(a minimally-edited off-the-cuff draft):
As the Wall Street Journal summarizes in an article I find a bit skewed and thin on context, the freight railroads see national high speed passenger service as a serious threat [via The Infrastructurist]. And, while we desperately need passenger service of anything even pretending-to-resemble a functional national network, the freight railroads are right. Passenger service is a huge liability for them. After decades of starvation, the US (well, US and Canada - the two are functionally one and the same in the railroad world) railroads have finally had significant growth for the past couple decades, and in the past decade have actually reached the point of spending billions on infrastructure capacity upgrades to handle the traffic. They now carry way more traffic than ever on a fraction the route-miles through much more efficient networks. North America (US and Canada primarily, but Mexico is catching up fast) has the most successful and efficient freight rail systems in the world, and one of the few that is fully-privitized. They simply do not have the capacity for passenger service on any of their core lines without heavy capacity expansions. When there is plenty of open capacity on a line, the incremental costs of an added train are not too major - when the line is at capacity, incremental costs can escalate exponentially in extreme cases (need another track and you're in a mountain range? have fun blasting lots of rock...). A single passenger train actually has the capacity needs of several freight trains - the greater the speed-disparity, the more a passenger train delays the surrounding freights, and their tighter scheduling requirements (federally-regulated and hard-fought in the courts over the decades of Amtrak's life) mean that a delayed passenger train destroys the schedules of every other train around it. Excellent freight and passenger networks can coexist, but that takes massive capital, and exists almost nowhere in the world. Not in Europe, thats for sure - all those countries in western Europe with their excellent passenger service? Yea, they have freight networks varying from small-and-plucky to abysmal. If you have to choose one or the other, then America needs freight way more given our geography, economy, and the far greater efficiencies of freight transport than passenger by rail due to the inherent nature of their traffic patterns (with occasional exceptions like urban mass-transit).
In all of this it's also important to remember that our freight railroads have grown incredibly-protective and wary of any government involvement - one of the biggest things that saved the entire industry from death was the Staggers Act which largely deregulated them and eliminated decades (close to a century even?) of heavy pricing regulations - a holdover from the Robber Baron era. They are still massive corporate interests with great power, but despite being many times larger geographically than ever before (to oversimplify: UP and BNSF are Mississippi to Pacific, CSX and NS are Mississippi to Atlantic, CN and CP are Canada), they have a tiny fraction the actual power and have to compete with the massively-Federally-subsidized highway network. Amtrak was a government bailout that took the passenger service out of the hand of the freight railroads and relieved them of a government-mandated service were collectively hemorrhaging some $700 million annually as early as the '50's and literally bankrupted several mid-sized railroads. But it was inherently a compromise that satisfied no one. It retained a fraction of the routes and was structured in a way that it would be perpetually fucked financially and politically, but they survived at all. And it still forced the freight railroads to give these trains priority dispatching that earned them no money, but at least they were not directly costing them millions.
If we want any remotely-decent national passenger network, we need to mimic the approach of the regional commuter agencies negotiations with the freight railroads. If guaranteed their train capacity needs, some liability protections (liability costs are OBSCENE these days), and some say, they will happily cooperate, hand over some control, and even pitch in some on infrastructure upgrades as long as they see some benefits. The key is not expecting them to give up capacity, control and liability just because.
(Interestingly I am biased in both directions on this matter - as a US railfan, the freight networks are something I know well and care about a lot, but similarly as a train nerd and someone interested in transportation planning, I have always thought our passenger network needed tens of billions in investment annually for a couple decades at least to fix the crimes of the past half-century.)
[edit: an example of a more detailed description of the costs from Union Pacific]
Showing posts with label article. Show all posts
Showing posts with label article. Show all posts
9/24/2010
7/29/2010
brain-dump thoughts on bridging the gap between 'leaders' and 'public'
[Presumably this will be turned into coherent english at some point, but for now I wanted to get my thoughts down and I figured some of you might be interested to see one of my brain-dumps edited just enough to be semi-comprehensible to others. Amusingly-enough turning this from my shorthand into something I figured you could actually follow more than quadrupled its length...]:
Very common problem with any organization: general 'public'/membership don't know what's going on with the leaders/who the people in any given possition are (elected, appointed, hired, volunteered, conscripted, blackmailed), what they're up to, what current business is being transacted
--> public too lazy to bother to find out or to listen when that info is shared - is somewhat their own damned fault
--> but as with all design issues anything that's "user-error" is almost always a faulty design that influences people to behave in an undesirable manner - if widespread is (almost) always structural design flaw (see The Design Of Everyday Things by Norman - READ IT NOW!!)
--> leaders/people in specific positions don't advertise this enough, don't distribute info widely enough in dif mediums, don't run things "open source" enough
--> depending on demographics, learning styles, lifestyles people have differing mediums to learn info that do/don't work as well - relying on just one medium will leave out too many
(side/related issue: email vs phone vs text vs im vs face-to-face - each mediums have strengths/weaknesses - each medium preferred by dif people depending on their learning styles, lifestyles, familiarity, context - dif mediums inaccessible to dif demo's and disenfranchise certain groups - need to understand this to communicate effectively w/ various people)
--> examples: umASS residence life, umASS bureaucracy in general, town govs, smaller obscure gov agencies, etc
--> need to offer as many oportunities for public to interact as possible - will get more active involvement, people will feel more empowered, will have better respect for the work that is getting done, will be more willing to pay for the work being done
--> can never reach everyone, too many people don't care, don't want to know - what's the right balance? when leave them to their bliss and tell them to shove off when they bitch unjustifiably?
Very common problem with any organization: general 'public'/membership don't know what's going on with the leaders/who the people in any given possition are (elected, appointed, hired, volunteered, conscripted, blackmailed), what they're up to, what current business is being transacted
--> public too lazy to bother to find out or to listen when that info is shared - is somewhat their own damned fault
--> but as with all design issues anything that's "user-error" is almost always a faulty design that influences people to behave in an undesirable manner - if widespread is (almost) always structural design flaw (see The Design Of Everyday Things by Norman - READ IT NOW!!)
--> leaders/people in specific positions don't advertise this enough, don't distribute info widely enough in dif mediums, don't run things "open source" enough
--> depending on demographics, learning styles, lifestyles people have differing mediums to learn info that do/don't work as well - relying on just one medium will leave out too many
(side/related issue: email vs phone vs text vs im vs face-to-face - each mediums have strengths/weaknesses - each medium preferred by dif people depending on their learning styles, lifestyles, familiarity, context - dif mediums inaccessible to dif demo's and disenfranchise certain groups - need to understand this to communicate effectively w/ various people)
--> examples: umASS residence life, umASS bureaucracy in general, town govs, smaller obscure gov agencies, etc
--> need to offer as many oportunities for public to interact as possible - will get more active involvement, people will feel more empowered, will have better respect for the work that is getting done, will be more willing to pay for the work being done
--> can never reach everyone, too many people don't care, don't want to know - what's the right balance? when leave them to their bliss and tell them to shove off when they bitch unjustifiably?
2/17/2010
Gruber on idealogues and zealots
Gruber's piece on Pilgrim switching to Linux resonated with me so much that I want to write about it some more. The key quote:
This is an issue that I have faced many times lately. I have a tendency to make very strong opinions - if I'm not confident in my thoughts on a matter I will wait until I have enough information to come to a definitive decision, and even then I will always reassess my conclusions when compelling evidence appears. But I often run into the bias that because I have a firm conviction I must be an 'irrational zealot.' (Which is strongly compounded by the fact that many of my deeply-held beliefs run counter to mainstream society's and can really bother some people. I also still have a lot of work to do on expressing myself in a way that is accessible by my audience...) While it is certainly true that I have very strong and deep biases, the idea that I am close-minded couldn't be farther from the truth. I know my biases better than anyone, and the reason I keep them is because they have served me well - they are gross simplifications of my overall opinions, and serve as a basic guide in making new decisions - they are a gut instinct to listen to but not be trapped by.
I come to firm convictions specifically because I have considered the issue at hand in depth over a long period of time and am confident in my decision. I am the sort to deliberate over the simplest decision like whether or not to buy some trinket for way too long, but once I've come to a decision I rarely regret it specifically because I was so careful in my deliberations. I only have firm convictions about things I feel I know enough about to make an informed decision (in large part simply because why bother wasting the energy on things that don't matter to me). You'll note that while I can rant endlessly about government policies for railroads, why the UMass Sylvan dorms were designed wrong, or my thoughts on abortion, I have very little to say about, celebrity x, religion y, or whatever else. Are my opinions right for you? Of course not, we have inherently different priorities and values, but to dismiss mine simply because the are so firm, unwavering, and sometimes disturbing, is an insult to both you and me.
You’re doing yourself a disservice if you dismiss an argument like Pilgrim’s simply because you believe he’s an open source/open format ideologue; ideologues aren’t necessarily irrational zealots. (And even irrational zealots or fanatics aren’t necessarily wrong; cf. Henry Kissinger’s quip: “Even a paranoid has some real enemies.”) An ideology is an organized system of beliefs; just because you don’t share them doesn’t mean they aren’t valid.
Ideological conviction doesn’t necessarily imply a rigid, quick-to-judge closed mind (even though, admittedly, that is often the case). You can be an ideologue with an open, honest mind — to believe otherwise is to say that someone with an open mind can never reach an uncompromising conclusion.
