Welcome back. One of the things I found interesting about what he said was that he chose the items for the bottom bar based not on what was most common, or most popular, or most used, but rather another characteristic that they all share: they’re all personalized features about the user.

This isn’t really earth-shattering, but I found it interesting because in most cases, UI designers try to make sure the most commonly used things in the UI are surfaced. The problem with that approach, as Loren points out, is that you can’t always do that. Sure, Copy and Paste are super-common, and should get first-class treatment, but where do you go from there? At some point, you’re splitting hairs, and if you try to rationalize why one function is surfaced in a prime location and something else isn’t, how do you explain your choice? “Well the data we collected said 51% of people used A and 49% of people used B, so we went with A.” Unsatisfying, isn’t it? At least if you take Loren’s approach, your answer has a bit more meat to it.

Anyway, at the very least this should get us all thinking about our rationalizations for putting stuff in specific places in our UI. Maybe there are alternative methods for making these decisions that we haven’t considered yet…

There are two core arguments in the article:

1. TV shows are written with commercials specifically in mind, and removing them completely interrupts the pacing of the show.
2. Viewers actually like shows with ads better.

For argument number one, it’s obvious that writers take commercial breaks into consideration when writing TV shows. However, in their DVD counterparts, the breaks are preserved as scene changes. These can seem rather abrupt, and I think this points to an alternative solution: slightly longer breaks for scene changes that are replacing commercial breaks. If we assume the normal scene change is a second, then imagine that the commercial-break-replacement scene change is three seconds. You can simulate this suggestion by hitting pause for three seconds – I think you’ll be surprised at the results. I think you’ll agree that this is uniformly better than ads.

For argument number two, I can’t refute the research. But there is a quote from the article that is completely asinine in my opinion:

From an audience member’s perspective, they are what makes network television social. We use the commercial breaks to talk amongst ourselves, to take bets on the J.D./Elliot situation and to decide that no one ever really dies on ‘”Lost.”

Say what? That we need commercial breaks to be social is ridiculous. In this day and age, we have ready access to the Pause button, and it’s a far more useful tool for fostering discussion while watching TV. Elizabeth and I have been watching quite a few documentaries lately, and we pause quite often to talk about whether or not we agree with what’s being said. I agree that adding discussion and dialog while viewing a show is positive (there’s a reason fans get together to watch episodes of their favorite shows), but I think people use the commercial breaks because they’re there, not because they need them in order to have that conversation successfully.

I hate ads in all forms (though I can appreciate particularly clever or well-done ones), so I am definitely biased here. But seriously… there’s a reason DVD copies of shows sell so well, and it isn’t because people are dying to own season one of “Scrubs” for eternity…

The guy from Facebook was talking about how they view Facebook as being not an extension of your identity, but rather a representation of it (my words, not his; I’m trying to paraphrase the conversation). In other words, your Facebook simply reflects the things that are happening to you, what’s going on in your life, etc., and then shortens the gap between those events and occurrences and the people that potentially care about you. Their philosophy as I understand it is to reduce the amount of overhead that comes with keeping track of what’s going on with people.

That’s a noble goal, I suppose, and one I can certainly appreciate given that I have friends strewn all over the world (ever since the great Diaspora that was my high school graduation in PNG). It certainly would be nice to always know what was happening with those folks without ever having to do anything about it. But I think that’s the crux of my opposition to it.

You see, I think there is a great deal of worth in getting an email after a long time from someone who has taken the time to write you and give you a brief update about them. It took time and energy for them to write you and update you on their life – and I believe it shows they care. This type of rich interaction with someone occurs more naturally after a time out of touch.

Imagine a 30-year high-school reunion if everyone was on Facebook the entire time after graduation? Would there be anything to talk about? I suppose the conversation would revolve around politics, religion, and other matters of opinion, because life events would simply be old news. Everyone would already know that Sam got married last summer and Mary got a new job. There’d be no excitement in learning that Joe’s son spoke his first words last week or that Sally was finally able to get that surgery she needed.

If we’re always connected to one another all the time, it removes the excitement and enjoyment that comes from the re-connecting after a disconnect. It’s cliché, to be sure, but absence makes the heart grow fonder, and for that reason, Facebook’s just not for me.

