massless

Pegs, an experiment in page layout and interaction.

Now that I'm thinking harder about page consumption again, I wanted to surface an old experiment from when I was working on Reader. I'm wondering if a better-executed version of this concept could be useful in an era where site navigation and ads are too easily scrolled off-page? (e.g. IMDB, especially)

It seems worth reconsidering ways to optimize content, nowadays.

Demo

The experiment looks like a normal page until the scrollbar is used. Content areas scroll only as high or low as their content.

Try out "pegs" by visiting the demo and scrolling up and down.

ex. Screenshot of demo and concept. Two columns, left column doesn't scroll if small enough.


It's a little...odd. Can't tell if I like using it yet. Needs a trial with real content.

Caveats: It's an early work, still. Watch out for bugs.

How this began

Updated this story because I got it wrong. Crud. Better minds and archived emails now help show the important details I should have included.

All of us working on Google Reader were looking into ways of making navigation and selection state more visually appealing. Mihai Parparita, tech lead of Reader's frontend, suggested we should have two scrolling areas for navigation and viewing but everyone wanted to figure out a better way than to have multiple scrollbars on a page.

It seemed sad that one scrollbar would interrupt selection state by being placed in the middle. I began work on a demo where the scroll bar would be hidden or at least minimized in some way. I wondered if it could work like the way a differential would work in a car. I began experimenting with just controlling both areas with the scrollwheel in one area only. (In my earlier post, I said I'd thought I'd written my "differential scrolling" notes and script after the left-hand-scrollbar experiment. Nope. That came before, it turns out.)

Kevin Fox (who works now at FriendFeed, don'tcha know), also wanted a better way to scroll. While designing things for Reader, and based on other products he'd been working on (e.g. Calendar), he began considering controlling both areas with the scrollbar in one area only. Kevin and I both came up with early implementations of scroll management. (I should've remembered this - my apologies to Kevin - I'm adding it here so that people know that Reader's awesomeness and experimentation has had many sources.) My experiment used an internal scrolling element to control two areas via a fixed area and a header, Kevin's had a single scrollbar over the whole page with no header. Both were incredibly similar as each area scrolled independently of the other.

I'm pretty sure Kevin came up with the name "Pegs", though we're not sure. :)

Kevin's experiment clearly influenced the development of mine. Right after seeing his, I broke out of thinking in terms of an interior set of elements whose scrolling was determined by a master source, and changed my demo to have the master source be at the document level. Much more interesting. Thank you, Kevin.

At the same Nick Baum (among others) had an idea that any "pegged" approach could be smarter about how it managed the other bar, namely that some logic to when each column would scroll should be length-based. This was a huge improvement.

Days later, during a internal launch road map thread, it was Kevin who first mentioned that having the "Scroll bar on the left is a really interesting idea. <div dir="rtl"> :)" and since that sounded intriguing (and given I'd already finished my scroll-managing object that could do this, too) I made a demo of the left-hand-side insanity and sent it for feedback.

ex. Screenshot of the crazy left-hand version.


Whoops. Everyone agreed: It felt weird and alien to use. (Including Kevin and I.) I went back and modified my original demo with improved logic for scrolling. But we'd moved on... only later did I begin to improve the "Pegs" approach for general use.

posted at December 08, 2008, 6:23 PM 4 comments

Santas! (A "shibboleth" service.)

Since I needed to crack my knuckles and have a warm-up, programming-wise, I made a small service for creating a Secret Santa list.

I've been thinking of web services like these as "shibboleth" services. In my head these are applications where a password is required but identity is de-emphasized, usually meaning users don't need to choose or manage a username or profile.

