather +see a couple of big wars happening before this shift, reducing the population +to only a few billion, making the poorly industrialized agrarian approach more +or less realistic, but bleaker than it's represented in the movie; I know that +this is below humanity, but you really don't see the worst in humanity until +you see it. Hunger will make people kill each other and that's that. + +This scenario brings forth several other "issues of humanity", namely that the +climate has changed to dust storms, probably inspired by Mars, and wheat crops +are extinct, while corn crops are on the way to extinction. Probably most of +the animals are dead too, since I don't remember seeing any in the movie. So +our main character, Cooper (played by Matthew McConaughey), is a farmer and an +ex-NASA-pilot-engineer-whatever with a dead wife and two kids, one of whom +becomes a brilliant scientist later in the movie, and is called Murph, played +by three actors. As things go in American movies, out of nowhere our Coop is +re-recruited by ex-NASA, which is now actual NASA, a secret organization +attempting to launch a rocket through a wormhole that suddenly appeared +somewhere in our Solar System, leading us to another galaxy with potentially +habitable planets and, fuckety-fuck, a black hole that does nasty stuff with +time and mind and matter. + +There are more or less relevant details regarding the movie's plot, more +specifically the "Plan A" and "Plan B" which are bound to be forgotten by most +people until the movie is over, due to what I suppose is pretty bad writing, +but the more spoilery part is that Coop goes, wastes a few of humanity's +decades, goes into the black hole, breaks relativity a few times, somehow +manages to escape, meets his daughter who's now older than him and then goes +off to find his, I didn't get it, was that chick played by Anne Hathaway his +girlfriend? No she wasn't, but that's not really relevant. + +## Science meets bullshit + +One of the key aspects that the movie tries to emphasize, and that are part of +Cooper's character, and that make up one of the scenes at the beginning, is the +so-called love of, or for science: Murph tells her father that she has a ghost +in her room, and at that point he tells her that that's not a ghost, and that +the essence of science, and indeed, of truth, is to question everything and +come to truth through critical thinking. The movie doesn't emphasize that +enough in my opinion, but I liked the fact that it actually tried to do that +and it shows that at least some of the writers are tired of the +pseudo-scientific bullshit going on in the previously mentioned "civilized" +world. + +This issue is also brought up in another one of the first scenes, when +apparently we are presented with what seems to be a good dose of revisionism +taught in American schools. This is nice and all, but it falls into the +classical Hollywoodian problem of presenting an issue of the US as a global +one; I like to think that the rest of the world, or at least a big part of it, +likes to value truth versus the propagandistic "documentaries" about the Moon +landings being a hoax and other absurd crap, as we've had our share of bad +history with falsifying knowledge, what with the communism and all. + +Other than that, the movie aims to give pretty accurate scientific facts, at +least up to some point. There's no sound in space, for one; the facts about the +black hole and relativity are mostly true, although I don't get how people +could survive in an environment so near to a black hole, where the time +dilation factor is 1 hour to 23 years, given that the gravitational pull would +be immense; heck, I don't get how a planet can exist that close to a black +hole, but I guess we'll leave that to speculation. Also, later on some of the +scientists there keep saying some stuff about how "gravity can go back in time" +or something of that likes, which is obviously false, given that the only way +of achieving this would be managing to break the energy-mass equivalence +somehow. + +Of course, we'll never know how Cooper survived the pull into the black hole or +how he got back, or how he actually managed to transmit information into the +past, but that's the "fiction" part of science fiction; it's okay, the writers +went full "2001" there and we're all okay with that. Still, I think that if an +advanced humanity living outside of time were able to conceive such a paradox, +I think that this kind of occurence would have been more common in nature, +which makes the feasibility of such a phenomenon extremely improbable. But then +again, so are dinosaurs in the center of the Earth. + +The thing that bothered me the most however is why the government would spend +so much money *in secret* to attempt such a risky mission, when I'm sure there +would be better solutions available. Those that have read Dune are probably +familiar with the actual *science* of ecology, versus the nasty, political, +almost religious ecologism occuring nowadays: since we assume that humans have +a hand in "global warming", then it's conceivable that humans could devise +controlled climate modifications, so that the ecosystem would be properly +regulated. This is in my opinion a much more efficient course of action, given +that we already have the means to modify weather. But meh, I suppose sending +people in space is cooler, and it is indeed a good idea, but only after we've +learned how terraforming is done, which doesn't happen in Interstellar. + +Oh, and I want a robot like TARS. Really, that's some nice AI, despite that +small chance of them wanting to kill all humans. + +## Deus ex machinae in science fiction are a bad idea + +Despite the whole black hole thing being a perfectly good element in the world +of science fiction, I think it's a pretty bad plot device, especially given the +science fiction-ness of the movie, moreso that it's its central element: at +some point in the future, humans become a super advanced race being able to +spawn black holes that let people send bits of information to the past, which +constitutes the thing that saves humanity in Interstellar. Don't get me wrong, +it's pretty damn nice, except I don't think it is. + +First of all, sending information to the past gives rise to this mind-bending +paradox which is hardly explainable by any science fiction author: humanity is +on the verge of extinction, which leads some people to the desperate act of +going into a hardly achievable quest which eventually leads them to a black +hole where they're able to modify the past in order to lead them there in the +first place, thus creating a time travel loop; well, we don't really know who +created the time travel loop, the dying humans or the super advanced humans who +were beyond time, because we assume that humans survived anyway. So yes, this +breaks any temporal logic that we know, but on the basis of what? "Quantum"? +Come on. + +Given this time travel weirdness, I have to say that the black hole is no more +and no less than a deus ex machina. No, it's not that humans saved themselves: +the god from the machine saved humanity, which from a writer's point of view is +nothing more than cheap storytelling, more suited to fantasy settings like The +Longest Journey universe, where the problem is actually solved a lot more +gracefully. Yes, I am aware that these elements appeal very well to the average +viewer, but I'm really, really curious what mister Nolan has to say about it. + +Finally, the events in the movie's conclusion confirm the western writers' +obsession with happy endings, whereas in my book Cooper could have just as well +died there without making the story any less richer; meaning that his survival +didn't make the story any more richer, just packed with more irrelevant +details. + +## Hollywood and The Problem™ redux + +Looking back at the whole thing and at the [thing before it][into-darkness], it +looks like Hollywood has the same fundamental problem as the "music industry", +quite probably as the "book industry", the "game industry" and all other +industrialized forms of art, namely that it has expectations, and more +specifically that it has the wrong ones and the wrong kinds. + +Interstellar is a mash-up of good scenery where predictable clichés happen: the +world is in danger and needs to be saved by its saviour, who goes far and +beyond to ensure the survival of ever-lasting humanity, manages to outsmart all +the bad guys and doesn't stop caring for the otherwise worthless characters, +that is, if they don't die. It's nice, it makes a small attempt to keep the +spirit of science alive and another small attempt to criticize the lack of +initiative of sheep and the abuse of stupid people, but they're only small +attempts that the sheep will overlook anyway. + +It's not that the movie is bad; also, it's not that it has no substance. Yes, +it does have some deeper stuff, but that stuff is so blandly put together that +it makes you wonder if the Hollywood guys are even capable of writing a good +drama anymore. I'm looking back at the other dull movies and the few +outstanding exceptions, and boy, do I miss movies such as Contact... which +Interstellar does not manage to reach, by far. + +[sciencemag]: http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2014/11/physicist-who-inspired-interstellar-spills-backstory-and-scene-makes-him +[into-darkness]: /posts/y00/011-star-trek-into-darkness.html