<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Aza's Thoughts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.azarask.in/blog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.azarask.in/blog</link>
	<description>-- aza &#124; ɐzɐ --</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:09:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>A More Readable (Pythonic) Javascript Syntax?</title>
		<link>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/making-javascript-syntax-not-suck/</link>
		<comments>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/making-javascript-syntax-not-suck/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:17:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aza Raskin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[WEBLOG]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.azarask.in/blog/?p=574</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While I&#8217;ve come to love Javascript, I miss the syntactic beauty of Python. The stark modern minimalism of the language causes the meaning of code to float on the syntax like a feather on water. There are no extra braces, brackets, or parenthesis to saturate your visual bandwidth. In comparison, Javascript&#8217;s syntax is like the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://img.skitch.com/20100114-cqn584npadrcj33gxptr65cm6x.png" style="float:right;margin-left:15px;"/>While I&#8217;ve come to love Javascript, I miss the syntactic beauty of Python. The stark modern minimalism of the language causes the meaning of code to float on the syntax like a feather on water. There are no extra braces, brackets, or parenthesis to saturate your visual bandwidth. In comparison, Javascript&#8217;s syntax is like the cluttered boudoir of a Victorian house: elaborate, ornate, and unnecessary. You can be left with half a dozen trailing braces and parenthesis, with no clear owner; their balance in an unstable equilibrium.</p>
<p>Note that I am not arguing that Javascript isn&#8217;t a <a href="http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2009/03/doug-crockford-javascript-good-parts.html">beautiful or powerful language</a>, just that its syntax is a vestigial meme left over from a time when we didn&#8217;t know better.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve often wanted to bring Javascript and modern minimalism together: to strip the language of parens, braces, and semicolons. So that&#8217;s what I&#8217;ve done. I wrote a little parser for a slight modification of Javascript. I call it Pyscript.<span id="more-574"></span></p>
<p>Here&#8217;s what it looks like:</p>
<pre style="float:left;width:285px;">// Example One
function triangle(a,b):
  function sqroot(x): return Math.pow(x,.5)
  return sqroot( a*a + b*b )</pre>
<pre style="float:left;width:280px;margin-left:10px">// Example Two
for var i=0; i<5; i++:
  var el = document.getElementById("el"+i)
  if count % 2 == 0:
    el.innerHTML = "Hello"
  else:
    el.innerHTML = "World"
</pre>
<p><br clear="all"/></p>
<p><b>Comparison</b></p>
<p>When you put normal Javascript and Pyscript side-by-side, you can see the large difference in readability the addition of Python-style syntax makes.</p>
<pre style="float:left;width:250px;">// Pyscript
function triangle(a,b):
  if a > 0 &#038;&#038; b > 0:
    function sqroot(x):
      if x > 0:
        return Math.pow(x,.5)
      else:
        return 0
    return sqroot( a*a + b*b )
  else:
    return 0</pre>
<pre style="float:left;width:250px;margin-left:10px;">// Javascript
function triangle(a,b){
  if(a > 0 &#038;&#038; b > 0 ){
    function sqroot(x){
      if( x > 0 ){
        return Math.pow(x,.5);
      }
      else {
        return 0;
      }
    }
    return sqroot( a*a + b*b );
  }
  else {
    return 0;
  }
}</pre>
<p><br clear="all"></p>
<p>Pyscript is just a syntactic beautification of Javascript, where indents have meaning and braces are unnecessary. I&#8217;ve even shown it to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich">Brendan Eich</a> and he gave his nod of approval.</p>
<p><b>How Do I Get It?</b></p>
<p><a href="http://code.google.com/p/pythonicjavascript/"><b>Download it here</b></a> or check out the <a href="http://pythonicjavascript.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/demo.html">demo page</a>.</p>
<p><b>How Do I Use It?</b></p>
<p>Pyscript runs in all modern browsers. All you have to do is:<br />
(1) Add &lt;script src=&#8221;pyscript.js&#8221;/&gt; to your &lt;head&gt; tag;<br />
(2) Put your pyscript code in a &lt;script type=&#8221;text/pyscript&#8221;&gt; tag.</p>
<p>Everything else is taken care of for you. See the <a href="http://pythonicjavascript.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/demo.html">demo page</a> for an example of it in action.</p>
<p><b>Help!</b></p>
<p>Pyscript is really just a proof of concept. It has a set of <a href="http://pythonicjavascript.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/tests.html">unit tests</a>, and as you can see not all functionality is completed yet. Anonymous inline functions do not work, there is no robust handling of indentation, and a number of features (like switch) do not work. But, the whole thing is open source so you can <a href="http://code.google.com/p/pythonicjavascript/">get involved</a>.</p>
<p>What other ways can we make Javascript syntax prettier and more readable?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/making-javascript-syntax-not-suck/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is A Creative Commons for Privacy Possible?</title>
		<link>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/is-a-creative-commons-for-privacy-possible/</link>
		<comments>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/is-a-creative-commons-for-privacy-possible/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:33:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aza Raskin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[WEBLOG]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.azarask.in/blog/?p=559</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There was a lot of great feedback for my post Making Privacy Policies Not Suck. We are now in conversation with a whole slew of industry leaders and deep thinkers in the area of privacy (Lorrie Cranor, Jonathan Zittrain, Lauren Gelman, Ryan Calo to name a few).
