i’m biased. i don’t like the idea of voice-based general purpose browsing. i get freaked out enough by people walking around apparently talking to the air, but which upon closer inspection reveals itself to be a super-duper small microphone. it’s just not right. imagine, if you will, planes, tranes and automobiles filled with people talking to inanimate objects. what do you get? chattering, incomprehensible chaos. no sirreee, bob. i don’t want no part of that future. and besides, it slows you down:

“This study compared voice browsing with traditional mouse-based browsing. It attempted to identify
which of three common hypertext forms (linear slide show, grid/tiled map, and hierarchical menu) are well suited to voice navigation, and whether voice navigation is helped by numbering links. The study shows that voice control adds approximately 50% to the performance time for certain types of tasks.”


[via write the web]

my brain feels small. i wish i knew more about bayesian statistics:

“The essence of the Bayesian approach is to provide a mathematical rule explaining how you should change your existing beliefs in the light of new evidence. In other words, it allows scientists to combine new data with their existing knowledge or expertise.

The canonical example is to imagine that a precocious newborn observes his first sunset, and wonders whether the sun will rise again or not. He assigns equal prior probabilities to both possible outcomes, and represents this by placing one white and one black marble into a bag. The following day, when the sun rises, the child places another white marble in the bag. The probability that a marble plucked randomly from the bag will be white (ie, the child’s degree of belief in future sunrises) has thus gone from a half to
two-thirds. After sunrise the next day, the child adds another white marble, and the probability (and thus the degree of belief) goes from two-thirds to three-quarters. And so on. Gradually, the initial belief that the sun is just as likely as not to rise each morning is modified to become a near-certainty that the sun will
always rise.

In a Bayesian analysis, in other words, a set of observations should be seen as something that changes opinion, rather than as a means of determining ultimate truth.”

the way the economist describes it – i can see the motto now: bayesian analysis. it’s not statistics. it’s a way of life.


[via genehack]

what?! i’m shocked! shocked! that the cheney debate gem-of-a-quote, “And most of it, and I can tell you, Joe, that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it.” was, at best, a bit of cheap political theatre and, at worst, a bald-faced lie:

“…in the five years that
Cheney headed up Halliburton, the company garnered some $2.3 billion in
federal government contracts, nearly double the amount of government
business the company did in the five-year period preceding his arrival. In all,
Halliburton managed to obtain some $3.8 billion in government contracts and
taxpayer-insured loans during Cheney’s tenure. These gains occurred while
the company more than doubled its contributions, from $534,750 to
$1,212,000, to the political parties and members of Congress. Halliburton’s
lobbying expenditures also substantially increased while Cheney ran the
company, from $280,000 in 1996 to $600,000 in 1999. Tracking the escalating
lobbying expenses from year to year during that period, Royce and Heller note
that the “upward trend parallels the increasing success Halliburton has had in
winning government contracts, loans and guarantees under Cheney’s
direction.””

at least he didn’t take credit for the internet.


[via rc3]

is it just me? or is jaron lanier everywhere? of course the ‘copy’ is provocative:

“”My world has gone nuts for liking computers too much and not seeing them clearly for what they are,” he says in an interview with Salon about the essay.

What they are, Lanier argues, is far from the omnipotent engines of destruction envisioned by other
scientists-turned-cautionaries such as Sun Microsystems’ Bill Joy. Nor are they saviors, declares Lanier. Neither the evil nanobots of Joy’s nightmare, nor the poverty-curing “mind children” that Moravec envisions are possible, says Lanier. Simply put, software just won’t allow it. Code can’t keep up with processing power now, and it never will.

“Software is brittle,” he says. “If every little thing isn’t perfect, it breaks. We have to have an honest appreciation for how little progress we’ve made in this area.””

considering the reputation that aol has had with aim, it’s nice to know that jabber appears to be gaining strength. this reminds me that i’d really like to check out hotjabber and test the reliability of their agents :

“Agents make it possible to communicate from a Jabber client to virtually any other instant messaging system. When you have installed support for the client you want to emulate, i.e. ICQ, you can use your WinJab client in the same way as your ICQ client or your MSN client. With the help of agents WinJab can work as a client for all systems that has agent support. The agents are installed centrally at
the Jabber server as transport protocols and appear dynamically in your WinJab client under “Agents”. You never have to download these agents separetely, they appear automagically in your WinJab.”

urbanpixel.com

hmmmm. urbanpixel looks interesting. and well, when tog speaks, people listen:

“This recent startup has taken a grand leap forward by restoring the sense of collaboration and camaraderie that disappeared with the advent of the web. Using their patented technology, web site owners can lay out content spatially, generating a 2D overhead landscape view that unites web content with people.

This 2D stuff is very important. Not only are we still a decade away from having displays with resolutions sufficient for life-like 3D, their 2D view is so natural that it seems familiar—and, being pure HTML, its pretty easy to convert a web site over to the new view.

When you wander a store powered by Urbanpixel, you don’t see laundry lists of products. Instead, you traverse a virtual store with clustered displays of items, just like in the real world. And, like the real world, you see people, in the form of iconic avatars, wandering through the store with you.”

for an interesting contrast, there’s a recent article on from the new york times on 3d interfaces:

“Information architects assert that 3-D creations encourage communication, enhance education, clarify complex data and stimulate online sales, along with giving Web surfers a more lifelike environment.

On the Internet, 3-D “is going to change the world,” said Neil Trevett, president of the Web3D Consortium, an industry group trying to establish the technical standards for delivering 3-D data online. “The question is when, not if.””

“”We live in a three-dimensional world,” Mr. Thwaites said. “Historically, representations of that world have been flat, so people have constantly been trying to make them more like the real world. We’ve been chasing virtual reality for a long time, from cave paintings all the way up to computer-immersive environments.”

of course, there’s always a naysayer is the crowd:

“Most abstract information spaces work poorly in 3D because they are non-physical. If anything, they have at least a hundred dimensions, so visualizing an information
space in 3D means throwing away 97 dimensions instead of 98: hardly a big enough improvement to justify the added interface complexity.

In particular, navigation through a hyperspace (such as a website) is often very confusing in 3D, and users frequently get lost. 3D navigation looks very cool in a demo, but
that’s because you are not flying through the hyperspace yourself. Thus, you don’t have to remember what’s behind you or worry about what remote objects are hidden by
near-by objects. The person giving the demo knows where everything is (the first law of demos: never try to actually use the system for anything; simply step through a
well-rehearsed script that does not touch anything that might cause a crash).

Avoid virtual reality gimmicks (say, a virtual shopping mall) that emulate the physical world. The goal of Web design is to be better than reality. If you ask users to “walk
around the mall”, you are putting your interface in the way of their goal. In the physical world, you need to schlepp between shops; on the Web you teleport through
cyberspace directly to your destination using a navigational topology that conforms to user needs (assuming good information architecture, of course). ”

{ intertwingled since 2000 }