Should April Fools Day Go The Way Of Software Easter Eggs?

When Microsoft brought in their trustworthy computing initiative, one of the first visible effects was the discontinuation of Easter Eggs in Windows and Office.  These hidden functions, while fun, violated the idea that software should only work the way that is documented and expected.  Hidden functionality and behaviour is undesirable if software is to be trusted, so they had to go.

One morning as I looked though a gallery of April foods jokes there were some, such as the phone glove, that I could see as possible products similar to ones that I would expect at a conference like CES.  In addition, as ZDNet pointed out, the hoax twenty-five years ago from apple was that it had a network that worked through power lines, something that is common today.  In an industry that prides itself on thinking outside the box and is highly competitive, odd new products should be expected. 

The problem can also be seen from the other side.  Who would expect after reading all the negative news on BlackBerry that they would be able to stop an accessory for the iPhone from being sold?  I can easily imagine an April Fool's article declaring that courts rule that BlackBerry owns the QWERTY keyboard.  If I found out about the ban on April Fool's Day, I might wonder whether it was a hoax as the headline screams April Fools’ joke.

This makes me think that while I enjoy these fun ideas and even think they might be valuable in creating future products, they should they be clearly marked as humor.  WestJet ended KargoKids with an April Fools message, to the dismay of many viewers.  In this case the April Fool's message greatly improved the joke but even if it didn't would it ever harm a joke if it was clearly identified as such?

We rely on the press and other websites for accurate news and to have false information, even if it is on a widely published day of hoax, degrades the ability of these media to convey information.  All one has to do is think of the all the legitimate news published today that is in doubt simply because they released on April 1st.

C-3PO and R2-D2 Are Not Different UX Philosophies

When discussing the future of robotic and artificial intelligent technology, C-3PO and R2-D2 are often used as an attempt to illustrate the choice between designing humanoid robots and non-humanoid robots.  However, these comparisons are often superficial and overlook the fact that C-3PO's humanoid design and R2-D2's non-humanoid design is very much tied to their function rather then arbitrary design decisions.

C-3PO exists as a translator or liaison between people, droids and maybe equipment of difference species and makes.  For example, he translated what Jabba the Hut said to Luke in Return of the Jedi and often translates R2-D2's beeps.  His knowledge of six million forms of communication means he is much better at this then a person could be in the same position and having a humanoid form ensures that there is no sacrifice in usability by using a droid.  If C-3PO looked like R2-D2 then the conversations would be more awkward as the addition of a droid would be much more obvious.

R2-D2 exists as a replacement for a humanoid engineer and thus he is essentially an intelligent toolbox. His design and unique non-humanoid features reflect and support this role including the ability to conduct maintenance with a variety of built in tools and the ability to do his job while rolling around on the hull of ship in space.  A versatile droid such as R2-D2 would be difficult to create if he looked like C-3PO.  In addition to the practical issues of putting R2-D2's features on a humanoid form consider the confusion that would happen in a frantic battle where crew members are getting blowing into space and a medical droid sees a humanoid form clinging to the side of a ship.

The reason that C-3PO looks humanoid while R2-D2 looks like a rolling toolbox is not arbitrary or due to superficial reasons such as friendliness. Their respective forms are required to provide the best user experience and ensure that they are each fulfilling their unique purpose.

Idea: How Smart Kitchens Should Work

Why would someone want to configure their blender for Wi-Fi?  Or upgrade the firmware of their toaster over? Or replace their perfectly working microwave because their refrigerator does not support it anymore? It is unlikely that someone would want to do these things but this seems to be  the direction where smart kitchen appliances are heading with the Internet of Things. 