With all of the work that&#8217;s been done before [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://img.skitch.com/20100113-nascw4yw8ieqj6sfh19qk393d2.png" style="float:left;margin-right:5px;"/>There was a lot of great feedback for my post <a href="http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/making-privacy-policies-not-suck/">Making Privacy Policies Not Suck</a>. We are now in conversation with a whole slew of industry leaders and deep thinkers in the area of privacy (<a href="http://lorrie.cranor.org/">Lorrie Cranor</a>, <a href="http://futureoftheinternet.org/blog">Jonathan Zittrain</a>, <a href="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/profile/lauren-gelman">Lauren Gelman</a>, <a href="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/profile/ryan-calo">Ryan Calo</a> to name a few).</p>
<p>With all of the work that&#8217;s been done before us, I wanted to touch on some of the way our thinking and position breaks from the mold.</p>
<p><b>Bolt On Approach</b></p>
<p><img src="http://img.skitch.com/20100113-n6pudyjgsnfm74ctnmfw9de2nb.png" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;"/>Privacy policies and Terms of Services are complex documents that encapsulate a lot of situation-specific detail. The Creative Commons approach is to reduce the complexity of sharing to a small number of licenses from which you choose. That simply doesn&#8217;t work here: there are too many edge-cases and specifics that each company has to put into their privacy policy. There can be no catch-all boiler-plate. We seem to have lost before we begun. There&#8217;s another approach.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s where we stand: Companies need to write their own privacy policies/terms of service, replete with company-specific detail. Why? Because a small number of licenses can&#8217;t capture the required complexity. The problem is that for everyday people, reading and understanding those necessarily custom privacy policies is time consuming and nigh impossible. </p>
<p>Here&#8217;s the solution: Create a set of easily-understood Privacy Icons that &#8220;bolt on to&#8221; a privacy policy. When you add a Privacy Icon to your privacy policy it says the equivalent of &#8220;No matter what the rest of this privacy policy says, the following is true and preempts anything else in this document&#8230;&#8221;. The Privacy Icon makes an iron-clad guarantee about some portion of how a company treats your data. For example, if a privacy policy includes the icon for &#8220;None of your data is sold or shared with 3rd parties&#8221;, then no matter what the privacy policy says in the small print, it gets preempted by the icon and the company is legally bound to never sharing or selling your data. Of course, the set of icons still needs to be decided (we&#8217;ll be having a workshop on the 27th of January to help figure it out).</p>
<p>This method means that without ever having to delve into the details, everyday people can glance at the simple icons atop a privacy to know if and how their data is being used. At the same time, it gives companies the flexibility required to create comprehensive and meaningful policies. We&#8217;ve found a way past the deadlock.</p>
<p><b>Nobody Will Use the Bad Icons?</b></p>
<p><img src="http://img.skitch.com/20100113-f3811h6sq1bcjrwp9she66q6rd.png" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;"/>Some of the Privacy Icons will have potentially a bad normative value, like the icon that indicates your data may be sold to third parties. The icon might even look scary. The question becomes, why would any company display such an icon in their privacy policy? Wouldn&#8217;t they instead opt to not use the Privacy Icons at all? This is the largest problem facing the Privacy Icons idea. Aren&#8217;t we are creating an incentive system whereby good companies/services will display Privacy Icons and bad companies/services will not?</p>
<p>If Privacy Icons become widely adopted (and I think Mozilla is in a unique position to help make that happen) then the correlation of good companies using the icons and bad companies not using the icons becomes rather strong. If a privacy policy doesn&#8217;t include any icons it&#8217;s synonymous with that policy making no guarantees for not using your data for evil. The absence of Privacy Icons becomes stigmatic.</p>
<p>Asking people to notice the absence of something is asking the implausible. People don&#8217;t generally don&#8217;t notice an absence; just a presence. The solution hinges on <i>Privacy Icons being machine readable</i> and Firefox being used by 350 million people world-wide. If Firefox encounters a privacy policy that doesn&#8217;t have Privacy Icons, we&#8217;ll automatically display the icons with the poorest guarantees: you&#8217;re data may be sold to 3rd parties, your data may be stored indefinitely, and your data may be turned over to law enforcement without a warrant, etc. This way, companies are incentivized to use Privacy Icons and thereby be bound to protecting your privacy appropriately. With Firefox growing past 25% market share, we are in a position to affect critical-mass adoption.</p>
<p>There are other options as well; like crowdsourcing tentative Privacy Icons for a website whose privacy policy does have icons yet (and deferring to the company&#8217;s as soon as they put them up).</p>
<p>(Note that Mozilla has not yet decided to integrate this into product yet.)</p>
<p><b>Lawyer Selected, Reader Approved</b></p>
