Google Needs Better Design

The latest crop of Google gadgets, gizmos and services are really pretty damn cool. I've just been playing around with my customized home page, and there are a whole bunch of things I can load there. Things that I might otherwise choose to view via widgets — like the weather, for instance — or things I might turn to a desktop application for — like RSS feeds or email — can be consolidated into one page, or a series of tabs on that page — that page being my Google home page — right inside of a very familiar and ever-handy interface — that of the browser.

Ultimately, one might suppose, the browser via my Google home page, would become my one-stop shopping spot for everything information-centric. I just open my browser, go to my Google home page, and everything I need to know on a daily basis is right there. My mail, my calendar, the sites I regularly check, are all represented and visible at-a-glance on one page. I can chuck iCal. I can chuck Mail. I can chuck NetNewsWire, and WeatherDock, and all these little apps I have that tell me all the tiny little things I need to know on a daily or hourly basis. Yes, with all this power one might suppose that Google would become my home page. But one would be wrong.

You see, despite the fact that I can — today, right now — leverage all this information right from my Google home page, I simply never do. In fact, I don't know anyone who does. And I have some theories as to why. First and foremost, I think the main reason I don't currently do this is because of design. Google's design is notoriusly butt-ugly in general. And in the case of their home page, it's also just not very usable. In fact, I'd say it's a really good example of poor design hindering usability. Here you have all this information, all in one spot. It's a veritable cacophony of information. And this cacophony begs for good usability design. Google has given us the ability to move modules around, and add tabs for additional organization and module storage, but... That's about it. There's no way to customize colors, or font sizes, or borders, or anything that would make that abomination of a page usable. Is it potentially useful? Yes. Is it usable? Not for me or anyone I know.

Personally, when I look at my Google home page I get a headache, and I immediately begin craving individual, specialized applications, particularly well-designed ones that organize information in ways that make parsing that information pleasant rather than a chore. I'm no design expert, and I'd be hard-pressed to come up with serious suggestions as to how to better design an application towards usability. But I know bad design when I see it — or when I try to use it — because, ultimately, I don't use it. I can always tell a badly designed app, because I just don't want to use it, no matter how useful it may be.

Back when Google was "just a search engine" the minimal attention to design was fine. But now, in these days of "Web 2.0" apps, design becomes essential to how we collect, organize and process those vast amounts of information that Google has so brilliantly given us such seamless access to. The presentation of data is as crucial to understanding that data as collecting it. Google needs to really start thinking about this if they want people to start using their apps to the extent that I think they do. For the Google home page to become truly usable, design will need to play an essential role.

Apple, Wonka, Steve and Willy

At this point I'm surprised no one's ever made more of the analogy, but a quick (very quick) Google search reveals few comparisons to Apple and the mythological Chocolate Factory of Willy Wonka fame. And yet, the similarities are striking: a large, secretive, highly prestigious company that produces the best, most innovative products almost as if by magic, and that is heralded by an eccentric but extremely charismatic leader. In fact, substitute computers for candy and you'd be hard pressed to tell the companies apart. You start to wonder if, perhaps, Jobs was, himself, a big fan of the 1971 Mel Stuart masterpiece in his youth.

Today's presentation is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. A big, huge media event, shrouded in mystery and hyped so expertly that candy lovers can barely contain their excitement. What will today's announcements bring? The Apple-faithful crowd around the virtual castle doors for the answer to that question.

The first thing on today's agenda was new iPods. Is there a more candy-like Apple product? I think not. Why, the shuffle was once even compared to a pack of gum, though the new model is now too tiny for such a comparison. And now we have colors — candy colors you might say — for the nano. Again. Whoopee. But I know a lot of people will be thrilled — literally thrilled — about this update.

The iTunes application itself is also apparently getting a facelift, both visually — in the form of multiple views, including a cool-sounding cover art view — and functionally — in the form of synchronization between computers. Can I just say? Finally! This has been the major reason I've never used an iPod. I may just have to start. Video in iTunes is now apparently higher resolution, which would seem to compliment the new iPod's brighter screen. And the "One more thing..."