This is an issue that I have faced many times lately. I have a tendency to make very strong opinions - if I'm not confident in my thoughts on a matter I will wait until I have enough information to come to a definitive decision, and even then I will always reassess my conclusions when compelling evidence appears. But I often run into the bias that because I have a firm conviction I must be an 'irrational zealot.' (Which is strongly compounded by the fact that many of my deeply-held beliefs run counter to mainstream society's and can really bother some people. I also still have a lot of work to do on expressing myself in a way that is accessible by my audience...) While it is certainly true that I have very strong and deep biases, the idea that I am close-minded couldn't be farther from the truth. I know my biases better than anyone, and the reason I keep them is because they have served me well - they are gross simplifications of my overall opinions, and serve as a basic guide in making new decisions - they are a gut instinct to listen to but not be trapped by.
I come to firm convictions specifically because I have considered the issue at hand in depth over a long period of time and am confident in my decision. I am the sort to deliberate over the simplest decision like whether or not to buy some trinket for way too long, but once I've come to a decision I rarely regret it specifically because I was so careful in my deliberations. I only have firm convictions about things I feel I know enough about to make an informed decision (in large part simply because why bother wasting the energy on things that don't matter to me). You'll note that while I can rant endlessly about government policies for railroads, why the UMass Sylvan dorms were designed wrong, or my thoughts on abortion, I have very little to say about, celebrity x, religion y, or whatever else. Are my opinions right for you? Of course not, we have inherently different priorities and values, but to dismiss mine simply because the are so firm, unwavering, and sometimes disturbing, is an insult to both you and me.
2/12/2010
on the Facebook redesigns...
Many many people hate change - they train themselves on a given system (good, or more often bad), and then resist even the tiniest little change with a religious fury bordering on lunacy. Now, this is perfectly understandable, and is a critical aspect to consider in any redesign process. When in doubt, go with the established conventions unless there is a strong reason for change (AND DO PROTOTYPE USER TESTING DAMNIT!!). This is one argument for not releasing a product until the interface is set (or keeping it in beta for a long time... Google...).
The problem is that the establish, and quite effective general design process is to iterate and tweak as you gain user data and feedback. The challenge is to find a balance between useful improvements to enhance the user experience for new and existing users (which will sometimes mean major revisions of key elements of a design) and keeping the interface familiar enough for existing users to remain comfortable. The highly variable factor here is what "familiar enough" means - for different user demographics this will mean very different things. To me for example, Facebook has never had a 'major' redesign - every revision to date has been a fairly straightforward tweak that has retained their existing design language and conventions, but clearly this opinion is not shared by all...
I want to simply dismiss those objecting to the redesigns as inflexible whiners who need to grow up. And it is certainly true that if they were in charge nothing would ever be improved and the product would die out as competitors and innovators passed it (Myspace... pretty much all of 'Old-Media'... Ebay... Republicans... and for that matter Democrats even... the US railroad industry post WWII until the 70s/80s... American automakers...).
The problem is, the single most important part of design is meeting the needs of your users in the 'best' manner possible. Usually this means in the most elegant manner, but there is the very strong argument that satisfying your existing users at the expense of a stagnant, gradually worsening UI makes sense. I think the key is understanding who your users are, and who you want to satisfy. Do you want to innovate and stay competitive for the early adopter market that will jump ship when something better comes along if you stagnate, or satisfy your growing population of stick-in-the-muds?
In theory you should be able to do both by designing an intuitive-enough UI for everyone, but in practice people have such diverse learning styles, skill levels, and usage needs that this is beyond impossible. So what's the answer?
--Compromise and make fairly minor incremental changes gradually? (I would argue that this is functionally what Facebook has done, although it would have definitely helped if they had made more frequent but smaller changes.)
--Have multiple interfaces for different users? (phase people over to the new one gradually, or have user-selectable interface choices - far more complicated and difficult)
--Stagnate and sacrifice some users for more of the mainstream ones? (I would argue that doing this will inevitably lead to failure since the mainstream will eventually follow the early adopters to something better when the innovators come along, but this is debatable.)
--Keep refining the design with the goal of satisfying most of the users and to hell with the whiners? (this is certainly the most emotionally-satisfying one, but probably not the wisest - it would be the appropriate solution for a younger product still early in development with strong competition, but for a dominant force like Facebook far more problematic.)
Most of this boils down to who you are trying to serve, something that is less clear now that Facebook has grown so far beyond it's original core. Facebook does have a terrible track record for bone-headedly implementing new features/designs 'suddenly' with what looks to be very little user-testing and being shocked by the inevitable backlash. Certainly they could do a better job of implementing redesigns, but I don't feel like they have made any UI changes that are radically-different and confusing (poorly-researched, perhaps, but always in keeping with the existing design language and conceptual interface model). I think this is important if they want to keep users like me invested in stalkerbook indefinitely, but if they do want to go after the larger, but debatably-valuable mainstream market then they should be more careful.
The problem is that the establish, and quite effective general design process is to iterate and tweak as you gain user data and feedback. The challenge is to find a balance between useful improvements to enhance the user experience for new and existing users (which will sometimes mean major revisions of key elements of a design) and keeping the interface familiar enough for existing users to remain comfortable. The highly variable factor here is what "familiar enough" means - for different user demographics this will mean very different things. To me for example, Facebook has never had a 'major' redesign - every revision to date has been a fairly straightforward tweak that has retained their existing design language and conventions, but clearly this opinion is not shared by all...
I want to simply dismiss those objecting to the redesigns as inflexible whiners who need to grow up. And it is certainly true that if they were in charge nothing would ever be improved and the product would die out as competitors and innovators passed it (Myspace... pretty much all of 'Old-Media'... Ebay... Republicans... and for that matter Democrats even... the US railroad industry post WWII until the 70s/80s... American automakers...).
The problem is, the single most important part of design is meeting the needs of your users in the 'best' manner possible. Usually this means in the most elegant manner, but there is the very strong argument that satisfying your existing users at the expense of a stagnant, gradually worsening UI makes sense. I think the key is understanding who your users are, and who you want to satisfy. Do you want to innovate and stay competitive for the early adopter market that will jump ship when something better comes along if you stagnate, or satisfy your growing population of stick-in-the-muds?
In theory you should be able to do both by designing an intuitive-enough UI for everyone, but in practice people have such diverse learning styles, skill levels, and usage needs that this is beyond impossible. So what's the answer?
--Compromise and make fairly minor incremental changes gradually? (I would argue that this is functionally what Facebook has done, although it would have definitely helped if they had made more frequent but smaller changes.)
--Have multiple interfaces for different users? (phase people over to the new one gradually, or have user-selectable interface choices - far more complicated and difficult)
--Stagnate and sacrifice some users for more of the mainstream ones? (I would argue that doing this will inevitably lead to failure since the mainstream will eventually follow the early adopters to something better when the innovators come along, but this is debatable.)
--Keep refining the design with the goal of satisfying most of the users and to hell with the whiners? (this is certainly the most emotionally-satisfying one, but probably not the wisest - it would be the appropriate solution for a younger product still early in development with strong competition, but for a dominant force like Facebook far more problematic.)
Most of this boils down to who you are trying to serve, something that is less clear now that Facebook has grown so far beyond it's original core. Facebook does have a terrible track record for bone-headedly implementing new features/designs 'suddenly' with what looks to be very little user-testing and being shocked by the inevitable backlash. Certainly they could do a better job of implementing redesigns, but I don't feel like they have made any UI changes that are radically-different and confusing (poorly-researched, perhaps, but always in keeping with the existing design language and conceptual interface model). I think this is important if they want to keep users like me invested in stalkerbook indefinitely, but if they do want to go after the larger, but debatably-valuable mainstream market then they should be more careful.
2/10/2010
the god-tablet...err 'iPad'... P0ST 0F D00M!!
Since I've been rather busy the last few weeks with all this life stuff, I never did get around to posting my thoughts about the iPad before or after it's official christening, so here's a summary of my thoughts - err, links to posts I generally like:
the buildup to the 11th tablet direct from god:
---Gruber's excellent critique of the godTablet's true conceptual predecessor, the Newton
T3H HYP3!!!!1!!!:
---"Don't you have any inside sources you can contact?" (PvP comic)
the MaxiPad:
---the price is fucking amazing
---hey, the name isn't any worse thaniTouch, I mean the "iPod Touch"...
---yes, it is just "an overgrown iTouch," but that's exactly the point, that's precisely what I (we?) have been wanting for years ---sure, it's not a netbook, but I have no interest in one of those anyway, and if I want something more advanced there's always the Axiotron Modbook. It is the perfect device for the bus or taking notes in class (with a bluetooth keyboard)
---I cannot wait till Ihave the money decide I can live without food for a month and buy one - the 3G plan is EXACTLY what I have been wanting for years and can probably replace my current hack for getting cellular data fro $30/mo (well, okay, cheaper would be nice - $30 is just about the upper limit I can afford a month...)(not having to jailbreak to use it as a mobile wifi modem would be nice would make this a way better product)
---that whole flash kerfuffle: sure, flash 'would be nice,' and I really wish they used a flashblock type setup where you leave flash off by default but click an item to enable flash as needed, but I can live without probably and if this hastens Flash's demise then so much the better (disclosure: I FUCKING HATE FLASH)
---the DRM/app lock-in/gulag: yes, it sucks, they need to give users the option to use non-approved apps without having to endure the jailbreak arms-race, but it is a sacrifice I will gladly make for this kind of quality design (until someone comes along and makes something better - sadly I doubt this will happen anytime in the next decade or two)
the real importance/significance and why it actually matters:
---well, for one thing we need to actually need to make computers work for normal users and the backlash is really "future shock" [via Marco] - the significance is really in the long run, in this new category of consumer electronics appliances
---Alan Kay's take:
the aftermath:
---CARS does a remarkable foreshadowing post (technically this was posted beforehand, but it works so well...)
