A Different Perspective

Looking at Things From a New Angle

I think there has been a change in how many people look at things in the Western World. For much of the 20th Century -- up until the 1970's or 80's we were very much driven by paper. If we were doing a report or take notes we would write it on paper that was oriented vertically. Our TV's and movie screens however were oriented horizontally. The current terms used for these orientations -- at least in the world of the Internet, so far as I know -- are "Portrait" (image to left by DWP¹) and "Landscape" (image to right by DWP¹).

Where this comes important is when video digital terminals and later personal computer monitors came into common use. The terminals and monitors were nearly all in landscape orientation. There were a few notable exceptions I'll get to. This wasn't of great importance until people began to be able to compose documents on the computer or electronic word processor. The screen just didn't fit the printed word on paper. Paper of course normally in publication is in the portrait orientation.

To begin with there was little issue because people wrote on the computer and what they wrote was really not in the same format as what they expected to see printed on paper. Good "word processors" would have a tool for previewing what the printed document should look like and it was okay if this just took up a portion of the landscape oriented screen. Later word processing software and office suites -- to be joined with actual "Desktop Publishing" software -- actually was WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get). That meant that what you saw on the screen more and more resembled what was actually going to be seen on paper and at full size. Of course the screen went one way and the paper the other. For the most part that has just been accepted and programs have included modes that let you see shrunken versions that will fit on the monitor screen or just let you see a part of the page. Sometimes it is nice to see a two page or even multi-page preview on screen to see how things fit together as a whole document.

Apple did take a step forward with their Portrait Display for the Macintosh²³ (image to right - image from "myoldmac.net"). It was monochrome like the original Macs and since so were printers at the time, black print on white screen was just fine. (or many shades of grey) There also was pride on very white screens if I recall the term "paper white screen. There were also monitors developed that would rotate from landscape to portrait orientation. I think that the portrait oriented monitors were/are mostly used by people who do a lot of desktop publishing.

With the ability to have multiple monitors hooked up to computers now and shared desktops and so forth, there is a resurgence in use of portrait oriented monitors. (image to left - image from "MacNN Forumsª")  Probably the new thin designed screens also makes it easier to design and implement considering the lighter components inside without the hefty cathode ray tube (CRT) and transformers.

Note how the second portrait monitor fits so nicely to the left of the main, quite large monitor.

Consider this though: will there be a bias when people design pages, for them to design to the landscape page more often now than the portrait? I got to thinking about that a few years ago when designing event posters for the museum I volunteer at. (The Port Moody Station Museumº) I was designing the posters to fit on regular "letter" sized paper and thought about how we orient such stuff on the paper. Often maps will go landscape while small posters go portrait. When people put together websites although the screen tends to be landscape, the pages tend to either be designed to fit one page landscape or extend portrait style.

I was wondering if people seeing more and more things in text on a landscape screen would be tending to design documents on that landscape orientation? I know some things just fit better one way or the other. Many people do read things more easily in narrower columns so a wide page is a problem. (Sorry but I can't cite a source at the moment on that, it is something told me by teachers and I have read in articles on learning disorders. It has to do with the eye skipping up or down a line more easily on long lines.) But a wide page can take multiple columns like the news papers have.

Still I think people are more used to scrolling down a long web page than across one. Though the trackpad on my Macbook and the MightyMouse I bought for it can scroll horizontally with equal ease, most mice I have come across are intended to scroll vertically. I wonder though if younger people have less bias against horizontal scrolling and horizontally presented pages? Of course... do people have any bias at all in either direction? .

Later!
~ Darrell

134.

__________
¹ "DWP" -- That's me.

² "myoldmac.net -- Apple Macintosh Portrait Display -- Buy it!"

³ "Apple Portrait Display" MonitorWorld.com.

