Wednesday 10th February, 2010
In the course of my usual data-immersion session in my RSS reader of choice I came across a short but thought-provoking post by Stephen Law linking to some data on the age of consent.
Being a big fan of data visualisation I decided to have a go at representing the data in a way that can be more easily absorbed. So, armed with the source data, a list of ISO country codes, and the docs for the Google Chart API, I started playing.
The biggest question when visualising data, just like with statistics, is deciding what you’re looking for. This data is complex enough to be difficult to show in its entirity, involving maybe a dozen or so possible pieces of information for each location.
Here I’ve opted to look at the difference between the age of consent for straight couples and gay couples.
- Blue indicates larger differences between straight and gay ages of consent (or illegality)
Monday 1st February, 2010
Following on from a previous post about how the Verified By Visa and Mastercard SecureCode are training users to give up their identity to anyone who asks for it, apparently some lovely boffins at Cambridge have written a paper on it. (via)
Wednesday 15th October, 2008
console.log() in Firebug.
This is all that’s missing (in roughly JQuery syntax for brevity):
window.onerror = function(e)
// get the error data
if (!e) e = window.error;
// save error and UI activity for context
// do callback if necessary
Friday 22nd August, 2008
I can’t help thinking there’s something missing from Seth Godin’s post “Ads are the new online tip jar“.
If people click through ads to thank the content provider rather than because they’re interested in the product, it seems certain that conversion rates will decline. The value of those clicks will then go down, possibly as far as the level they were at before. Worse still, content providers who didn’t encourage those extra clicks could be worse off because of that decreasing click value.
Perhaps a safer alternative is to ask your readers to look at the ads, and only click through if they’re actually interested.
Thursday 7th August, 2008
A real gem from Outlook this morning. It’s been sending automated emails (SVN commit notices if you’re interested) from people in the office to my junk mail folder.
Marking those emails as “not junk” seemed to have no effect whatsoever, other than popping up a dialogue box which promised to move the email to my inbox (it didn’t). Subsequent emails still went to my junk mail folder.
Naively I thought I’d add the addresses of my colleagues to my “safe senders list” so that they didn’t go to the junk folder.
You’d think that’d just add the sender to my safe senders list, right? Wrong :o)
Apparently the sender is from within my organisation, so I can’t add them to my safe senders list. Instead I’ll have to spend more of my life working around Outlook’s bad design. Today it made three mistakes that got in the way of my productivity:
- Sending useful email (that I’ve set up rules to filter) to the junk folder
- Failing to mark them as not junk despite explicit commands
- Putting up a comedy alert message instead of adding those users to my safe senders list
I don’t mean to pick on Outlook, it’s just that I have to use it all the time, and it gets in the way so often and for such daft reasons that I feel compelled to verbalise it. I’m sure the Outlook team are nice guys.
Friday 25th July, 2008
Microsoft recently released Worldwide Telescope, a download that allows you to view a virtual night sky, zoom into it, and rotate it around your viewpoint. Great idea, but I was hoping for something a bit more interesting after seeing their Seadragon demo and Google Earth.
The child in me was hoping for a night sky that was full of images rather than just one at a time, and the physicist in me was hoping that they’d normalised the spectral range of the images so that you could view any part of the sky in whatever range of the EM spectrum you wanted, and adjust that range using a slider in real time.
Now that would have impressed me. Don’t be disheartened MS WWT team, this is the 21st century. We’re a tough audience.
Friday 4th July, 2008
When I was first told about Facebook, I asked what was so good about it. Apparently I could upload photos, and “connect” to my friends. I said “so what”.
Later I tried it, and it was quite addictive. Not because of the photos, or the friends that I could keep in touch with the old fashioned way, but because of the news feed. I could get bite-sized chunks of news and feel in touch with people I otherwise wouldn’t see.
It’s the mini-feed that makes it addictive. The apps and endless invites are frankly boring unless you have time to burn.
Services like Twitter and Friendfeed provide that same ambient contact without the rest of the cruft, without the data-lockin, and without the endless stream of zombie bites, ultra-mega-wall spam and “gifts”. I say the same ambient contact, but it’s actually better.
Facebook news feed
This is a sample of my Facebook news feed. It’s fine, but compare it to the level of detail in my Twitter feed. The Twitter feed is user-linkable, has avatars, allows broadcast replies, direct replies, and favourites.
None of this is anything facebook can’t replicate, but really I don’t see the attraction of going back to their closed eco-system when the open internet offers the best bits, but without the crap.