The definition for these two groups is fairly self-evident. A problem finder is someone who excels at finding problems. That’s a pretty large scope, to be sure. These are the types of people that are never satisfied. They find something to complain about in every situation. When you ask how they’re doing, they say things like, "Well, I could be better." They are experts in identifying the nearly-invisible cracks in the glass, the slight imbalance in the supposedly symmetrical piece of machinery.

You may be saying to yourself that this type of person is a pessimist, but I maintain that an important distinction between a problem finder and a pessimist is that a problem finder can be very specific about exactly what in a given situation or event is bad, while a pessimist is less able to do this in general. A pessimist can tell you how bad he thinks it is, but getting down to specifics is difficult because it’s not about specific issues or problems he sees, it’s about the way he perceives his environment and the events surrounding him. Hope that distinction makes sense.

Obviously a problem solver is someone who solves problems. These aren’t particularly complex definitions, are they? :-) This is the type of person that is constantly trying to save the world. You have a problem? They have a solution! Well, they believe they do. There is nothing they can’t help you with. If they’re self-aware enough to realize they don’t know the answer, then they’ll happily redirect you to someone who does. After all, they have a pathological need to solve your problem, whether that’s what you want or not. Sometimes, you just want someone to listen to your story about your horrible experience or situation, and simply agree with you. "Yeah, that does suck!" "Yeah, that pisses me off too!" You’re looking for a friendly acknowledgement of the suckiness of your situation, and it can be frustrating when a problem solver patronizes you by offering what they think is a simple solution for your problem. "What are you complaining about? Take action!" they say.

I think it’s clear that everyone has a bit of both of these quirks in their personalities. We all are proactive about solving problems on some occasions, and sometimes we’re very good about finding the problems, the holes, the cracks. However, since I am an engineer, and I work with engineers, I have concluded that engineers are predominately problem solvers.

This makes sense. What is engineering? At its core, it’s finding elegant solutions to complex problems while maintaining an awareness of the needs and constraints of the solution (such as cost). It’s problem solving, pure and simple, so it is not unusual that good engineers are good problem solvers. However, I maintain that problem finders are equally, if not more important than problem solvers, if only because good ones are harder to find.

I know plenty of engineers who can solve problems in fantastic, elegant ways, but can’t easily identify the problems in their solutions, or even potential problems outside of the original problem description that was given to them. They need someone who can do that for them. The best teams at Microsoft in my opinion have a cynic, a guy who takes everything and tears it apart. It’s never good enough. And the best problem solvers I know are able to take that information and make a better solution.

So I guess my conclusion is that it’s OK if you’re not the best problem solver or problem finder. Just know that you aren’t. Self-awareness is the key, you know. :-) In my own case, I have realized that I am a much better problem finder. I’m a natural cynic, and a bit of a perfectionist. And hey, I’m OK with that. :-)

I have no illusions about why nerd culture is becoming more accepted. It’s not because people are realizing that substance is more important than marketing. It’s because the nerds are getting rich. But that is not going to change.

Now, I don’t think I’m overly hung-up on “getting rich,” but it sure would be nice not to have to worry about how much I’m paying for food and whether or not I can afford rent this month. Opposed to that, rich sounds pretty nice. If not rich, at least “comfortable.”

I also liked the quote about dressing informally:

Dressing up is not so much bad in itself. The problem is the receptor it binds to: dressing up is inevitably a substitute for good ideas. It is no coincidence that technically inept business types are known as “suits.” Nerds don’t just happen to dress informally. They do it too consistently. Consciously or not, they dress informally as a prophylactic measure against stupidity.

So true, so true! While I fully understand the importance of appearance, people seem to miss the seemingly obvious fact that even underdressed people can be very talented and have good ideas. I have found in my IPRO that while people need direction and leadership, they also need freedom and informality. That way they can get their work done on their own terms. Frankly, as a leader, it shouldn’t matter how the work gets done (within reason, of course), as long as it gets done. Obviously there are limits to this (for example, I require that students follow a standard comment format when writing their code), but the idea is that most smart people work better when they can work on their own terms. I have had managers argue with me about this, and I have decided that dumb people exist, and that if you require someone else to tell you how to get your work done, you must also be dumb. It is against my policy to work with dumb people. :-)

FInally, I really like what Graham says about young people:

A 26 year old may not be very good at managing people or dealing with the SEC. Those require experience. But those are also commodities, which can be handed off to some lieutenant. The most important quality in a CEO is his vision for the company’s future. What will they build next? And in that department, there are 26 year olds who can compete with anyone.

