(69th) What's your name?

- Who are you?
- The new Number Two
- Who is Number One?
- You are Number Six
- I am not a number, I am a free man!

The previous dialog can be found from a TV-Serie from the 60's. And it can be heard from Iron Maiden's song called the Prisoner that can be found from their breakthrough album The Number of The Beast.

What I'm referring here is not the serie, not the song or not even the band, even though the band and the songs are one of my all time favorites and has been a significant influence even for my reading habits. The point in here is to be a post about naming the mobile phone products for nowadays market. It seems that most of the mobile phone manufacturers use some sort of numerical naming convention for their phone models. Something referring to some car model naming. It seems to work anywhere else but in the states. So, Sonyericsson  named it's next big thing to be called Idou (Not pronounced I Do You :D), RIM has it's blackberry and apple has it's Iphone. Nokia is using the numbering system with a character N or E in front of it what comes to be the sign to tell if it is a multimedia (N-series) or business-like (E-series) phone.

Now, yesterday evening I was watching second to last Conan O'Brien -show, where the host was asking his nicely pre-defined questions from Jerry Seinfeld. He asked about Jerry's attitude towards the future technology. And named precisely only Blackberry and iPhone. He did not talk about Multimedia Computer X87987387 v4 or anything that type of nerdish named phone model, e.g. Sonyericsson W960i (Injection??) or Nokia N96 etc. My point being here is that if I understand human mind at all, it is easier to so called normal people to adapt to naming convention that's referring to something familiar or easily swallowable, like iPhone, Razor etc. The numbering stuff is strictly easily adopted by the nerds and geeks, and why not, that's ok, fine by me, I can see myself in that category, too. After this long babbling about the names and the people I'd like to sharpen my point to be that the BIG markets should be among the normal, middle-class -people, who nowadays are not THAT much technologically oriented, even though they all seem to have their personal PC:s or MacBooks, which they proudly use for Facebooking everything in their life. And that's the mass (in my mind) where to target the marketing and therefore should the naming convention of the products been taken under serious re-consideration.

Or then again, not. Like I care :D

(32nd) Simple Browsing

First of all. I'm not a windows -hater. Not that I'm a big fan of any of the operating systems at the moment. Or any software, as I see them, too. It seems that more powerful they get, more features are added. And the way the features are added really seems to suck. I don't know if anyone of the development circle in open or closed software side of the web can actually look outside the box they are coding. Nice features and plug-ins are added to the programs and OS:s, but then again they are not thought through.

For example the web browsers, who needs the title bar? I mean really, who? You can use the Google search -box to find the page you want. OK, some might need it, but why it has to be visible. Or the default encoding. After you've set it up, how often do you change it? Usually (if the web page is properly done) auto
-setting should work.
And any of that toolbar- stuff, in the other hand. From my point of view they could be thrown away from the screen. And be hidden in a cleverly designed pop-up that can be activated with secondary mouse button, for example.

Then there's this social web browser, Flock. It is neat and it stores the web 2.0 social blah blah in one place. Nice idea, but even more toolbars and whatsoever, check it yourself. It's not that bad, still.

All the settings you need to set for your browsing environment could be asked from you in the installation phase, while the files are unpacked and the registry is tweaked. That sort of a settings- file can be then stored locally before the first boot when it is read as an input to the executed program. When the program is shut down, it would store the settings in to the registry instead of the default file. At least in windows :D Hmmm. This makes me think twice about the security issues that were in my mind when writing this part down. Have to check it anyway, if I'm about to actually develop this sort of tweak.


Actually, I'll have to check if somebody has done it already.There's simply no point to re-create the wheel. Unless the pre-released wheel is a triangle ;)

BLING! (sound of the darn triangle, then)

But anyhow, I think the same approach can be taken in to any OS development, too. Windows is nowadays quite easy to use, but still, the start menu? And Vista sidebar? Sidebar looks neat but the gadgets suck. Really. At least the default ones. I suppose there's a bunch of really talented developers in Redmond (or in India;), but they are concentrating to more serious business than creating gadgets for the end-users. Who then develop them themselves. Which is ok, but the overall quality of the gadgets is poor.

And Linux, oh my god :D Ubuntu has been the only distribution ever to work at least when you help it out of the box. There's usually way too much to choose from, even though, the latest releases have been awesome. You can actually use this as an everyday computer, and you don't usually have to tweak anything. IF you own a computer that is commonly used and uses common hardware. And if it doesn't, you usually find your way through by reading forums and blogs. Unlike in windows, in linux-world the word is somewhat more free. But then, if you want to tweak it, you can do whatever you want, if you just have the abilities to do it. In the other hand the overall quality of the software made for linux is better than in windows, but the usability still sucks.

Mac (The apple stuff) has been pronounced as a highly sofisticated and user-friendly operating system. And I do agree. The native OSX -applications are highly usable, but still, there's the toolbar. And it seems to be always there. I just can't still see the point. :D

Overall, I think that the usability of different types of software has been studied carefully for years. Why do we still have to stick in to these old-fashioned toolbars and UI:s which seem to be designed to show how much different types of properties we can fit in to one application. As long the software works, you don't need to change the settings.

Talking about the usability, have you tried to write a SMS with cellular phone? Or make a call with the latest ones? This could go on and on... (and it will ;)