the buildup to the 11th tablet direct from god:
---Gruber's excellent critique of the godTablet's true conceptual predecessor, the Newton
T3H HYP3!!!!1!!!:
---"Don't you have any inside sources you can contact?" (PvP comic)
the MaxiPad:
---the price is fucking amazing
---hey, the name isn't any worse than
---yes, it is just "an overgrown iTouch," but that's exactly the point, that's precisely what I (we?) have been wanting for years ---sure, it's not a netbook, but I have no interest in one of those anyway, and if I want something more advanced there's always the Axiotron Modbook. It is the perfect device for the bus or taking notes in class (with a bluetooth keyboard)
---I cannot wait till I
---that whole flash kerfuffle: sure, flash 'would be nice,' and I really wish they used a flashblock type setup where you leave flash off by default but click an item to enable flash as needed, but I can live without probably and if this hastens Flash's demise then so much the better (disclosure: I FUCKING HATE FLASH)
---the DRM/app lock-in/gulag: yes, it sucks, they need to give users the option to use non-approved apps without having to endure the jailbreak arms-race, but it is a sacrifice I will gladly make for this kind of quality design (until someone comes along and makes something better - sadly I doubt this will happen anytime in the next decade or two)
the real importance/significance and why it actually matters:
---well, for one thing we need to actually need to make computers work for normal users and the backlash is really "future shock" [via Marco] - the significance is really in the long run, in this new category of consumer electronics appliances
---Alan Kay's take:
When the Mac first came out, Newsweek asked me what I [thought] of it. I said: Well, it’s the first personal computer worth criticizing. So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world.[via Daring Fireball]
the aftermath:
---CARS does a remarkable foreshadowing post (technically this was posted beforehand, but it works so well...)
12/24/2009
The High Speed Trainset Makers and America's Passenger Network
A 6-part series by the Infrastructurist:
Alstom - Bombardier - Talgo - The Japanese - Siemens - The Chinese
(this inherently takes a somewhat skewed look at the worldwide train manufacturers and mushes a lot of the middle-speed train makers but is still a decent look at the scene)
And now for a brain-dump of just a few of my thoughts on the matter:
(some epic run on sentences and multi-layered parenthetical thoughts ahead - you have been warned!)
The Acela's were a Alstom-Bombardier consortium with domestic manufacturing to satisfy the politicians (ironic given our not insignificant diesel loco export business for GE and EMD to those same countries...). They were reasonably-successful, but had their usual share of teething problems inherent to all new designs (which is why standardization of these designs should be a high priority - whatever you choose you should stick with as long as you can, something the American freight RRs know well - Union Pacific has over 1000 SD70M's which helps reliability and cost-savings). But the Pacific Northwest (Vancouver to Portland) has the Cascades Talgo trainsets. These sets have been outrageously-successfull and have something close to a 97% availability record - a reliability record any company would kill for despite there only being 5 of them in the continent. They use what I believe to be the superior tilt-train technology - the passive system that uses inertia, not computers to control tilting (and therefore is inherently more reliable). They also have some of the safest designs and remarkably low weight designs (which maximizes efficiency, acceleration, and speed). As in the Cascades corridor, the Talgos often have separate conventional locomotives power the sets - this is a huge efficiency, reliability, and logistics boon (for a number of reasons that would require far more knowledge of the rail network structure than most of you care to know, but I'll gladly elaborate if you wish). I think that Amtrak should have returned to Talgo for the Acelas and gotten more conventional electric locos like the AEM-7 to power them - they have more than sufficient maximum speeds, greater reliability, and far greater operational flexibility and future-proofing.
One significant shortcoming of all of these highspeed trainset designs is the fact that they are integrated, semi-permanently-conected units, not individual cars. This is required in part to maintain stability and structural integrity as such speeds, but is not an inherent requirement, particularly in the mid-speed ranges (80-125mph) where most of America's new "high speed" ventures actually fall. For this speed range either conventional locomotive-hauled cars or building-block style short MUs ("multiple units" - self propelled mini trainsets) are ideal from an operations standpoint. However it may be harder to get tilting trains into this form factor since I know of no examples elsewhere in the world.
One thing is certain though, we can't simply copy foreign designs wholesale - it's been done before and ended up costing far more in retrofits and overhauls to meet the different domestic operating needs. Also American reliability and maintenance standards are far different from those of the rest of the western world - American diesel locomotives cost less than half as much to maintain as most foreign designs and require far less specialized training or expensive equipment. Japan has the most reliable passenger network in the world not because of superior designs, but because Japan spends WAY more on maintenance, infrastructure, and redundancy than anyone else (even the French and Germans). It is simply an entirely different operational culture that leads to very different design priorities - standardization and reliability matter more than tweaking out the last 10% of performance in America, and anything that is designed with the expectations of French-stlye maintenance will break down constantly here. On the other hand, for electric locomotive designs we have to go foreign - there is simply no technical experience domestically. Sweden was the source of the Northeast Corridor's AEM-7 locos and they have an impeccable record. The key is focusing on using existing proven reliable designs and adapting them to American conditions, not starting from scratch.
If I had the power to choose the passenger equipment to standardize on for America, it would look something like this (all operated and owned by Amtrak and Amtrak/state cooperatives - none of this privatized or regionalized bullshit, well, unless we wanted to make a serious investment and policy shift - those options are valid, but only if you're willing to make some radical politically-charged changes and put up serious dough):
-None of this lowest bidder or most politically-convenient decision crap - this is a serious longterm investment in an entire manufacturer set for at least the next 20-30 years and the reliability, flexibility, and upgradeability of this equipment is far more important and economical.
-Screw China - none of their technology is actually theirs, and they have't got the design or manufacturing experience for reliability - history has proven that locomotives and trainsets made by newcomers to the business are ALWAYS retired within the first 15 years of use (most locos/cars have 20-45 year lifespans)
-for true high speed (150-250mph) go with Bombardier, Alstom, or Japan. Period. They have the technical know how and track record. These will have to be electrics, nothing else will go this fast reliably and affordably, so it will only be possible in the very highest-density corridors that can support such massive investments - you need much higher train frequencies in the US than overseas to make electrification affordable and it will always be nonstandard in the US which shortens the lifespan of the equipment significantly (nonstandard always costs more to maintain and therefore is the first to be cut).
-but for the majority of the network, mid-range speed will have to do (79-125mph) - it's all we can afford politically speaking in most areas, and can be implemented for a tenth the cost of true high speed. What matters far more than speed in day to day use is reliability and a practical schedule (high train frequencies, logical timing, good connections, etc). These are all things Amtrak already knows how to do if only it has the money it needs. (The host freight railroads will cooperate just fine if Amtrak pays it's fair share of the track investments and maintenance - history shows this). Conventional equipment is more than adequate for many of these routes, but tilt trains will noticeably-improve service. I'd use conventional locos (mostly diesels with electrification in those few affordable key corridors - electrification is more expensive in the US than europe, and we don't have the local technical know how so diesels are a much safer bet for most areas given the relatively low traffic frequencies) and Talgo trainsets for the faster routes. Conventional Viewliner, Amfleet, and Superliner-style cars will be best for the other routes where reliability, versatility, and familiarity are key. (Obviously the long-overdue new cars Amtrak has been trying to get for over a decade and a half would need to be bought to meet demand since Amtrak is already desperately short of cars - I'd stick to the already developed and prototyped excellent Morrison Knudsen Viewliner designs for much of it.)
-The more expensive alternative/adjunct approach is short standardized trainsets (DMU and EMUs). These should be no more than 3 'cars' long and designed to be used building-block style to meet the variable traffic needs of a given route. England, and well, most of the westernized nations use these extensively for their commuter and slower intercity traffic, and they work particularly well in metro shorthaul situations, but are also quite effective in mid-hauls. These have distinct efficiency and power to weight ratio advantages, but have serious logistical limitations and are best used in certain specialized services. Ideally these are part of a larger design approach, not the main strategy.
-The big key is not the equipment - the Acela's are capable of 150 mph but trudge along at 79 for much of the route - but the infrastructure. Dedicated right of ways are necessary for true high speed, but are so expensive that they can only be justified in a couple locations for now (one day perhaps...). For the most part it is more important to upgrade the existing routes incrementally to remove the numerous bottlenecks. This will mean working cooperatively with the host freight railroads, and they have been very receptive to this for the past decade-plus as long as Amtrak or the states pay their share.
We need true high speed rail, but it needs to be part of a larger passenger network investment. Bullet trains make great public works spectacles, but the money for one high speed corridor could triple the service levels of all the other routes combined. The rest of the world backs up their high speed trains with frequent mid-speed and local feeder services that make an effective transportation network actually work in the real world. For every bullet train there are at least a dozen less glamorous trains making the bullet train possible. We're talking hundreds of billions of investment that we need to make here, not the pathetic 500 million a year Amtrak typically struggles to survive on.
Alstom - Bombardier - Talgo - The Japanese - Siemens - The Chinese
(this inherently takes a somewhat skewed look at the worldwide train manufacturers and mushes a lot of the middle-speed train makers but is still a decent look at the scene)
And now for a brain-dump of just a few of my thoughts on the matter:
(some epic run on sentences and multi-layered parenthetical thoughts ahead - you have been warned!)