You better believe it. While I do my best to defer to my elders, I don’t think the fact that they are 20 years older than I is a default reason for them to make better decisions than I do. And frankly, I do know a lot more about some topics than they do. Consustently, however, I get little or no respect from people just because I am young. On the other hand, I am lucky in that I have several older people who I deeply respect that also seem to respect me and my abilities (Dr. Sun, my friend Patrick). For the rest of you who think I’m too young to be any good at anything, how about reading a little bit of the Bible:

Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity.
1 Timothy 4:12

Take that! :-)

http://www.opennetinitiative.net/bulletins/006/

I found the archives a little difficult to navigate myself, so I’ve reprinted here the text to the background document by Shari Steele. Enjoy!

Steve Jackson Games Versus United States Secret Service
by Shari Steele

In a decision announced in Austin, Texas, on March 12, Judge Sam Sparks
of the federal district court for the Western District of Texas
announced that the case of Steve Jackson Games et al. versus the U.S.
Secret Service and the United States Government has been decided for the
plaintiffs. The decision in this trial may have critical implications
for our online communications.

But first, some background. Many years ago, telephone companies around
the country worked with local police and fire departments and hospitals
to create a system where telephone users could dial the digits “9-1-1″
to report an emergency. The telephone lines used for the 911 system
were separate lines, which were not used by the telephone companies to
route regular telephone calls, to ensure that the lines were always
available during emergencies. Sometime in September of 1988, a computer
intruder logged onto a Bell South computer and made a copy of a
telephone company document describing how Bell South’s emergency 911
system worked. Telephone company personnel became aware of the
existence of the unauthorized copy of this proprietary document and
called the United States Secret Service to help find the person who had
penetrated their computer. The Secret Service agents were concerned
that the integrity of the emergency 911 system would be in jeopardy if
computer intruders knew how to use the 911 lines, leaving emergency
callers with no access to the system when they needed it.

In reality, the document that was copied off the Bell South computer,
commonly known as the E911 document, did not contain passwords or any
other access descriptions. The document was, rather, a technically
written narrative containing information that was readily published and
available for sale from Bellcore and other telephone companies.

No matter . . . the Secret Service was on the case! And with the help
of telephone company personnel, the Secret Service attempted to trace
the location (or locations, as was the case) of the document. Sometime
in February of 1989, the young man who had copied the E911 document from
Bell South’s computer submitted it for publication to an online
newsletter named Phrack. Phrack’s editors cut the document down to
about half of its original size, taking out all references to telephone
company employees, telephone numbers and sensitive information about the
system. The E911document was then published in Phrack issue 24, which
was electronically distributed for its usual no charge, to various
computer users throughout the country — to about 150 sites in all.
Phrack issue 24 was distributed on February 25, 1989.

The Secret Service went wild. Copies of what they claimed was a
sensitive document had now been passed electronically throughout the
country. And on March 1, 1990, the Secret Service raided a fantasy
books and games producer named Steve Jackson Games, looking for the
document.

The Secret Service didn’t actually know whether someone at Steve Jackson
Games had received a copy of issue 24 of Phrack. The Service simply
knew that one of the employees there had received a copy of the
newsletter on his home BBS, and may have been involved with the young
man who had originally intruded into Bell South’s computer. When the
employee’s home BBS was no longer accessible to telephone company
personnel attempting to log in, a theory apparently arose that the
employee’s BBS was now being run out of Steve Jackson Games. And, in
fact, Steve Jackson Games did run a BBS, called the Illuminati.

The Secret Service, as it would learn later, was wrong. There was no
E911document on Illuminati, no issues of Phrack, and no BBS from the
employee’s home. The Illuminati BBS had been around for years and was
set up to be a place for those who enjoyed fantasy games to congregate.
The board was setup like most other boards — with bulletin boards,
conference areas and e-mail. But now the board was closed down — the
Secret Service physically removed it from Steve Jackson Games on March
1, 1990, and did not return it until sometime in the end of June of that
year. All in all, the Secret Service seized 3 computers, 5 hard disks
and more than 300 floppies from Steve Jackson Games on that fateful day.

