Integration between websites (aka. web applications) is surprising easy, to the least extent, one website can trivially link to another website, just a matter of entering text, (arguably) no code, no compilation, everything needed is the URL. One website can be embedded into another easily with a little bit of work using iframe, again, (arguably) no code, no compilation.
Look at the way we do desktop development, things are pretty complicated. We need to figure out the platform differences, we need to study the specific and probably pretty complicated programming interfaces (such as COM+), we need to choose a language, we need to code , need to compile our code, etc.
Web was born with interoperability, web was born with support for links. The power of open standard also make HTML the only language web applications speak.
It will be interesting to see how the desktop development (or mobile development, or whatever locally running model) and web development will merge together in the near future.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Google movies vs Movie finder
just got some time to actually thinking about the movie finder app we came up with (and half implemented) so far. Is it actually a better UI? Arguably it is even worse, with more redundant information, and just with a little bit more eye candies (posters).
For example, when we sort the table by theater name, if a theater has a lots of movies on show, the list of movies can easily use up the screen space, more importantly, the information about the same theater will repeat many times. The repeated theater information is becoming more of noises than useful information. Same thing applies when sorted by movies. Movie names, posters and other item increasingly become noise as there are more and more theaters showing the movie.
Whereas in Google movies, this kind of redundancy has been removed, while still allowing a user to sort the list. And also because of the nature of web app, integration with other apps (such as google maps) is deadly simple.
For example, when we sort the table by theater name, if a theater has a lots of movies on show, the list of movies can easily use up the screen space, more importantly, the information about the same theater will repeat many times. The repeated theater information is becoming more of noises than useful information. Same thing applies when sorted by movies. Movie names, posters and other item increasingly become noise as there are more and more theaters showing the movie.
Whereas in Google movies, this kind of redundancy has been removed, while still allowing a user to sort the list. And also because of the nature of web app, integration with other apps (such as google maps) is deadly simple.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Topic: mobile future
iPhone simulator on Android. It will pretty much look like wine on Linux.
Android simulator on iPhone, not very likely, or at least not very likely be sanctioned by Apple.
Mobile phones are just a way to get connected on the go, not a replacement for desktop/laptop computers.
There will be a sub-industry for customizing current websites to adapt mobile browsers. Although the current state-of-the-art mobile devices (aka iPhone) are able to browse normal websites, there are important differences. The screen size is now, and will be in the long term, a limitation (or difference) in the mobile devices.
Everybody in the mobile industry is talking about LBS. But it will take longer than expected for the general public to accept it.
Android simulator on iPhone, not very likely, or at least not very likely be sanctioned by Apple.
Mobile phones are just a way to get connected on the go, not a replacement for desktop/laptop computers.
There will be a sub-industry for customizing current websites to adapt mobile browsers. Although the current state-of-the-art mobile devices (aka iPhone) are able to browse normal websites, there are important differences. The screen size is now, and will be in the long term, a limitation (or difference) in the mobile devices.
Everybody in the mobile industry is talking about LBS. But it will take longer than expected for the general public to accept it.
Monday, June 16, 2008
no topic prepared
went to the gym without a prepared topic in mind...
so put "Prepare topic for next day" in the todo list of every night.
so put "Prepare topic for next day" in the todo list of every night.
Friday, June 13, 2008
What's beyond
We should try to think what's beyond what we are working on right now. We should push our imagination to what is ahead in the next five years.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Topic: iPhone vs Android
iPhone is for most end users and Android is for geeks.
Apple understands end users more whereas Google understands geeks more. I still remember the moment when my iPod touch wowed my mother-in-law when she learned to browse photos.
In the Android world, definitely there will be lots more innovations than the iPhone world. Android's openness is completely opposite to iPhone's control-freak model. No doubt openness encourage innovations, a lot more innovations. But openness creates chaos too. I won't be surprised that there will be very innovative and useful applications in the Android world that make iPhone users sweat. But the problem is there are too many choices, which will create headache for most of the users (of course this might not be problems at all for geeks like me :)). Most of people have other more important things in their lives than playing with their favorite gadgets. They just want get the job done, as fast as possible.
iPhone would become Windows in the mobile world, whereas Android will become more of a Linux. Competition will exist forever, but most of the people would choose iPhone because its so intuitive to use. Of course developers and more technical savvy users would hate it, because there are too many limitations. Developers like to play God to create things without limitation.
The iPhone's world is more like the God's world. The God (Apple) decides what should exist and what should not.
