I'm a programmer. Not just for my job, but in my heart. Programming is one of the things I think about when I have nothing better to do. The other night I dreamed that I was multi-threaded (seriously - from now on I will blame all my problems on race conditions).
But this means I identify problems with programming tools quite frequently. Because these problems annoy me on a day to day basis, and I believe there is always a better Way to do things. But I have lots of ideas in this space, and they overlap quite a bit. So I'm going to try to break them down into a number of posts, each getting across a salient point.
Start up time is everything:
I have, several times in my life, started at a new company. The first day tends to involve getting your computer working the way you like. The second day involves learning how to build their code. Then the next year involves gradually picking up the accumulated knowledge of the test environments they have built, the build system, all that jazz.
IDEs make things so much easier. But are also so limited and constraining. I've never worked for a company where the IDE is the way we actually develop things.
But what I want is a quick start way to do development. Don't make me do it on my own PC. Give me a web page I can point at: a local intranet web page which I can edit code on (we have ajax now: why do I need to install a dev system on my personal PC... sure make it a possibility, but don't make it a requirement). Now let my press a button and get my code to compile (Or don't. Maybe the code compiles in the background while I'm working. That's even more useful). Let me press another button to run a test from the test suite (with a GUI app, this might be a problem... but int he future all GUI apps are web pages too, no?)... and let me edit the code for the test suite in place too.
I should be able to get going straight away. Get into the system straight away.
And while I might be able to work in a more powerful manner on my own PC (and it should be a possibility - make sure I can check out a local version of the code, and give me some way I can try to build it - or schedule a build of it) from my local box - these are power features which I can worry about later, when I need them. Not on day one, when I ought to be getting to know the new territory.
Monday 29 March 2010
Thursday 25 March 2010
Reviews You Can Trust
I love Top Gear. I don't always agree with it, but I love it. And a while ago I figured out why: Top Gear is just Blue Peter for 'grown up' men. It has a similar number of presenters, exciting events, a totaliser (well, a board that says how fast people go around a track... but it has the same sort of feeling), a dog (whatever happened to Top Gear Dog? Well, they've got the Stig, which is much the same thing... or is he their Percy Thrower?), celebrity interviews and occasionally they show you how to make things. All its missing is badges that get you into places for free.
But Top Gear does something else... and what it does is an idea I have actually pitched in the past (it was passed on at the time, but I think it has value)
When Top Gear reviews things, it reviews them from particular perspectives. We all know what the interests of Clarkson, Hammond and May are. We all know what they are meant to think about things. When they review a car, we don't get told what the car is like: we get told how three personalities - three caricatures of their actual personalities think about things.
And this is good - because it helps up - the viewer - make up our mind.
When I read Roger Ebert's film reviews, I get a good idea of how the film is - what makes it good or bad. Everything is factual - or presented as factual. These reviews are superb - they are the best in the business - but what Top Gear gives is different, its what you get down the pub: opinions.
And when you get opinions from your friends in the pub, you filter them through knowing what your friends like and dislike.
This is a model which could be applied to anything which needs reviewing: why stop at cars. Why not review films from the perspective of a person interested in cinematography, another who likes complicated plots, and details characters and a third who likes special effects and action.
Or technology from the perspectives of a Mac, a PC and a Linux user.
Reviews are one thing. The big idea here is that opinions from particular points of view are more entertaining.
But Top Gear does something else... and what it does is an idea I have actually pitched in the past (it was passed on at the time, but I think it has value)
When Top Gear reviews things, it reviews them from particular perspectives. We all know what the interests of Clarkson, Hammond and May are. We all know what they are meant to think about things. When they review a car, we don't get told what the car is like: we get told how three personalities - three caricatures of their actual personalities think about things.
And this is good - because it helps up - the viewer - make up our mind.
When I read Roger Ebert's film reviews, I get a good idea of how the film is - what makes it good or bad. Everything is factual - or presented as factual. These reviews are superb - they are the best in the business - but what Top Gear gives is different, its what you get down the pub: opinions.