ª "The New Power Mac Picture Thread -- Page 13" blakespot; Sept 29, 2006, 6:00 pm: MacNN Forums

º "The Port Moody Station Museum Blog" 2734 Murray Street Port Moody, British Columbia, Canada (604) 939-1648 run by the Port Moody Heritage Society

Of Belts and Books, Briefcases and Backbacks... Part-1

Belting One On -- Front Seat Bad-Backseat Good

I come from a reckless generation... perhaps lucky we were wreck-less.

When I grew up, cars seldom had seatbelts as standard equipment -- as I mentioned in "Wandering Wags: Travelling Time With Your Dog" -- with our first car with seatbelts being a '66 Meteor. (image to right -- image from "Winged Messenger - Canadian Cars") That is referring to our Parent's car, that is. Our '72 Mercury was the first care that had convenient seatbelts and we only really started regularly using them towards 1976 or so. Those were such reckless times...

Back then too, my Sister and I considered it a treat to ride up in the front seat with Dad. There really were only a few times when that happened: When Mom stayed home -- she didn't drive and so the passenger seat was Mom's seat; when we went on a long highway trip and my Sister got carsick -- and Mom would have her sit up front with her; when there were more than two guest passengers in the car meaning that the back seat was full so there'd be three up front; and when on a few rare occasions when the trunk was so full of stuff -- like when Grandpa gave Dad a side of beef one Christmas -- that the suitcases took up the half of the back seat that my Sister normally sat on and so she had to sit in the front seat. Those were such reckless times...

(image to left, 1972 Mercury Monterey -- image from "Down On The Street")

I won't say my Parents were neglegent. Things were different in the 60's and early 70's. My Parents were quite strict actually that my Sister and I were to stay seated in the car while we travelled and that we were not to be standing on the seat like it seemed at least half the parents let their children do. They also didn't let us hang out the window like the family dog either like it seemed some families did. Even our dogs were required to keep their heads inside the car... true they were allowed to have their front paws on the back of the front seat so their nose could get out the window, but they had to keep their head in the car.

As time went on, accelerated -- perhaps with my defensive driving courses which my parents thought it was a good idea to have -- I began to figure it a good idea to wear a seatbelt. I worked to get myself into the habit of wearing one which was enforced in Driver Training. I decided I would always wear one driving and that it became part of my driving ritual when I got my first car when I was 17. I have always worn one since if there was a seatbelt and if it was at all possible or prudent. On some jobs as a security officer doing patrols on the dock it wasn't prudent. Driving without wearing a seatbelt feels naked to me.

Airbags seemed like a good idea to me. I did worry about people deciding not to wear seatbelts becausethey had airbags, but... people will be people. I do recall there being discussions early on about the dangers of airbags, but airbags were only found on upscale cars as options. Issues about dangers of airbags to children and smaller adults were something that were in the hands of the people who opted for the airbags. Things were different when airbags started becoming the norm. (airbag deployment image to right -- image from "GarageLibrary.com")

That is history. Since then seatbelt use, like helmet use on motorbikes and now bicycles, has become manditory and enforced by law. (image of child in bicycle helmet to left from "HAMAX") There have been stricter and stricter regulation on seating for children riding in motor vehicles. At first the regulations did rankle me because I was a poor student and though I had a car never had much money and I tended to taxi around friends who did not have cars yet had children. I could not afford to buy carseats for children or modify my older though well loved and cared for cars. Still since then there have been put into place resources for low income families to buy carseats for their kids even if they don't have a car so that they have them when it comes time to transport their children.

I think that carseats are a good idea, just like I think seatbelts are. (image to right from U.S. Census Bureau) I think that other safety equipment like airbags are good things too.

But there is something that has been bothering me... it is about the whole thing of it being a bad thing for children to be in the front seat of a car. I can agree that if the airbag is dangerous to children and small adult, that a child should ride in the backseat. ...but... I think there is a problem -- the problem not being with where the children ride, but why they must ride there. I think that the problem is with airbag design and rather than moving children and small adults out of the front seat, airbags should be made safer!