Android is more like the real world ruled by Darwin's evolution theory. Species that adapt well in the environment thrive whereas those species that don't vanish.
Apple understands end users more whereas Google understands geeks more. I still remember the moment when my iPod touch wowed my mother-in-law when she learned to browse photos.
In the Android world, definitely there will be lots more innovations than the iPhone world. Android's openness is completely opposite to iPhone's control-freak model. No doubt openness encourage innovations, a lot more innovations. But openness creates chaos too. I won't be surprised that there will be very innovative and useful applications in the Android world that make iPhone users sweat. But the problem is there are too many choices, which will create headache for most of the users (of course this might not be problems at all for geeks like me :)). Most of people have other more important things in their lives than playing with their favorite gadgets. They just want get the job done, as fast as possible.
iPhone would become Windows in the mobile world, whereas Android will become more of a Linux. Competition will exist forever, but most of the people would choose iPhone because its so intuitive to use. Of course developers and more technical savvy users would hate it, because there are too many limitations. Developers like to play God to create things without limitation.
The iPhone's world is more like the God's world. The God (Apple) decides what should exist and what should not.
Android is more like the real world ruled by Darwin's evolution theory. Species that adapt well in the environment thrive whereas those species that don't vanish.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Switching between mobile device and deskop computers
One can very easily transfer pictures/videos between his iPhone and desktop computer. Visually, on his iPhone he just drags the thumbnail of his picture/video on to an icon that resembles his desktop, on his desktop screen, he can visually see the picture is dragged around and dropped.
And vice versa.
Also shortly we will see remote controllers running on iPhone that control our digital home theater systems.
And vice versa.
Also shortly we will see remote controllers running on iPhone that control our digital home theater systems.
Topic: advantageous small screen
One always refers the small screen on a cellphone as a limitation. Because the screen is too small, we simply can't show enough information on a phone as on a desktop computer. Various technologies have been invented to overcome this, be it spanning a large content in the screen as a small window, flinging between different virtual screens, thumbnail and zooming in/out, magnifier etc etc.
Small screens are actually advantageous in some sense, at least for end users. It forces developers to think what are the most information/features to help a user accomplish his current task. The screen is so damned small and we have to discard those 'nice-to-have' features/information.
We've seen so many bloated software for which among dozens of buttons/menus only a couple of them are actually used. We've seen so many websites filled by annoying advertisement in each 'unimportant corner'. Things will change, as mobile internet thrives, we will see more and more user friendly applications that only help you finish your task at hand.
Force developers discard useless features, and compress information being presented.
Users are also more focused when using small screens. When taking out and looking at their phones, they normally looking for answers for a single question, what time it is, who is calling, seeing a photo etc. It would be great if the phone can mind-read users to figure out what they want and show the UI (answers) accordingly without requiring them to press a button. :)
Small screens are actually advantageous in some sense, at least for end users. It forces developers to think what are the most information/features to help a user accomplish his current task. The screen is so damned small and we have to discard those 'nice-to-have' features/information.
We've seen so many bloated software for which among dozens of buttons/menus only a couple of them are actually used. We've seen so many websites filled by annoying advertisement in each 'unimportant corner'. Things will change, as mobile internet thrives, we will see more and more user friendly applications that only help you finish your task at hand.
Force developers discard useless features, and compress information being presented.
Users are also more focused when using small screens. When taking out and looking at their phones, they normally looking for answers for a single question, what time it is, who is calling, seeing a photo etc. It would be great if the phone can mind-read users to figure out what they want and show the UI (answers) accordingly without requiring them to press a button. :)
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Topic: restaurant search
Restaurant search: searching the nearest French restaurant made easy. Before deciding which restaurant to have dinner, search on the phone for reviews, pictures, today's special price range, length of line (could be even dynamically updated) etc.
Before deciding which dish to order, view pictures of the dishes and see reviews.
The app should users' review centric. Probably still sell keywords to businesses, but let user review it. let the user's review the first criteria to decide where a post should go.
Before deciding which dish to order, view pictures of the dishes and see reviews.
The app should users' review centric. Probably still sell keywords to businesses, but let user review it. let the user's review the first criteria to decide where a post should go.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Topic: Movie search, friend recommendation
Ask a user if he wants to review the movie after he sees it. Probably just in a configuration page.
Desktop/web interface and mobile interface should be seamlessly integrated. One can easily switch between these two interfaces -- at most one button click and ideally no clicks at all.
