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

What a Body Count -- an ultimate lineup

All Known Bodies in the Solar System Larger Than 200 Miles in Diameter -- to scale lined up in a row.

Perhaps you have to be a science or astronomy buff -- or into science fiction -- but I found the content of this web page incredible. It is not so much that there is a lot of new information nor that any great high tech or fancy web tricks are being used. It is merely that it is interestingly laid out and in a way that even a layman can appreciate -- I think.

The page is: KOKOGIAK -- All (known) Bodies in the Solar System Larger than 200 Miles in Diameter. It was posted March 29, 2007 and so a little bit out of date, but not so much as it can't be enjoyed and appreciated.

Of course this is only a thumbnail of the original. The original is 1000 pixels high or tall enough that the Earth -- that first blue marble to the left -- should be approximately screen height on most monitors. To make it reasonable in size the creator -- and I believe it is the Website Developer, Alan Taylor, decided to scale things to the height of the Earth. He is representing the larger planets by showing a section of their "limb" -- an arc of the edge of their disk -- to give an impression of their relative size. Otherwise the smaller bodies would shrink to insignificance. His choice of 200 miles as being a cut-off is that it is the approximate size of Mimas (247 miles in diameter) and he is fond of this satellite of Saturn's.

I think he made a good choice. I think one can scroll horizontally across one of the three choices of views of the image. One has the metric and Imperial measurements for the planet's diameter along with the name, the next is the same image, but with only the metric measurement, the last has the image without any text labels. I have a bit larger scale image cropped here as a thumbnail to give a slightly better feel for things. (image to left -- image from KOKOGIAK) This is still much smaller than the actual image.

It does use actual images where possible. I think the only place where I might criticize is with regard to Venus and that the image he uses seems to be dilated horizontally somewhat even if you take into consideration the fact that part of its disk is in shadow like Titan's is. I do believe that the artist -- for I do believe it is artful -- tried for teh colours you might see with the naked eye, or some semblance of them.

If you are at all interested in the Solar System -- whether you agree with Pluto's current designation or not -- I recommend you go to this page and have a look at the presentation of this image. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

More information on KOKOGIAK can be found on their main page http://www.kokogiak.com/default.asp. I suggest you have a look at the window below where the title "KOKOGIAK" is written and click on the menu items for "Who" "What" and "Where" to find out more about the site. I think I'll be having more of a look there.

Later!
~ Darrell

133.

Blinders - To See or Not to See

Today's Fashion Frames -- Glasses Bring Focus

Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but I like my peripheral vision. That is your ability to see things to the side of you while looking straight ahead. It helps you avoid people running lights or climbing into your blind spot while driving and enhances your shoulder checks. It also lets you know when someone has come up beside you when it is too noisy to hear them. Peripheral vision does that sort of thing for you.

(Reading glasses -- image to right from Image*After)

But looking at fashionable frames on the typical glasses I see more and more people wearing I see frames with temples that seem to block most peripheral vision except maybe from gophers and pigeons sideswiping you. Temples -- by the way - are the side arms of the glasses that go from the hinge part back and over the ears. My Mom worked for an optometrist and glasses manufacturing company for a while and she passed on some of those terms to me.

For myself I have gone to thinner and thinner temples and thinner frames. My frames are a bit ancient... I guess not too many are wearing glasses from the 20th century... and have metal frames all around the lenses and metal temples. I am wearing them in many of my biography pictures I have in my columns. Mine aren't as frameless as the ones above and to the right.

The ones I see more and more often on office people, news reporters, and fashion conscious folk are like the ones to the left. (image to left -- image from iOffer). I do admit they can look sharp. Sometimes they seem a bit odd when the lenses are frameless and have these massive wide temples. They can almost look like the person isn't wearing glasses at all, just the wide dark temples sticking forward from their ears like errant combs or pens.

Still I wonder at how much peripheral vision they remove. I do see from my looking for example photos of the wide templed glasses that the narrow templed ones are still there and still stylish enough. That is a relief for I fear my old faithful frames should likely be replaced soon.

But I wonder... are those blinders good or bad... are there so many distractions in the workplace that people need blinders so that they can focus on their work and the job at hand? Perhaps with a cellphone in one hand and a latte in the other while walking to the subway -- I hope not while driving -- they need a way to focus on the sidewalk ahead with fewer distractions. Just like the draft horses of the past...

Later!
~ Darrell

132.

Undisabling -- Maintaining Accessability II

Doing More Than Minimum

A few years ago a new "super store" was opened locally and it was a great success in most ways. They did follow some new design ideas that are being incorporated more often now for the environment. They also probably help the bottom line...