The Acela's were a Alstom-Bombardier consortium with domestic manufacturing to satisfy the politicians (ironic given our not insignificant diesel loco export business for GE and EMD to those same countries...). They were reasonably-successful, but had their usual share of teething problems inherent to all new designs (which is why standardization of these designs should be a high priority - whatever you choose you should stick with as long as you can, something the American freight RRs know well - Union Pacific has over 1000 SD70M's which helps reliability and cost-savings). But the Pacific Northwest (Vancouver to Portland) has the Cascades Talgo trainsets. These sets have been outrageously-successfull and have something close to a 97% availability record - a reliability record any company would kill for despite there only being 5 of them in the continent. They use what I believe to be the superior tilt-train technology - the passive system that uses inertia, not computers to control tilting (and therefore is inherently more reliable). They also have some of the safest designs and remarkably low weight designs (which maximizes efficiency, acceleration, and speed). As in the Cascades corridor, the Talgos often have separate conventional locomotives power the sets - this is a huge efficiency, reliability, and logistics boon (for a number of reasons that would require far more knowledge of the rail network structure than most of you care to know, but I'll gladly elaborate if you wish). I think that Amtrak should have returned to Talgo for the Acelas and gotten more conventional electric locos like the AEM-7 to power them - they have more than sufficient maximum speeds, greater reliability, and far greater operational flexibility and future-proofing.
One significant shortcoming of all of these highspeed trainset designs is the fact that they are integrated, semi-permanently-conected units, not individual cars. This is required in part to maintain stability and structural integrity as such speeds, but is not an inherent requirement, particularly in the mid-speed ranges (80-125mph) where most of America's new "high speed" ventures actually fall. For this speed range either conventional locomotive-hauled cars or building-block style short MUs ("multiple units" - self propelled mini trainsets) are ideal from an operations standpoint. However it may be harder to get tilting trains into this form factor since I know of no examples elsewhere in the world.
One thing is certain though, we can't simply copy foreign designs wholesale - it's been done before and ended up costing far more in retrofits and overhauls to meet the different domestic operating needs. Also American reliability and maintenance standards are far different from those of the rest of the western world - American diesel locomotives cost less than half as much to maintain as most foreign designs and require far less specialized training or expensive equipment. Japan has the most reliable passenger network in the world not because of superior designs, but because Japan spends WAY more on maintenance, infrastructure, and redundancy than anyone else (even the French and Germans). It is simply an entirely different operational culture that leads to very different design priorities - standardization and reliability matter more than tweaking out the last 10% of performance in America, and anything that is designed with the expectations of French-stlye maintenance will break down constantly here. On the other hand, for electric locomotive designs we have to go foreign - there is simply no technical experience domestically. Sweden was the source of the Northeast Corridor's AEM-7 locos and they have an impeccable record. The key is focusing on using existing proven reliable designs and adapting them to American conditions, not starting from scratch.
If I had the power to choose the passenger equipment to standardize on for America, it would look something like this (all operated and owned by Amtrak and Amtrak/state cooperatives - none of this privatized or regionalized bullshit, well, unless we wanted to make a serious investment and policy shift - those options are valid, but only if you're willing to make some radical politically-charged changes and put up serious dough):
-None of this lowest bidder or most politically-convenient decision crap - this is a serious longterm investment in an entire manufacturer set for at least the next 20-30 years and the reliability, flexibility, and upgradeability of this equipment is far more important and economical.
-Screw China - none of their technology is actually theirs, and they have't got the design or manufacturing experience for reliability - history has proven that locomotives and trainsets made by newcomers to the business are ALWAYS retired within the first 15 years of use (most locos/cars have 20-45 year lifespans)
-for true high speed (150-250mph) go with Bombardier, Alstom, or Japan. Period. They have the technical know how and track record. These will have to be electrics, nothing else will go this fast reliably and affordably, so it will only be possible in the very highest-density corridors that can support such massive investments - you need much higher train frequencies in the US than overseas to make electrification affordable and it will always be nonstandard in the US which shortens the lifespan of the equipment significantly (nonstandard always costs more to maintain and therefore is the first to be cut).
-but for the majority of the network, mid-range speed will have to do (79-125mph) - it's all we can afford politically speaking in most areas, and can be implemented for a tenth the cost of true high speed. What matters far more than speed in day to day use is reliability and a practical schedule (high train frequencies, logical timing, good connections, etc). These are all things Amtrak already knows how to do if only it has the money it needs. (The host freight railroads will cooperate just fine if Amtrak pays it's fair share of the track investments and maintenance - history shows this). Conventional equipment is more than adequate for many of these routes, but tilt trains will noticeably-improve service. I'd use conventional locos (mostly diesels with electrification in those few affordable key corridors - electrification is more expensive in the US than europe, and we don't have the local technical know how so diesels are a much safer bet for most areas given the relatively low traffic frequencies) and Talgo trainsets for the faster routes. Conventional Viewliner, Amfleet, and Superliner-style cars will be best for the other routes where reliability, versatility, and familiarity are key. (Obviously the long-overdue new cars Amtrak has been trying to get for over a decade and a half would need to be bought to meet demand since Amtrak is already desperately short of cars - I'd stick to the already developed and prototyped excellent Morrison Knudsen Viewliner designs for much of it.)
-The more expensive alternative/adjunct approach is short standardized trainsets (DMU and EMUs). These should be no more than 3 'cars' long and designed to be used building-block style to meet the variable traffic needs of a given route. England, and well, most of the westernized nations use these extensively for their commuter and slower intercity traffic, and they work particularly well in metro shorthaul situations, but are also quite effective in mid-hauls. These have distinct efficiency and power to weight ratio advantages, but have serious logistical limitations and are best used in certain specialized services. Ideally these are part of a larger design approach, not the main strategy.
-The big key is not the equipment - the Acela's are capable of 150 mph but trudge along at 79 for much of the route - but the infrastructure. Dedicated right of ways are necessary for true high speed, but are so expensive that they can only be justified in a couple locations for now (one day perhaps...). For the most part it is more important to upgrade the existing routes incrementally to remove the numerous bottlenecks. This will mean working cooperatively with the host freight railroads, and they have been very receptive to this for the past decade-plus as long as Amtrak or the states pay their share.
We need true high speed rail, but it needs to be part of a larger passenger network investment. Bullet trains make great public works spectacles, but the money for one high speed corridor could triple the service levels of all the other routes combined. The rest of the world backs up their high speed trains with frequent mid-speed and local feeder services that make an effective transportation network actually work in the real world. For every bullet train there are at least a dozen less glamorous trains making the bullet train possible. We're talking hundreds of billions of investment that we need to make here, not the pathetic 500 million a year Amtrak typically struggles to survive on.
8/25/2009
Final Solution to my Map Wayfinding Project
Background & Context
Interim progress parts 1 and part 2
The final product is a double-sided 11x17 map.
Side 1:
Side 2:
Some interesting issues and random observations from this process:
It became clear that a disclaimer was necessary to indicate that this was not to be used in a fire - people will sue over the dumbest stuff so I'd probably do the same.
Most people don't have the slightest idea what 'design' is or why it matters - even after you show them the results of good design they can't seem to make the connection. It's just not something our society consciously values or teaches. Even if people don't consciously understand the value of design, when you show them something much better than what they're used to they jump on it instantly. I lost count of the number of people from different departments who immediately asked when they could get a copy of the map upon seeing draft versions. Everyone in this firm needs better wayfinding tools, but no one else actually went to the effort to solve the problem to date. People from every-imaginable department keep trying to high-jack this map for their own uses and piggyback off of the efforts and budget of the people who hired me (the activities and events coordinators).
What they really need is to hire a professional wayfinding firm - the best I can hope to offer them is student-level work because I simply don't have the experience to do any better yet. Hopefully this first tiny little step won't be the end of this, but I'm not holding my breath - bureaucracies rarely appreciate the value of design and I'm honestly amazed that my simple maps have gotten as much traction as they have.
Getting back to the joke I overheard an employee make about needing a GPS to get around the building: it would actually be quite feasible to give every resident of this facility a personal navigation device - the place is complex enough to warrant it. I'm guessing GPS would be precise enough? They could always add some sort of RFID or Wifi triangulation system to more precisely pinpoint the user, and these devices are certainly affordable for a company of this size. I had to make some very serious compromises to the maps to translate the building into 2D. Left and right aren't even consistent on the cross section map because some of the elevators open on different sides on different floors. (It's all these little flaws with my map that worry me - how well will it hold up in regular use when this building is so poorly designed that no amount of wayfinding will ever be more than a band-aid??)
This building is currently tied with the Morrill science building at UMass and Chandler Ullman building at Lehigh for the most confusing and poorly-designed buildings I have been in. Each of these started off as reasonably-decent buildings that were poorly expanded and became more and more unintelligible over time. I think this points to the importance of designing structures for future expansion and adaptation - a building that is great is one that stands the test of time successfully.
Regardless, I learned a lot and had a fun time - this is by far the most challenging project I have ever worked on! I learned more as an architecture student from this project than in any of my design studios.
Interim progress parts 1 and part 2
The final product is a double-sided 11x17 map.
Side 1:
Side 2:
Some interesting issues and random observations from this process:
It became clear that a disclaimer was necessary to indicate that this was not to be used in a fire - people will sue over the dumbest stuff so I'd probably do the same.
Most people don't have the slightest idea what 'design' is or why it matters - even after you show them the results of good design they can't seem to make the connection. It's just not something our society consciously values or teaches. Even if people don't consciously understand the value of design, when you show them something much better than what they're used to they jump on it instantly. I lost count of the number of people from different departments who immediately asked when they could get a copy of the map upon seeing draft versions. Everyone in this firm needs better wayfinding tools, but no one else actually went to the effort to solve the problem to date. People from every-imaginable department keep trying to high-jack this map for their own uses and piggyback off of the efforts and budget of the people who hired me (the activities and events coordinators).
What they really need is to hire a professional wayfinding firm - the best I can hope to offer them is student-level work because I simply don't have the experience to do any better yet. Hopefully this first tiny little step won't be the end of this, but I'm not holding my breath - bureaucracies rarely appreciate the value of design and I'm honestly amazed that my simple maps have gotten as much traction as they have.
