There are a huge number of to-do list managers (TDLMs) out in the world now, but none of them do what I want. Apparently, it’s not just me: I just read an article which said that when students were asked what mobile apps they really wanted, 20% said they wanted “a comprehensive to-do + calendaring + life management app that helps them better organize their lives”. TWENTY percent!
Is it really that hard?
I have strong opinions about what I want, and I don’t think it’s that hard, so I will describe my desires here in the hopes that somebody will make me the perfect TDLM. (Some of the features you can see in a TDLM which I wrote for a class project. Sometimes I think about writing my perfect TDLM, but I’m busy with other things. I want it to exist, not to write it myself.)
The most important thing is that the TDLM should make you feel better about your tasks. The biggest problem with TDLMs right now is that they make you feel guilty: the list grows and grows and grows because there are an infinite number of things it would be nice to do and only a finite amount of time. This means that every time you open the TDLM, you feel overwhelmed by guilt at all the things you haven’t done yet.
1. Hide stuff you can’t work on right now because of blocking tasks. Don’t show me “paint the bedroom” if I haven’t finished the task of “choose colour for bedroom”. (This means you need UI for showing what tasks depend upon which other tasks, and I warn you that’s not as easy as you think.)
2. Hide stuff you won’t work on right now because you are busy with other things. Don’t show me “paint the bedroom” if I have decided that I’m not going to start that project until I finish doing my taxes. “Do taxes” is not truly a blocking task — it’s not like I am going to use the tax forms to apply the paint — but hide it anyway. (This means you need UI for showing what the sequencing of tasks is.)
3. Hide stuff you won’t work on right now because it is the wrong time of year. Maybe you want a task of “buy new winter jacket”, but you want to wait until the end of winter to get take advantage of the sales on coats. You should to be able to tell your TDLM to hide that task until March. (Or until May, if you live in Manitoba.) Or “rotate tires” is something which only needs to happen every six months.
Note that this implies connecting the TDLM to a calendar, at least minimally.
4. Allow recurring to-do list items. I don’t want to have to make a new task for our wedding anniversary every year. I want to set it once and forget it. Usually people put things on their calendars for repeating events, but “Wedding Anniversary” goes on August 22ns and is not a task. “Plan something for anniversary” is a recurring task but should be hidden until at about August 1st.
The TDLM should distinguish between recurring tasks which expire and those which do not. Non-expiring tasks are ones like “pay phone bill”. Even if you forget to pay it by the due date, you still need to deal with it. On the other hand, “run 2km” is an expiring item: if you couldn’t do your 2km run on Monday, it probably does not mean that you should run 4km on Wednesday.
5. Make me feel super-good about finishing tasks. A lot of TDLMs handle checking something as done by making it disappear. This is the worst. I’ve spent hours, weeks, or months looking at that dang task, and when I finally finish it, I want to savour the moment! I want my TDLM to cheer, to have fireworks explode on the screen, and maybe even have the text of the task writhe in agony as it dies an ugly painful death. I want there to be a display case in my TDLM of things that I have finished recently that I can look at with pride. “Yeah”, I can think, “I am ***DONE*** with painting the bedroom!” Maybe I don’t need full fireworks for a simple, one-step task which took 15 minutes, but if it was a 2000-step task which took 5 years (like getting a PhD or something like that), I want the TDLM to cheer for a full five minutes.
6. Let me see what I did. Sometimes, I feel like I didn’t get anything done, and it is reassuring to look at a list of the things that I actually did accomplish. It might be nice to show it in a horizontal latest-first timeline form:
- 4:47 pm Laundry
- 3:13 pm Groceries
- 12:11 pm Replace laptop display
I would also like to be able to modify the task completion times. “Oh, I actually finished replacing the laptop last night, I just didn’t feel like telling the TDLM because it was late and I was tired.”
7. Let me see what I am going to do. People usually use calendars for this, but as I mentioned before, calendars are kind of the wrong tool. I don’t really want to see “buy birthday present for Mom” in the same place as “Meet with boss, 10:30 AM”. Plus, a strict time-base is makes zero sense if the dependencies are other tasks.
