New Facebook UI

Posted: February 4th, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Technology | Tags: , | No Comments »

For some reason, I seem to have been randomly selected to beta test the new Facebook UI. There is no opt-out of this, and I wasn’t notified. After posting a snarky and sarcastic status update, I found that I was seemingly the only friend online who had the new UI.

Good UI designs constantly change in arbitrary and unpredictable ways. Muscle memory is a bad thing. People love to constantly learn new ways to perform common trivial tasks, especially if the new ways are not noticeably better than the old ways. Good to see that Facebook is learning well from its business partner Microsoft!

So, in case you are interested in what you may soon be using, here is a screenshot:

New Facebook UI Screenshot

New Facebook UI Screenshot

A quick tour:

  • The icons in the top left, next to the word “facebook”, are your new links to messages, notifications, and friend requests. The new tiny and arbitrary icons, in addition to having terrible contrast, are drop-down menus with live previews. While slick, the icons are annoying to click. On the plus side, you can click the message directly in the pop down menu.
  • The “Friends Online” list on the side is annoying– unlike the popup menu (still in the bottom right), it is limited in the number of friends displayed, and it doesn’t respect your list groupings. Also, when you click “see all”, it doesn’t expand in place; no, it triggers the OLD chat popup in the bottom right to expand, on the other side of your screen. This is all manner of retarded, I haven’t seen a UI do something that terrible since I last had to use Pro/Engineer.
  • The “Accounts” menu, in the upper right, now has a shortcut to “credits”. Gee, thanks, Facebook.
  • Overall, the look and feel seems more hodge-podge. Why is the search bar in the middle now, instead of the top right as is standard? Why did they feel the need to split common tasks across toolbars separated by the entire screen? What utility are they trying to add? What workflows does this UI intend to facilitate?

At any rate, I hope this beta UI is merely a temporary trial of design features. I doubt that is the case; Facebook didn’t notify me in any way that my UI was going to change or had changed. There is no way that I see to change UI versions. In addition, there is no special offer of a feedback or bug reporting link. I suspect this is not a trial of the UI design, but merely a staged rollout. While I am glad that Facebook is working to improve UI behaviors while adding new features, this feels like a step backwards.

If you are curious about any of the new feature behaviors, let me know in a comment.

UPDATE: 3 hours after changing the UI, Facebook finally posted a notification on my homepage, saying, “Check out your new, simplified homepage!” They conveniently provided this link:

Google: Scary? Awesome? Scary Awesome?

Posted: December 15th, 2009 | Author: | Filed under: Technology | Tags: , , | 1 Comment »

After my recent acquisition of an iPhone, I decided to fix up my long-neglected Google Reader account, to feed into NewsNetWire on my handsized crack.

After adding my feeds, Google — apparently using my emails from Gmail as a reference — took it upon itself to suggest several new feeds I may enjoy:

AMERICAN.COM — A Magazine of Ideas, Online

E. Kowalski’s blog

Firearms and Training

Residents of Gainesville, FL

Soul of Star Trek

Apparently, Google thinks that I am a libertarian(ish), mathematically-inclined, gun-loving Sci-Fi nerd who lives in Gainesville, FL. Google is, in fact, entirely correct.

This is awesome, because I found at least one blog I would like to follow.

This is scary, because Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, doesn’t understand privacy. Of course, Google’s PR Fire Dept claims poor Schmidt was terribly misquoted.

Years ago, Wired ran a story portraying 2 worlds of pervasive surveillance. One was a dystopian world, a police state where the government used a network of hidden cameras to maintain order and eliminate crime. The feeds from this video, of course, was entirely protected and secret. The other world, less dystopian, was also a world under constant surveillance — but all the video feeds were publicly available. Want to know if your friends are already at the bus stop? You can check the feed. Want to know what the lines at an event are? You can check the feed.

