» August 21, 2007

Steam: full of FAIL

When Steam released the most recent Civilization IV expansion, things went fairly smoothly, and I got the game before any of the stores around town had a boxed copy in. So I figured, why wait? Just download Bioshock via Steam, save a trip to the store, great.

The release was set for 4:00pm, whereupon the game would be unlocked and you would be able to play immediately. I had all the files pre-loaded last night. This is what Steam said at 4:35pm today:

bioshock-download.gif

An extra hour isn’t much to pay, I guess, but I know people who took off work today to play this game. And having a release at 4pm when boxed copies have been sitting in stores since the morning is just stupid. Plus, what was the point of pre-loading the game when you still have to download 400MB upon the game’s release?

Filed under: N3RDZ0R5
» August 17, 2007

The new TTC site: possibly rubbish?

If you believe accessibility design expert Joe Clark, there’s a better than even chance that the next iteration of the TTC website will be shit. Maybe not quite as shit as the current website, which has looked like cat puke for the better part of a decade now, but the glitzy, open-standards website you’re imagining in your head? Could be the stuff of dreams, if you follow the TTC’s Request for Proposals to the letter.

Clark’s ruffled many a feather in his time; he makes no bones when he thinks you’ve done something stupid, and in his eyes a lot of designers do some colossally stupid things. But the man knows his stuff and even when he goes overboard with the criticisms (like perhaps he does a bit here) there’s always a kernel of truth to his words—oftentimes a very large one. So there’s no reason not to believe what Clark’s saying about the request tenders (though you’d have to buy the tenders yourself to read the document and form your own opinions—and you probably wouldn’t do that unless you were really interested in winning the contract).

Are we in trouble then? Maybe, perhaps, possibly not: many of Clark’s criticisms stem from the same problem, namely that the TTC doesn’t appear to have much of a clue when it comes to web technologies. I suppose one glance at the current site could tell you that much, but some details of the two RFPs are genuinely scary. For example, the fact the TTC uses Windows/IE6 on all their systems? Well, okay, I can understand that—IE6, for better or for worse, is still a large chunk of the browser market, even if everyone detests it more than they detested Netscape 4. But requesting your site be viewable in Internet Explorer 5? Asking the contract winner to host the public beta site? (11.4 million people visited the TTC site in 2006. Enjoy your bandwidth bill!) Requiring the trip planner output to be compatible with Ventura Publisher? Including a 3.5-inch floppy disk with the RFP documents? Come on, guys, where did you even find a floppy drive to make those disks?

There are two possibilities here: either the TTC is woefully behind the times, or else we’ve dug up the original RFP for the TTC’s current site. If it’s the former, the developers who win the contract will have a tough road ahead. Hopefully it’s the latter.

(Oh, and hey, obligatory mention of how the TTC’s operating budget has been slashed for the rest of the year and possibly for all of next year. Note to City of Toronto: no one will visit your shiny new TTC site if people can’t use the TTC no more.)

Filed under: N3RDZ0R5
» August 5, 2007

IE7 is a steaming pile of crap

From the jQuery mailing list:

In IE the innerHTML property for a select element is readonly, so we
have to stick to createElement or the Option constructor here…

Oh, so THAT’S why I threw away three hours of my life this weekend.

Filed under: N3RDZ0R5
» August 2, 2007

“From my keyboard to, uh, your chest”

I do believe I’ll have to get me one of these. (Also, I heart Heather Powazek Champ from way back when she was harrumph.com.)

Filed under: N3RDZ0R5
» July 1, 2007

Good idea, bad idea

Why Facebook sucks. Someone really needs to figure out the algorithm that controls the news feed on Facebook—you know, the page that pops up when you log in, showing you all the latest stuff happening to your friends. First, the timestamps are ludicrously random—I’ve rarely seen an item listed with the proper time. Status updates are especially stupid, in that if you look at the list of status updates you’ll see pretty much exactly how long ago your friends last changed their status, but if you pop back to the front page those same updates will be assigned arbitrary times for no apparent reason.

The ability to tune out certain types of news items is woefully lacking; maybe my friends are all boring, but one day after turning down “joined group” items to the lowest level, my page was nearly full of group updates. Listen, Facebook, if my friends are really that inane, I’d really rather you just give me a blank page, thanks. There are also some items you can’t turn off, like gifts—possibly the most useless application ever conceived. “omg you bought this 64×64 GIF images JUST FOR ME? omg ur awsum!” No, I don’t want to join your Final Four pool. No, I don’t care about some random gurl who sent you toilet paper becuz thats soooooooo funny.