8. Let me import/modify/export task hierarchies. Suppose you want to have a wedding. (Mazel Tov!) There are predictable things which you need to do: book a space for the wedding, a space for the reception, book an officiant, book a caterer, choose a menu, etc. If, say, you want a wedding sort of like your friend Joanne’s, it would be nice if Joanne could email you the hierarchy of tasks that she did for her wedding, and you could just drop it in to your TDLM. (Perhaps that way, you wouldn’t forget to rent a dance floor.)
But maybe you have some Greek heritage and Joanne does not, so you need to add “get a stefana” to your list. You should be able to do that — and then export your new wedding task list for your brother when he gets married. Even better, you ought to be able to upload it to a site which hosts lots of packaged tasks, maybe even a whole section on weddings (so your brother could pick and choose which wedding task list he likes best).
Needless to say, the exported task hierarchy should be in a form which lends itself well to version control and diffing. 🙂
9. Let me share my task list with other people. I would like to be able to share my “home” task list with my husband, so that he could assign me tasks like “buy three kitchen sponges”. Ideally, I’d think I’d like for there to be three task lists: his, mine, and ours.
My husband and I would probably set things up to both have read/write permission on all three — there are some things that only one of us can or should do. I can imagine other couples might want to not have write permission on each other’s, only on the “ours” one.
10. Make it easy to discuss tasks. This means assigning a simple ID and URL to the task. If Jim and I are going to share tasks, we are going to discuss them. It would be nice to be able to say, “Task #45” instead of “that one about the paintbrushes”. It would also be nice to be able to email a link to him which will take him right to Task #45.
11. (Nice to have) Allow putting a time estimate on the task. If you know that it takes you about two hours to get to your locker, change clothes, stretch, run 2km, stretch, shower, change clothes, and get back to your workplace, then it might be nice to put in an estimate for the “run 2km” task.
If you can put a time estimate on a task and adjust it later, the TDLM could keep track of estimated vs. actual, and start to help you adjust your estimates. “For tasks which you estimate are going to be about 3hrs, you spend an average of 4.15 hrs.”
It would also be nice if the TDLM could help you make estimates based on similar tasks which you completed. When entering an estimate for painting the living room, it would be nice if the TDLM mentioned, off to the side, how long it took you to paint the bathroom and the bedroom. (It’s even okay if it also tells you how long it took you to paint the landscape or your fingernails; presumably you’d be smart enough to figure out which tasks were relevant.)
12. (Nice to have) Make the TDLM geo-aware. It would be kind of nice to be able to hide tasks until I was at or near a particular location. For example, if I am not in a big hurry to paint the bedroom, hide “buy paint” until I am actually at the paint store.
Something requested by the students in the article I mentioned earlier was being told to leave in order to make it to the next appointment. “Doctor’s appointment at 3pm” is a calendar event, but “get to doctor’s office” is a task which needs to happen at a time which depends upon how long it takes to get to the doctor’s office from where you are. That’s another way that geo-awareness could be useful.
13. (Maybe nice to have) Be able to mark urgency. I am not actually certain how useful this is. I have had TDLMs which allowed me to mark urgency, and I found that I almost never used it. I think people will expect it, however.
14. (Nice to have, but difficult) Integrate with my applications. Tasktop Technologies has a product called Tasktop Dev, which kept track of what you did in the source code editor (and some other applications, e.g. web browser and Microsoft Office) while you were working on a specific task. (You had to tell it, “now I am working on task #47” so that it would know to start watching.) Then, there was a record of what you worked on for that task. That was useful if you needed to stop and restart the task (especially over a long period of time), or if you needed to go back a long time later and see what you had done. (“What was the URL of that caterer with the really nice cheesecake?”)
In a work environment, it would be nice to integrate it with other task management systems (AKA “bug trackers”) like Jira or Asana or Bugzilla.
This is what I want. If it persists in not existing, I might have to do it myself someday.
I have heard that looking at faces is difficult for people with autism. I don’t understand it, but the impression I gotten from reading descriptions from high-functioning adults that the facial recognition hardware has a bug which causes some sort of feedback loop that is uncomfortable.
What if there was a Google Glasses application which put ovals in front of people’s faces? Blue ovals if they were not looking at you, pink ovals if they are. Maybe a line to show where the center line of their face is.
Maybe that would make it more comfortable to be around collections of people.