Which would be, of course, movies. Movies are now available for purchase and download from the iTunes store in the new iTunes 7. Currently, Disney, Pixar, Touchstone and Miramax are the only studios offering movies on the iTunes store, but I'm sure more will follow. The image is purported to be "near-DVD quality" and audio is Dolby Surround Sound. Nice. Movies are priced in the $9.99-$14.99 range, which ain't bad.

Perhaps not as Wonka-esqe as one might have hoped, but still, I'd say these are some pretty exciting and even significant advances for Apple's push in the consumer electronics and entertainment market. It's a gradual push that seems to come incrementally — probably never as fast as anyone would like — but Apple is great at this stuff, and they only seem to be getting better. And today is another baby step in the right direction. I'm still looking forward to things like an Apple-crafted cell phone. Or a media center — which, it now looks like, is in the works for release in the first quarter of 2007, and which would be about half the height of the Mac mini (wow!) and feature "wireless component video" over 802.11, optical audio and HDMI ports, and analog RCA audio ports, and which will work with Mac or PC, according to a very rare sneak peek at today's event. Now that's pretty exciting.


Codename: "iTV": Apple's Sneak Peek at Their Upcoming Media Center Hardware
(click image for larger view)

So yeah, I'm still looking forward. But if there's anything that Apple makes me do better than any company out there, it's just that: look forward. And that really is half the fun.

Now let's let those Oompa-Loompas get back to work, shall we?

UPDATE:
I just got done watching the stream, and today's event was, really, one of the most impressive presentations from Apple I've seen in a while. Not only were there a plethora of exciting and significant product updates, but we got a rare glimpse into a product that's still under development, and that looks quite ingenious. I wanted to quickly share some additional observations on what I saw in the broadcast, particularly with regards to iTunes 7 and "iTV".

On iTunes 7:
Some quick thoughts on what is probably the most important development in Apple's media — nee music — manager.

  • This is a significant overhaul of the iTunes application, but still — in true Apple fashion — appears to leave all the things that make iTunes such a great media player and manager.
  • Both album view and cover flow are wonderful implementations of a concept that's been brewing for sometime – the visual searching of media. Such a basic idea, and just the kind of thing that has made Apple synonymous with ease-of-use. And it's beautiful, of course.
  • iTunes 7 allows any user with an iTunes account to get free album art, even for albums not purchased via the store. This is great news for folks like me, who tend not to buy via the iTunes store, and it's great for the Apple/iTunes/iPod brand. One more reason to go with Apple products, even if you don't use the store.
  • The "Music" has been stripped from the iTunes Music Store. It's now just the iTunes Store. One wonders if they'll somehow figure out a way to get rid of the "Tunes" in iTunes without mangling the brand. Can you say MacBook?
  • Video purchased from the iTunes Store is now at a resolution of 640x480, which I realize I mentioned before, but I feel that's quite a significant improvement. And probably necessary to convince folks to fork over $10-15 bucks for movies.
  • iPod synchronization and management looks much, much smarter and includes sync-management and software/hardware management. Nice! It's good to see that Apple doesn't let their significant market lead in this area keep them from adding great new management features. As long as they keep up like this, they'll remain on top.
  • iPod Auto-Sync also looks immensely cool. I only hope it works for tracks ripped from CD as well as those purchased from the iTunes Store.

On "iTV":
Thoughts on the newest Apple non-computer electronic device. Possibly the most exciting thing since the iPod.

  • This looks like another great implementation of a really interesting idea.
  • I was surprised that they chose to go with a connector box that ties your computer in to your TV, rather than a separate box, but after the presentation, I really think that's the way to go: integrating existing components, tying it all together. Brilliant!
iTV Concept: This Graphic Says it All
(click image for larger view)

  • It also looks like it should be fairly easy to set up.
  • Video trailers are streamed live off the internet, thanks to 802.11 wireless connections on the box. Neat-O!