I see many arguments about the back seat being inherently safer from objects penetrating the interior of the car or crumple damage. There is validity there, and long, long ago I recall Mom talking about the front passenger seat being called "the suicide seat" -- though a lot of that was from pre-seatbelt days due to the fact that the front passenger would be catapulted through the windshield since they didn't have anything in front of them to stop them. The driver had the steering wheel and the back seat passengers had the back of the front seat to stop them from hurtling forward... remember this was before people so regularly wore seatbelts.

Okay so there were more dangers in the front passenger seat. That is especially true I know when nobody wears seatbelts. I think though where the argument wears thin is that if the back seat is safer... why let even the driver sit in the front seat? I know that sounds stupid. But if the seat is dangerous, then should anyone be allowed to sit there? Couldn't the front seat be made as safe as the back?

(image to left of forward facing car seat from "AAP -- Car Safety Seats: A guide for Families -- 2008")

I think in part the airbags and shoulder harness in the front seats -- especially for the passenger seat -- were to increase that safety, as were things like padded dashboards and so forth.

I think rather than all the propaganda to push children to the back seat, airbags that are not dangerous to them should be designed! There is a flaw in the airbags if they injure. I would have thought more research would have been done in the time since they were invented to solve this problem. There are better airbag systems coming out now and in development, but I rather think that kids are being asked to sit in the back of the bus.

Later!
~ Darrell

130.

Surge's Up!

Look Ma! No Wires!

Something I have just come across on the technology news is something demonstrated by Intel -- a wireless power system!

Their demonstration involved a stand with a 60-Watt light bulb powered by their magnetic resonance technique. This technique uses a tuned coil to resonate with the same frequency as that of the oscillating magnetic field in the power source. (image to left -- image from Daily Tech¹)

Intel demonstrated the system August 22, 2008² with the 60-Watt bulb possibly because it "...uses more power than a typical laptop computer."² While transmitting power has been possible with different technologies since the times of Nikola Tesla -- back before power-lines crossed the countryside. ...Tesla came up with the technique of AC power.

Nikola Tesla was looking for ways to transmit power over long distances; thinking that nobody would be interested in laying grids of power lines across city and countryside. Of course we now now different with our cities and countrysides criss-crossed with networks of powerlines carrying Tesla's multi-phased AC current. Image to right of Nikola Tesla demostrating wireless power transmission. (image to right -- image from Serbia the Golden Apple³)

The Intel demonstration however was of shorter range and not intended for sending power across the city, rather its intent is to power devices within the home or office without wires. It might only mean not having to plug in your cell phone, but it charging whenever at home or in the office -- or perhaps being able to use your notebook computer anywhere in the house or office without draining the battery and without needing to plug in... ever.

Another area is peripherals for the computer. Consider wireless keyboard and mouse which will never need you to replace or recharge a battery. I have been writing about cell phones and computer stuff -- perhaps focusing on it because I am writing this article on a computer and that was what they talked about in the article. Perhaps this is also because Intel is aiming in this direction. There are likely many other applications that you and I can discover.

I wonder if there are medical possibilities for keeping artificial hearts and other devices charged and running? The main power-source kept outside transmitting power to the device - magnetically coupled to the source outside?

MIT team and their setup to power 60 Watt bulb. (image to left - image from MIT News Officeª)

The efficiency of the demonstration system with the light bulb was only 75% efficiency at around a metre distance so you might not want to think about tossing away every power-cord. On the other hand, you might be able to have power stations for certain tasks... like for instance your desk might have one and all the computer equipment and peripherals might be powered by a local station in the desk. That might include charging your PDA, cellphone, mp3 player, notebook computer, portable hard drive and similar equipment as well as powering the mouse, keyboard, and other equipment without any cords crisscrossing the desk.

Still I think you might have some resonant frequencies for the desk, kitchen, entertainment unit, and...

Of course... there are always the spectres of health issues. They say that the interaction at the frequencies used with biological materials is minimal... but how minimal is minimal and what effects might there be? People are starting to consider the growing background of microwave radiation we are being bathed with even if we don't use cellphones, cordless phones, or wireless networking. Perhaps those people who line their hats with tin foil might have a good idea.