Note: I first wrote this in 2002 (revised 2004, 2006, and 2007) on the Web site for my books, but have since taken down that site. I was thinking about it today, so decided to repost it:
The Perfect Email Program
People occasionally ask me what I’d like to see in the perfect email program. Some email programs have some of the elements of a perfect email program, but none has all of them. Here’s my wish list:
- Virus resistance. While virus resistance is a broad and general topic, I would like, at a minimum, a filter condition that can examine the names of attachments, e.g.
if .exe is in attachment name
- Easy way to see all “to-do” messages nicely grouped and prioritized.
The Conventional Wisdom is that you group messages by moving related messages into a folder. For example, move all messages from your manager into your “Boss” folder. Unfortunately, many (if not most) people have a hard time keeping track of their “to-do” messages (to-read, to-reply-to, to-act-on) when they are spread across multiple folders. It’s better if you can sort them in place, in the inbox. Ideally, you’d like the inbox to show e.g. all the messages from your spouse at the top of the inbox, followed by all messages from your boss, followed by all messages from your coworkers, etc.I don’t care what the mechanism is for grouping, as long as the “to-do” messages are visible in one place. For example, if I can set up a view that shows all the “to-do” messages in all folders at once (sometimes called Virtual Folders), grouped by what folder they’re in, fine. I do want to be able to expand/collapse the folders, however, so that I only see what is relevant to my tasks RIGHT NOW.Another way the Perfect Email Program could do it is to let me use filters to change a field in the message that I can sort your inbox by. So for example, if the filters can change the “category” of a message,
and then I can sort the inbox by “category”, I’m happy.
NB: The filters in Eudora and Thunderbird can change the Label of a message; Outlook’s rules can
change the Category of a message. However, it’s a bit awkward to deal with them.
- Eudora has a very limited number of labels, 15 under Mac OS and 7 under Windows. Eudora doesn’t allow grouping (i.e. being able to collapse messages in a group), but it does allow sorting first by label, second by date.
- To sort an Outlook mailbox by Categories, you have to set up a View that Groups by Categories. Furthermore, if you reply to a message that you’ve assigned a Category to, when you reply, the receiver will see your Category…. and there is no way to strip Categories from incoming or outgoing messages (unless you set up a macro).
- Thunderbird 1.5 has a very limited number of labels, although Thunderbird 2.0 is supposed to allow an arbitrary number of labels. Thunderbird 1.5 has grouping in various ways, though it doesn’t seem possible to group by address book. It does allow sorting first by label, second by date.
- Grouping by social network. I could have put this in the group-and-prioritize-in-place item above, because grouping-by-social-network works well with the above, but you don’t have to have grouping-by-social-network for group-and-prioritize-in-place to be useful. I want my email client to be able to group messages by which social network the sender is in. I want to see messages from my co-workers in one bucket, messages from my family in another, etc, as noted above.While yes, there are some cases where someone will be in two social networks (like if you work with your spouse), those are rare and can be handled by showing messages from people in two social networks twice, once for each social network.It has been my experience that it is very difficult even for humans to figure out how to categorize email messages by anything else but sender; I don’t think a computer will ever be good enough at it. However, there is one and only one sender for a message, and social groups are reasonably stable (in the sense that Rosario generally doesn’t leave your church group on Monday, join your skydiving group on Tuesday, leave your skydiving group on Wednesday, join your company on Friday, etc.). I think computers probably can make good guesses at who is in which social group by looking at your email history: who did you correspond with and who did your correspondent correspond with? (I do still want to be able to correct the email program’s choices.)NB: IBM and Microsoft have both done some research on merging social networks with email. I don’t think they are quite to the “group by social network” feature yet, but they are getting close.
Even if the email program can’t guess at your social networks, you can still do the grouping by social network by hand. These two features make it much easier to do so:
- A filter condition that will check if someone is in a certain address book. This allows filters along the lines of “If the sender is in my ‘Friends’ address book, change the category to ‘Friends'”. (This is much easier than generating a different rule for each friend!)Thunderbird 1.5, Eudora 6, and Outlook 2000 all have the filter condition “is in address book X”. Thunderbird 1.5 doesn’t seem to have a way to filter for “is in any of my address books”.