And finally, Facebook’s habit of aggregating similar items has the unintended effect of spamming your page with the same information over and over. One of my friends changed her profile picture. Well, hurray for her—do I really need to see this information twice? Sometimes Facebook will do a “state of the social network” news item where it helpfully posts that “32 of your friends have changed their profile picture.” Facebook must know how frequently people hit their newsfeed pages; they can’t honestly think that we need to be reminded of people who changed their profile photo a week ago. Unless it’s all a cynical ploy based on traffic analysis that suggests “if we mention more people on the front page, people will think they’re more in touch with their friends!”

It’s been apparent to me for a while now that we need a smarter Facebook. My previous foray into social networking came via Vox, which isn’t nearly as useful as Facebook is. But both services, and many more I’m sure, suffer from the same issues, of which the chaotic front page is only one aspect. The biggest problem is you still can’t put people into groups and manage privacy settings on a group-by-group basis (Facebook’s “networks” feature is a poor analogue and less useful as the number of networks increases). IM managed to get this sort of thing right nearly a decade ago; would this sort of friend management really be such an additional burden on the databases?

Why Facebook doesn’t suck. Kottke on Facebook and why it’s too much like bad old AOL. Kottke’s a good guy who knows his stuff, so he may have already thought of this line of reasoning and dismissed it. But I think he’s missed the boat on why Facebook is popular. He throws around phrases like “intranet for your friends” and “walled garden” as if those are all bad things. But in fact it’s that walled-garden mentality that first attracted people to Facebook. The original target audience, college students, aren’t naive; we grew up alongside the internet, and heard the horror stories of girls whose striptease videos are now online thanks to a spurned ex, or creepy pedophiles chatting up teens in IRC, or the lengths to which marketers will go to to get their hands on your address. We’ve seen the rise of spam, the RIAA suing families into oblivion and people getting fired for blogging.

As the interstitial internet generation—the one that bridges the gap between those who still live, by and large, in a pre-internet mindset, and the generation who’s adopted MySpace in droves and can’t imagine a time before the internet—we’ve done a lot of thinking about how much information sharing is too much information sharing. Privacy is still important, even as we learn the joys of forming relationships and sharing gossip online. We like the idea of our lives being an open book, but only to the group of people that we trust, and almost never to corporate interests. It’s in that climate that Facebook was born—a social networking site that built into the system as many safeguards and layers of protection as possible to make sure its users felt safe enough to share, and with only those people they wanted to share with.

The initial launch of Facebook only included a couple of universities and colleges, and even talking across college networks was hard—you basically had to know who you were looking for, and your target had to want to be found by people outside his or her network. Those basic safeguards still exist, in fact. Part of the initial appeal of Facebook was its limited scope; not just anyone could get in, only other college students just like you. Even as Facebook expanded, it still remained a students-only place, where you needed to prove your affiliation before you’d be let in. In other words, Facebook was a walled garden. But unlike AOL, which was built as a closed system because they didn’t really know any better at the time, Facebook was built as a closed system partially on purpose.

Every expansion of Facebook since the early days has caused throngs of members to throw up groups protesting the latest change. Facebook open to just anyone? No! Facebook introduces mini-feeds? Stop the snooping! Someone creates an application that lets people see who’s visited their profile? Absolutely not! And so on and so forth. It should be crystal clear by now that a significant portion of the Facebook community actually prefers the closed nature of the network. The idea that info inside Facebook should be freely available outside Facebook would destroy one of the big reasons why people flock to Facebook, even now that basically anyone can join.

Should Kottke’s vision of an open platform that replaces Facebook while maintaining its many privacy features come to fruition, then sure, I’d switch. I’d much rather a bunch of small, loosely connected services have access to bits of my info than Facebook having access to all of my info. Until that day comes, a lot of people are going to continue to stick with Facebook, not just because it’s easier to use but because of the perception that on Facebook, you control who knows your secrets and who doesn’t.

Filed under: N3RDZ0R5
» June 26, 2007

One very good reason to like the iPhone—in America

According to Apple, the cheapest iPhone data plan you can get is $60/month USD. For that princely sum you get:

  • 450 daytime minutes
  • 5000 evening/weekend minutes (starting ???pm)
  • rollover minutes (I guess for both daytime and evening?)
  • unlimited data
  • 200 free text messages (incoming AND outgoing combined)
  • unlimited calls to other AT&T mobiles
  • voicemail, possibly call display/waiting as well

I’m on Rogers Wireless in Canada. I pay an average of $60 CAD for my plan. This is what I get:

  • 100 daytime minutes
  • 1000 evening/weekend minutes (starting 6pm)
  • NO rollover minutes (does this concept even exist in Canada?)
  • NO data plan
  • 125 free outgoing text messages (unlimited incoming)
  • NO unlimited calls to other Rogers mobiles
  • voicemail, call display, call waiting (the last is free with all plans, the other two cost $10/month)

To summarize, I’m paying more than a $60 American plan so I can receive 350+ fewer daytime minutes, 4000+ fewer evening/weekend minutes, and a complete lack of data connectivity.

