Infrequently Noted

Alex Russell on browsers, standards, and the process of progress.

*much* better

Today, David sent me a link to "UNO", a program which fixes the theme mess on OS X.

My desktop is so much better now. Thank you, David.

rethinking my tagging flame

A copule of days ago I had lunch with a bunch of my co-workers at Jot (Scott, Michael, and Ryan) and I brought up the subject of tagging as a cop-out for search. Not surprisingly, most everyone disagreed with me to some extent. But as we talked it through, it became pretty clear that there was none of the "taxonomy vs folksonomy" debate in play.

Instead, people defended tagging from an interaction perspective. It seems that tagging feeds a need to feel organized in some sense. People at the table got a "solid" sense when they tagged a thing, regardless of its search utility. Better yet, people find tagging to be indistinguishable from social "trail leaving" (think del.icio.us), despite that their correlation is only an artifact of UI decisions.

It's just as simple for someone to click a "bookmark this" button as it is a "tag this" button, but somehow tagging has a more productive feeling for people. Tagging is a great way to entice users to provide other kinds of metadata, which is often significantly more useful.

Tagging is useful, but not for any systems reason. It's just a better UI experience. Who woulda thunk it?

shaming "Web 2.0" into utility

So this morning I was looking at the website for the "Web 2.0" conference that ORA puts on. The speaker list looks great, the registration is booked full, and I'm sure it'll be blogged to death. Another smashing success.

But then I noticed this quote in eye-catching green text at the top of the page:

Web 1.0 was making the Internet for people, Web 2.0 is making the Internet better for computers -- Jeff Bezos

The rotation of supposedly incisive quotes from people who are most notable for being..erm..notable seems like an apt metaphor for what "Web2.0" really is: unspecified. That they rotate is the most fitting thing about them.

Now, I don't know anything about Mr. Bezos' programming or HCI acumen, but it would seem to this developer that if Web2.0 is indeed about making things better for computers, then we're all (collectively) f'd. If that's the goal, I want off the train. Perhaps the quote is out of context, but nevertheless it outlines one of my biggest fears with fads like tagging and overloading of RSS for any-and every-thing, which is that we are now celebrating the failure of systems to make user's lives better as the indomitable march of progress.

Lets take tagging for example. Tagging is the pet rock of such "Web2.0" companies as Technorati and Flickr. With Flickr, it's almost excusable since the problem of creating relationships between images requires both more space as well as some sort of synthesis into a format that is more easily handled (i.e., text). But then why provide stricter organizational tools as well? Is it unstructured or structured? And if structured, why can't the metadata be mined to remove the burden to users without fobbing the work onto them?

And what's Technoratis excuse? That other things support tagging and therefore they use it? Sorry, but that's just sloth. I already typed in my search term. Isn't it a search engine's job to synthesize context out of raw data? If so, why are we then jumping up and down about something that lets us, the users, do the job of a search engine for it? Color me unimpressed.

And it's just one example of where real improvement (REST web services APIs, machine learning) are being conflated with ideas with marginal end-user utility (microformats and tagging) as somehow being ambassadors for "Web2.0".

We should have learned something from Web1.0. We should have a higher bar for allowing memes into the party this go 'round.

for engineers...by unix haters?

As has been repeated ad-infinitum elsewhere, there new MS Dev Toolbar for IE has made it much easier to get to a lot of the things that were previously buried under endless tabs and dialogs. It's almost at parity with the Mozilla equivalent (which is good, since its feature set seems to be a direct rip). But there's one place where I wish MS's slaving copying hadn't succeeded so well: the clear cache option.

On Mozilla/FF, the web developer extension pops up a dialog to tell you that it actually did what you asked it to. This dialog needs to be dismissed by hand in some way (enter, click on "ok", etc.). The "sheet" that this shows up as on Mac is noticably slow to appear, needlessly drawing out the process even further. IE now does something equally useless by prompting you to confirm that the action you just explicitly requested is actually what you want to do. Gratefully its asinine "look! I did it!" dialog auto-dismissed. Small comfort when your workflow has been completely destroyed by the previous dialog.

Why are these tools putting all of this in our face? Who cares enough that it actually cleared the cache to want to "confirm" it? Just freaking clear the cache already and let me get back to doing real work.

...and if only Google can read your IMs...

Like every sane person I know, I'm tremendously excited about Google Talk. I haven't tried their client (and I don't really intend to), and that's the biggest reason I'm excited about it: I don't have to try their client to use it. And they require TLS, thank goodness. The upshot is that you can use any client and assume that your boss/co-worker/BOFH isn't reading your IMs. Google has reserved that right for themselves, but they've set the expectation of privacy with everyone else. More on that in a minute.

There's a lot of good in Google Talk. The smart folks in Mt. View picked an open protocol, for starters. They would have had to do a ground-up (re)write on the server software for whatever protocol they choose (or developed), so an open protocol was likely neither easier nor faster to deploy. Regardless, the choice of XMPP might simply have been a cost/benefit calculation, but it's the kind of calculation that every other giant that has entered the IM market totally screwed up in their meetings-before-meetings: closed protocols are the first thing that a smart competitor can (and should!) commoditize out from underneath an entrenched rival. Why google has so-far missed this on the social-network front is vexing, but it's nice to see some sane competitive thought on IM. Users are going to win as a result. Google just set the value of closed IM protocols for their rivals at zero for anyone with a GMail account. And that's a lot of people.

But here's where I get less generous: Google has set themselves up in a singular position of power over their user's privacy. Your messages over Google's IM servers are encrypted up to the point where they hit their machines, decrypted, shunted around Google's messaging infrastructure, and then re-encyrpted when they are sent down the wire to your ex-roomate who's living in Belize. So the only person who can snoop on your messages is Google. Or whatever governments or institutions can coerce or force Google to monitor, censor, or block your conversations.

Calculated or not (my money's on "not"), there's now a point of failure in the "don't be evil" plan; at least when it comes to IM. But let me be explicit: Google's insistence on TLS by the client is a HUGE step forward for IM privacy. Using Google's IM networks, you can now expect that no one but you, the other person, and Google can read what you write. The only problem is that this expectation can be broken in some pretty non-obvious and non-evident ways.

So how can it get fixed?

By baking something like OTR into the client. Since it can be easily layered on top of any IM protocol and because it provides forward secrecy and plausible deniability, it allows users an evident and workable way of knowing when something is amiss. Just letting users see that they can expect a level of privacy instead of implicitly promising and then silently eroding it will provide a built-in hedge. By deploying it in the default client, there's an implicit expectation that people that want to inter-operate with their client will support it, and by making the choice to turn it off for a user that can't support it explicit, it gives users a way to know what the game really looks like.

By choosing XMPP for IM transport, Google has lost it's fabled claim to technology agnosticism. It is setting the rules, and it's a great chance to prove that it intends not be evil; now or in the future. I for one hope it's a chance that's not wasted and that if it is, a competitor (Yahoo? anyone? Beuler?) figures it out and treats privacy as an explicit, visible feature.

Crypto isn't the answer, but setting expectations and getting users used to being in control certainly is a first step to toward an answer that's longer lasting.

Older Posts

Newer Posts