One in particular is the incorporation of parking under the grocery store. A "super store" basically is a grocery store expanded to include much of a department store -- and in fact a department store and grocery store to rival a warehouse store or big box store. They are reminiscent to me of the old department stores that included a grocery store which rivalled any grocery store chain's store.

In this case of this new store's opening, that is one of the things that people were critical about. It wasn't that valuable space was saved in putting parking under the store, but rather that access to the store was made by ramps.

Other stores of near identical design had been built in Metro-Vancouver without so much complaint, but this one had a small difference -- this one did not also have elevators. The other stores all had elevators in addition to the ramps. The ramps are fairly gradual in slope and not too much effort for an able bodied person to climb. I think perhaps people with health issues might find them a bit taxing though. There are also stairs, I believe, though it has been a little while since I was there. People wanted to know why elevators were not included in this store and the reason given by the chain: "City bylaws did not require us to have elevators so we did not include them."

I think that it might be very important for municipalities, provinces, countries and other levels of government to have laws establishing minimum levels of compliance for such things as whether a building has elevators or what degree of slope an access ramp might have, but even if these might differ from area to area, certainly what should also be looked at is function. I can understand that having or not having an elevator does change the cost of a building, but especially when we are talking about a chain that has designs already made for the same or similar store with elevators, why not include an elevator simply to make the store more functional?

The cynic in me can think of reasons/excuses why not to put one in. One that comes to mind is that if you put one in, then you are liable for any accidental injury that it will cause. Of course you could always counter that with how many accidental injuries might be caused by not having it. I'm not a lawyer so I am probably naive in that counter argument.

What reminded me of this was a situation of someone I know who has been sick and in the hospital for a while. They have been doing fairly well with their artificial leg, but after recent surgery just are not up to climbing stairs or long ramps. Normally they use canes but for the moment they are using a walker. They aren't going out much but they have to go to the Doctor from time to time -- of course Doctors just don't make house-calls. The issue is that to get from the "Handicapped Parking" stalls to the door, a person has to negotiate either a long ramp or stairs.

This is not a building which has been retrofitted to allow for the handicapped parking. The building was designed as a medical-detal-legal office building from the start. In the designing didn't anyone anticipate that people who might be going in and out of such a building might actually be disabled and so it might be handy if there weren't major changes in elevation between the parking and the elevator lobby?

Probably the whole design does fit in with the Civic Bylaws and all the minimum standards set by the different levels of government with perhaps a few amendments which were applied for and granted in exchange for other accommodation. But the if the minimum is the bar that people aim for all the time, perhaps the bar has to be raised? -- at least for new buildings.

I can understand that when retrofitting existing structures minimum standards might be what is aimed for -- if at all possible -- but not for new structures. There might of course also be standards for voluntary compliance perhaps?

I am starting to consider if I might change my shopping patterns with a bias toward the more accessable locations. After all, if they are more willing to accomodate people with accessability issues, they probably also will do right by all of their customers.

Later!
~ Darrell

131.

__________
Handicapped signage image from Image*After.

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.

...and I have a dream...

...of when we will no longer hear that someone is the first of their distinct group to overcome a hurdle

Please do not misunderstand, I think it is great that a "black man" is running to be American President -- Barack Obama & Joe Biden. (image to left -- image from CBS News) I think that it is great that a woman has been chosen to be the "running mate" to his opponent. (image to right -- image from post-gazette NOW) It is great that these firsts are happening. I just dream of the day when it will no longer be news that someone is "the first woman to run for an office" or "the first native American to climb Mount Everest."

I look forward to the time when the barriers to people have dropped so much that it will not be out of the ordinary for anyone to take on any job that they are suited for.

When I was young it was odd to be in a Taxi Cab that had a woman driver. When I was a young teen it felt nearly naughty to have a woman barber cutting my hair. Things have changed. Although they attained their position when their party leaders left office, I have lived in a country that had a Woman for Prime Minister -- The Right Honourable Kim Campbell (image to left -- image from The House of Commons Heritage Collection) -- and a province that had a Woman for Premier -- Rita Johnston (image to right -- image from Ministry of Community Services, Province of BC).

I do know there is discrimination still, and more in some places and in some people than others. It is also more in some times and circumstance than others. But I dream when it diminishes more and more.

I think there might always be fear of the unknown. Unknown cultures and unknown religions can bring fear, especially if that fear is fostered by those who wish people to fear newcomers or people who are a little different. But I think this will diminish eventually.

Until then we will still hear of these firsts.