<p>Since it&#8217;s release, Creative Commons has continually pared down the number of licenses it provides and is now down to just two icons, <a href="http://creativecommons.org/choose/">one with two states and one with three</a>. It has to be so simple because everyday people choose their own license. Privacy Icons don&#8217;t have that constraint. A qualified lawyer chooses what icons to bind to their privacy policy, and so there can be substantially more icons to choose from allowing the creation of a rich privacy story. As long as the icons are understandable by an everyday person, we are golden.</p>
<p><b>Next Steps</b></p>
<p>This blog post lays out the groundwork for how we are thinking about crafting Privacy Icons. We still need to figure out what the icons and their states will actually be (as well as if this approach makes sense). Ahead of the <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/privacyroundtables/">Federal Trade Commision Privacy Roundtable</a>, we will be hosting a workshop to discuss and creating solutions (or at least next steps) toward a more meaningful privacy framework over the web. We hope you can join us. Please rsvp to liz@mozilla.com no later than January 18th.</p>
<p>The Details:</p>
<p>What:  A Privacy Forum Co-Hosted by Lauren Gelman and Mozilla<br />
Who:   You and Any Others at Your Organization Interested in Privacy Issues<br />
When:  January 27th from 10am - 3pm<br />
Where: Mozilla (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/about/contact.html)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/is-a-creative-commons-for-privacy-possible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Identity in the Browser (Firefox)</title>
		<link>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/identity-in-the-browser-firefox/</link>
		<comments>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/identity-in-the-browser-firefox/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:21:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aza Raskin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[WEBLOG]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.azarask.in/blog/?p=545</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Identity will be one of the defining themes in the next five years of the Web. Nearly every site has a concept of a user account, registration, and identity. Searching for &#8220;sign in&#8221; on Google yields over 1.8 billion hits. And yet, the browser does nothing to make this experience better save for some basic [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Identity will be one of the defining themes in the next five years of the Web. Nearly every site has a concept of a user account, registration, and identity. Searching for &#8220;sign in&#8221; on Google yields over 1.8 billion hits. And yet, the browser does nothing to make this experience better save for some basic auto form filling. The browser leaves websites to re-implement identity management, and forces users to learn a new scheme for every site.</p>
<p>Most current solutions involve <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/oauthgoog/UXFedLogin">lots of redirects</a> or iframes, which leads to a confusing and phishable experience.</p>
<p>Besides the poor user experience, we are seeing market-moving effects of the identity/log in problem. <a href="http://developers.facebook.com/connect.php">Facebook Connect</a> and Google&#8217;s <a href="http://www.google.com/friendconnect/">Friend Connect</a> both let you use your pre-existing identity and social graph to super-power other websites. The problem?</p>
<p><strong>Your identity is too important to be owned by any one company.</strong><br />
<strong>Your friends are too important to be owned by any one company.</strong></p>
<h3>A Solution</h3>
<p>The browser is your personal and trusted agent to the web. It&#8217;s the only actor on the Internet stage which both knows everything you do on the web, and never has to let that data leave the privacy of your desktop. Your browser knows you (or, at least, should).</p>
<p>At Mozilla Labs, we&#8217;ve been <a href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/Labs/Weave/Identity/Account_Manager">working on</a> some potential integrations of identity directly into the browser. Note, this is an extremely rough draft.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/azaraskin/4128966575/sizes/o/"><img style="position: relative; left: -40px;" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2552/4128966575_460783b8b4_b.jpg" alt="" /></a></p>
<p>Some key points:</p>
<ul style="color:black;font-size: 15pt;">
<li>* Identity is part of where you are, and what you are looking at (Amazon looks different depending on if you are signed in or not). That&#8217;s why we put it in the URL Bar.</li>
<li>* For most sites, you&#8217;ll probably only have one identity, so login will be a single click or automatic.</li>
<li>* Putting verbs into the navigation bar isn&#8217;t new. See <a href="http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/taskfox-prototype-ubiquity-in-firefox/">Taskfox</a>.</li>
<li>* To increase visibility, webpages should be able to make a Javascript call that opens the login/signup bubble.</li>
<li>* For webpages that want to own the login-process, the account creation simply acts as the ultimate form-fill.</li>
</ul>
<p>For those interested in the evolution of the idea, you can see an early mockup with comments as well as Alex Faaborg&#8217;s similiar mockups.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/azaraskin/4127077941"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2583/4127077941_ef523e4568_m.jpg" alt="" /></a></p>
<p><a class="zoom" href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2509/4131699030_bd699b5f4f_o.png"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2509/4131699030_0aca3d7ba4.jpg" alt="" /></a></p>
<h3>Next steps</h3>