And when you get opinions from your friends in the pub, you filter them through knowing what your friends like and dislike.
This is a model which could be applied to anything which needs reviewing: why stop at cars. Why not review films from the perspective of a person interested in cinematography, another who likes complicated plots, and details characters and a third who likes special effects and action.
Or technology from the perspectives of a Mac, a PC and a Linux user.
Reviews are one thing. The big idea here is that opinions from particular points of view are more entertaining.
Monday 22 March 2010
Dating For Introverts
Computer dating took a new lease of life when the internet came along. It won't surprise me if, in a few years time, we get some figures suggesting some large portion of the population met their partners through dating websites. And while there are many popular websites, and they seem to be doing their jobs just fine, occasionally I think of new varients on the theme.
My favourite is Introvert Dating
As an introvert, this style of dating matches how I would like these websites to work.
To begin with the sites would be much the same as existing sites. You would enter a profile, save it and then be given a list of potential matches. However you would not choose to contact one of the matches, you would just signify that you are interested in them - or that you are not interested in them (maybe you give a star rating to help the recommendation engine... but thats outside the scope of this idea)
Now, once you have said you are interested, you are moved up the list of people your potential partner is matched with. The potential partner cannot see you are interested in her, but you are moved up on her list (and then sorted by either computer generated relevance, or by how many people you have said you are interested in - if you are interested in a lower percentage of yourt choices, you are moved up in the object of your affection's list)
Your partner may then decide she is not interested in you... if so, you vanish from her list of potentials, and you never hear anything more. Moreover, you are happy because you have never had to tell her that you are interested in her.
But if your partner clicks the "I'm interested" button, she gets told "He is interested in you too. Would you like to send him a message?" and is given the option of getting in touch.
So you only ever write to people you know are interested in you.
And what about those people who say "I'm interested" in everybody, just to see who is interested in them? Well, if someone is already interested, but the checker never chooses to write to them, then there is no problem - the interested person never knows anything has happened.
And because they are interested in a high percentage of their matches, they will turn up lower on the list of people interested in just a few others - and so be leess likely to be seen.
My favourite is Introvert Dating
As an introvert, this style of dating matches how I would like these websites to work.
To begin with the sites would be much the same as existing sites. You would enter a profile, save it and then be given a list of potential matches. However you would not choose to contact one of the matches, you would just signify that you are interested in them - or that you are not interested in them (maybe you give a star rating to help the recommendation engine... but thats outside the scope of this idea)
Now, once you have said you are interested, you are moved up the list of people your potential partner is matched with. The potential partner cannot see you are interested in her, but you are moved up on her list (and then sorted by either computer generated relevance, or by how many people you have said you are interested in - if you are interested in a lower percentage of yourt choices, you are moved up in the object of your affection's list)
Your partner may then decide she is not interested in you... if so, you vanish from her list of potentials, and you never hear anything more. Moreover, you are happy because you have never had to tell her that you are interested in her.
But if your partner clicks the "I'm interested" button, she gets told "He is interested in you too. Would you like to send him a message?" and is given the option of getting in touch.
So you only ever write to people you know are interested in you.
And what about those people who say "I'm interested" in everybody, just to see who is interested in them? Well, if someone is already interested, but the checker never chooses to write to them, then there is no problem - the interested person never knows anything has happened.
And because they are interested in a high percentage of their matches, they will turn up lower on the list of people interested in just a few others - and so be leess likely to be seen.
Thursday 18 March 2010
Giving X Factor the X Factor
X-Factor is hugely popular in the UK, and will be coming to the uS this autumn. But it is based on an old model - the tv premium line phone in vote.
Things have move on: with Glee we have seen the song of the week being released and hitting the charts in the week it is broadcast. And when I watch X Factor, I often find myself thinking: if that was a record, i would go out and buy it.
So why not do things differently.