- One-click/one-keystroke addition of the sender of a message to a particular address book. For example, when I get a message from my cousin for the first time, I should be able to easily add her to my “Family” address book — and so from then on, her messages should show up with the “Family” category.NB: Gmail has a click->dropdown-select to add to the address book. Thunderbird 1.5 takes click->dropdown-select->move-mouse-a-long-way->press-OK to put the person into the default address book.
- An easy way to mark messages “done”. To be able to see at a glance all the messages which I need to read, reply to, or act upon, I need to be able to get messages of my sight — to mark them “done” — when I no longer need to read, reply, or act upon them.My favorite way is to have a button in the toolbar that transfers finished messages out of the inbox and into a mailbox that has the same name as the message’s category. This should also be a one-keystroke operation.NB: Google’s GMail does this with their “Archive” button.Thunderbird has a bug for keyboard shortcut for filing a message to a folder, and one for specifying a default folder to file messages into. If these are implemented, it will probably be adequate. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any action on those two.
- An easy way to hide a message until some time in the future.Sometimes you know that you can’t deal with a message right now. For example, if Chantelle is the only one who knows what the status of the patent application is, and she won’t be back from her vacation in Bhutan until next Wednesday, you’d like to make Bob’s message about the patent to disappear for now, then reappear next Wednesday.NB: I like to call this the “hide-until” feature instead of the “defer” feature because I think “hide-until” makes it more obvious and explicit that the message is going to come back.
- A button in the toolbar for “move to next message” and “move to previous message”. Many programs let you use keyboard shortcuts (frequently arrow keys), but most of the people I’ve observed use the mouse for navigating, not the keyboard.NB: Eudora for Windows has toolbar buttons for next/previous message. You can set it up with Eudora for Macintosh but it’s a little clunky. Outlook has this for messages open in their own windows but not in the main list-of-messages window.Eudora has a keyboard shortcut for next/previous message. Outlook has a shortcut, but it’s different depending upon whether the index (list-of-messages) pane or the message pane is active. Thunderbird lets you use the up/down arrows, but in Threaded mode, you have to switch between left/right to view previous-/next-in-thread or up/down for previous/next thread.
- An easy way to visually indicate who the message was addressed to:
- TO me and only me
- TO me and other people
- CC me only
- CC me and other people
- BCC me (me not mentioned)
Ideally, I’d like to be able to set different colors for messages depending upon how they are addressed.
NB: Outlook lets you color code pretty easily. Google’s GMail shows different icons based on how you were addressed. If Thunderbird 2.0 allows you to group based on sender’s address book, then you could use labels to color code. (This does seem like a waste of the labelling capabilities, though.)
- Auto-suggest. If you are working in anything resembling tech support, you might have lots and lots of canned responses to common questions. Finding the right response might be tricky if you have lots to choose from. It would be nice to have filters able to suggest (with checkboxes or some such) probable responses, with the option to either send-as-is or edit. For example, a college webmaster could have a filter
“If the word ‘admissions’ is in the subject line, suggest the ‘graduate admissions’ response and the ‘undergraduate admissions’ response.”
I got to use a client with autosuggest (and had just such a filter) when I was webmaster at a major university. It was amazing. Auto-suggest can get you through email about ten times faster.
NB: This is Thunderbird bug 151925, the somewhat less useful but still valuable reply-with-template is bug 21210.
- A way to concatenate message conversations with the redundant quoted material stripped out. I think the way that Zest does is very interesting. NB: Eudora 6 does message concatenation and strips quotes if and only if you use preview mode. Gmail hides quoted material in a thread. Apple’s Mail.app and Thunderbird both pull messages in a thread to be next to each other, but don’t concatenate the messages.
- Automatic whitelisting. I want my email program to be able to recognize people I know: who are in my address book, who I have sent messages to, and who I’ve gotten mail from that I didn’t mark as junk. While these people should not get a “free pass”, since viruses now frequently forge addresses from people I know, I do want my spam filter to be more lenient for people I know.To make the automatic whitelisting useful, I’d like a filter condition
sender is someone I know
NB: Thunderbird 1.5 has a filter option “is in address book X”, where one of the options is “Collected Addresses”, but Thunderbird doesn’t actually seem to collect addresses for me.