Later!
~ Darrell

129.

Undisabling -- Maintaining Accessability

Getting Rid of Unnecessary Barriers

Their are probably many barriers that people simply do not think about and would not until they are faced by them. Perhaps they note them as being a nuisance if they are able bodied and grumble a bit, but they don't consider how much of a barrier they might be to someone who is not able bodied.

Disabled need not mean a person is in a wheelchair either -- it need not even be something that is long term -- except perhaps for the determination of some benefits from government bodies or insurance companies. Some things are pretty obvious: a set of stairs with no reasonable alternate route to access some facility or place; a narrow doorway or passage; an exceptionally rough patch of rocky path or walkway; and others that you can probably add to this list yourself. There are some people who do sports in wheelchairs for sure, and can nearly climb stairs in them -- they can climb simple curbs, I have seen.

But getting on to the less obvious things.

...like the wheelchair symbol to the right of the rather imposing doors... (image to right - image from Image*After)

I know someone who has problems getting around. She uses a mobility scooter for anything outside the apartment. The building has an elevator and the rear door exits to the parking area under the building. The parking is open on one side and there is easy, fairly open access to the lane behind the building. Luckily there is a shopping centre that is fairly well lit there so that it isn't too much like going into a scary dungeon at night and onto a dark alley.

I was surprised to hear that my friend didn't use the bus stop that is just across the street from that shopping centre. Metro Vancouver is pretty progressive and has been replacing nearly 100% of its fleet with low floor buses that can kneel. (image to left - image from buses world news) But why did my friend travel 1 km to the next stop? At the stop close to her building she told me; there was no room between the curb and a steep drop-off into a parking lot adjacent the stop for her to manoeuvre her scooter onto the ramp into the bus! Perhaps a chair with a near zero turning radius could do the manoeuvre simply, or maybe a smaller scooter. But this my friend could not use a smaller scooter.

When they set up the stops for Translink's buses there were no considerations for wheel chair ramps. They placed the stop well up the hill from the controlled intersection to avoid the driveways, and this placed the stop adjacent to a sharp drop-off into a parking lot. I told my friend that she should make sure to talk to the drivers about the problem and perhaps email or telephone the transit company to tell them the situation. The 1km distance might sound excessive, but it is an express bus with limited stops. I took it upon myself to write to Translink as they are open to such things and have people whose job is to listen to such problems and try find solutions. Since then, I have heard that the solution is that the bus merely pulls up about 4 feet further along the street where there is more room for someone to manoeuvre onto the extended ramp.

Recently I was invited to an open house for the development of a new shopping centre. I asked -- with regards to their landscaping on the sidewalk and boulevard -- if they had taken into account such things as room for people to manoeuvre scooters and wheelchairs in and out of the buses that would be stopping outside their centre. This was important to them actually because the anchor for the shopping centre was a major pharmacy chain. They wanted to draw customers who would likely include many who would be using chairs, scooters, walkers and similar aids on the transit system.

(image of Translink bus to right from buses world news)

With all the new construction going on, it can be difficult for any pedestrian to get around. It seems that many concessions are made for getting motor vehicle traffic through the construction zones -- but little is done for the pedestrian and great hurdles might be set into place for anyone who is not able.

This can include simple issues such as doubling the distance someone has to walk on their travels. (image to left from Image*After) This can simply be the closing of a sidewalk on one side of the road blocking it for 9 metres (30 ft approx) so that a person has to backtrack to a crosswalk cross the street, travel a block or two to the next crosswalk and then walk back. With some longish blocks and streets that are just too busy to cross at uncontrolled intersections, this can add up substantially. Such a diversion would not mean very much for a driver, but heavy metal plates might be placed over excavations so that they could be driven over. I have also seen construction debris cover half of sidewalks making them impassible except for people who are light of foot.

Many people do not realize just how impeding ice and snow (or even rain soaked leaves) can be if they do not clean their walks. A narrow swept path can still be impassible for someone in a chair or scooter. Ice and snow might be far to dangerous for someone with brittle bones even if they do walk with only a walking stick. A person with balance problems or lack of feeling in the feet can have great problems on snow. Even if the sidewalks are clear, the city and province have this nasty habit of plowing snow up against the curb making a person have to climb over it to reach the street at intersections in order to cross.

A lot of these barriers could be dealt with simply, without having to change the infrastructure much. Simply being aware and actually clearing snow, planning a bit, and remembering that some people rely on wheels... even babies in carriages -- and you don't want to force them out into traffic or to have to travel a kilometre past the closest bus stop..

Later!
~ Darrell

128.