Went carousing around Helsinki with some colleagues from San Diego.
Soho, London
I think she might be horrified, though, with the street view.
Everything but…
In Yo! at Selfridges in London
I live a dual life: I work on a Windows PC and I play on a Mac.
What I mean is that at work, I am forced to use a Windows PC. Well, it’s not so bad any more because I’m really addicted to Lifeblog (natch). But, at home, we are all-Mac (3) and the main jukebox is our trusty iMac that all of us fight for to use iTunes (and browse and watch DVDs and play with Garageband).
Yes, our whole music collection is actually on the iMac (and our whole photo collection until I got Lifeblog). I’d never consider to actually use my Windows PC for iTunes, since it seems crude, the speakers stink, and when I am on the Windows PC I am working and really don’t like to listen to music when I work (I need to write a lot) – that’s why I really don’t have any music in iTunes on my Windows PC.
Do you see what I’m leading to? I mentioned before that I’ve got all my Lifeblog images transferring onto the iPod photo. Alas, I had to give the iPod up, since it really wasn’t mine. But, I managed to get it back to play with it some more and when I noticed some interesting behaviour.
To recap, when I went to put my stuff back on the iPod, iTunes asked me, separately, if I wanted to put my iTunes music and my photos on the iPod and delete what was already on it. When I realized that I could say ‘No’ to one and ‘Yes’ to the other, I decided to see if the same applied to my Mac.
To make a short story shorter, I hooked up the iPod to the Mac, said ‘Yes’ to transfer all the music to the device, said ‘No’ to transfer all the photos (already transferred for the most part to my Lifeblog). Then, I went to my PC and said ‘No’ to transfer the music, and ‘Yes’ to transfer the photos.
It worked.
Now I have my whole music collection from my Mac and my whole image collection from my Lifeblog on my iPod photo.
Cool.
I am sure I could work it somehow to not ask every time, but I don’t have the interest right now, since the dialog boxes don’t bother me. Yet.
Also, I still need to understand how the iPod photo updates the photos on it.
I have the socks with these swirls (paislies?) that remind me of galaxies.
I spent so long looking at the world in such detail that forever I’ll look at everything at the regular, detail, and molecular level. If you know what I mean.
You can take the man out of science, but you can’t take the scientist out of the man.
Quite involved
I was at a meeting today. Yes, everyone was really involved, but I have to wonder when I see this on a blank notepad.
At least it wasn’t a hangman.
I have been using an iPod photo to automatically store my pictures from Lifeblog. In the setting dialog box in iTunes, there is an option to include full-resolution photos. The option is so kind as to explain why you would choose between full-resolution or part resolution (see figure).
There are a few reasons I think this is offered. First of all, low-resolution images are easier to transfer and take up less storage on the iPod. This also leaves more room for music. Secondly, if you are only viewing the photos on the iPod, there is no reason to have the full-resolution image. This also makes browsing of the photos faster (I think. Depends on the way the iPod photos handles thumbnails.).
But, if you want to share the photos, such as using the iPod as a USB storage device for photos, you would want the full-resolution pictures so that whomever you share with or wherever you choose to get one of the pictures, you have the full thing, not some wimpy small copy (Actually, I don’t know what resolution the low-resolution pictures have.). Also, if you are showing them on a TV, it wouldn’t hurt to have a higher resolution picture. VGA doesn’t look all that bad on a TV, since TV resolutions are crummy anyway. But, I ‘thought’ I saw a significant improvement with my megapixel images on the TV.
What I am getting at is that we in Lifeblog Central have the same issue. On the PC, Lifeblog keeps everything at full resolution. But, for the mobile, will people want full-resolution, or would they like to get a lower-resolution copy?
For the same reasons listed above, the argument can go both ways when putting pictures onto the mobile device: storage space, sharing issues, and speed of browsing. In Lifeblog 1.0, we reduced photo when they were transferred back to the phone. In Lifeblog 1.5 we decided to transfer the full size photo. Now we realize that it would help to let the user choose for the above mentioned reasons. But, that will make one more decision the user has to get confused with, so we need to do it right if we want to offer the same type of choice as the iPod photo does.
Making things simple is so flipping hard. When I first discussed this resolution issue with my boss, he stumped me in two seconds because he’s so in tune with usability issues. I didn’t bring it up for a long time, I was so stuck.
Well, all I can say, since the decision is not really mine, is that we are still trying to find a nice way to give some choice. Of course, you could pipe up and let me know what you think. I promise to discard all the comments that don’t support my view so that I can go back and get what I want.
Just kidding.