- Filter actions that operate on attachments. I’d like to be able to move all attachments from people I don’t know into a “probable junk” folder.
- Filters that can score. With pass/fail filter conditions, it’s difficult to write good spam filters. Usually, messages with embedded images are spam — but not always. Usually, messages that don’t have me in the To or CC lines is spam — but not always.I want a filter action that will let me add/subtract points from a spam score, e.g.:
- add 100 points if the sender is someone I know
- subtract 50 points if the subject line contains Viagra
- subtract 80 points if the subject line starts with ADV
- subtract 40 points if the body contains 1-800
- subtract 1000 points if the body contains iframe src=cid:
and so on.
I want a filter condition that will check to see if the spam score is greater than/less than a value, so that I can do things like:
- if score<-100, delete message
- if score<15, assign to z-PossibleSpam category
Note that this is even more powerful if there is filter-by-filter import/export: people could share good spam rules, they could be posted on Web sites.
(I am leery of having spam rules hardwired into popular email programs — doing so gives the spammers a homogenous victim population that’s easy to target.)
I did some fiddling with a Visual Basic macro that does scoring (for Microsoft Outlook), and it was pretty deadly. Spambayes, which came along later, is also quite good, but is not particularly good at using information about who you know. SpamAssassin also does scoring and works pretty well.
NB: For Thunderbird, this is bug 151622. Note that if the built-in spam filters work well enough, this won’t be necessary.
- Easy importing of filters on a filter-by-filter basis.This would let people share the most effective filters.This sounds simple, but I think it is critically important. If spam filters are centrally distributed in some way — like if Microsoft builds them into Outlook, say — then the spammers will learn how to work around them. If everyone’s email filters are different, it will be much harder for the spammers to figure out how to work around them.NB: This is Thunderbird
- Connection to a collaborative URL filtering service. (This one is a little tougher, as I haven’t heard of a collaborative URL filter service yet.) At the 2004 spam conference, somebody made a casual comment that 95% of spam has a URL in it. This is not surprising, as the spammers have to have their customers contact them somehow.While you can’t just penalize all messages that have URLs in them, you could build up a database of URLs seen in spam. This wouldn’t help the first person who saw a particular URL, but it would help the second, third, and thirty-millionth.Presumably, the spammers would start to use unique URLs for each person, but that’s a bit more expensive. (Expensive is good. If it gets too expensive, the spammers can’t make money any more.) Furthermore, the scoring system could penalize URLs from spammy domains, even if it isn’t an exact match.
I want many other things, but these are the biggies. If you want to hear about all the other things I want in an email program, contact me.
Today the AP decided to change its style guide to drop the use of a hyphen in “e-mail”. I feel vindicated.
When I was writing my books, lo those many years ago, I bucked the prevailing style guides and left the hyphen out. The hyphen in “e-mail” just looked wrong to me. “Besides”, I said, “there aren’t any other words that use the pattern ‘<letter>-hyphen-<word>'”.
Well, I proved myself wrong shortly after that:
A is the A-list of who’s the “in crowd”,
B is for B-school to make Mamma proud.
C is for C-note (the gangster’s small change),
While D’s for D-day which cut Adolf’s range.
E is for E-mail, an electronic note,
F is for F-word (that daren’t be spoke).
G is for G-string that dancers must wear,
and H’s for H-bomb to fight the Red Scare.
I is for I-beam to make a strong fort,
and J’s for J-school to learn to report.
K is for K-9, the cop that goes woof,
while L’s for L-bracket (to hold on your roof).
M is for M-dash (the one that is long),
with N for N-dash (all over this song).
O is for O-ring of Space Shuttle tears,
Q is the Q-tips you stick in your ears.
R is for R-value home insulations,
S is for S-set used in German nations.
T is for T-shirt that Americans wear,
and U’s for the U-joint of auto repair.
V is for V-neck which looks rather dressy,
X is for X-ray which acts to undress ye.
Y is for none else but Y-chromosome,
and if I knew Z I could maybe go home.
But you probably noticed I slipped past a few
I left out the P and W.
M-dash and N-dash are sort of a cheat,
But say what you will, they do keep the beat.
But if you know how to make this song better,
Send me a rhyme for your favorite letter!