For the "Internet of Things" many of these "things" are just low powered computers put in a device and then connected to the user's home network.  This means that they have the same basic needs as a computer, tablet, smartphone, etc. in that they need to be:

• Authenticated so they have a secure connection
• Able to protect themselves against malicious traffic
• Patched when flaws or vulnerabilities are discovered
• Upgraded to support new features

These are very important tasks but they are not something users like to think about and probably not something they want to do with their blender, toaster oven, microwave, etc..  Despite all the benefits of smart appliances one does not want to wait for their smoothie to blend because of an installing patch or have that new game on their tablet decide that their baked potato should be very, very well done. To solve this problem I suggest the creating a smart kitchen instead.

Rather then having each appliance on the home network individually, have only a dedicated computer in the kitchen on that network.  This computer could then treat the other appliances like a private network and would be the only interface between them and devices on the other network.  It alone would need to be configured and would also have a firewall just like a regular computer in addition to managing all the patching to ensure that the kitchen operates smoothly. 

A critical benefit is also that the computer can be the primary point of interaction.  Therefore, when cooking a roast when the user opens up the their recipe the oven would preheat, the timers would automatically be set and anything else they need would be configured and ready to go.  Also as it is a standard computer it would be possible to install new kitchen applications to increase functionality as well as browsing the Internet, using email, etc. when additional information is needed.

The main hurtle is that standards need to be established to ensure compatibility among vendors but I imagine that would be easier convincing people to enter a WPA2 password on their blender, toaster oven, microwave, etc..

The Third Generation of Autonomous Vehicles

Currently several companies, especially Google, are working on the first generation of autonomous self-driving vehicles.  These seem to do a good job of driving and hopefully once on in production they will be better then people driving themselves.  That is in fact the main selling point, a vehicle that can avoid accidents because it is relentlessly watching the road. However, based on the current laws for these vehicles there still needs to be a licenced driver that is ready to quickly take control if needed.  In other words, the first generation will really be an autopilot.

The second generation is going to be what we see on television and in movies: vehicles driving themselves with passengers not even bothering to pay attention to what is happening around them.  It will be like the best driver imaginable is at wheel. Accidents should be cut down to nil due to the computer's literally split second response when avoiding an obstacle, be it a jaywalker or a child chasing after a ball.  However, when not exceptionally avoiding accidents one would expect them to still mimic current driving patterns.

However, we need to consider not just how the cars will evolve, but also how people will.  Due to issues with people driven vehicles we got used to the derogatory term Jaywalker and related laws  were created to prevent people from getting injured or killed by walking into traffic.  Children were taught not to run into the street for the same reason.  However, people still randomly run across the street at their own peril and once the danger is removed, why would society continue with the probation?

While getting rid a crosswalks the thought will turn to controlled intersections and speed limits.  Current intersections are to allow people driven traffic to cross paths and inconveniently stops all flow of traffic in certain directions to allow the other directions to safely proceed.  Speed limits are designed to ensure that the driver can keep control of their vehicle.  This leads to the slowing of traffic and in extreme cases, Gridlock.  However, with a computer in control, speeding down the road or crossing a lane of traffic would be no more dangerous then walking down a sidewalk or crossing the flow of people.

These social changes will bring about the third generation of autonomous vehicles, designed to find a path from point A to point B as fast as possible while preventing accidents by  intelligently predicting and dodging around or between obstacles.  Stoplights will have gone the way of the milkman and just people waking into the street would be normal. 

I imagine these vehicles would look similar to the spherically wheeled vehicles in I,Robot or maybe the domed vehicles in The Jetsons.  They will be able to accelerate in any direction and rotate freely.  The occupants might prefer to be laying back watching the sky as it moves and twirls if they become too dizzy watching the road.  The computer would have to accommodate inertia to ensure the occupants are not injured while food and drink would also be impossible, as would anything requiring hand-eye coordination, except for perhaps a mounted or worn electronic device.

If a  person from today woke up in this future it might be a beautiful site to see someone or even be the person that runs into traffic for the elegant ballet that will ensue ensuring the safety of all.  For others, it could be horrifying, like the legend of the people who saw that train coming at them from the movie screen and ran for their lives.

Perhaps even both.