Has it ever struck you that architects continually design features into buildings that people who use their buildings continually ignore? For example:
- Architects continue to make men's and women's bathrooms the same size. It makes for a nice symmetry in plan, but women take longer, so you always find long lines of women outside their bathroom, while men zip in and out. This has been going on for a long time! Come on, architects, wake up!
- Architects always seem to think their interior spaces will remain as immaculate as they are on the day the last coat of paint is applied. But virtually every interior space occupied by humans -- especially office and work spaces -- are covered with pieces of paper, affixed to painted walls with tacks or tape. Why don't architects design shared spaces with some kind of surface treatment designed to accept attached documents?
- Architects generally put double doors as the main entrance to any public space. But have you noticed how often the occupants of that space open only one door and leave the other on locked? OK, I would have to fault the users in this case, but why do they do that? Do they think they are saving "wear and tear" on the bolted door? Do they enjoy watching people yank at one door, feel the frustration, and then open the other one? If people are going to behave like this, maybe there is some design approach that would make this practice seem normal or expected.
Anyone else out there have any architectural pet peeves?
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
On-Line Dating
Recently I've been trying on-line dating. I must admit I've had some some limited success, if that's what you call it when you find someone worth going out with several times now, albeit after slogging through dozens and dozens of utterly hopeless candidates.
I've used only two services, and I haven't surveyed them all enough to either plug or pan these two in particular, but I've noticed a couple of things that seem to apply to all on-line dating services.
First, it's really hard for anyone to sound original in a self-description. When asked what's most important in life, guess what? Health, family and friends loom large for pretty much 100% of the populace! And it seems that every last person in the world is looking for a mate with a good sense of humor! Favorite activities invariably include "a quiet evening at home." If these are all the things we're looking for, we should all be able to find a mate just by standing outside the supermarket and waiting for someone to walk by without a wedding ring!
In one area, however, people exhibit quite a range of taste and competence - namely in posting photographs of themselves. I am amazed by how many people post really awful photos of themselves -- awful in a technical sense: too dark, washed out, with the figure so small you can barely make out the subject. Come on, people, surely you have an image that shows your face in adequate light in reasonal isolation - how about that passport photo! (I finally understand why the passport office is so particular in their photo specifications.)
The other popular practice that mystifies me is when people post photos of themseleves with others in the picture. If it's another person of the same gender, which one is you? Even worse, what's the deal with the picture of you snuggling up to your "ex" when you are presumably looking for a new mate? Are we supposed to compare ourselves to the ex and make sure that we match some physical quality or wear the same hat? Or should we assume you're looking for someone completely different?
Still, even a bad photo is better than none at all. With no image posted, the prospective dater can only assume the worst!
I've used only two services, and I haven't surveyed them all enough to either plug or pan these two in particular, but I've noticed a couple of things that seem to apply to all on-line dating services.
First, it's really hard for anyone to sound original in a self-description. When asked what's most important in life, guess what? Health, family and friends loom large for pretty much 100% of the populace! And it seems that every last person in the world is looking for a mate with a good sense of humor! Favorite activities invariably include "a quiet evening at home." If these are all the things we're looking for, we should all be able to find a mate just by standing outside the supermarket and waiting for someone to walk by without a wedding ring!
In one area, however, people exhibit quite a range of taste and competence - namely in posting photographs of themselves. I am amazed by how many people post really awful photos of themselves -- awful in a technical sense: too dark, washed out, with the figure so small you can barely make out the subject. Come on, people, surely you have an image that shows your face in adequate light in reasonal isolation - how about that passport photo! (I finally understand why the passport office is so particular in their photo specifications.)
The other popular practice that mystifies me is when people post photos of themseleves with others in the picture. If it's another person of the same gender, which one is you? Even worse, what's the deal with the picture of you snuggling up to your "ex" when you are presumably looking for a new mate? Are we supposed to compare ourselves to the ex and make sure that we match some physical quality or wear the same hat? Or should we assume you're looking for someone completely different?