<p><a href="http://factoryjoe.com/">Chris Messina</a> and others has been advocating for a model which follows the Facebook Connect lead: a single verb, <strong>to connect</strong>. Once connected, you decide exactly what information to share in an asynchronous manner. Unfortunately this bleeds information — your name is known to all websites which which you connect. We&#8217;d like to explore what a connect metaphor in combination with the ability to remain anonymous but connected means.</p>
<p>Get <a href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/Labs/Weave/Identity/Account_Manager">involved here</a>.</p>
<p><strong>What are your thoughts? How would you expose identity in the browser?</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/identity-in-the-browser-firefox/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Firefox Image Editor: 14 Lines of Code</title>
		<link>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/jetpack_image_editor/</link>
		<comments>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/jetpack_image_editor/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:48:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aza Raskin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[WEBLOG]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[jetpack]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.azarask.in/blog/?p=539</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Jetpack makes it super-fast for any web developer to make Firefox extensions. 14 lines of code is all it takes to write an extensions that let&#8217;s you edit any image you find on the web.
Try it out!
Drew Willcoxon has some ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><object width="640" height="416"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=7429644&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;show_title=1&amp;show_byline=1&amp;show_portrait=0&amp;color=cc6600&amp;fullscreen=1" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="416" src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=7429644&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;show_title=1&amp;show_byline=1&amp;show_portrait=0&amp;color=cc6600&amp;fullscreen=1"></embed></object></p>
<p><a href="http://jetpack.mozillalabs.com">Jetpack</a> makes it super-fast for any web developer to make Firefox extensions. <a href="http://azarask.in/jetpack/editor/pixlr.js">14 lines of code</a> is all it takes to write an extensions that let&#8217;s you edit any image you find on the web.</p>
<p><a href="http://azarask.in/jetpack/editor/">Try it out!</a></p>
<p>Drew Willcoxon has some <a href="http://blog.mozilla.com/adw/2009/11/10/jetpack-menu-and-twitter-apis/"">great examples</a> of Jetpack, context menus, and Twitter working together. To find out more about creating menus in Jetpack, you can read the pretty pretty <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Jetpack/UI/Menu">documentation</a>.</p>
<p><b>Here&#8217;s a quick challenge: What can you make using Jetpack in 14 lines of code?</b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/jetpack_image_editor/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Making Privacy Policies not Suck</title>
		<link>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/making-privacy-policies-not-suck/</link>
		<comments>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/making-privacy-policies-not-suck/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:22:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aza Raskin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[WEBLOG]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.azarask.in/blog/?p=534</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Privacy policies are long legalese documents that obfuscate meaning. Nobody reads them because they are indecipherable and obtuse. Yet, these are the documents that tell you what&#8217;s going on with your data — how, when, and by whom your information will used. To put it another way, the privacy policy lets you know if some [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Privacy policies are <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/privacy/firefox-en.html">long</a> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/policy.php">legalese</a> <a href="http://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/">documents</a> that obfuscate meaning. Nobody reads them because they are indecipherable and obtuse. Yet, these are the documents that tell you what&#8217;s going on with your data — how, when, and by whom your information will used. To put it another way, the privacy policy lets you know if some company can make money from information (like selling you email to a spammer).</p>
<p><a href="http://creativecommons.org/">Creative Commons</a> did an amazing thing for copyright law. It made it understandable.</p>
<p>Creative commons reduced the complexity of letting others use your work with a set of combinable, modular icons.</p>
<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2708/4058320743_9757dee096_o.jpg"/></p>
<p>In order for privacy policies to have meaning for actual people, we need to follow in Creative Commons footsteps. We need to reduce the complexity of privacy policies to an indicator scannable in seconds. At the same time, we need a visual language for delving deeper into how our data is used—a set of icons may not be enough to paint the rich picture of where you data is going.</p>
<p><b>Understanding Data Flows</b></p>
<p>With the rise of web services, your information can end up in unexpected places. To get a better understanding of some of the complexities of data flow, we sketch out how Anti-phishing works in Firefox (with help from <a href="http://informationarchitects.jp/">Oliver Reichenstein</a>).</p>