There's already a better name for this, right? Headless? Non-playered? Assisted authentication? I should know the term by now but I'm a little behind - nevertheless, it seems like they're easy and suitable for lightweight, fun usages.

posted at December 02, 2008, 5:28 PM 4 comments

Possibly true trivia about U.S. Cabinet positions.

posted at November 22, 2008, 4:06 AM 0 comment

Florida and Campaigning, Little Stories

The New Volunteer

Just after General Powell's endorsement of Obama for President, a bulldog of a man walks into the office, hands us his business card, and asks what volunteer work he can do for Barack. Casually he tosses out, "I'm a registered Republican and after the endorsement I felt it was time to come in here."

The Three Totals

One afternoon while out talking with voters, a field organizer for our office gets in a auto accident. Neither car involved can be driven anymore, and our organizer is hurt from the impact. An ambulance carries her to a local hospital, worry abounds, and her family is called. Shortly after being checked into the emergency room, our office gets a text message from her asking for status: "So, how many canvassers do I have out?"

Pitching and Catching

It's early evening in Tampa, and only an hour or so before the soon-to-be last game of the American League championship series. I'm suddenly conscripted from my office duties by a co-worker who shoves me in a car with a sign and some pamphlets and tells me I'm to stand in front of Tropicana Field and re-emphasize the start of early voting for Florida.

I'm ill-suited for this. We're at the entrance to the stadium and people are excited about the game, not politics. Despite being non-blocking in presentation (off to the side of the walkway) our voting signs show a picture of Obama, so our partisanship is evident and I'm uncomfortable with even a peripheral interruption.

I'm paired with Linda, in heels and short, she's about ten or fifteen years older than I am, throws a smile my way, pats me on my shoulder, then wades closer to the crowd of attendees.

"Vote early!" she says. "Voting for Obama? You can do so now."

She repeats this many times. Her voice doesn't carry too far, but passersby can see her sign. They glance at the image of Obama. And many of them (many!) turn their heads slightly and reply: "Fuck you."

She must've gotten over fifty "fuck you"s.

Later, we have to walk back to the office. It's many blocks, and there are no cabs or drivers available. She chucks off her heels and walks barefoot. And never stops. The whole way back she mentions to anyone passing, "Did you know you can vote early? And vote for Obama!"

Later, when she tells us she's another registered Republican volunteer, I whistle in appreciation.

Offerings

I've only had one day of canvassing, for the last few weeks, I've mainly worked with documents and computers and gadgets. In this new assignment, I prepare myself to meet with the common responses to a knock at the door: indifference, antagonism, frustration, annoyance.

I head out with a more experienced canvasser. On my first knock I'm nervous. A tall man answers...

He's proudly wearing an Obama baseball cap. And further inside, I can see his wife, who is wearing an Obama t-shirt.

They are very pleased we're at the door.

We're invited inside for cocktails, which I decline as I'm on duty, and because I begin to wonder if they'll be so many offerings that we'll have to weigh our options on their relative quality before choosing one.

I knock on many doors. Goodwill is in force. I'm later told my experience was "atypical." This just tells me that my co-workers are hiding all the good bounty.

Labels: politics

posted at October 22, 2008, 8:28 AM 3 comments

I'm the newest member of Obama's Florida for Change office. (C'mon down.)

I was interested in doing more with my time than research and commentary for the US Presidential Election so in the beginning of October I'll become an in-state volunteer for the Florida for Change office for Barack Obama. Huge thanks to the Border State Director of Florida For Change for allowing me to be involved.

I'll be working primarily in Pinellas county. How swing is Pinellas? In 2004, the difference between Bush and Kerry was less than 500 votes.

Pinellas

49.5%

225,460

49.6%

225,686

0.9%

4,211

Past performance isn't always a good indicator of future activity but interesting stats about Florida's voting record in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election are available via Wikipedia, United States presidential election in Florida, 2004.  For example, the color-coded county by county breakdown back then...

Labels: politics

posted at September 26, 2008, 6:06 PM 3 comments

The Hidden Power: David Addington

David Addington is Chief of Staff for Vice President Cheney. Here's an excerpt from a profile about him in the New Yorker from a couple of years ago.