Getting back to the joke I overheard an employee make about needing a GPS to get around the building: it would actually be quite feasible to give every resident of this facility a personal navigation device - the place is complex enough to warrant it. I'm guessing GPS would be precise enough? They could always add some sort of RFID or Wifi triangulation system to more precisely pinpoint the user, and these devices are certainly affordable for a company of this size. I had to make some very serious compromises to the maps to translate the building into 2D. Left and right aren't even consistent on the cross section map because some of the elevators open on different sides on different floors. (It's all these little flaws with my map that worry me - how well will it hold up in regular use when this building is so poorly designed that no amount of wayfinding will ever be more than a band-aid??)
This building is currently tied with the Morrill science building at UMass and Chandler Ullman building at Lehigh for the most confusing and poorly-designed buildings I have been in. Each of these started off as reasonably-decent buildings that were poorly expanded and became more and more unintelligible over time. I think this points to the importance of designing structures for future expansion and adaptation - a building that is great is one that stands the test of time successfully.
Regardless, I learned a lot and had a fun time - this is by far the most challenging project I have ever worked on! I learned more as an architecture student from this project than in any of my design studios.
8/14/2009
Operating Systems and Learning Styles & Keyboarders vs Mousers
Very interesting thought courtesy of Caroline:
Mac is designed to be intuitive for visual/spatial learners which Windows (and even more so Linux) is designed for non-visual linear text-based learners. She commented that her mother found Windows more intuitive than Mac specifically because she was looking for a text-based way of completing an operation while she or I would look for a visual mouse-based way of doing the same thing.
(There is also a very strong argument to be made that many users are simply more accustomed to Windows and had they started off using Macs instead the situation would be much different - it has been shown through UI studies that our first interaction with a device shapes our internalized paradigm for how that device works and is supposed to be used - see the book The Design of Everyday Things for more)
This certainly seems to fit with my own experience: My mother and I find the Mac much easier and we both have nearly-identical spatial-non-linear learning styles while my father who is a linear thinker doesn't. And my sister who's learning style is a hybrid of mom and dad find the Mac just as frustrating as the PC (I think neither one is well-suited to her style of learning... whatever exactly that weird style is...). Most of my engineer and other linear learning style friends prefer Windows or Linux, while any artist/designer I've ever met is a Mac person. Having used all three I can definately conclude that the Mac is designed for the way I think while I have to work much harder to figure out how to use the others - I just know where to look for a given feature or option on the Mac because it was designed by and for people who think more like me.
Another interesting comparison is between mouse users and keyboarders (and trackpad, pen-tablet, and touchscreen users). I suspect that like the OS's, visual learners like myself are more inclined to use the mouse since is it inherently more visual/spatial, while more linear/non-visual learners prefer the keyboard. Both are quicker and more intuitive to their respective users. I remember and learn everything spatially/visually so I even remember my keyboard shortcuts by their physical locations on the keyboard (give me a different keyboard and I'm screwed!) and have to use a shortcut quite often before I can remember it. My Dad can remember a keyboard shortcut after only the first or second use though. For either user it is most efficient to keep one's hands in the same configuration instead of switching back and forth, so naturally we each try to find the best shortcuts for our preferred device. For keyboarders there are tons of excellent shortcuts built into all the OS's and great add-ons like Quicksilver and Butler for the Mac that make keyboard users efficiency gods.
Unfortunately mouse shortcuts have failed to keep pace. Users of the Mac at least have a fairly good starting point, and with customizations like hot-corners (so handy!!) can be pretty efficient. But the only equivalent of apps like Butler or Quicksilver that I know of is CocoaSuite which enables mouse-gestures for all Cocoa apps in Mac. (Cocoa is the native coding language of OS X and most new apps use it but there are some legacy or ported apps like Finder that use alternative languages.) There are app-specific mouse gestures available for Opera (ugh) and Firefox (ick), but these are limited in scope and power. I have to say that CocoaSuite is my new favorite add-on to the Mac, and I can't imagine computing without it.
(interestingly, I use keyboard shortcuts much more when I'm just on the laptop - the keyboard is much closer to the trackpad and there is no mouse to move back and forth between so clearly most of us can adapt to both conditions if the conditions warrant)
All of this clearly warrants further thought and research - sadly I'm unaware of any user testing on this subject though it would be the perfect research experiment. Are you listening Nielson Norman Group?
Mac is designed to be intuitive for visual/spatial learners which Windows (and even more so Linux) is designed for non-visual linear text-based learners. She commented that her mother found Windows more intuitive than Mac specifically because she was looking for a text-based way of completing an operation while she or I would look for a visual mouse-based way of doing the same thing.
(There is also a very strong argument to be made that many users are simply more accustomed to Windows and had they started off using Macs instead the situation would be much different - it has been shown through UI studies that our first interaction with a device shapes our internalized paradigm for how that device works and is supposed to be used - see the book The Design of Everyday Things for more)
This certainly seems to fit with my own experience: My mother and I find the Mac much easier and we both have nearly-identical spatial-non-linear learning styles while my father who is a linear thinker doesn't. And my sister who's learning style is a hybrid of mom and dad find the Mac just as frustrating as the PC (I think neither one is well-suited to her style of learning... whatever exactly that weird style is...). Most of my engineer and other linear learning style friends prefer Windows or Linux, while any artist/designer I've ever met is a Mac person. Having used all three I can definately conclude that the Mac is designed for the way I think while I have to work much harder to figure out how to use the others - I just know where to look for a given feature or option on the Mac because it was designed by and for people who think more like me.
Another interesting comparison is between mouse users and keyboarders (and trackpad, pen-tablet, and touchscreen users). I suspect that like the OS's, visual learners like myself are more inclined to use the mouse since is it inherently more visual/spatial, while more linear/non-visual learners prefer the keyboard. Both are quicker and more intuitive to their respective users. I remember and learn everything spatially/visually so I even remember my keyboard shortcuts by their physical locations on the keyboard (give me a different keyboard and I'm screwed!) and have to use a shortcut quite often before I can remember it. My Dad can remember a keyboard shortcut after only the first or second use though. For either user it is most efficient to keep one's hands in the same configuration instead of switching back and forth, so naturally we each try to find the best shortcuts for our preferred device. For keyboarders there are tons of excellent shortcuts built into all the OS's and great add-ons like Quicksilver and Butler for the Mac that make keyboard users efficiency gods.
Unfortunately mouse shortcuts have failed to keep pace. Users of the Mac at least have a fairly good starting point, and with customizations like hot-corners (so handy!!) can be pretty efficient. But the only equivalent of apps like Butler or Quicksilver that I know of is CocoaSuite which enables mouse-gestures for all Cocoa apps in Mac. (Cocoa is the native coding language of OS X and most new apps use it but there are some legacy or ported apps like Finder that use alternative languages.) There are app-specific mouse gestures available for Opera (ugh) and Firefox (ick), but these are limited in scope and power. I have to say that CocoaSuite is my new favorite add-on to the Mac, and I can't imagine computing without it.
(interestingly, I use keyboard shortcuts much more when I'm just on the laptop - the keyboard is much closer to the trackpad and there is no mouse to move back and forth between so clearly most of us can adapt to both conditions if the conditions warrant)
All of this clearly warrants further thought and research - sadly I'm unaware of any user testing on this subject though it would be the perfect research experiment. Are you listening Nielson Norman Group?
8/12/2009
my opinions on the ideal role of government control vs free market
Basic premise: the free market and socialist government control both have their advantages and ideal uses but don't work when applied exclusively
(much of western Europe has figured out a fairly good compromise along these lines, and America is at least in the general ballpark but does have much progress still to be made - keep in mind that things we take for granted like public roads, schools, and even fire departments are all socialist institutions and represent the importance of socialism in society)
(note: democracy vs oligarchy vs autocracy etc is a separate issue - representative democracy is the ideal and we have done a fairly good job in this arena in America - socialism does not necessarily mean totalitarian dictatorship!)
Ideal compromise: free market on top of socialist controls
-- base level government regulations to bring back/enforce externalities in the market (ie. to protect the interests of the environmental degradation, future generations, etc) - this is key to encouraging better consumer market decisions and have things like transportation or pollution reflect their true costs to society as a whole and is where America is the most at fault presently
-- government vouchers for all basic services which people are free to 'spend' as they wish on that service (like food stamps) - all citizens, regardless of their wealth, have a right to certain 'basic' services - we have fallen behind in providing these as time has marched on and what was once a luxury is now a necessity (already the internet is practically as vital to life as electricity in our society) - healthcare, high quality education up to and exceeding the college level, and some form of basic housing are all basic necessities of life today and therefore should be provided for all members of our society (this is a basic moral issue for me - I feel it is our duty as a society to provide for the needs of our our citizens - being poor in America currently makes you a lesser citizen without access to the basics needed to survive and live a productive life or even equal political power which I find reprehensible - it is abhorrent that 25% of American's live in poverty)
- risk: like public schools today, the 'basic' gov covered plans become inadequate and everyone ends up having to spend more out of pocket to get by in reality --> counterpoint: this is true of all gov supplied services & is still better than the existing 'screw the poor' reality so there is nothing to loose - only solution is to keep on top of things & keep legislation current
-- government control of basic infrastructure - enforced open competitive access to free market services on top (issues like net neutrality, the epic fail that is America's telecom services, AT&T monopolies, etc are all addressed by this) - this is not altogether dissimilar from the British railroad system, or the way we currently do roads and airports
- services like public transit should be funded this way - they should be funded on say a 50% (or whatever) farebox subsidy system where services are partially subsidized to with the remainder of the costs being made up in fares and the surplus fares being the service provider's profits - this encourages competition while accounting for their inherent inability to be self-sustaining (in todays market realities - this could be changed if all transportation were fully paid for by the user, but there would be general outcry at having to pay something on the order of $1/mile driven)
Yes, the net result of this is higher taxes, but it actually makes it more affordable in general to live and get by because the basics will be far cheaper and more efficient (examples: American's spend twice as much as everyone else on healthcare for inferior services, for telecom we spend up to 4 times as much for some of the worst service of the 1st world nations)
(semi-related note: we have too little respect for the importance of central planning/design in America which when applied judiciously greatly improves quality of life)
(much of western Europe has figured out a fairly good compromise along these lines, and America is at least in the general ballpark but does have much progress still to be made - keep in mind that things we take for granted like public roads, schools, and even fire departments are all socialist institutions and represent the importance of socialism in society)
(note: democracy vs oligarchy vs autocracy etc is a separate issue - representative democracy is the ideal and we have done a fairly good job in this arena in America - socialism does not necessarily mean totalitarian dictatorship!)