<p><a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2684/4059332304_6d312c1808_o.jpg" class="zoom"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2684/4059332304_2f16d54672.jpg"/></a></p>
<p>Here&#8217;s what that looks like as a wall of text, which is the typical privacy policy mode.</p>
<p><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3515/4059393040_9846ae88bb_o.jpg" class="zoom"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3515/4059393040_7f051a565d.jpg"/></a></p>
<p>The difference in understandability is huge between the text and the schematic. In fact, while we were working on creating this infographic we found a hole in our legalese and updated it accordingly.</p>
<p>The idea here is that by creating a visual schematic language, it is relatively painless way for a company to convert their wall-of-text into something a bit more approachable. And that the more visualization actually shines a light into the dense tangle of words, possibly highlighting flaws or trouble spots that would have otherwise remained hidden.</p>
<p><b>The simple form</b></p>
<p>The visual schematic language is a descriptive way of explaining a privacy policy and helps us to understand what&#8217;s going on underneath the hood. It doesn&#8217;t solve the problem of being able to quickly figure out the guarantees a privacy policy is making on your data. </p>
<p>For that, we want to move from the descriptive to the proscriptive, to a set of legally-bindings icons like Creative Commons.</p>
<p>As an experiment, we tried a schematic form of icons:</p>
<p><img src="http://img.skitch.com/20091030-rc63j7x1h4hgysgj56kxk8tj2u.jpg"/></p>
<p>The feedback that we&#8217;ve got so far is that the schematic is over-kill and that a set of icons more similar to Creative Commons&#8217;s would be easier to scan and understand. The next step is for us to come up with a set of orthogonal decisions about what compromises the most important aspects of a privacy policy. In the end, we probably shouldn&#8217;t have more than 5 icons in the interest of simplicity.</p>
<p>You can help us <a href="http://aza.etherpad.com/privacy">brainstorm them</a>.</p>
<p>For now here are a set of axis we&#8217;ve come up with that need to be whittled down:</p>
<p>Is your information&#8230;</p>
<p>Shared with a 3rd Party? Shared internally within the company?<br />
Anonymized/Aggregated before being stored or used?<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information">Personally Identifiable</a>?<br />
Stored for more than x number of days?<br />
Encrypted on the server?<br />
Monetized (sold) in some way?<br />
Usable to contact you?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/making-privacy-policies-not-suck/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>You-Centric: A Sketch of The Future of Browsers</title>
		<link>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/you-centric-a-sketch-of-the-future-of-browsers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/you-centric-a-sketch-of-the-future-of-browsers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:15:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aza Raskin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[WEBLOG]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.azarask.in/blog/?p=520</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve been thinking at Mozilla Labs about what it means for the web to be more personal, more social, and more about you. It breaks down into four area:

Identity
Social
Deep Integration
Task-Centric

What does that mean? The video of my keynote from FOWA London below presents a sketch of what this might look like, and what it means [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;ve been thinking at <a href="http://mozillalabs.com">Mozilla Labs</a> about what it means for the web to be more personal, more social, and more about you. It breaks down into four area:</p>
<ul>
<li>Identity</li>
<li>Social</li>
<li>Deep Integration</li>
<li>Task-Centric</li>
</ul>
<p>What does that mean? The <a href="http://carsonified.com/blog/dev/you-centric-the-future-of-browsing/">video of my keynote</a> from FOWA London below presents a sketch of what this might look like, and what it means for the future of browsing. This is all still in embryonic form, so now is the time for feedback to provide the greatest change. So let&#8217;s here it! Are the API&#8217;s and directions proposed here useful or compelling?</p>
<p><object width="600" height="330"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=7021476&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;show_title=0&amp;show_byline=0&amp;show_portrait=0&amp;color=00ADEF&amp;fullscreen=1" /><embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=7021476&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;show_title=1&amp;show_byline=0&amp;show_portrait=0&amp;color=00ADEF&amp;fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="600" height="330"></embed></object></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/you-centric-a-sketch-of-the-future-of-browsers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>You Can&#8217;t Multitask</title>
		<link>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/you-cant-multitask/</link>
		<comments>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/you-cant-multitask/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aza Raskin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[WEBLOG]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.azarask.in/blog/?p=515</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I can only think about one thing at a time.
