Optical Accommodation: A Dilemma for Portable Electronics Design

I became nearsighted at age 10 and have required a correction of -6 to -10 diopters most of my life.  Later than many of my peers, I began to require reading glasses, first +1 diopter now +2 diopters, particularly in low light.  I still resist bifocals, despite my respect for their inventor, Ben Franklin.  So when I wear soft contacts, I carry reading glasses.  Otherwise, I carry two pairs of glasses, one for distance, and one for close work.  This problem is called optical accommodation in aging eyes.

Two kinds of portable electronics present a challenge for my eyes: smart phones and pocket cameras (now crudely integrated into the smart phone.)  The problem for the smart phone is how to read the fine print (particularly on emails and web pages) without constantly pulling out the reading glasses.  My Blackberry was difficult in this area.  The iPhone is better because there are larger type options and a couple of magnification mechanisms built into the user interface.  Also, for many popular webpages, e.g., The New York Times, Google and Wikipedia, reader apps are available on the iPhone that are easier to read and navigate than a computer web page design.

Equally problematic for me is the pocket digital camera.  I have been an enthusiastic amateur photographer all my life, more interested in the aesthetics of composition, recording nature and the emotional impact of photography than extreme technical detail (maybe my physics education was a mistake, maybe it just got a lot of the technology out of the way.)  I have a number of camera bags full of various generations of SLR’s, video cameras and accessaries, however, the camera I have most loved in the last 3 years is a Nikon Coolpix P5000.  This is a small digital camera (4” by 2.5” by 1.5”, 7 ounces) that has all the functionality of a digital SLR, including a viewfinder.  Instead of looking at the 2.5” diagonal display (requiring me to accommodate between close and distant vision to compose the shot), I can compose through the viewfinder with my distant vision only.  If I need to change settings, or navigate through menus, then I may have to get out my reading glasses.  This allows the act of photographing to be a quick and impulsive act, catching that deer, bird or mink that would otherwise be gone by the time I got the camera set up.  A camera that works well for young eyes may not be as convenient for older eyes.

The convenience of a small camera is a tremendous advantage and I’ve stopped taking my DSLR with me on vacations.  I get 95% of the functionality I want 100% of the time rather than 100% of the functionality only 50% of the time.  You can do the math.  I am continuing to look for better and better pocket camera designs... they are gradually improving for low light, greater telephoto magnification and faster shutter speeds.

The problem of designing small, portable, complex electronics for various levels of user sophistication and optical accommodation is an interesting design challenge.  What is your perspective and experience in this area?

Internet Business Models: Regulatory Impact

A couple of recent events have caused me to think more deeply about Internet Business  Models: the first was the FCC’s Open Internet Proposal (Ref. Chairman Genachowski’s Remarks on Preserving Internet Freedom and Openness, December 1, 2010) which establishes separate rules for wireless (where access has a technical bottleneck) and for wired (where fiber optics, properly managed can remove access bottlenecks) broadband network management.  The second is a Federal Trade Commission’s proposal for a browser-based “button” to opt out of targeted advertising as part of a general review of internet privacy.

In the beginning the Internet was wild and free and not very useful.  Then along came browsers with secure modes that allowed on-line payment and the subscription model was born.  This model requires a sophisticated subscriber who knows their willingness to pay for specific content or is rich enough not to care.  Advertising comes along for the ride in this business model, however, the advertiser operates with about the same level instrumentation that broadcast television had in the 1960’s.  The upshot is that neither the subscriber nor the advertisers is willing to contribute much money to the content provider because the connection between the advertisement and the act of spending money are indirect.

Then along came the Internet business model that I will call the behavioral micro-segmented model pioneered by Google.  By using cookies and other tracking technology, the users can be micro-segmented by their searching and browsing behavior into groups that are “strongly inclined to buy” specific products and services.  This information can be sold to companies that want to sell these items in the form of targeted advertising or position in search lists.  This model has been highly successful and is the basis for most of Google’s incredible market cap.

Subsequent evolution of this model involve creating content (e.g., YouTube) and activities (e.g., social networking) that further micro-segment Internet users in multiple dimensions that are even more attractive and specific to commercial interests.  Much of the attractive content is very bandwidth intensive and all of it involves tracking behavior and targeting advertising to close the loop in this business model.

So, the FCC proposal reinforces this business model for wired access, but creates potential problems for this business model for wireless access (where much of the growth is concentrated.)  The FTC proposal attempts to make the business model more transparent to users by allowing the user to opt out of the targeted advertising and potentially breaking the closed loop between browsing, advertising and purchasing.  These two proposals, taken together, could weaken the behavioral micro-segmented model by introducing bandwidth bias for wireless users and allowing important targeted groups to opt out of the targeting advertising.  My personal view is that the impact will not be great for most users and businesses, however, I’d like your thoughts on this.

What do you think the impact of these two proposals would be on the Internet experience and the Internet economy?

Kickoff Blog: Techno Humanist

Greetings blogophiles... Although this is my first public blog, I have more than a year's experience blogging weekly on a corporate website.  I like to write about how technology impacts the human condition and vice versa.

My background is in physics, engineering and the telecommunications industry... until very recently, I was continuously employed by telecommunications service providers and equipment makers in a variety of functions.  I have designed networks and equipment, I have supervised engineers and strategists and I have been involved in new technology investment and acquisition.  Although I know telecom networks and technology well, I like to comment on a wider range of technical subjects that impact people's lives: cars and airplanes, office equipment and food technology, agriculture and civil engineering.  I also like to comment on the human side of technology: engineering careers and personalities, managing innovation and the politics of change.

Lately, social networking has been in the news and although I am not a big user of most social networking sites, since I am currently looking for work, I spend a lot of time and energy on LinkedIn.  I expect to share my experience looking for a new technology or strategy executive position in this rather difficult market.

I would appreciate your comments on what you consider interesting and important subjects in the interface between technology and the human experience.  Please feel free to think broadly.

Mike Day