Later!
~ Darrell

125.

__________
¹ "Intel Demos Bizarre Tesla-esque Wireless Power Transmission System" Jason Mick (blog) August 22, 2008 - Daily Tech.

² "Intel demos wireless power system" AFP August 22, 2008 - Canada.com.

³ "Genius From Smiljan" Serbia the Golden Apple - Nikola Tesla (Serbia).

ª "Goodbye Wires... - MIT News Office" MIT news.

Other links: "Travelling magnetic field for homogeneous wireless power transmission"; "Technology Review: TR10: Wireless Power".

6 Rings and the Americas

Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia, and "The Americas" -- The Five Competing Continents in the Modern Olympics

Sometimes you hear something and it goes past you -- like "The five rings of the symbol for the 'Modern Olympic Games' representing the '5' competing continents: Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia, and the Americas". (image to left *-- image from Wikipedia)

I pondered 5 continents before of course -- most recently during the current games at times like during the hoisting of the Olympic Flag at the Opening Ceremonies for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games -- wondering at first that Antarctica wouldn't be included and then considering why they might exclude Australia... Then I thought, "Perhaps they were forward thinking and considered the 'Eurasian Continent'?" I often wondered when I heard the definition in school why Europe and Asia were considered to be separate continents geographically.

I never realized that North America and South America would be lumped in together as one continent.

North and South America are as separate from one another as Africa is from Europe and Asia. Something just doesn't seem right to me. Perhaps if I lived in Europe it would make sense to me -- after all we are "The Colonies". Though that doesn't explain why they don't just include Australia as a large Asian Island, larger than Japan or like Greenland is to North America or England to Europe.

Don't get me wrong (I hope I don't end up writing that too often.) I like the flag design and how it looks. I think that 6 rings might not be so bold and esthetically pleasing a design on a flag shape. A longer linear shape would be too wide and a more circular design wouldn't fill the space as nicely.

Are representing the competing continents the real reason for the five rings? Is it just sour grapes on my part -- because I live in North America -- that I think there is something wrong with North America and South America not getting separate statuses as continents... sort of like sitting at the "children's table" at a family get together instead of with the adults?

Isn't it time we get to sit at the Big People's Table and while not redesigning the Rings Design -- reconsider what they represent and not say they represent the competing continents. After all they do represent the coming together of people from around the world from varied cultures and walks of life to compete in unity.

Later!
~ Darrell

PS

IOC**:

The Olympic symbol consists of five interlaced rings of equal dimensions, used alone, in one or in five different colours, which are, from left to right, blue, yellow, black, green and red. The Olympic symbol (the Olympic rings) expresses the activity of the Olympic Movement and represents the union of the five continents and the meeting of athletes from throughout the world at the Olympic Games.

But watch out! It is wrong, therefore, to say that each of the colours corresponds to a certain continent!

117.

__________
* Image of Olympic Rings used only for purpose of artistic review and does not represent any connection to the IOC or Olympics.

** International Olympic Committee - WWW.OLYMPIC.ORG - Official website of the Olympic Movement.

Progress on PM Museum Blog

The museum blog is coming along well. I even got rid of the border around the images which mussed up ones which are supposed to be on a transparent background.

Content has bee a bit slow, but I'll have to work on that.

~ Darrell Wade / Belgnorman

Some design changes

Hello again!

I made a change to the blog design. Of course if I make further changes these changes may or may not still exist.

In this case I added an image which is in this main posting column of the blog. It is a picture of my Grandparent's farm in Manitoba. They lived there until they moved into town when Grandpa retired.

Have you ever noticed that when the husband retires, his wife, unless she also is in the "work force" really doesn't and still does her same work of keeping the house?

I know my Mom still makes Dad's meals and does the laundry now that Dad is retired.

Something to keep in mind when you go home to visit. Mom's need a chance to retire too!

~ Darrell / Belgnorman