No criminal charges were ever brought against Steve Jackson Games. Yet,
when the computer equipment was returned more than three months after
the raid, it appeared that someone inspecting the disks had read and
deleted all of the 162 electronic mail messages contained on the BBS at
the time of the raid. Not one of the users of the BBS was even under
investigation from the Secret Service.

Steve Jackson, owner of Steve Jackson Games, was angry. During the
three months his systems were under Secret Service investigation, he had
to layoff nearly half of his work force. Publication of at least one of
his games books was delayed, resulting in loss of revenues to the
company. He was written up in Business Week magazine as being a
computer criminal. Steve Jackson decided to fight back. On May 1, 1991,
Steve Jackson, Steve Jackson Games and three users of the Illuminati
BBS, with the help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, filed a civil
suit against the United States Secret Service, alleging that the search
warrant used during the raid was insufficient, since Steve Jackson Games
was a publisher, and that the privacy protections of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)had been violated with regard to the
electronic mail on the system.

As I wrote in a previous column, ECPA consists of a series of amendments
to the federal wiretap act. It prohibits law enforcement officers from
intentionally intercepting, using and/or disclosing the contents of
private electronic communications without a warrant. The statute offers
the same privacy protection for communications that are stored
“incidental to the electronic transmission thereof.” The users of the
Illuminati board claimed that their unread e-mail was still in transit,
and therefore required a warrant specifically describing the messages to
be searched. The Secret Service claimed that the mail was no longer in
transit, and therefore no special warrant was required under ECPA.

On Tuesday, January 26, 1993, at a little after 1:00 p.m., U.S. District
Court Judge Sam Sparks began to hear the trial of Steve Jackson Games v.
United States Secret Service. By the third day of the trial, while the
judge had not decided the final outcome of the case, he had determined
that the raid and the subsequent investigation and non-return of
equipment had been inappropriate. While Special Agent Thomas Foley of
the Secret Service sat there simply replying, “Yes, sir,” the judge
barraged him with questions concerning the Secret Service’s conduct:
[Note: Some of this may be paraphrased.]

“How long would it have taken you to find out what type of business
Steve Jackson Games does? One hour? . . . In any investigation prior to
March1st (the day of the raid) was there any evidence that implicated
Steve Jackson or Steve Jackson Games, other than [the employee's]
presence? . . .You had a request from the owner to give the computers
and disks back. You knew a lawyer was called. Why couldn’t a copy of
the information contained on the disks be given within a matter of days?
. . . How long would it have taken to copy all disks? 24 hours? . . .
Who indicated that Steve Jackson was running some kind of illegal
activity? . . . Since the equipment was not accessed at the Secret
Service office in Chicago after March 27, 1990,why wasn’t the equipment
released on March 28th? . . . Did you or anyone else do any
investigation after March 1st into the nature of Mr. Jackson and his
business? . . . You had the owner standing right in front of you on
March 2nd. Is it your testimony that the first time you realized that
he was a publisher and had business records on the machine was when this
suit was filed?”

And so it went for fifteen minutes straight. The government lawyers
were visibly shaken by this interrogation — so much so that they
decided not to call any of the other witnesses who had waited for two
days to tell their stories. In the closing arguments, the judge
repeatedly asked the lawyers what his award of damages should be, since
it was apparent he believed that Steve Jackson Games had, in fact, been
damaged.

The judge’s decision was announced on March 12, 1993. Judge Sparks
awarded more than $50,000 in damages to Steve Jackson Games, citing lost
profits and violations of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980. In
addition, the judge awarded each plaintiff $1,000 under the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act for the Secret Service seizure of their
stored electronic mail.

The judge also stated that plaintiffs would be reimbursed for their
attorneys’ fees.

The judge did not find that Secret Service agents had “intercepted” the
electronic communications that were captured when agents seized the
Illuminati BBS in an early morning raid in the spring of 1990 as part of
a computer crime investigation. The judge did find, however, that the
ECPA had been violated by the agents’ seizure of stored electronic
communications on the system. The plaintiffs have decided to appeal the
interception claim.

The results of this precedent-setting litigation will clearly have
important consequences for users of computer bulletin board systems.
And, hopefully, the public reprimand of the United States Secret Service
will cause them to step back and think before seizing their next BBS.