Digital Ponderings

A few weeks ago, while formatting the primary drive and reinstalling Windows 7 on my PC… again… an unnecessary and onerous task that many power-users do on a yearly schedule, I realized that the Mac that I used exclusively at work, by comparison, was such a panacea of productivity and compassion to my workflow that I must be a fool to continue to battle my PC at home for dominance to get something accomplished. The Mac works the way I think, and almost everything on it is so intuitive that I am rarely at a loss for how to do the thing that I wish to do, no matter how orphicf or complex. The PC, on the other hand, tries, very hard, to do what I ask of it, but as often as not there is so much extraneous work that goes into getting a place of productivity that the scales balance and sum total of productivity vs. effort is zero, and for me, that has become unacceptable.

I happened across an article this morning that made me feel as though an engine is revving. Readying itself to blast off into a blurred world, breaking through solid barriers erected by a formerly pertinent norm. A New World Order is emerging. The article, “If you value your online security, you should welcome the iPad,” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/09/ipad-apple-security) outlines a facet of Apple technology products well known to Apple-philes, that their products are (so far) invulnerable to malicious attack such as viruses and spyware, which is yet another deciding factor for me. The entire reason I was formatting my hard drive and re-installing Windows 7 is because of spyware accumulation, remnants of viral infections, and a garbage dump of registry debris. Don’t get me wrong, I am an adept computer user, and very careful with respect to viruses and spyware, but when you spend your life on the Internet they are almost impossible to avoid if you use a PC.

So now, after 6 months of solid, exclusive work on my Mac in my office, I am completely convinced that the panacea of productivity, ease of use and ability to create VERY high quality results with an utter minimum of effort is for me. I am going to shelve my PC, which is the last in a long line of machines that I have battled with, nurtured through illness and been frustrated in upgrading (software and hardware), and replace it with a kinder, gentler computer.

I can hear the outcries already… “But Apple is getting so draconian!” and “Those walls around the garden are a prison in disguise!” Perhaps, but I would rather live in a beautiful prison, where I am protected from harm, have every conceivable amenity I could ever hope for (PLEASE do not tell me that Mac won’t run certain apps… have you ever tried to run Keynote on a PC?), and am nurtured through the entire creative process rather than confounded by my tools.

Next post will be from my new Mac!

I cannot find the research published online yet, but on the radio this morning there was mention of a study taking place with 18-month old to 3-year old children and their ability to understand the iPad with not ever seeing it before or being told anything about it.

After only 3 minutes all groups were able to navigate and essentially control the device, using touch, swipe, and even multi-touch gestures.

Companies like Disney and Nickelodeon will be scrambling to create next-gen product that runs exclusively on this platform, and this, to me at least, is a very strong statement to the notion that the iPad represents a true paradigm shift in the fundamental way we will work with tomorrow’s technology.

My 4-year-old son and 18-month-old daughter both play with ours. There was no noticeable learning curve; they just both “got it.” When we saw the initial announcement for the device, I made the comment that this will shape the way we view, interact with, and utilize computers in the future, and this just reinforces my opinion that this device is the gateway to a New World Order where technology truly begins to realize the ideal of a silent, unobtrusive companion that makes our lives simpler, easier, better.

That may seem like a weird thing to say in an age where delicate surgeries, once completely impossible, can now be performed by a doctor who is half-way around the world from his patient, but when you think about how technology in our home affects our lives, and I mean really scrutinize it, I think you will find that there is a 50/50 trade-off between the convenience and the headache.

Sure, having the Internet at your disposal on a whim is wonderful, but what did it take to get there? How many problems/annoyances/misconfigurations did you have to go through while procuring the equipment and services to get you there? How often does your cellular phone, the pinnacle of convenience, fail you (dropped calls, OS problems, pocket calls, etc.)? There is always a trade-off.

This is not to say that the iPad is a fool-proof, fail-safe device. Not in any way. But the paradigm of how it behaves, how it is used, and the simple philosophy behind Apple’s design guidelines (do not do anything on the device that does not have a firmly rooted concept in the real world), will, IMHO, set the standard for how humans and machines interact in the coming years.

What could be more intuitive than to read a digital book, flipping pages exactly as you would a real book, while being able to interact with any element in the text or imagery for further enjoyment or edification, all while keeping the “tomes” in a virtual bookshelf that looks and feels like something out of an aristocrats library?

It is simple, transparent, elegant, and intuitive. And I believe that THAT is the future of human-computer interaction, and it is finally within our grasp, with the iPad paving the way.

Introduction
Let’s begin with a couple of definitions:

• Causality = the NECESSARY relationship between incident (cause) and result (effect), which is a direct consequence of the first.
• Correlation = the measurable association between two variables or events.

Causality is, by definition, empirical, whereas correlation is, by convention, anecdotal.

Consider the following statement:

A flood happens one evening when a comet is visible in the sky; therefore, the comet caused the flood.

The two events (the appearance of the comet and the flood) are CORRELATED but not causal. They happened proximally in time (contemporaneously), but any further attempts to link the two beyond that (without further information) is futile, as there is no evidence that the flood was a direct consequence of the comet’s presence, rendering the statement above logical fallacy.

Now, consider this statement:

Students who eat breakfast do better in school.

Is this causal or correlative? It certainly seems causal, right? But, the causal interpretation would state:

Students that do well in school do so BECAUSE they eat breakfast.

Looking at the information from this viewpoint suddenly makes the statement seem silly. Just because a person eats breakfast may have some impact on his/her scholastic performance, but it is hardly the CAUSE.

Finally, let’s consider:

Smoking causes lung cancer.

Here is a true causality. How do we know that it is not just another case of correlation masquerading as more profound information? Because, as with any EMPIRICAL evidence, the information was gathered in a controlled study (a study in which a test case is compared with a case that has known effects or outcomes), and is therefore consistent, observable, and reproducible.

How Does This Apply to Process?
At the heart of agility (the process as well as the physical characteristeric) lies accuracy, of which speed is a by-product. If we are to become agile as a team in our response to emergencies as well as planned, controlled work, we must improve not the rapidity with which we respond, but rather the accuracy with which our responses are targeted.

In any scientific setting, empirical evidence reigns supreme, though often difficult to obtain. Often, in less formal scientific settings, we are romanced by the allure of evidence that APPEARS to be empirical, but with careful consideration it rapidly dissolves under scrutiny. Our agility will be predicated by our ability to focus on the empirical and recognize the anecdotal.

I cannot tell you how many times in my development career I have looked at a piece of code that is under-performing, and KNOWN, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what the problem is, only to stick a profiling tool on the code and be proven wrong. Often, the area of the code that was the culprit was a place I never would have looked.

The point of this is even though we have an intelligent, skilled team with a good deal of experience, we need proper process and tools to increase our accuracy. Jumping to conclusions based on insufficient, vague, or downright incorrect information doubles the amount of work required to solve the problem. Stepping back, examining the facts, and isolation and removing variables will ensure we are seeing a clear, proper picture of the issue, so that we can target responses to it with surety that they will move us toward a solution of the core cause rather than a band-aid on a symptom.