"iTV" Data Ports
(click image for larger view)

  • And sent to the TV via a variety of video port options.

"iTV" Video Ports
(click image for larger view)

  • It begs the question, though: Is this a cable killer? Or will the reverse happen?
  • But for $299, it'll be hard not to get one.

"iTV": A Bargain at $299
(click image for larger view)

On Steve Jobs:
A couple quick final thoughts on the man himself.

  • Mr. Jobs looks healthy again, at least compared to how he looked in the Developer's Keynote. His presentation was as riveting as ever. Nice to see.
  • Jobs thanked quite a few people, including his software, hardware and development teams, and, of all things, artists. Also nice to see.
  • Jobs, at one point in the presentation used the term "The Sexy." Which was just a little weird to see. For me anyway.

So anyway, some pretty exciting stuff, I must say. One of the best Apple presentations I've seen in a long time. And three (count 'em, three!) "One more things..." Ya gotta love it.

Hey! My Box.net-Shared iCal Calendars Stopped Working

Just a follow-up to a recent, popular post. I recently noticed that my iCal calendars — the ones I share via my Box.net account — stopped publishing, displaying a warning badge over the broadcast icon.


WTF: My Calendar Share Stopped Working!
(click image for larger view)

So I tried seeing if I could still connect to Box.net via the web. Yup. Good to go. Next I checked to see if I could still connect via the Finder and WebDAV. Nope. No go. Just sits and spins. There's the problem: No WebDAV, no calendar share. (I. Can't seem. To stop. Talking in. Short. Truncated. Sentences.)


Connecting to https://www.box.net: Or Not
(click image for larger view)

After having no luck Googling a solution, I decided I'd try to figure things out myself. And after some poking around I found the problem. And solution. The problem is the "s". See it? The one after the "http"? There in the "Connecting To Server" dialog. There you go. That's the culprit. That "s" means you're attempting to connect using a variation on the http protocol (called https, if you can believe) that transmits over a different port (port 443) than that of standard http (port 80), and that uses an additional encryption layer for security. Seems Box.net has stopped using the protocol for WebDAV communications, and is, at least for now, using standard http. Removing the "s" from my calendar shares fixed them right up.

Best way I know to do that is to select the published calendar, choose "Change Location..." from the "Calendar" pull-down menu, and in the field marked "Base URL:" change the "http" in the URL to "https". Hit publish, and everything should be right as rain.


Fixed: Ahh! That's Better!
(click image for larger view)

I'm not sure why the good folks at Box.net decided to change the connection protocol for WebDAV, nor why they failed to inform anyone (as far as I could tell, anyway). WebDAV support is a beta feature at Box.net, apparently, so I suppose we should expect some changes from time to time. Either way I'm sure glad they haven't pulled the service altogether. Hard to get too mad when the price is so nice.

UPDATE:
About five minutes after posting this article I got a comment from someone named Aaron who appears to work at Box.net. Aaron wrote:

"Sorry for the scare. Dav should be back to normal in the next few hours."

That was last night. I'm still having some weirdness, but I have to admit to being far too tired to really do any serious investigating. Thus far, I'm unable to connect to Box.net with the Finder using https or http. Neither seems to work. Oddly, publishing via iCal using http does work, but still not with https. Strange. Not a big deal. Just strange. That's about all I've energy to try. Mainly I wanted to just point out that the Box.net folks seem to really be committed to the whole WebDAV thing, and that's great. And they appear to be listening, which is also great. Thanks, Box.net folks. And thanks, Aaron.

Now off to bed with me.

UPDATE 2:
Not sure when this started working properly, but publishing calendars via the https protocol is functioning normally again. Yay!
(Updated Sept. 4, 2006, 6:30 PM)

Filed Under: Internet Applications MacOSX Server

I'm Back: Thoughts on WWDC 2006

I really shouldn't be writing this. I don't have the time.