Filed under: N3RDZ0R5
» June 10, 2007

COULD OVERTHINK A PLATE OF BEANS

Today, Metafilter is full of FAIL.

Filed under: N3RDZ0R5
» June 2, 2007

Earth to Google: stop doing stupid shit.

A couple of things that have annoyed me lately about Google’s various web apps:

Street View. Google has recently unveiled their Street View functionality in Google Maps. Basically it allows you to see 360° panorama images of streets in specific U.S. cities. It’s a really nifty feature, but there’s a problem. Try clicking on this link. If you’re in the States, everything is fine. If you’re outside the States, you’ll probably be incredibly confused. That’s because Google, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that people outside the States shouldn’t see the Street View data, and have turned it off by default. You have to use a simple workaround to see the purty pictures. This isn’t a huge deal, but it’s a bit of a pain when everyone’s posting “omg look at this streetview I found!” links and you’re sitting there wondering why nothing’s showing up.

Custom Search Engine, take one. Google’s Custom Search Engine feature has been up for a couple of months now. It’s basically a way for people to construct their own personalized search engine by limiting the sites to search to a certain group of sites—handy for searching specific topics like, say, cascading style sheets (CSS) on specific expert sites. It’s also handy for site-specific search, like when you want to put a search function on your own site. However, it turns out that CSE reacts badly to Firefox’s Adblock extensions, or more specifically the blacklist rulesets Adblock uses. Because Google uses a Javascript-created iframe to show search results inside the design of your site, it triggers an aggressive iframe-blocking rule in Adblock—the rule blocks any iframe whose URL contains the term “ad,” and Google’s CSE results URL contains a query string including “ad=w#”. As a result, any browser with Adblock enabled will see the site design and a blank space where the results are supposed to be. Highly counterintuitive.

Custom Search Engine, take two. But that’s not the serious flaw with CSE; the serious flaw is that if a user has Javascript disabled, the search results also disappear. Worse, there’s absolutely no hint whatsoever that you need Javascript turned on; all you get is the site design and the blank spot, just like with Adblock. Now Adblock mucks about a bit with website operation because it blocks items that aren’t supposed to be blocked. But disabling Javascript is a far more common occurrence; moreover, it’s perfectly standard behaviour. I’m not one of those zealots that says your site must work absolutely perfectly if Javascript is off, but to leave the site a) non-functional without b) giving any clue as to why is preposterous.

Obfuscated search results. Finally, a little annoyance about Google’s search results themselves: recently Google has taken to including an extremely lengthy redirect link to sites in the search results, as opposed to the actual URL of the site. This is a giant pain in the ass when attempting to copy and paste links from Google’s search results, and I don’t really understand why the change was made.

Filed under: N3RDZ0R5
» May 30, 2007

Last.fm bought by CBS

BBC article. Official word from last.fm. As someone who’s got over four years of listening data on the site, it’s a reminder that there’s more than enough data on me out there to satisfy any marketer—including possibly the higher-ups at CBS, last.fm’s reassurances about maintaining privacy notwithstanding. Hopefully someone’s putting together the open-source alternative to last.fm should things go south quickly.

» May 22, 2007

The initial verdict on Vista+CableCard: WTF?

HTPC junkies have been simultaneously looking forward to and dreading this day: the review embargo on CableCard media center PCs has been lifted.

What on earth is a CableCard? Back in the days before digital cable, getting your computer to display a TV signal was relatively straightforward. You either bought an ATI All-In-Wonder card, like I did (and never will again, no thanks to the continuing degradation of ATI’s drivers and MMC tuner software) or you got a regular video card and an add-on tuner card like a Hauppauge PVR-150. You took the coax cable running out of your wall, screwed it into the back of the tuner card, fired up the TV software, and voila—television in a window on your desktop! You could even do nifty things like timeshifting like a PVR and watching television as a translucent display on top of the OS. I could be watching full-screen TV while writing this post, if there was anything good on now.

Unfortunately, none of this is any good if you want to watch HDTV. Your computer can handle it, but because digital cable is so much better in picture quality, combining it with a computer means instant recipe for widespread piracy. At least, that’s the justification the cable providers give for encumbering their set-top digital cable boxes with DRM, turning off the Firewire ports so you can’t watch recorded shows off the hard drive on your computer, and all sorts of haberdashery to thwart anyone that’s even thinking of watching digital cable on their computer. Up until CableCare, your only real options were the following:
(more…)

Filed under: N3RDZ0R5
« Previous PageNext Page »