vakkotaur: Centaur holding bow - cartoon (time)


It's not about the artwork - though this year the calendar features the first twelve of "The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries" from Howard Tayler's Schlock Mercenary comic, rather than pictures of horses as has been the case the last several years.

This is about the numbers. Or the size and color of them. This calendar reminds me one from a few years ago. Both have small numbers for the dates. That's great if you're up close and need space to write lots of stuff for that date. It's not so great from a distance where you simply want to see the numeric date.

The next year, after the tiny type a while back, I found a calendar I liked with nice big date numbers. But they were various, muted, nearly (if not) pastel colors which also made them harder to read from a distance. And the colors were random. It wasn't "Holidays are red" or "Mondays are blue, Tuesdays are orange,..." Thus no useful information was added but the decoration made the thing less useful than it should have been.

It strikes me as odd that these problems exist. A calendar isn't a new or terrible complex thing[1]. They've been around for a long, long time. One would expect readability from common uses (halfway across a small room doesn't seem to be asking too much) would be one of those well and truly solved problems. Evidently it is not.



[1] Computing some dates, such as Easter, can be complicated, however.

vakkotaur: Centaur holding bow - cartoon (camera)


Yesterday afternoon I wound up taking a few pictures with an unfamiliar digital camera. I forget the make, which is a bit unfortunate as it's probably one I best avoid. The digital cameras with which I am somewhat familiar, which are [livejournal.com profile] jmaynard's, have a certain shutter button behavior that I've gotten used to.

To take a picture with the cameras I'm used to using one presses the shutter button partway and the camera beeps or beep-beeps to let you know that it is taking or has taken measurements such as light level and range or focus adjustment. Then the button is pressed the rest of the way and the picture is taken, complete with the playing of an audible shutter sound to let you know you've taken the picture.

The camera I used yesterday was not set up like that. I'm not sure if it was configured different or designed different, but it was different enough to cause me trouble. When the shutter was pressed, there was a soft beep-beep and the picture was taken. I kept trying to push the button the rest of the way to take the picture and wondering why the camera wasn't working. I suspect that whoever owns that camera has two or three pictures of each shot I tried to take as I simply didn't believe the camera was working.

I suspect the opposite is what happened when [livejournal.com profile] wendyzski was using the camera I had at ACRF. I guess she heard the beep-beep when the button was pushed partway and figured a picture had been taken. But that camera was only getting itself set up to take the picture then.

vakkotaur: Centaur holding bow - cartoon (bow)


Looking at early examples of machines and such, the early designs seem rather primitive and crude. Sometime it's amazing that the first examples that actually worked did work at all. But the early designs were refined over and over until the current design often barely resembles the original.

There are folks who don't seem to realize this and assume that the current design is the only one and it could be no other way. The argument goes that no part can be removed and still have it be the thing it is. If that is indeed that case, then it's an example of good design or engineering. Good design or engineering has been said to be finished not when the last needed thing is added but when the last unneeded thing is removed.

But that doesn't mean that the current thing is the only way it could be. One of the arguments for so-called Intelligent Design is that life is irreducibly complex: you can't remove anything without breaking the thing it's a part of. One example, of something actually designed, is the snap mousetrap which it is claimed is irreducible: nothing can be removed and have it still function. But that assumes that it was always in its finished form.

What if it wasn't?

vakkotaur: Centaur holding bow - cartoon (Default)


For about as long as I can remember my folks had an item I'd seen used as a toothpick holder. It's a fairly heavy clear glass block with a slightly tapered hole open on top and descending more than halfway through it. This thing did not start out as a toothpick holder.

I recently obtained another such glass block and was informed of what it was. It's an inkwell. As I've never used a pen that required an inkwell, and had only seen the thing holding toothpicks, that was something I wouldn't have otherwise known. Yet after being told what it is, it seems if not obvious, at least a very good design.

Thinking over what the properties of an inkwell should be, it seems the maker gave it some thought or perhaps more likely inkwell design evolved over time to include this. An inkwell needs a broad base - tipping over is bad. It should be fairly heavy, so any jarring wouldn't be likely to knock it over. The well itself should be deep enough that sloshing (from being jarred) won't splash ink all over. But it should not be so deep as to be inconvenient for a pen to reach. And it would be nice if you could tell how much ink was left at a glance. The glass block seems to fit all that rather well.

It's a good design and I can appreciate that, even if I've never had need of an inkwell for its originally intended purpose.

Profile

vakkotaur: Centaur holding bow - cartoon (Default)
Vakkotaur

March 2024

S M T W T F S
     12
3 456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 4 January 2026 05:39
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios