Link Banana

I’m not sure why, but this bit of idle technological speculation caught my eye. Jonathan Hedley wants to know why all modern mice seem to use a clearly inferior design.

Matrix found that the best place for the ball was up front as far as possible between the users thumb and forefinger. The forefinger can be controlled very precisely — much more so than the wrist and forearm. Matrix found that users would move their wrist and arm to move the cursor are large distance, but for fine control relied on the thumb and forefinger.

.. It simply seems that designers and manufacturers have, over the years, forgotten about the benefit of putting the sensor up front, or have placed precision and control further down their list of priorities. I hope that this isn’t the case: that newer research has shown that the current placement is the correct placement, or that something else has changed over time. But if that’s not the case, then I hope that some design team will rediscover either the principle, or the findings — so that we can continue to strengthen the connection between the user and the computer.

(via Big Contrarian)

This may be the greatest thing I’ve seen today.

From: Bill Gates
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:05 AM
To: Jim Allchin
Cc: Chris Jones (WINDOWS); Bharat Shah (NT); Joe Peterson; Will Poole; Brian Valentine; Anoop Gupta (RESEARCH)
Subject: Windows Usability Systematic degradation flame

I am quite disappointed at how Windows Usability has been going backwards and the program management groups don’t drive usability issues.

He goes on — and on and on — to personally make just about every gripe that every other user of Microsoft software has.

(via BBGadgets)

We’d heard speculation on this front, but it looks like there’s at least some reality to it.

This is an interesting development no doubt.

Also of note on the the topic, Robert Cringely’s latest column.

This story was all over the blogs when I logged on this morning, but usually with knee-jerk reactions. As usual The Economist is more considered and more comprehensive.

Microsoft is desperate to grab a bigger share of the online-advertising market because many of its software products are being challenged by free, advertising-supported services offered by Google. The company is also worried that Google’s dominance in search and advertising allows it to dictate terms to advertisers, and gives it an unfair advantage over its smaller rivals. This is a bit rich coming from Microsoft, a convicted monopolist in operating-system software, which has also been known to squeeze out smaller competitors, but its anger that it has had to endure years of scrutiny by regulators, while Google has been left alone, is genuine.

At Fortune, Patricia Sellers has a great piece about Melinda Gates that ranges from her childhood use of an Apple II (gasp!) to the intimidation she feels before adressing a roomful of malaria experts.

The impact [of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation] comes from the combination of Melinda’s holistic vision and Bill’s brainpower. Bono, the rock star-humanitarian who is both a friend of the Gateses and a grantee (through his One antipoverty campaign), calls their relationship “symbiotic.” Noting Bill’s fierceness, Bono says, “Sometimes I call him Kill Bill. Lots of people like him - and I include myself - are enraged, and we sweep ourselves into a fury at the wanton loss of lives. What we need is a much slower pulse to help us be rational. Melinda is that pulse.” Buffett also believes that Melinda makes Bill a better decision-maker. “He’s smart as hell, obviously,” Buffett says. “But in terms of seeing the whole picture, she’s smarter.” Would Buffett have given the Gates Foundation his fortune if Melinda were not in the picture? “That’s a great question,” he replies. “And the answer is, I’m not sure.”

(via Gizmodo)