Ideal compromise: free market on top of socialist controls
-- base level government regulations to bring back/enforce externalities in the market (ie. to protect the interests of the environmental degradation, future generations, etc) - this is key to encouraging better consumer market decisions and have things like transportation or pollution reflect their true costs to society as a whole and is where America is the most at fault presently
-- government vouchers for all basic services which people are free to 'spend' as they wish on that service (like food stamps) - all citizens, regardless of their wealth, have a right to certain 'basic' services - we have fallen behind in providing these as time has marched on and what was once a luxury is now a necessity (already the internet is practically as vital to life as electricity in our society) - healthcare, high quality education up to and exceeding the college level, and some form of basic housing are all basic necessities of life today and therefore should be provided for all members of our society (this is a basic moral issue for me - I feel it is our duty as a society to provide for the needs of our our citizens - being poor in America currently makes you a lesser citizen without access to the basics needed to survive and live a productive life or even equal political power which I find reprehensible - it is abhorrent that 25% of American's live in poverty)
- risk: like public schools today, the 'basic' gov covered plans become inadequate and everyone ends up having to spend more out of pocket to get by in reality --> counterpoint: this is true of all gov supplied services & is still better than the existing 'screw the poor' reality so there is nothing to loose - only solution is to keep on top of things & keep legislation current
-- government control of basic infrastructure - enforced open competitive access to free market services on top (issues like net neutrality, the epic fail that is America's telecom services, AT&T monopolies, etc are all addressed by this) - this is not altogether dissimilar from the British railroad system, or the way we currently do roads and airports
- services like public transit should be funded this way - they should be funded on say a 50% (or whatever) farebox subsidy system where services are partially subsidized to with the remainder of the costs being made up in fares and the surplus fares being the service provider's profits - this encourages competition while accounting for their inherent inability to be self-sustaining (in todays market realities - this could be changed if all transportation were fully paid for by the user, but there would be general outcry at having to pay something on the order of $1/mile driven)
Yes, the net result of this is higher taxes, but it actually makes it more affordable in general to live and get by because the basics will be far cheaper and more efficient (examples: American's spend twice as much as everyone else on healthcare for inferior services, for telecom we spend up to 4 times as much for some of the worst service of the 1st world nations)
(semi-related note: we have too little respect for the importance of central planning/design in America which when applied judiciously greatly improves quality of life)
8/10/2009
Windows Mobile Phone HTC Ozone
Well, so I finally managed to get my hands on a Verizon smartphone. I bought a $30/mo data plan and then have an app on the phone that turn it into a wifi router so that my phone is essentially a mobile wifi router allowing me to get my iPhone online without an AT&T contract at half the price - yay! It wil also give me internet access for my laptop on the bus, at work, and in class (yes, many UMass classrooms STILL don't have wifi!!! GAH). I got the HTC Ozone, a new relatively-cheap windows mobile smartphone (that is also called the Snap on Sprint).
How to do the hacking to enable wifi sharing:
First I installed the ICS app from this thread
then I installed the WMwifirouter trial
I also changed the DUN setting (not sure if this is necessary or not) as described here (the ##778 bit):
and yes, it does eat the battery life like crazy - gonna have to buy a spare battery or three...
Thoughts on the HTC Ozone:
The hardware is not bad - it's a standard candybar phone - not too clunky, but not exactly compact. It does need a more convenient keyboard lock switch though. The physical keyboard takes some getting used to, and I'm much slower than on the iPhone with its predictive text, but I did pick it up more rapidly than I did the iPhone keyboard. Some dumb key positioning choices - like the FN (function) button should be larger, etc, but rather useable.
Thoughts on Windows Mobile:
Not as bad as I'd feared, but it is clear why people don't use the features on their conventional smart phones much. It takes a zillion taps to do anydamn thing with this UI - everything is buried under a million stupid menus. There are some very powerful apps out there, and the ability to run background apps is handy, but there's no easy way to quit an app. Also, it seems impossible to change the shortcuts on the home page rendering it largely useless and forcing you to search through more menus to get to even the apps you use the most. Also, many of the apps and the system UI, especially the older parts, are just butt ugly to the point of actually hurting functionality (they make it harder to pick out what's important at a glance).
Will I use this phone much as a smart phone? Probably not - I expect I'll stick to using my iPhone whenever I can for it's much quicker and more intuitive UI experience. But does it serve my needs of giving me roaming internet access at a reasonable-ish price? Seems so - but we'll see how robust and useable the wifi is soon enough. (reception is so crappy at home that I can't really test the internet effectively - the signal keeps dropping out)
[Followup 1 year later: The HTC hardware is crappier than I'd thought and has already given out. The entire top row of buttons (nav, power, call, etc) DON'T WORK anymore - I have to mash them super-hard and they will respond about 50% of the time. WIndows Mobile is about as crappy as I'd anticipated, and the single app I ever use on it is the WMWifi router one.]
How to do the hacking to enable wifi sharing:
First I installed the ICS app from this thread
then I installed the WMwifirouter trial
I also changed the DUN setting (not sure if this is necessary or not) as described here (the ##778 bit):
and yes, it does eat the battery life like crazy - gonna have to buy a spare battery or three...
Thoughts on the HTC Ozone:
The hardware is not bad - it's a standard candybar phone - not too clunky, but not exactly compact. It does need a more convenient keyboard lock switch though. The physical keyboard takes some getting used to, and I'm much slower than on the iPhone with its predictive text, but I did pick it up more rapidly than I did the iPhone keyboard. Some dumb key positioning choices - like the FN (function) button should be larger, etc, but rather useable.
Thoughts on Windows Mobile:
Not as bad as I'd feared, but it is clear why people don't use the features on their conventional smart phones much. It takes a zillion taps to do anydamn thing with this UI - everything is buried under a million stupid menus. There are some very powerful apps out there, and the ability to run background apps is handy, but there's no easy way to quit an app. Also, it seems impossible to change the shortcuts on the home page rendering it largely useless and forcing you to search through more menus to get to even the apps you use the most. Also, many of the apps and the system UI, especially the older parts, are just butt ugly to the point of actually hurting functionality (they make it harder to pick out what's important at a glance).
Will I use this phone much as a smart phone? Probably not - I expect I'll stick to using my iPhone whenever I can for it's much quicker and more intuitive UI experience. But does it serve my needs of giving me roaming internet access at a reasonable-ish price? Seems so - but we'll see how robust and useable the wifi is soon enough. (reception is so crappy at home that I can't really test the internet effectively - the signal keeps dropping out)
[Followup 1 year later: The HTC hardware is crappier than I'd thought and has already given out. The entire top row of buttons (nav, power, call, etc) DON'T WORK anymore - I have to mash them super-hard and they will respond about 50% of the time. WIndows Mobile is about as crappy as I'd anticipated, and the single app I ever use on it is the WMWifi router one.]
8/07/2009
A map wayfinding project I'm working on
There's a local assisted living complex that has such a horrendously-designed building that it belongs on UMass's campus. This building rivals Morrill in its ability to confuse it's inhabitants (a UMass Amherst reference - the building was added onto... creatively...). This building was also built up in stages with poor coordination and planning from one to the next - the second floor in one part of the building becomes the third floor in the other end. In my short time there I have heard staff members comment repeatedly about how lost they are - one joked that she needed a GPS to navigate the place. I got lost a couple times while holding the blueprints in my arms!! The Morrison Theater is also the Morrison Meeting Room depending on which door you use. They started having to append 'north' and 'south' to every name because there's no differentiation between the northern and southern dining rooms or libraries or wellness centers, etc. The place is really elder abuse.
Example of the horrendous and confusing interior design - how many wall colors can you count? carpet textures?
What they need is a proper wayfinding overhaul - the signage is horrendous, something only made worse by the garish and cluttered wall decorations. They need to strip off all the gaudy trim and artificial doorways that apparently cause problems for people with certain diseases like Parkinson's. The walls in each wing should be color-coded. The signs should all be redone in Helvetica at a much larger size and higher contrast colors. There should actually be signs indicating that yes, in fact the 3rd floor did just become the 4th floor, you're not suffering from Alzheimer's... There should be maps on all the walls - and well-designed maps made for usability and simplified with all the superficial crap eliminated, not simply copies of the architect's blueprints. And the original architects should be sued into oblivion for epic failure.
But of course that is well beyond the scope of what I'm being allowed to do... I get to design a map for the programming department to use to explain to residents how to get to their events. Yes, the situation is so bad that the programming department had to go out and get someone to make them their very own map! (and of course every other department immediately is interested in the project the minute they hear about it and want a copy for their own use!)