Most Americans, even those who follow politics closely, have probably never heard of Addington. But current and former Administration officials say that he has played a central role in shaping the Administration’s legal strategy for the war on terror. Known as the New Paradigm, this strategy rests on a reading of the Constitution that few legal scholars share—namely, that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries, if national security demands it. Under this framework, statutes prohibiting torture, secret detention, and warrantless surveillance have been set aside.

Emphasis mine. According to many sources, he's been the author (or most senior legal support) of many of the most controversial legal policies of the Bush Administration. He was described by U.S. News and World Report as "the most powerful man you've never heard of".

He's the lawyer behind over 750 signing statements that President Bush has added to bills passed by Congress. He seems to have a different understanding of the Constitutional separation of powers, namely, that no one has the right to examine how executive decisions are made and that in times of war (which is always now since the War on Terror doesn't take a break) the President cannot be restrained by Congress nor any law, national or international.

Some results of this interpretation range from the benign and reasonable to the possibly criminal and include Bush and his team refusing requests for information (as in the case of Pat Tillman's death), documents (an F.B.I. and mob scandal), and clarification (the details of Cheney's energy task force), and has included their directly refusing to obey subpeonas in the investigation of the firing of federal prosecutors. In the last example, the executive branch has successfully avoided legal inquiry with the only consequence being two aides held in contempt by the House of Representatives but whose charges won't be pursued by the Justice Department because of executive privilege.

"Our political heritage is to be skeptical of executive power, because, in particular, there was skepticism of King George III." So says Jane Mayer, the author of the New Yorker article. But I can only guess we're no longer inheritors of that concern given the very real reduction of Presidential oversight over the last eight years.

Which leads me to admit - I feel like I can't be an informed voter without knowing what self-imposed limits an Obama or McCain or Biden or Palin presidency would place on their unrestrained and secret power. But even if they promised to restrain themselves...how would we ever know if they had?

Labels: politics

posted at September 18, 2008, 3:05 AM 1 comment

Defending against the spin. So frustrating. [Corrections about candidates]

I'm trying to sort out the chaff from the messaging wheat about our candidates for the U.S. executive branch...so I'm making another list for myself (maybe useful to you?) so that I can be reminded of the current research about each claim. This is a non-comprehensive list and as a watchmen's watchman I should be fact-checked as well. Please correct me as necessary. (And yes, I know...that I'm publishing another political post annoys me as much as it may annoy you. Please accept my apology.)

Correcting stuff about Sarah Palin that isn't true.

• Palin did NOT cut funding for special needs education in Alaska.

Actually, just the opposite - she tripled per-pupil funding.

• Palin did NOT demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library.
  

  Though she did inquire about banning, she never, ever banned any books. Ever.

• Palin was NEVER a member of the Alaskan Independence Party.
• Palin NEVER endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president.
  

  This is just ridiculous. She wore a pin only when he visited and then took it off. More factually, she headed Steve Forbes' campaign efforts in Alaska.

• Palin has NOT pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools.

  She's said she's open to it being taught alongside evolution, however, she hasn't actually done anything substantive about it. Hopefully, she'll clarify her position. But it's (currently) incorrect to say she's actually made any changes in Alaskan education regarding creationism.

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

Correcting stuff about Barack Obama that isn't true.

• Obama’s health care plan will NOT "force small businesses to cut jobs".
  

  In fact, the plan exempts small businesses.

• Obama's health care plan will NOT put "a bureaucrat ... between you and your doctor."
  

  In fact, those who have insurance now could keep the coverage they have.

• Obama has NEVER voted for "corporate welfare" for oil companies.
  

  In fact, the bill Obama voted for raised taxes on oil companies by $300 million over 11 years while providing $5.8 billion in subsidies for renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative fuels.

• Obama will NOT close markets to trade.
  