Any girl reading this just going to roll her eyes and think, “Of course. You’re a guy!”. But it’s not just true for me, it’s true for everyone. It’s true for you.
And not in that way.
At first, this claim can sound fantastic. We can talk on [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can only think about one thing at a time.</p>
<p>Any girl reading this just going to roll her eyes and think, “Of course. You’re a guy!”. But it’s not just true for me, it’s true for everyone. It’s true for you.</p>
<p>And not in <em>that</em> way.</p>
<p>At first, this claim can sound fantastic. We can talk on a cell phone while driving to work, and we can compose complex sentences while typing. But, if you stop to reflect on it, you can only do those things at the same time because at least one of them is <em>automatic</em>. In the first case driving is automatic, and in the second case typing is automatic. You’ve done them so often that you’ve habituated to them: doing them doesn’t require any thinking. Can you still talk on your cell phone while driving through a rainstorm on unfamiliar roads? Would you still be able to concentrate on writing if you had just switched to a Dvorak keyboard? I didn’t think so.</p>
<p>In both cases the extreme situation frustrates your habits and forces you to actively <em>think</em> about what you are doing at the expense of your other task. When you are thinking about driving safely in adverse conditions, you can’t also hold a conversation. And while you’re searching for the “e” key, you can’t also compose the next line of your sonnet.</p>
<p>Still not convinced? Then try this experiment: Think about the taste of chocolate (that glorious silky rush of sweet earthy flavor) at the exact same time as you add 47 and 56. Really try. At the same time. If it makes your brain fuzzy in the way your mouth feels after you’ve had an unripe banana, you’re in good company: it’s impossible. You can switch back and forth really quickly, but you can’t actually think about both things at the same time.</p>
<p><a class="zoom" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3509/3875377104_381cc66d7e_o.jpg"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3509/3875377104_89036a450d.jpg" alt="" /></a></p>
<p>Want another experiment? Try saying &#8220;I cannot do two things at once very well&#8221; out-loud while reading the next paragraph. If you are like most people (i.e., not a practiced speed reader), you&#8217;ll end up reading the paragraph very slowly, one word at a time in between your spoken words.</p>
<p>Software often requires us to actively think about two things at once: like needing to know if the current content of the clipboard is important (when you should be thinking about the edit you want to make), or whether the “predictive” text entry on cell phones has incorrectly guessed the word you want (when you really just want to be writing your message). Unfortunately, this is like asking us to simultaneously press two buttons that are 10 feet apart. It’s impossible, and it’s not humane, so we’ll make mistakes. But, <a href="http://humanized.com/about/index.php#rule1">it’s not our fault</a>.</p>
<p>Not being able to think about two things at once means that we can’t truly “multitask” things that we need to think about. Instead, we cycle through tasks in quick succession. But be warned, there are costs. At each switch we risk losing our <a href="http://humanized.com/about/index.php#rule5">train of thought</a> and even if we remain on track, it takes time to re-situate ourselves with where we were before the switch. The net effect is that it takes more time to multitask a set of actions than it does to do them sequentially.</p>
<p>Time for another experiment. Time yourself doing the following two actions:</p>
<ol>
<li>Spell aloud, letter by letter, “Jewelry is shiny” at the <em>same</em> time as you write your full name.</li>
<li>Spell aloud, letter by letter, “Jewelry is shiny” and then, after you are done with that, write your name.</li>
</ol>
<p>It took me 18 seconds to do the tasks concurrently, and 8 seconds to the tasks sequentially. However, if you practice spelling “Jewelry is shiny” aloud for a couple minutes, it’ll become automatic. You’ll no longer have to think to do it, and you’ll be able to complete the two tasks at the same time without incurring the switching cost.</p>
<p>What’s the lesson to be learned? If you want a boost in productivity, try rethinking how you multitask so that you only ever need to <em>think</em> about one thing at a time.</p>
<p>Even if it is about <em>that</em>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/you-cant-multitask/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Making Long Scrolls on the iPhone Not Suck</title>
		<link>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/solving-the-touch-screen-scroll-problem/</link>
		<comments>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/solving-the-touch-screen-scroll-problem/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:58:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aza Raskin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[WEBLOG]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.azarask.in/blog/?p=506</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The designers of the iPhone had an immense amount of courage. They finally removed the scrollbar, a persistent and harmful UI anachronism. Given the amount of time spent scrolling on computers, requiring the move from your locus of attention to the small target that scrollbars represents has wasted immense amounts of time. If you calculate [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The designers of the iPhone had an immense amount of courage. They finally removed the scrollbar, a persistent and harmful UI anachronism. Given the amount of time spent scrolling on computers, requiring the move from your locus of attention to the small target that scrollbars represents has wasted immense amounts of time. If you calculate it out conservatively, the scrollbar widget wastes almost one complete day a year. And that&#8217;s only if you scroll once every 6 minutes. Multiply that by number of the 300 million Firefox users and you&#8217;d find that the scrollbar wastes over three-fourths of a million man-years of web browser&#8217;s time. Every year.</p>