A HIGLY simplified first floor floorplan (all administrative offices, resident's suites & several full wings eliminated!):
Even more simplified floorplan (many rooms moved and reshaped for simplicity - entire right angles eliminated):
And as you can see, still far too complex to easily understand at a glance. Challenges: black and white only (color too expensive, gray tones too hard for elderly to read), not able to add signage at the locations thereby eliminating from the map
Cross-sectional map that she came up with as a starting point:
Early draft of my version of her cross-section - still far too confusing:
A poor sign that has be hastily amended to 'fix' confusion between the northern and southern hobby rooms...
The first floor become both the first and the second floors:
(with very narrow stairs and a poorly-located elevator even...)
whaaa???
Even the elevator controls make no sense!!
This is just plain dangerous - which way should I exit in a fire?!
Example of the horrendous and confusing interior design - how many wall colors can you count? carpet textures?
What they need is a proper wayfinding overhaul - the signage is horrendous, something only made worse by the garish and cluttered wall decorations. They need to strip off all the gaudy trim and artificial doorways that apparently cause problems for people with certain diseases like Parkinson's. The walls in each wing should be color-coded. The signs should all be redone in Helvetica at a much larger size and higher contrast colors. There should actually be signs indicating that yes, in fact the 3rd floor did just become the 4th floor, you're not suffering from Alzheimer's... There should be maps on all the walls - and well-designed maps made for usability and simplified with all the superficial crap eliminated, not simply copies of the architect's blueprints. And the original architects should be sued into oblivion for epic failure.
But of course that is well beyond the scope of what I'm being allowed to do... I get to design a map for the programming department to use to explain to residents how to get to their events. Yes, the situation is so bad that the programming department had to go out and get someone to make them their very own map! (and of course every other department immediately is interested in the project the minute they hear about it and want a copy for their own use!)
A HIGLY simplified first floor floorplan (all administrative offices, resident's suites & several full wings eliminated!):
Even more simplified floorplan (many rooms moved and reshaped for simplicity - entire right angles eliminated):
And as you can see, still far too complex to easily understand at a glance. Challenges: black and white only (color too expensive, gray tones too hard for elderly to read), not able to add signage at the locations thereby eliminating from the map
Cross-sectional map that she came up with as a starting point:
Early draft of my version of her cross-section - still far too confusing:
A poor sign that has be hastily amended to 'fix' confusion between the northern and southern hobby rooms...
The first floor become both the first and the second floors:
(with very narrow stairs and a poorly-located elevator even...)
whaaa???
Even the elevator controls make no sense!!
This is just plain dangerous - which way should I exit in a fire?!
6/23/2009
Train Geek Tech Quickie Post (with strong environmental impact overtones)
(jump to the bottom for the less-train-specific & more interesting summary)
Cool as all these new Gensets and the more interesting but less-popular trickle-charge battery hybrid switchers are, I'm more interested in the cool ways railroads are rebuilding their older units for yard and secondary service. One of the most environmentally-efficient strategies is to use your existing equipment for as long as is feasible. There's a trade off - more energy, resources, scrap, and money upfront for newer more efficient equipment that will leave a lighter footprint in the long run. After all, they have tens of thousands of these perfectly good older units that have been bumped from mainline duty and it makes much more sense to upgrade these than go for new units (even if they are using lot of trade-in parts like frame, running gear, etc as is common practice for these secondary loco builders). I am a personal fan of in-house projects like Norfolk Southerns large GP50 rebuild program and others of that nature. That's certainly the overall model that my proto-lanced Delaware Boston & Maine RR will be using heavily.
Usually the economics are in favor of keeping but overhauling the existing prime mover, which makes this new line of EMD rebuilds for Kansas City Southern particularly interesting. For one, it's always cool when EMD and GE get into the rebuild/secondary loco market (and invariably a sign of a market slowdown)(I'm a huge fan of GE's Super 7 rebuild line and have my own Super 8 models following that pattern). But more interesting is them using the greatly-improved efficiencies of the newer prime movers where 8 cylinders in a rebuilt Geep or SD can do the work that was previously being done by 16 in a GP38 (non-turbocharged to save on maintenance even!).
Essentially, the point I'm meandering towards is that in making environmental impact assessments, it's important to consider the full lifetime of the hardware and what it will be replacing. I hate when people say 'lets get this brand new [thing] because it's more efficient than the perfectly good one we already have.' How much more efficient is it? What about the manufacturing and disposal impacts? You could keep an older machine in service longer, saving on the upfront costs to build it and the disposal impacts afterward. Or you can replace more frequently to get more efficient, easier to maintain equipment but 'pay' those upfront and disposal costs more often. The ideal is somewhere in between, and this is where it's important to look at how major the upgrades are for a given generation of hardware and what the incremental difference is in upgrade versus holding out. At least that's how I justify keeping my old PowerMac instead of getting a newer more efficient Mac Mini... >_>
Cool as all these new Gensets and the more interesting but less-popular trickle-charge battery hybrid switchers are, I'm more interested in the cool ways railroads are rebuilding their older units for yard and secondary service. One of the most environmentally-efficient strategies is to use your existing equipment for as long as is feasible. There's a trade off - more energy, resources, scrap, and money upfront for newer more efficient equipment that will leave a lighter footprint in the long run. After all, they have tens of thousands of these perfectly good older units that have been bumped from mainline duty and it makes much more sense to upgrade these than go for new units (even if they are using lot of trade-in parts like frame, running gear, etc as is common practice for these secondary loco builders). I am a personal fan of in-house projects like Norfolk Southerns large GP50 rebuild program and others of that nature. That's certainly the overall model that my proto-lanced Delaware Boston & Maine RR will be using heavily.
Usually the economics are in favor of keeping but overhauling the existing prime mover, which makes this new line of EMD rebuilds for Kansas City Southern particularly interesting. For one, it's always cool when EMD and GE get into the rebuild/secondary loco market (and invariably a sign of a market slowdown)(I'm a huge fan of GE's Super 7 rebuild line and have my own Super 8 models following that pattern). But more interesting is them using the greatly-improved efficiencies of the newer prime movers where 8 cylinders in a rebuilt Geep or SD can do the work that was previously being done by 16 in a GP38 (non-turbocharged to save on maintenance even!).
Essentially, the point I'm meandering towards is that in making environmental impact assessments, it's important to consider the full lifetime of the hardware and what it will be replacing. I hate when people say 'lets get this brand new [thing] because it's more efficient than the perfectly good one we already have.' How much more efficient is it? What about the manufacturing and disposal impacts? You could keep an older machine in service longer, saving on the upfront costs to build it and the disposal impacts afterward. Or you can replace more frequently to get more efficient, easier to maintain equipment but 'pay' those upfront and disposal costs more often. The ideal is somewhere in between, and this is where it's important to look at how major the upgrades are for a given generation of hardware and what the incremental difference is in upgrade versus holding out. At least that's how I justify keeping my old PowerMac instead of getting a newer more efficient Mac Mini... >_>
2/14/2009
Which Point And Shoot?
Okay, so if I do decide to go with a Point and Shoot camera now, which one?
First off, it's important to remember that my iPhone's camera, while shitty, is ALWAYS with me and that fact alone makes it way better than any of these others sitting on a shelf...
Canon G9 $?? (used probably - the G10 has replaced it but has been poorly received)
-cheaper if used??
-6x zoom
-good video
Probably the best budget option and respectable all around, (assuming they can be found cheaply enough used - this could be very hard actually, apparently they're still in high demand).
Canon G10 $400?
-despite people's complaints, it is still a very nice camera with a very good lens
-may be cheaper since poorly-recieved?
-video is poorer than the G9, but for me that's not important
Sure, it's not as well-liked at the G9, but that's in large part because the G9 was so popular and the G10 didn't live up to the expectations. Still, for me, I think it would be a great camera.
Panasonic LX3 $450
-no optical viewfinder!! - this is an issue when shooting in daylight (there is an expensive optional viewfinder that sits in the flash hotshoe)
-somewhat bulky and less pocketable (esp with that hotshoe viewfinder!)
-AMAZING low-light performance and outstanding pictures! (Better than most DSLRs)
-better performance than many DSLR cameras even - you could use this camera professionally
A strange camera, and it could definitely serve as a respectable DSLR stand-in, though it's poor zoom would be a real issue railfanning. Too awkward to be an ideal pocket cam but much more convenient than my current camera. This is perhaps an ideal compromise between pocket-camera and DSLR?
FujiFilm F200EXR $400
-not yet available so hasn't been reviewed
-AMAZING-looking low-light performance!!!!!! (better than most DSLRs)
-5x zoom and nice wide-angle (great for both indoor and railfanning)
-no optical viewfinder. period. umm... that could be bad when light's reflecting off the lcd...
This camera looks great, but without being reviewed yet I'm a little hesitant. Very versatile - great for both indoor, low-light shooting, and nice, high-resolution outdoor shooting, though I do worry about the lack of viewfinder since I always use the viewfinder on my other cameras.
Nikon P6000 $400
-good ergonomics (important when shooting regularly)
-battery hog
-slow (important when shooting trains that are MOVING)
-very pocket-able
-built in GPS geotagging (cool!)
Hmm, hard to say, not blown away by this one but the ergonomics factor is enticing.
Sadly, I'm pretty sure that none of these take standard AA batteries - I understand why they go with custom batteries, but I HATE custom batteries... All of these are expensive for pocket cams though - this much money could buy you a solid zoom lens and put me half-way towards a nice DSLR setup (if I go DSLR, my first lens will be a nice Zoom!!). Would a $100-200 pocket cam suffice instead? I'm seeing this as a longish-term investment, so I'd honestly rather save my money than settle for a cheaper consumer camera since I already have a decent Ultra-zoom camera that can still take respectable pictures. Still, I'm not sure that I could choose between these cameras - they would all serve me quite well.