  Though he once said he wanted to "renegotiate" NAFTA, now he says he wants to try to strengthen environmental and labor provisions in it. He's not advocating closing any markets.

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_mccain.html

• Obama DID NOT vote to teach sex to kindergarten children.
  

  Wow, this is disgustingly wrong. Rather, Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois state Senate that would update the sex education curriculum and make it "medically accurate." It was specifically designed to teach young kids how to recognize inappropriate behavior and avoid pedophiles and also demanded that any instruction be "age-appropriate". It was deemed urgently necessary enough to arm kids with knowledge about predators that it adjusted the year of beginning instruction. (Additionally, Obama was neither a co-sponsor nor a sponsor of the bill and it never got past the Senate.)

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

• Obama IS OPEN TO DRILLING for oil.
  

  Specifically, he said he's open to "a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage".

Source: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/content/state/epaper/2008/08/01/0801obama1.html

• Obama HAS AUTHORED laws and introduced important legislation, including reform, in his political career.
  
  A lot of criticism about whether a law is "major" or whether being "co-sponsor" is relevant is obscuring the fact that Obama was the chief sponsor (and, occasionally, author) of legislation in his career. It's incorrect to assert otherwise. e.g. There's a bunch of bills he sponsored during his time in the Illinois senate...  and a bunch of them were bills of which he was chief sponsor...  and those include stuff like..
  - Keeping pharmacies from over-charging Medicare beneficiaries
  - Child-care capital investment
  - Bio-terrorism preparedness
  - Changes to videotaped interrogations
  - Expanding medical information resources for seniors
  - Supreme Court Campaign Reform Act
  - Changes to Earned Income Tax Credit
  
  ...why not instead criticize what he focused on as a legislator and what these bills might mean in terms of an Obama presidency? There's plenty of political meat for anyone to chew on.

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html

• Obama will NOT INCREASE TAXES for working, middle-class families.
  

  Nope. NO. NO. This is wholly incorrect. Despite a McCain ad claiming otherwise, Obama's plan would cut taxes for the vast majority of American households, with middle-income earners benefiting a great deal.

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_new_stitch_in_a_bad_pattern.html

Correcting stuff about John McCain that isn't true.

• McCain will NOT fail to support loan guarantees for the auto industry.
  

  Despite what an Obama ad says, McCain is actually in favor of low-cost loans to that industry.

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/hit_the_brakes.html

• McCain did NOT say we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan.
  

  In 2003, McCain actually said that we "may" muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there.

• McCain does NOT define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year.
  

  He was joking. Seriously. He even said, "but seriously" just after it. C'mon.

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html

Correcting stuff about Joe Biden that isn't true.

• Biden did NOT get fewer votes as a presidential nominee than Palin as mayor.

Source: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/694/

[What they said] - McCain has said stuff that's wrong, incorrect, or misleading.

• McCain FALSELY claimed that his plan will increase use of "wind, tide [and] solar" energy.
  

  His actual energy plan contains no new money for renewable energy.

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_mccain.html

[What they said] - Obama has said stuff that's wrong, incorrect, or misleading.

• Obama's plan currently CANNOT "pay for every dime" of his spending and tax cut proposals "by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens."
  

  This was quite the whopper. His proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals seems crucial. And his plan, like McCain’s, looks likely to leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits.

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html

• Obama FALSELY accused McCain of saying "no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investment in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels."
  

  In fact, in 2002 McCain not only wanted tougher standards than most of the Senate did, but he was lauded by a Democrat.

Source: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/672/

[What they said] - Biden has said stuff that's wrong, incorrect, or misleading.

• Biden FALSELY claimed that "murder and violent crime rates went down eight years in a row" as a result of the Biden Crime Bill.
  

  A peer-reviewed study published in the February 2007 issue of the journal Criminology found that the bill's "spending had little to no effect on crime."

Source: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/158/

[What they said] - Palin has said stuff that's wrong, incorrect, or misleading.

