Skip to main content

Google Your Spellchecker

Feature volume rises as applications and services merge and soon we will need the power of Google within single applications. Of course, there are reasons for this that lend to the idea that we will not have single applications in the future. As applications migrate into services, and services combine and interact, the whole of software is evolving into a massive software ecosystem. Every state of software can be integrate, broadcast, and pull from a host of other global services. The number of "features" available at any point is rocketing into unimaginable heights. Until we can automate the integration, filtering, and aggregation of the mass of services we have for working with the same data set, we do not benefit as fully from their availability.

Jeff Atwood brought this up in context of Office 2007's Ribbon and the Scout plug-in that may not see the light of day, for internal political reasons at Redmond. The apparent story is that adding a feature to search their interface, even optionally, would undermine their attempts at marketing the glory that is the Ribbon. Of course, a searchable Ribbon is leagues beyond the traditional mess of menus and toolbars. Embrace of this concept would do nothing but benefit them, and give a head start in giving users a compass to navigate the ocean of features coming to them. Usability is about to transform from a gentle drift to a tidal wave.

I want to expand on this, but it is for another post. Features adapt into web services. Microformats and service discovery replace Plug-in systems. The interfaces of our applications will become a search engine of features, contextualized to the present task. When I can gather some information and thoughts on these subjects, I want to produce something interesting to gather the ideas into one place.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Respect and Code Reviews

Code Reviews in a development team only function best, or possible at all, when everyone approaches them with respect. That’s something I’ve usually taken for granted because I’ve had the opportunity to work with amazing developers who shine not just in their technical skills but in their interpersonal skills on a team. That isn’t always the case, so I’m going to put into words something that often exists just in assumptions.
You have to respect your code. This is first only because the nature and intent of code reviews are to safeguard the quality of your code, so even having code reviews demonstrates a baseline of respect for that code. But, maybe not everyone on the team has the same level of respect or entered a team with existing review traditions that they aren’t acquainted with.
There can be culture shock when you enter a team that’s really heavy on code reviews, but also if you enter a team or interact with a colleague who doesn’t share that level of respect for the process or…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…