While many look at both worlds with some level of disquiet, the truth is we are approaching both worlds. The former, the government is instituting without a peep from us — in the US, traffic cams are everywhere. On the other hand, we are freely creating the later world through social media; why bother installing public surveillance? People surveil themselves and proudly submit it for public consumption via YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter.

In a way, the very act of publishing information might be an abandonment of anonymity and information we normally consider private. A couple of years ago, researchers discovered they could easily link data sets, despite anonymizing attempts. Have we ever truly had anonymity and privacy, or has it merely been an illusion created by insufficiently advanced data collection and mathematical techniques?

If privacy (or the illusion of such) dies (and some say it already has), who has killed it — the Googles, the Governments, the Statisticians, or the Tweets?

NASA and the Scientific Divide

Posted: November 30th, 2009 | Author: | Filed under: Science, Technology | Tags: , , , | No Comments »

Recently, I met a man who walked the surface of the moon. After his brief talk, we were invited to ask him questions. One surprising question was, “Why waste money on space exploration?” Coming from a background of hard science, I found this question jarring. “How can someone not want to explore space?” The man who once walked the moon seemed similarly disconcerted. As he struggled to answer in terms that resonated with the layfolk, the intellectual disconnect was agonizing.

NASA is in an era of highly publicized disasters, with increasingly boring or technical missions. These issues only look to get worse; budget woes will leave us without manned spaceflight for at least 4 years, and our backup plan is to buy trips on Russian rockets. With less and less exciting missions, and the public’s lack of scientific interest and understanding, it is easy to see why our generation has become apathetic to NASA’s mission. However, despite its apparent recent struggles, NASA has an extensive resume of accomplishments and contributions to our society, which few people realize.

In the past 51 years, NASA has achieved that which was once thought impossible — we have sent people to live in space, we have landed on another body in the solar system, we have sent probes out of our solar system, we have landed probes on other planets. To accomplish this, NASA has, out of necessity, developed technologies we now take for granted, from improved artificial limbs to enriched baby foods.

Even without such useful spin-offs, NASA and other government space research programs have created a space-travel infrastructure, pouring the billions necessary to develop techniques such as putting satellites into orbit. Such high-risk, high-cost expenditures are unlikely to have been pursued by private enterprises, as they would not even have the funds to accomplish these programs. These technologies are available in the private sector, opening up new industry applications in communications, private space travel, and privately funded research.

The scientific research that NASA has provided is staggering. From moon samples, to Jupiter probes, to space telescopes, to extra-solar probes, to weather satellites and space-based geological research, NASA has provided unique and invaluable resources to biologists, geologists, chemists, meteorologists, physicists, astronomers, and more. This research has fueled discoveries whose value cannot yet be known.

Here is a brief history lesson. In 1803, President Jefferson asked Congress to allocate $2,500 to an expedition to explore the Missouri river, hoping to discover the extent of the Louisiana purchase and a path to the Pacific Ocean. Without knowing what would be found, the Corps of Discovery mapped the Missouri River, discovered over 100 new species, and made the first mineral maps describing one of the most resource-rich regions on our planet. Our explorations, discoveries, and established diplomatic presence in the area allowed the US to maintain full control over the most geopolitically valuable regions of the world — the Mississippi-Missouri drainage basin. With this transportation conduit, the vast resources discovered in the west, the massive tracts of arable land, and enormous strategic depth, the US was able to position itself as an unrivaled economic, military, and political hegemon.

None of these outcomes were expected or anticipated. The purchase was a gamble and the expedition was a gamble. The results helped fuel 2 centuries of growth. Do we want to turn our backs on the next great frontier? Are we willing to cede the future to India and China, both of whom are aggressively developing space programs? I would hope that anyone who wishes to protect our future prosperity and security can see that the answer to both of these questions is a resounding “no”.

Fortunately, it seems that the public agrees. However, as the Apollo generation ages, and our generation gains more influence in policy, NASA’s support will be in jeopardy if we cannot convince ourselves that our future is worth fighting for.