• Palin did NOT say "thanks, but no thanks" to the building of the Ketchikan bridge.

  She clearly supported it and didn't stand up to Congressional waste - she accepted the money on behalf of Alaska.

• Palin FALSELY accused Obama of being more worried about terrorists being read their rights than apprehended.

  This is a whopper. Obama seems as committed to apprehending terrorists as the other candidates. But he's a constitutional scholar and law professor and is passionate about the rights of habeus corpus being respected.

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html

Labels: politics

posted at September 10, 2008, 7:51 PM 3 comments

Are You Experienced? Palin and Obama. A Comparison.

Y’all, circumstances have induced me to put my hand in the toilet. Now I'm posting about politics.
I'm so disappointed in myself. :( So...

Recently (and especially tonight) there'll be a lot of voices saying the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee has more relevant experience than the Democratic Presidential nominee regarding the executive offices they seek. Is this true? I wouldn't have thought so, but I've been very wrong about so many things that I realized I should spend some time trying to diminish my ignorance.

(I know it might seem that discussing Obama's experience in the context of Palin's is false equivalency. But a lot of people out there really think their qualifications for executive office are nearly equal. They're not crazy, they're putting forth some effort here, so it seems worth a second to see what this is about.)

The debate about who has more experience has included checklists. I started to cobble one together. It definitely could use some improvement...it's just a start.

	Barack Obama	Sarah Palin
Age	47	44
Religion	Christianity. (left Trinity United Church of Christ after condeming his pastor's inflammatory rhetoric, might now worship at Apostolic Church of God)	Christianity. (attends Juneau Christian Center, grew up attending Wasilla Assembly of God)
Current job	Senator of Illinois	Governor of Alaska
Previous jobs	Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago (1985-1988); Summer law associate at Sidley & Austin (1989); Summer law associate at Hopkins & Sutter (1990); Director of Illinois Project Vote (1992); Associate at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland (1993-1996); Lecturer at University of Chicago Law School (1992-1996); Senior Lecturer at University of Chicago Law School (1996-2004); Illinois State Senator (1997-2004)	Sports Reporter for KTUU-TV in Anchorage (?-1988); City Council member of Wasilla, AK (1992-1996); Mayor of Wasilla, AK (1996-2002)
Foreign policy experience	Has limited congressional work in foreign policy... He sponsored or introduced several bills with foreign policy implications, including: 109 S. 2125 - the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2005; 110 S. 433 - the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007; 110 S.CON.RES. 25 - Condemning the recent violent actions of the Government of Zimbabwe against peaceful opposition party activists and members of civil society; 110S. 1430 - Iran Sanctions Enabling Act; --- and he's held an assignment on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during which he made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa -- and he became Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs, but this barely counts since he hasn't yet called it into session. (It's been stagnant a year!)	Almost none... though she is the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard. But according to Major General Craig E. Campbell, immediate commander of the Alaska National Guard, she hasn't yet played a role in any defense activities relating to the Guard but that she's "extremely responsive and smart" and in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder... [Associate Press cite]
Domestic policy experience	Experienced. Reformed ethics and health care laws in Chicago's South Side. Increased tax credits for low-income voters. Helped reform Chicago welfare. Promoted city-wide childcare subsidies. Supported loan reform before the mortgage meltdown. He was Chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee. Helped enact death penalty reforms for Illinois. Sponsored 131 bills since 2005 and has co-sponsored 619 bills during that time.	Experienced. In charge of the Wasilla Police Department and Public Works. Cut her own salary while cutting property taxes. Secured $27 million in earmarked funds for Wasilla. Chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. (Resigned in protest over the ethics violations of colleagues.) Helped pass a tax increase on oil company profits. Signed into law the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA). Signed into law a $6.6 billion operating budget for Alaska. The largest in that state's history.
Military experience	Never served.	Never served. (But her son is in an infantry brigade in the Army. And, as mentioned above, she is nominally the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard despite not doing any commanding yet.)
Education	College degree, law degree, and college professor and lecturer. Occidental college (1979-1981). Columbia University, B.A. in political science with a specialization in international relations (1981-1983). Harvard Law, J.D. and he graduated magna cum laude (1988-1991). While there he was President of the Harvard Law Review (1990). Taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years (1992-2004).	College degree. University of Idaho, degree in journalism, minor in political science (1987). (Previously attended Hawaii Pacific College for a semester and transferred in from North Idaho College.)
Hobbies	Basketball, teaching law, community service, writing (he published a memoir 3 years ago - cheeky!).	Hunting (she's a lifetime member of the NRA), ice fishing, riding snowmobiles, she's also run a marathon and owns a floatplane. (I'm very jealous of the floatplane. Wicked awesome.)