Still, even a bad photo is better than none at all. With no image posted, the prospective dater can only assume the worst!
Monday, December 3, 2007
Magazines & Passwords (Provoking the Opposite)
Last month (November) I received renewal notices for two magazines I enjoy and to which I intend to keep my subscriptions. What drives me nuts is that the subscription are good until May in one case and July in the other!
Why do they do that? Do they think we won't notice that the renewal offer is 6-8 months early? Do they think we'll just say "yes" to every notice that arrives, and with any luck they'll have us signed up for 5 or 6 years before we notice anything?
Well, guess what? Being a person of discernment and taste (and who else would subscribe to such fine rags), I do notice! And I think it's pretty silly to renew in November for a subscription that's good until next July! So, behaving as a rational person, I ignore the renewal offer. When the next one comes, I ignore that one, too. In fact, I'll probably keep ignoring renewal offers until it finally dawns that the magazine has stopped coming! That's when I'll renew, maybe after missing 2 or 3 issues. This seems a perfectly rational way to deal with problem. I imagine the magazine would rather have me as a continuous and uninterrupted subscriber, yet my "reminding" too often and too early, they provoke the opposite outcome.
This reminds me of the problem with changing passwords. Online companies let you set a user name and password and leave it unchanged for years, but the IT departments of most companies insist that employees change their passwords every 2 or 3 months, ostensibly in the interest of better security.
Changing your password every 3 months sounds good in theory -- if you have only one account in world. But what if you live in the real world? In that case, you probably have 50-100 accounts, each with its own password and user name. You can make this plenitude of accounts less onerous by using the same name and password for multiple accounts. But if your IT department insists that you change passwords every 3 months, how do you keep track of them? Most people write them down -- in a file on the computer or PDA, on a white board, or on post-it notes displayed prominently on the monitor for any and all too see.
With so many passwords to remember, this is a perfectly rationale way of coping with the changing-password demand. Of course, it must also be admitted that it has the opposite effect of the intended purpose. Rather than improving security, forcing users to change passwords makes security weaker, since everyone has to find some coping mechanism for dealing with the short expiration. Under the flag of strengthening security, this practice actually weakens it.
Why do they do that? Do they think we won't notice that the renewal offer is 6-8 months early? Do they think we'll just say "yes" to every notice that arrives, and with any luck they'll have us signed up for 5 or 6 years before we notice anything?
Well, guess what? Being a person of discernment and taste (and who else would subscribe to such fine rags), I do notice! And I think it's pretty silly to renew in November for a subscription that's good until next July! So, behaving as a rational person, I ignore the renewal offer. When the next one comes, I ignore that one, too. In fact, I'll probably keep ignoring renewal offers until it finally dawns that the magazine has stopped coming! That's when I'll renew, maybe after missing 2 or 3 issues. This seems a perfectly rational way to deal with problem. I imagine the magazine would rather have me as a continuous and uninterrupted subscriber, yet my "reminding" too often and too early, they provoke the opposite outcome.
This reminds me of the problem with changing passwords. Online companies let you set a user name and password and leave it unchanged for years, but the IT departments of most companies insist that employees change their passwords every 2 or 3 months, ostensibly in the interest of better security.
Changing your password every 3 months sounds good in theory -- if you have only one account in world. But what if you live in the real world? In that case, you probably have 50-100 accounts, each with its own password and user name. You can make this plenitude of accounts less onerous by using the same name and password for multiple accounts. But if your IT department insists that you change passwords every 3 months, how do you keep track of them? Most people write them down -- in a file on the computer or PDA, on a white board, or on post-it notes displayed prominently on the monitor for any and all too see.
With so many passwords to remember, this is a perfectly rationale way of coping with the changing-password demand. Of course, it must also be admitted that it has the opposite effect of the intended purpose. Rather than improving security, forcing users to change passwords makes security weaker, since everyone has to find some coping mechanism for dealing with the short expiration. Under the flag of strengthening security, this practice actually weakens it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