<p>No wonder we have scroll wheels and two-finger scrolling. They remove the 4 seconds of back-and-forth targeting the scrollbar. They save the world millions of man-years of wasted time.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mozilla.org/projects/fennec/1.0a1/releasenotes/">Fennec</a> (Firefox Mobile) and the iPhone go the next step and get rid of the scrollbar all together. There just isn&#8217;t enough room on those little screens. They both use pan-to-scroll, which solves the problem with the exception that getting around on pages so over-flowing with length that they stretch for half an infinity (like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne)">Line of succession to the British throne</a>) takes half of forever. The problem is so horrific that mobile Safari had to implement a band-aid UI patch for jumping back to the top of a page.</p>
<p>There has to be a better way of solving the problem, one where you get the immediacy of touch-and-drag to pan but where you also don&#8217;t get stuck scrolling the scenic route.</p>
<p>Here are two thoughts on how to solve the problem.</p>
<p><b>Sticky Scroll Indicator</b></p>
<p><a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2555/3853366575_5fcaf525e5_o.jpg" class="zoom"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2555/3853366575_f1c5ace243.jpg"></a></p>
<p>The obvious solution. When you start to scroll, the scroll indicator fades in. After you stop scrolling, the scroll indicator remains and can be interacted with for some amount of time. Time based solutions are always a tricky &mdash; the timeout is never the right length for everyone &mdash; but this one seems pretty pit-fall free. The scrollbar is there when you need it and gone when you don&#8217;t.</p>
<p><b>Scroll-to-zoom</b></p>
<p><a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2651/3853369637_5b1b33e44b_o.jpg" class="zoom"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2651/3853369637_4502203c33.jpg"/></a></p>
<p>The more visually impressive solution, although I&#8217;m not convinced it is better than the obvious solution. During long scrolls, the page automatically zooms out. Optionally, the longer the scroll, the further the zoom. The zoomed out page can be panned, and the now-present scrollbar can be used for quickly jumping around. A single tap zooms you back in. This gives you a wonderful visual table-of-contents map of the page you are moving about, but at the potential cost of simplicity.</p>
<p><b>Other solutions</b></p>
<p>Are there other solutions?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/solving-the-touch-screen-scroll-problem/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Over-the-Phone Test</title>
		<link>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/phone-test/</link>
		<comments>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/phone-test/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:29:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aza Raskin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[WEBLOG]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.azarask.in/blog/?p=501</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the design heuristics we use at Mozilla Labs, especially as we work to create a more invisible browser,  is the &#8220;Over-the-Phone test&#8221;.
If your friends have ever got it into their heads that you might be good at technology, I&#8217;m sure you&#8217;ve found yourself trying to explain some aspect of computing over the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the design heuristics we use at Mozilla Labs, especially as we work to create a <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10296433-2.html">more invisible browser</a>,  is the &#8220;Over-the-Phone test&#8221;.</p>
<p>If your friends have ever got it into their heads that you might be good at technology, I&#8217;m sure you&#8217;ve found yourself trying to explain some aspect of computing over the phone. Probably something trivial and difficult to explain. I give you my condolences. Trying to troubleshoot a GUI over the phone is like giving driving directions to train conductor.</p>
<p>For instance, it’s difficult to tell Grandma how to spellcheck in a web mail application that doesn’t have spellcheck:</p>
<ul>
<li>“Ok, Grandma, select everything by clicking anywhere in the text and typing Control-A.”</li>
<li>“Now copy the text by typing Control-C.”</li>
<li>“Open Word by going to the Start Menu, clicking ‘All Programs’, clicking ‘Microsoft Office’, and finally by clicking ‘Word’.”</li>
<li>“Paste your text into Word by typing Control-V…  No, Grandma, I don’t know why it’s ‘V’–maybe because ‘P’ is already used for printing?”</li>
<li>“Click the little icon on the top of the bar that has a checkmark and some letters. You don’t see it? Okay, describe what you see. You see something that looks like a coffee cup? I have no idea what that is. Actually, forget it. Just select ‘Spell Check’ from the ‘Edit’ menu.”</li>
<li>“Click ‘Start Checking’. Grandma, I know you just told it you want to spell check; I don’t know why you have to tell it again.”</li>