I started with the following premises. I intended them to be non-partisan, however I'm sure a bias has crept in here or there. I'm often a lazy thinker. I've been assuming that...

Sarah Palin has demonstrated that she can face management crises. To many, this is obvious. Just helping to raise five children (I assume Todd helps as well) is an amazing and inspiring feat of management, especially given that Mrs. Palin faced sexism in her professional life despite her talents, and given that one of her sons, Trig, is developmentally disabled. It is churlish and petty to argue that balancing motherhood and professional responsibilities as a public servant is a somehow meager task. How can we dismiss this honestly when viewing Ms. Palin's qualifications? You may disagree with some of her decisions, but she is definitely accomplished at being Governor and being a mother of a large family - which can suggest she has amazing personal discipline and that she could also possibly be excellent at managing other things.

Barack Obama has also demonstrated that he can face management crises. To many, this is obvious. Just studying for and passing the state bar, becoming a professor, guiding students on complex issues of law, volunteering for community service, introducing and supporting national legislation, helping raise two children (I assume Michelle helps as well) while running successive state and national campaigns is an amazing feat of management, especially given that he also had to face racism on many occasions. It is churlish and petty to argue that balancing fatherhood, academia, and professional responsibilities as a public servant is a somehow meager task. How can we dismiss this honestly when viewing Mr. Obama's qualifications? You may disagree with some of his decisions, but he is definitely accomplished as a student, a lawyer, a professor, a Senator, a presidential campaigner, and a father - which can suggest he has amazing personal discipline and that he could also possibly be excellent at managing other things.

Both candidates seem to possess character traits suited to executive management based on the available evidence: they both can manage their time, their emotions, their employees, and their ambition. They both clearly have experience in delegating tasks and power. They both can argue and hold their own in political debates within government. They are both charismatic and attractive.

But there's this non-subtle difference in their pursuit of knowedge - I mean look at all that time Barack completely wasted (they might assume) in studying the law and in school and teaching advanced courses at the University of Chicago. What was that about?

This is the part where I get confused. Are we really doing this again as a country? Y'know, skimming the experience of people with advanced degrees and lifelong interests in academic study and snickering "they think they're so mighty pants" while concluding, well, their education is probably not important? Are we still highlighting skills in management and delegation while downplaying the totally different accomplishments of critical analysis and thinking?

The management experience is helpful stuff, but there's this difference that's compelling to me. Barack has had his ability to analyze critically rigorously tested and challenged for decades.

This isn't a subtle difference, is it? Really? Is experience in middle management all we're striving for in our potential Presidents? C'mon, everyone. Let's let some better light shine here.

To me the debate about experience weighs toward Mr. Obama not because Mrs. Palin is somehow incompetent (this is false and unfair) but because Mr. Obama has great (and greater) breadth and competency.

Just musing about political experience. Arguments about policy differences between them can go over there - you know - right over there, next door, on the many thousands of websites devoted to those arguments. That's not what this post was about. Don't argue about that shit here. I mean it.

posted at September 03, 2008, 12:46 PM 7 comments