That's right, intro-net. I'm back. Sort of. I realize I haven't posted anything in a while. I've been exceptionally busy. And I continue to be. But today, luck, fate and timing have conspired to give me a day that looks to be fairly free. So I'm spending my time writing my first post in almost a month.

Lucky you.

It being my first day back and all, I'm a bit rusty and unfocused. So today's post will a running list of odds and ends — things I've noticed, complaints I've had, maybe even some stuff I've been working on, and then a roundup of my thoughts on this year's WWDC. Here goes.

For starters, where have I been? What have I been doing? Well, actually, I've been on vacation. It hasn't been all fun and games though. This year my vacation was spent working on and playing in a performance at Lincoln Center. It was a long and fairly arduous process from which I'm not completely recovered. I had a dream about it just last night, in fact. But it went well, and it's over. So it was worth it. Lincoln Center, baby! How cool is that?

This has left little time for systems work, hence the lack of posts. And now that I'm back on the job, I'm having trouble throwing myself back into the fray. I always kind of lose track of where I was after vacation. And now, with three weeks left before school starts, it's crunch time. Still, somehow, today I'm the only one here. Everyone else is either sick or off. It's weird.

There were a couple things I stumbled on over the past few weeks. Really little, tiny things but maybe worth a mention. First, the final word, in my opinion, on the whole Repair Permissions saga has just come down from MacWorld. It's fairly pro-repair — or at least not anti-repair — yet Gruber seems pleased. Go figure. It's a very clearly written piece that really demystifies the whole process, and at least to mind, says everything that needs to be said. Read it and then put it out of your mind. Finally.

Second, I discovered a neat little trick in Firefox: Pressing the control button while scrolling with the scroll wheel on your mouse activates forward- and back-page. Control+scroll-up will go back, and control+scroll-down goes forward. Seems backwards to me, but it's still kind of a cool trick. No, wait, you're right... It's dumb...

Finally, I wanted to talk a little bit about the announcements made at this year's WWDC. Overall, I'm a bit underwhelmed, I must admit. Maybe I'm somewhat jaded after all these years of WWDC announcements. Or maybe I really wanted there to be far, far more attention on the Finder. There was none in fact, which only leads me to believe — hope, at least — that improvements to the Finder are in the pipe, and that they were among the "Top Secret" features Steve Jobs mentioned in his presentation of Leopard.

The new Mac Pros look incredibly sweet. But then, each iteration of the pro Mac line looks exponentially sweeter, so I'm not floored. Plus, my now aging PowerMac dual G5 still feels like plenty of computer for anything I need to do. It handles it all without complaint and still feels fast. Underscoring my lack of enthusiasm, Apple now tends to release new pro hardware right after I buy my new Macs for the lab. This is fine, actually. I kind of like to stay just short of the bleeding edge here, preferring stability to speed and novelty. Getting a known quantity (we bought Quad G5s) just makes everyone's life easier. But It's hard to get excited about new hardware when you don't need any. Also, Apple has really been focused on the Intel transition, I think, so we're not really seeing many (any?) new products. Mostly what's been announced lately — and this year's WWDC is no exception — has been product revisions and speed bumps. Fine ones to be sure, but not exactly what I'd call exciting, and nothing that will change my life any time soon. *Yawn*

Some other things I noticed while watching the WWDC keynote:
Phil Schiller said, "Our [Intel] transition is complete." While Apple's transition may be complete, the transition for users is not. Apple is right to be proud of this amazingly swift transition to Intel chips. They're unbelievably good at this sort of thing, and it's one of the aspects of the company that keeps it fresh and alive and constantly moving forward. But make no mistake: the transition for users is still in progress. Many major applications are still PPC-only and must run in Rosetta, negating many of the advantages of buying new, Intel-based hardware for the near-term. And the OS is not yet Universal. This means that, in many ways, we're dealing with two separate platforms when we mix PPC and Intel Macs. Each platform must have a different OS and applications. In a lab setting this complicates matters a great deal. So, I think for users and lab admins the transition is just getting started. Once all apps are Universal and the Universal Leopard is out, then we can start to call this thing done. But as it stands, there is still a lot of work ahead.