If you're looking at the G10, LX3, or P6000, I recommend Andy Ihnatko's review of them at TWIP:
2/10/2009
Which Camera/Which type of photographer am I?
Nice pocket camera or DSLR / shoot anywhere spontaneously or planned photo trips?
As Andy Ihnatko points out, the best camera is the one you'll actually use.
And that's the rub - which one would I actually use more? Obviously, I want both, but the question is which do I buy first? Right now I have a few year old ultra-zoom high-end point and shoot (12x zoom!!) - too big to fit in pocket, but not DSLR image quality or easy access to manual controls. Because of the so-so quality of this camera, I find myself using my 35mm more than I otherwise would simply because it feels more "real" and higher quality. I love shooting 35mm B&W, but I want to shoot more digital simply because of the greater flexibility and convenience - I already have more film shot than I can deal with in my limited darkroom time and I really ought to scan them all one of these days.
I am mostly a train photographer, and this is inherently something that you shoot on planned photo trips. But at the same time, I do want to expand my photography, and I have definitely missed many good shots in my daily life. Hell, I have some okay shots I managed to catch with my iPhone of a NECR train I happened to pass along Rt9 - the iPhone camera sucks but it's better than nothing. The real question here I suppose, is whether I'm more interested in advancing my planned railroad photography trips or my spontaneous non-train shooting, since that really determines which camera is more useful.
DSLR
much more useful for planned photo trips
more expensive (though used, etc helps) - but a longer-term investment in the glass
lots of good used ones available
better potential image quality
feels more like 'real' photography
useless sitting on a shelf - will I actually go trainspotting enough to make the cost worthwhile?
Pocket Cam
already sort of have a pocket cam - the iPhone, it sucks, but it's there
more inconspicuous - always handy when dealing with Rent-a-cops
more versatile - it's not like it won't work just as well for photo trips even if it is a point-and-shoot
will I really cary it everywhere and actually use it??
2/09/2009
Design: a brain-dump
first posted July 4th, 2008 on LiveJournal
Good Design
Bad Design
- is not aesthetics.
- is invisible to the user.
- reliable.
- fails gracefully.
- idiot-resistant.
- intuitive to use.
- It crosses all disciplines - architecture, engineering, sociology, urban studies, environmental studies, anthropology, history, etc.
- Understands the legacy's preceding it and the cultural environment it is entering.
- environmentally sustainable.
- economically sustainable. culturally-suitable and relevant.
- User-maintainable, repairable, and versatile.
- driven by the stakeholders (democratic).
- not compromised into uselessness - an over-riding vision and authority must be decisive on a direction.
- edited and refined constantly.
- elegantly-efficient.
- Macintosh (this one is provisional - it still has a looong way to go - there's still too many fixable flaws in OS X).
- Most Western-European cities.
- NYC.
- Portland.
- Japan's Passenger Railroads.
- America's Diesel Locomotives.
- The Spanish Talgo trainsets (97% uptime!!).
- Honda.
- Toyota.
- Intermodal containers.
- Firewire (beats USB hands down).
- The Knuckle coupler.
- Ball bearings.
- the pencil.
- Two-finger trackpad scrolling.
- The Humvee (but not the Hummer).
- The turbine.
- The lens.
- The staple (better still is the paper staple - so clever but less versatile http://www.treehugger.com/files/2004/12/stapless_staple.php).
- Helvetica.
- the new NS logo.
- The McGinnis B&M logo.
- The Chessie System logo.
- The rail.
- The book Cradle to Cradle (the tree-less paper that book is printed on is simply amazing - way better than tree-pulp paper, and the book itself is awesome).
- The Firefly class ship
Bad Design
- is conventional for the sake of convention.
- Unconventional for the sake of unconventionality.
- Ignores/disrespects the past.
- Refuses to break from the historic forms.
- Designed from one perspective alone (everything looks like a nail if you have a hammer - engineers and architects fall into this all the time).
- Pretty but useless.
- Inflexible.
- Designed to be easy to make regardless of utility.
- Makes the user feel stupid because it's hard to comprehend.
- Makes decisions with no attention to the trade-offs.
- Designed with no knowledge of the context.
- Greenwashed.
- Designed to minimize UPFRONT costs only.
- Designed by committee with no unified vision or editing (open source all too often falls into this... Linux, Firefox for Mac).
- Socially-irresponsible.
- Ego-driven.
- Authoritarian.
- The Ecotarium facilities.
- The UMass campus.
- Windows.
- Every cell phone ever made (the iPhone finally broke that trend - it's not "good" design, yet, but it's the first that isn't bad design).
- SPRAWL.
- Houston.
- LA.
- GM.
- Ford.
- Acela.
- The Hummer (but not the Humvee).
- Anything manufactured in Chinese sweat-shops (yes, this includes many of the things I consider good design - they can be both. deal with it).
- Libertarian.
- The Leopard 3D dock.
- OS X and Vista's eye-candy bloat.
- Wall-wart power bricks (universal power adapter's PLEASE?! USB would serve as a good 5v standard or Firewire for 12V...).
- The Sylvan suites.
- Non-user replaceable parts in Apple hardware.
- Proprietary formats, plugs, interfaces, etc.
- The new Amtrak logo.
- The CSX logo.
- The Death Star 1...
1/17/2009
The Palm Pre and Smart Phone Platforms
I am quite excited by the Palm Pre - largely because I'm hoping it will prove a worthy competitor to apple. I don't mean this from an Apple fanboy perspective (well, not mostly). What I want to see is an alternative smart phone operating system design model.
The iPhone uses a variant on the Mac philosophy of integrated OS and hardware with fairly locked down apps but a healthy hacker community. This model emphasizes design and build quality and tends to deliver an unparalleled user experience. The iPhone was the first all-in-one that didn't suck, it is still very young and has much room for improvement, but it is miles ahead of the alternatives. The single biggest asset for the iPhone platform is the developer SDK - the Apple developers have the single best coding language around with Cocoa and a remarkable set of provided tools that greatly speed up the process and improve the overall quality of the app ecosystem. And that's before you count the amazing indie mac developer community.
Android has a lot of potential, but it seems to be progressing too slowly - as is typical for Linux, it's closest comparison in the computer world. There is not enough developer support or good SDK, it is really only suitable for the hobbyist hackers - in a decade or so it may catch up... barely. The best bet for Android is if Google really puts more resources behind it and gets some quality designers working on the thing, but even then it will always be a cool, very versatile open source platform that delivers a mediocre user experience at best and shitty design.
Blackberry is great for email, and just email. It is a dedicated device with a very clear design focus, as all good dedicated devices are, but it is not even close to being a real all-in one. The others - windows mobile and um, symbian? and whoever else - well, they're all in the just plain sucking category. In about 5 or 10 years one of them will come along and pull a windows 95 - do a 'good enough' copy of the iPhone OS without a platform-tie-in. It will gain reasonable market share, but always offer a suckier user experience and ripped-off designs that prove that their 'designers' don't have even a basic grasp of what good UI design is but it will look 'close enough' for the cheap-ass morons that don't value design or build quality.
The Pre though, it offers a whole new design paradigm - probably closest in nature to the webapps that are the latest fad in Web 2.0. It is built using all web standards - Java, html, and all that jazz. This means that it integrates extremely well with the existing net services - it will pull in your facebook friend's contact info into it's equivalent of the contact book for example. Really, it is a whole new paradigm beyond the windowed OS experience with it's cards concept - very very fascinating UI idea that has a ton of potential power. The fact that it is all built essentially as webpages makes the barrier to entry for designers extremely low - I could do it - but also poses a very severe limit on the power and flexibility. There is no way you can create the sort of rich apps that you get from the Mac or iPhone Cocoa environment - and apps are what makes or breaks any computing platform. I see huge potential for Pre to be a great low-power device - akin to a netbook maybe in utility, ideal as a personal organizer and such, but distinctly limited in power, versatility, and design polish. The biggest unknown right now, is how well designed the Pre OS will be - they have a lot of talent, so they could really pull it off - I certainly hope so. That whole Sprint-exclusive to start dealio is a huge setback though - Sprint might as well not exist for all the coverage they provide and they have worse customer service than even AT&T remarkably.
1/16/2009
derek's favorite webcomic roundup in no particular order
Engineering-focused geeky genre
xkcd sometimes a bit too engineery for my humanities brain, but an all time favoriteWasted Talent - so cute!
AppleGeeks - you don't have to be an apple geek to appreciate this one - very pretty!
MacHall - discontinued, but succeeded by Three Panel Soul
The Joy of Tech - Apple/tech-centric; be sure to note the polls with every comic - prob not of interest unless you follow the tech news
video game-centric geeky genre:
VG Cats - infrequent updates but very good
Penny Arcade - the classic
DnD-ish
8-bit Theater classic sprite webcomic
sorta magicky genre
Dominic Deegan - Oracle for Hire
Kidnapped By Gnomes - So silly and cute and political
Dinosaur Comics/Quantz - what if you had the exact same artwork and only changed the text, how many comics could you make? He's closing on 1400. Kinda absurd humor.
Cyanide and Happiness - sick, absurdist humor; very clever
Ugly Hill - Dilbert in the alternate universe where everyone is a dinosaur/monster??
Wigu - just plain strange.
Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki - a rather ecchi shoujo
And aren't you glad to know that this is only a partial list of the webcomics I follow and I keep adding to this list?? Yes, I have issues, but you knew that already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