A review should be a couple of simple multiple choice questions such as "Do you recommend the movie to your friends?". Of course still leave space for those who want to write lengthy reviews. A user can continue writing reviews using his desktop.
Post a movie/theatre review on blog by one button click
When a user browsing a movie, he should be able to see how his friends like this movie. The reviews coming from friends should be much more visible than strangers'.
Friends' recommendations/reviews are important -- this is actually why Facebook is evaluated so high. They know who your friends are.
Desktop/web interface and mobile interface should be seamlessly integrated. One can easily switch between these two interfaces -- at most one button click and ideally no clicks at all.
A review should be a couple of simple multiple choice questions such as "Do you recommend the movie to your friends?". Of course still leave space for those who want to write lengthy reviews. A user can continue writing reviews using his desktop.
Post a movie/theatre review on blog by one button click
When a user browsing a movie, he should be able to see how his friends like this movie. The reviews coming from friends should be much more visible than strangers'.
Friends' recommendations/reviews are important -- this is actually why Facebook is evaluated so high. They know who your friends are.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Topic: Wikipedia and Localpedia
Wikipedia has a common and pretty straightforward object for the community to work on, articles. It is well understood, everybody can participate and read.
Locality: localpedia entries are normally pretty local, this means the knowledge needed to edit such items is often limited to a local community. Reviews of a restaurant has to be written and edited by people who have actually eaten there at least once. Whereas in Wikipedia, everybody on the globe has the knowledge to modify an article about Da Vin Ci, if he knows what he is doing.
Dynamic: localpedia entries are typically dynamic, whereas Wikipedia articles are relatively static once they are created. The special meals of a restaurant change from time to time. The merchandise catalog in a grocery store changes from time to time.
So the object that the Localpedia community is working on are basically applications, applications that are simple to create collaboratively while more powerful and user friendly than plan HTML pages. We need a framework allowing programmers to code the app, editors to write the content, and designers to draw the beautiful UI.
Locality: localpedia entries are normally pretty local, this means the knowledge needed to edit such items is often limited to a local community. Reviews of a restaurant has to be written and edited by people who have actually eaten there at least once. Whereas in Wikipedia, everybody on the globe has the knowledge to modify an article about Da Vin Ci, if he knows what he is doing.
Dynamic: localpedia entries are typically dynamic, whereas Wikipedia articles are relatively static once they are created. The special meals of a restaurant change from time to time. The merchandise catalog in a grocery store changes from time to time.
So the object that the Localpedia community is working on are basically applications, applications that are simple to create collaboratively while more powerful and user friendly than plan HTML pages. We need a framework allowing programmers to code the app, editors to write the content, and designers to draw the beautiful UI.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Topic: user created content for movies/theaters
users' decisions are influenced if not mandated by recommendations, especially recommendations from people they know.
See which movies my friends (and ideally those friends I know who share the same interest with me) have seen, and how do they like those. could be simple like or dislike, and could be comments.
The most important aspect is that the comments are from those who I know.
movies -- could be achieved from anywhere, location is not important, people are the most important
theater reviews -- has to be local, location is important, people may be a little less important
facebook extraction: at least we can extract friend list from facebook.
See which movies my friends (and ideally those friends I know who share the same interest with me) have seen, and how do they like those. could be simple like or dislike, and could be comments.
The most important aspect is that the comments are from those who I know.
movies -- could be achieved from anywhere, location is not important, people are the most important
theater reviews -- has to be local, location is important, people may be a little less important
facebook extraction: at least we can extract friend list from facebook.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Topic: Earthcomber pros and cons
1. The list is too long, and biased by how many keywords proprietors buys, may not be useful at all. Its business model is just the same as pre-google search engines. It would be interesting to see which entries are visited the most frequently. I would guess as time going and as it gets enough popularity, those less biased entries such as ATM and Movies would be clicked by the majority of the people. Others those whom Earthcomber's revenue drivers would be randomly clicked, since the positions those entries appear are just what they want, not what the users want.
The order of the listing has to be fair and genuinely reflect the value of the entries. The rule of thumb: the list has to be useful.
2. The content is too uniform. For all entries they have the same UI and about the content. This means they can cover a whole lot of categories, but none of them are precise and useful enough.
The order of the listing has to be fair and genuinely reflect the value of the entries. The rule of thumb: the list has to be useful.
2. The content is too uniform. For all entries they have the same UI and about the content. This means they can cover a whole lot of categories, but none of them are precise and useful enough.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)