<li>(Time passes as Grandma spell checks her document.)</li>
<li>“Click the ‘Done’ button. Or maybe it’s called ‘Finish’.  Uh, just click either the ‘Done’ or the ‘Finish’ button.”</li>
<li>“Select everything by typing Control-A.”</li>
<li>“Copy the text by typing Control-C.”</li>
<li>“Switch back to the email you were writing.  What’s that?  You can’t see the email you were writing?  Well, um… Move some windows around and try finding it.”</li>
<li>“Is the text of the email still selected? No? Okay, click anywhere in the text.”</li>
<li>“Select everything by typing Control-A.”</li>
<li>“Paste in your spell checked text by typing Control-P.  Wait, no, Control-V…”</li>
<li>“You’re done! wasn’t that easy?”</li>
</ul>
<p>At every step something can go wrong, your mental model can get out of sync with the state of the computer, or you might remember a button name incorrectly.</p>
<p>Thus our test: We ask ourselves, “Would I be willing to teach my Grandma how to use this over the phone?”. If the answer is “Definitely”, we know we’re doing well; if the answer is “Maybe”, we know we can do better; and if the answer is “No”, then it’s often time to rethink the whole thing.</p>
<p>This is one of the heuristics that informed <a href="http://ubiquity.mozilla.com/">Ubiquity</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/phone-test/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How to Make the Road Speak. With Design.</title>
		<link>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/make-the-road-speek/</link>
		<comments>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/make-the-road-speek/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:08:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aza Raskin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[WEBLOG]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.azarask.in/blog/?p=494</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ 
Run your finger across the top of your keyboard, starting at the &#8220;q&#8221; and finishing at the &#8220;\&#8221;. Run your finger the other way. Listen to the sound it makes. Run your finger over the tops of the keys faster and the pitch goes up. Run your finger more slowly and the pitch goes down.
You [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> </p>
<p>Run your finger across the top of your keyboard, starting at the &#8220;q&#8221; and finishing at the &#8220;\&#8221;. Run your finger the other way. Listen to the sound it makes. Run your finger over the tops of the keys faster and the pitch goes up. Run your finger more slowly and the pitch goes down.</p>
<p>You are witnessing an amazing process of synthesis in your brain. There is no pitch out in the real world, just a series of short and sequential air-molecule vibrations. Your brain takes these little clicks and, depending on how fast their coming in, translates them into a melodious sound. Your brain wants to hear pitch.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a coping mechanism. There&#8217;s too much sound out there in the wold, so you brain translates it from lots of little discontinuous noises, into a few recognizable pitches. The same thing happens when you put a playing card in the spokes of a bicycle. As the wheel turns, those little slapping noises blur together into a continuos sound, the pitch going up and down with the speed of the rider.<span id="more-494"></span></p>
<p>On the sides of roads, especially on highways, you&#8217;ll often find groves. If you&#8217;re drowsy or not paying attention and happen onto them, you&#8217;ll be shocked into attention as a loud pitch fills your car.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s the idea: If we modulate the space in-between the grooves, we&#8217;ll be able to modulate the pitch that fills the car. The more grooves we put in a row, the longer the pitch will last. We now have pitch and duration. That&#8217;s enough the play melodies. Imagine driving down the road next to a winding river, and having the road itself play you the Blue Danube. Or going through the Rocky Mountains and have the road play American the Beautiful. And if we move the grooves to the center of the road, you won&#8217;t even have to drive off the road to hear it.</p>
<p>Now, we can take it to the next level. With multiple sets of overlapping grooves, you can get chords. With different grooves on the left and right side of the road, you can get stereo sound. With a bit of cleverness, you can create a rich musical experience that you <i>feel</i>.</p>
<p>One practical use of this stems from people&#8217;s ability to remember tempo with great specificity. If you ask people to sing a song, they probably won&#8217;t remember the right starting pitch, but they&#8217;ll always nail the tempo within 4% of the original [<a href="http://www.amazon.com/This-Your-Brain-Music-Obsession/dp/0525949690">source</a>]. If we encode well-known songs into the pavement such that they play at the right tempo when driving at the speed limit, drivers might naturally change their speed to match. If you don&#8217;t go at the speed limit, everything just sounds wrong.</p>
<p>One final thought: if we vary the type of grooves by changing their cut shape, we might be able to reproduce different timbers. And that would be enough to replicate low-fidelity speech. The road could quiet literally speak &#8220;Slow Down!&#8221; and have it only be understandable when, in fact, you&#8217;re speeding. Or speak that a unexpected stop is coming up.</p>
<p><b>A road that speaks, and all it takes is the ability to scratch some lines in the dirt. Fun. What else can this concept be used for?</b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/make-the-road-speek/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