Each week the singer, or group, or whoever, records a song. They might also sing it live on a weekly entertainment show - but the important thing is the recording. After the weekly show goes out, the recordings are put on sale: mp3s on iTunes and Amazon - no need to distribute them to record shops (record shops are so last century too...). The winner is announced the next week - based on one thing and one thing only - highest sales.
What you get is an artist who has managed not just to consistantly win phone votes, but to consistently sell to people who actually buy music.
Which is so much better than the bland forgettable winners of the show who are often forgotten before they get around to releasing their first album.
Things have move on: with Glee we have seen the song of the week being released and hitting the charts in the week it is broadcast. And when I watch X Factor, I often find myself thinking: if that was a record, i would go out and buy it.
So why not do things differently.
Each week the singer, or group, or whoever, records a song. They might also sing it live on a weekly entertainment show - but the important thing is the recording. After the weekly show goes out, the recordings are put on sale: mp3s on iTunes and Amazon - no need to distribute them to record shops (record shops are so last century too...). The winner is announced the next week - based on one thing and one thing only - highest sales.
What you get is an artist who has managed not just to consistantly win phone votes, but to consistently sell to people who actually buy music.
Which is so much better than the bland forgettable winners of the show who are often forgotten before they get around to releasing their first album.
Monday 15 March 2010
Act Now
I have many ideas. Some of my ideas are good, could change the world, possibly make me a million. Others are poor, or require skills and contacts outside of my capabilities.
But I never seem to act on my ideas. Maybe I share them with friends, or maybe they stay locked up in my head, just waiting for the day when I will be able to turn them instantly into a fully realised whole.
And, as that day never comes, the ideas are never realised.
The ideas in my head stay unused. They are not valuable ideas. Aside from the small amount of entertainment they provide me with they are worthless.
Pick A Possibility is an idea I had recently. It is an idea sanctuary. A place where I can put my ideas in public. A place where I can share them, make them available for anyone to read, and use, and be inspired by.
And so, the first idea I wish to share is just this: If you don't act on an idea quickly - and you don't keep acting on it - the idea isn't an idea which, on its own, is going to be worth anything to you. So don't hoard it - share it - create your own idea sanctuary... and hopefully in time we can start an idea breading programme.
All the ideas I offer in Pick A Possibility are free for the taking. Do with them what you will. My ideas are probably not unique. If you benefit from them, I would love to hear about it. If you want to discuss them, please contact me: I want to hear your ideas too.
And if you want to criticise my ideas, go ahead... but it isn't worthwhile. I'm not likely to put any of these ideas into practise, and in my experience it is always the ideas that make me think "that'll never work" which turn out to be the most powerful, once you get around one small sticking point.
The possibility is the thing. Pick a posisbility.
But I never seem to act on my ideas. Maybe I share them with friends, or maybe they stay locked up in my head, just waiting for the day when I will be able to turn them instantly into a fully realised whole.
And, as that day never comes, the ideas are never realised.
The ideas in my head stay unused. They are not valuable ideas. Aside from the small amount of entertainment they provide me with they are worthless.
Pick A Possibility is an idea I had recently. It is an idea sanctuary. A place where I can put my ideas in public. A place where I can share them, make them available for anyone to read, and use, and be inspired by.
And so, the first idea I wish to share is just this: If you don't act on an idea quickly - and you don't keep acting on it - the idea isn't an idea which, on its own, is going to be worth anything to you. So don't hoard it - share it - create your own idea sanctuary... and hopefully in time we can start an idea breading programme.
All the ideas I offer in Pick A Possibility are free for the taking. Do with them what you will. My ideas are probably not unique. If you benefit from them, I would love to hear about it. If you want to discuss them, please contact me: I want to hear your ideas too.
And if you want to criticise my ideas, go ahead... but it isn't worthwhile. I'm not likely to put any of these ideas into practise, and in my experience it is always the ideas that make me think "that'll never work" which turn out to be the most powerful, once you get around one small sticking point.
The possibility is the thing. Pick a posisbility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)