Along these lines, as yet there has been no Intel-compatible version of Mac OS X Server. But I noticed that you can configure your new Mac Pro with Server — and the new Intel Xserves surely come with it — so apparently the Intel version exists. Where is this software? Are there two separate versions — a PPC and an Intel one, as with client — or is it Universal? The answer appears to lie at the Apple Store. Clicking "Buy Now" on the OS X Server page takes me to the store (I can't seem to get there from the Apple Store directly) where it's revealed that Mac OS X Server 10.4 is a Universal application. I'm not sure when this happened (did I miss it somehow?), but something tells me my old copy of Server won't be running on my new Intel Mac mini. I wonder if there's an upgrade path to the Universal version?


Mac OS X Server 10.4: Universal? Really? Since When?
(click image for larger view)

Another thing that struck me this summer is the fact that this is the first year I don't have to upgrade my lab systems. Sure, I'm running Software Update and updating various apps. But there is no new version of the OS, and there won't be for a while. This, as it turns out, is a godsend. With my promotion, and all the various new responsibilities and projects it entails, the last thing I need to be doing right now is testing a new — and, let's face it, probably buggy — Mac OS, and worrying about implementing it before summer's end. I have to say, the slowdown of new Apple OS releases couldn't have come at a better time for me.

The one thing that really did get to me this year was Time Machine. Time Machine looks amazing. It looks like magic. It looks like... Well, it kind of looks like a toy, actually. It's almost deceptive how childlike Apple has made some thing that, for many users, is an essential yet often vexing task. While I think the UI for Time Machine is ultra-cheesy (though no less so than Dashboard), I also think it's immediately and intuitively understandable. And for something like backups, that's no small feat. It may be somewhat garish-looking, but I think it's about twelve billion times more attractive and user-friendly than something like Retrospect. It's a look I could learn to love for it's personality. Here's hoping it works as well as it appeared to in the the presentation. No one but Apple could make backups so intuitive, so appealing and so fun. Yes, fun. Makes me almost want to lose some documents.

Time Machine: Powerful and... Fun?...
(click image for larger view)

And speaking of cheesy graphics, Core Animation looks great. I've little doubt that Core Animation will be used to great success. I've also little doubt it will be abused by bad UI designers. Can I just say? Brace yourselves for the cheese.

Spaces also looks cool. I've never been a big virtual desktops kind of guy. But once it's baked into the OS, I may end up taking advantage of it after all. It looks like Apple's done a great job with it. One thing: Some folks are complaining that Apple tends to steal existing ideas from small software developers and put them in OS revisions. I don't really think this is always fair. Here's how I see it: Apple puts out the OS. Things — like, oh, I don't know, Finder labels, for instance — are missing. In the interim, some enterprising software developer comes along to fill the void with a program that brings labels to the Finder. The people are happy. In the next OS release, Apple then adds labels to the Finder, thus effectively ending the need for the third-party solution. Suddenly people are accusing Apple of stealing the idea and putting developers out of business. But the fact is, Apple had labels in Mac OS 9, which is why people wanted them in the first place. If anyone stole the idea, it was the developer who implemented the third-party label solution. But the fact is, no one stole anything. These ideas — Finder labels, tabbed chats, virtual desktops — are out there already. Software developers know this. They know it's risky to develop apps that could someday be implemented by Apple themselves. In fact, unless you're idea is fairly original — i.e. not a web page creation tool, not system modification, not a browser — you should expect some competition. Whether that competition comes from Apple or another third-party developer makes little difference in my book. Spaces is just Apple's implementation of an idea that's been around for a very long time.

