Wednesday, March 11, 2009

What Was Apple Thinking?

This morning Apple released the third generation iPod Shuffle.

I own a second generation shuffle and when I saw the third generation I immediately thought it was a step back for Apple. Here is what I don't like about the third-gen:

  1. You now need a headset with the remote control function on the cord.  The standard set from Apple is $29.99 to replace if you lose them.  They are also ear buds.  I dumped ear buds a lot time ago due always having to shove them back in and the eventually hurt your ears.  There is no easy choice for the consumer in which headset 
  2. Still no display.  They try to solve this by adding a voice to tell you what you're listening to when you want to know (Clicking and holding the center button).  I would assume this would be somewhat annoying and not 100% accurate.  
  3. In my opinion, and this is probably a matter of personal taste then anything else.  I think the design is ugly and clumsy.  If you think of what the new shuffle will look like on a person listening to music it'll look clumsy.  Headphones that go to a small faceless block that has no interface.
  4. Finally, the usability of the device is pretty bad.  My parents bought a shuffle for Christmas and they wouldn't touch it until I showed them how to use it.  I can't imagine trying to show them how to use this version.  Looking at the documentation online it looks like a nightmare. Double-click and hold to fast forward, Triple-click and hold to rewind? How is anyone going to remember that?  More importantly how are you going to know if you clicked it two times or three as it's be hard to figure out when the sound is skipping by.  Here's an interesting comment from Ernie Bello :
    
I’ll agree that moving all of the playback functions on the face of the previous shuffle to one button on the headset of the new one is not as discoverable. However, I’d argue that once the new functions are learned, they are more usable.

Unfortunately anything you learn is going to be more usable.  That does not make the usability of the device good.

So how could have Apple made this work?  I'd like to see one set of headphones with the iPod integrated into the frame of the headphones.  Sort of like the Monster iFreePlay Headphones for the Second Generation iPod:

Now if Apple could take this and integrate the electronics of the shuffle into the back of the headphones in one fluid piece not an add on like shown above and provide the controls on the ear pieces you'd have a cool iPod shuffle.

If you think pushing your finger up to your ear is dumb, think about how many times you push the ear buds back into your ear.  If you don't like the design well then think of it as functional.  I've heard many examples how the iPod shuffle is for when people exercise.  If you've ever tried to run with a pair of ear buds in your ears you'll understand it when I say that you'll tire out faster maintaining the buds in your ears before you tire out while running.

I think Apple went too far to the right in simplicity on this design.  In the end though I am not the target buyer for this device.  I have a Touch and a second generation shuffle and there is no need for something this simplistic.

It makes you wonder though, will the next generation iMacs come with a buttonless remote?  You control it by flicking it due to it's accelerometer?  Double-flick to fast-forward triple-flick to rewind? 

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

The Future of Programming Languages is Now

As I was commuting home from work tonight I was listening to StackOverflow #44 where Jeff Atwood and Joel Spolsky were discussing how the future of programming languages will gradually get smaller and more precise in their function. Jeff explains:

"I see the future of languages as a lot of small languages that are good in specific things. And you'd switch between them in a fluid way, to when you are like "Oh, this is a set-based problem" or "Oh, this is a database problem" or "Oh, this is a text manipulation problem" and you sort of drop in a language that is good in that thing."

That statement resonated with me for a little while and I got to thinking the future of languages that Jeff perceives is already here.  Let me share what I mean from my experiences in programming during my career.

Let's first take a step back and look at programming languages back when I first started in 1996.  For me there was HTML and that was it.  For me PHP really hadn't taken off, classic ASP was just coming out and so everything was HTML even the formatting was done within the HTML *shudder*.

Move a head some to 1999 and I got into Classic ASP.  Still a language that was self contained.  You could hook it up to a database either Access or SQL Server being the popular choices but SQL statements were done inline in the spaghetti code mess.  In one ASP file you had the dynamic code the presentation and the data integration.

Let's move now to 2003, ASP.NET 1.0 is prevalant.  SQL Server 2000 is out and you could now separate your data integration into stored procedures with T-SQL on your SQL Server.  You would use ASP.NET to separate your busniess logic and your presentation.  CSS was making headway as the way to separate your presentation code from your markup code. 

In 2006 I feel is the start of segmenting ASP.NET out further.  Why? jQuery was released to the world.  And as the world grew more and more used to working with jQuery we were able to hand off some of the tasks that ASP.NET would of handled dynamically, like form validation, DOM manipulation and page interactions.  So we now have CSS to handle presentation, jQuery to handle DOM manipulation, ASP.NET to handle business logic, HTML to handle page structure and finally T-SQL to handle data manipulation and retrival. 

Seems to me that we've made it to the future.  I would hate becoming a web developer today.  You need to learn at least 5 languages to be able to create a respectable web page.  It's also my experience that colleges aren't teaching students all these languages.  They either learn them on their own or they learn on the job. 

Look at what Microsoft is doing to ASP.NET.  .NET 2.0 is the core which then 3.0 and 3.5 are loaded on top.  These versions of .NET include smaller subsets of the language that you may or may not use WFS, Silverlight, WCF, MVC, Dynamic Data, etc.  The burden on the programmer to keep up is ridiculous.

The question I have, does the future continue to segment languages even further as Jeff predicts or will there be a time where we start merging languages together and come back to one super language? When does the segmentation of languages start to hinder us instead of help us?

Friday, March 06, 2009

Promotional Video of BarCamp Buffalo

And I am in it.  Video was done by WNYMedia and was very well done.


Tuesday, March 03, 2009

My BarCamp Buffalo Slides - Intro to jQuery



Update:

Video of my presentation. 


My BarCamp Buffalo Presentation - Intro to jQuery from Ralph Whitbeck on Vimeo.

Presentation to BarCamp Buffalo on 3/3/09. My slides can be found http://ralphwhitbeck.com/2009/03/03/MyBarCampBuffaloSlidesIntroToJQuery.aspx

Blog Posts by:

The Official jQuery Podcast

with Ralph Whitbeck & Rey Bango

You can subscribe to the show in iTunes or via the raw RSS feed

My Twitter Updates

View Twitter Page