The vague demonstration of Spotlight's new features has me worried, as I always am when it comes to Spotlight. The big new feature of Spotlight (well, aside from the boolean functionality, which is great) is it's ability to search network drives. Yes, this worries me immensely. One of Spotlight's biggest issues, in my book, is the problems it has returning relevant results. When Spotlight searches my huge store of files and folders, the results I get are usually not very useful. There's just too much stuff there, and its relevance is determined — well, I don't know how it's determined, but it doesn't seem to be very accurate for most of my needs. I have chalked this up to the fact that I have a very large amount of data. Users with less data seem to like Spotlight more than I do. So my worry is, what happens when you add to this already burgeoning local data, the data of all the machines on your LAN, which in my case is about 30 Macs? Surely the boolean functions will help aggregate more sensible results, but I worry that the accuracy and speed gains of the new version will be negated by all that extra data. What I was really hoping for from Spotlight was more ways to customize and configure the app. It's possible that wish will still come true. I hope it does.

Finally, one other thing I noticed in the keynote speech. It's something I've noticed in previous keynotes, actually. Steve Jobs, at least when he's onstage, always uses point-and-click to navigate the Mac. He always uses the mouse. Now I can say with a fair degree confidence that I'm a power user. That is, I know a great number of keyboard shortcuts, and I tend to use the keyboard for as much navigation as I can. I would guess Jobs is, like, the uber-power user. And yet he always uses the mouse for presentations. You never see him use a keyboard shortcut. Never. And I just wonder why. I assume it's for presentation's sake. I assume it's to show the average, mouse-encumered user how to do things. I assume it's also just more visually interesting. But who knows? Maybe Jobs is just a freakishly prodigious mouse user.


Steve Jobs: King of the Mouse
(click image for larger view)

Anyway, as I said at the top, we're in crunch mode here, getting ready for the return of students to the lab. I'll post when I can, but expect things to be lean here for a bit longer as I actually try to do some real work.

UPDATE 1:
I've found some more information on Mac OS X Server for Intel hardware. Seems if you want to run Server on your Intel Mac you need to buy the latest, shrink-wrapped, 10.4.7 version from Apple. That version is Universal. Previous versions are not. As far as I can tell, there is no upgrade path.

UPDATE 2:
A fellow blogger tells me that the coolest stuff in Leopard is the stuff not mentioned in the WWDC keynote. This is being confirmed by other reports. I'm a bit baffled by Apple's decision not to include this stuff in the keynote. Did they think it was too low-profile? Not consumer-friendly enough? I thought this conference was for developers. And I'm not the only one who seems as, if not more, impressed by some of the unannounced features than the announced ones. Makes me really wish I had the time to attend WWDC, but it'd be a hard sell to the bosses, I can t

ell you. The timing is just terrible. Oh well.

Sync Firefox Bookmarks with Google Extension

A few days ago I wrote about a method for publishing iCal calendars sans .Mac. In that vein, here's a quick plug for the Google Browser Sync extension for Firefox. The extension will allow you to save your Firefox cookies, saved passwords, bookmarks, history and tabs and windows — or any combination of these — to Google's servers. For the more security conscious, you can even opt to encrypt this information. The extension will then sync this information with any other Firefox browser that has the plug in installed and configured.


Google Browser Sync: Finally!
(click for larger view)

I've been using this for a few days now, and I'm loving it. For the first time in my life my home and work bookmarks are finally in sync. It's a thing of beauty, and something I've longed for for quite a while. Of course, if you're a Safari user, you're out of luck. But in my opinion, this is just one more reason you should really consider switching to Firefox. While Firefox may be slower than the others — and bear in mind that the Google Browser Sync will slow launch times down just a wee bit while it syncs your info — it's far and away the most full-featured and stable browser I use. It loads virtually everything and never, ever crashes. And now it syncs with itself via Google.

Don't bother getting me a Christmas gift; I have everything I need.