Other people pointed out F-4, K-12, K-car, K-mart, N-word, O-levels, P-Funk, P-Furs, P-channel and n-channel, T-ball, T-square, U-boat, V-day, W-2, X- and Y-chromosome, and Z-buffering.
It is common to do retrospectives at the end of the calendar year, but I’m more interested in looking forward. Here’s a prediction: ten years from now, it will be common, ordinary, and routine for people to use their cellphones’ camera to help them see. I expect that people will use them as magnifying glasses (though probably only to about 10x or 20x zoom), telescopes, and night vision enhancers.
Oh what the heck, since everybody else is doing it, here are my predictions for 2020:
- Essentially all cell phones will have built-in video cameras, GPS, and have voice controls.
- At least one country will nationalize music in some way, e.g. paying the music companies a per capita fee for their citizens every year. Some countries will strike copyright laws for music. Most just won’t bother enforcing copyright laws for music.
- Improved search + improved geo-location of social media streams will mean that it will be far easier to get information about your micro-neighbourhood. Think Google Trends or Google Flu or Twitter Trends, but for the five mile radius of where you are right now. (And, because of #1, you can get video.)
- Know where newspapers are right now, on the brink of death? That’s where TV will be in 2020 — squeezed between on-demand entertainment and crowd-generated news.
- The cancer five-year survival rate cure rate will be 90% for most cancers, and 40% for the most difficult ones (bone, brain, pancreas, and liver). Treatment will, unfortunately, still majorly suck for most patients.
- Mapping will extend to reconstruction of scenes based on user photos (like what Microsoft demonstrated at TED) in a big way. By 2020, 100% of San Francisco’s publicly accessible spaces (yes, including alleys) will be mapped, and about 35% of interior spaces. People at first will be quite upset that the world can “see into” their living room, but they will end up getting used to it.
- Marriage for same-sex couples will be recognized by the U.S. government.
- Know where newspapers were five years ago, sort of moseying down the path of death? That’s where universities will be in 2020. They will face pressure as superb educational content will become a commodity. Third-party organizations will jump into the mix to provide tutoring and certification, leaving non-research universities with little to offer aside from post-teen socialization and sports.
- 30% of the world electricity energy production will be solar in 2020. (It’s going to be one hell of a race between climate change and solar energy production, but I think solar energy will win. All the climate-change deniers will say, “See! Toldja so!”
- Data format description languages will overthrow XML. mean that data will get passed around in compact formats instead of in XML. (Yes, the DFDL might be in XML, but the data wouldn’t be.)
Okay, I admit it, #10 might just be wishful thinking.
Update: At the time I wrote this, I had not read up on the Google Nexus One phone, which I now find out has voice commands for just about everything. I guess prediction #1 about voice was under-optimistic!
I’m really sorry, but I moved from http://webfoot.com/blog to blog.webfoot.com, and the users are (hopefully only temporarily) lost. I’ll work on it, but it might be a little while.
Okay, I think users are back up. Let me know.
I had a very brief but very interesting talk with Prof. Margaret Burnett. She does research on gender and programming. at Oregon State University, but was in town for the International Conference on Software Engineering. She said that many studies have shown that women are — in general — more risk averse than men are. (I’ve also commented on this.) She said that her research found that risk-averse people (most women and some men) are less likely to tinker, to explore, to try out novel features in both tools and languages when programming.
I extrapolate that this means that risk-seeking people (most men and some women) were more likely to have better command of tools, and this ties into something that I’ve been voicing frustration with for some time — there is no instruction on how to use tools in the CS curriculum — but I had never seen it as a gender-bias issue before. I can see how a male universe would think there was no need to explain how to use tools because the figured that the guys would just figure it out on their own. And the most guys might — but most of the women and some of the men might not figure out how to use tools on their own.
In particular, there is no instruction on how to use the debugger: not on what features are available, not on when you should use a debugger vs. not, and none on good debugging strategy. (I’ve commented on that here.) Some of using the debugger is art, true, but there are teachable strategies – practically algorithms — for how to use the debugger to achieve specific ends. (For example, I wrote up how to use the debugger to localize the causes of hangs.)
Full of excitement from Prof. Burnett’s revelations, I went to dinner with a bunch of people connected to the research lab I did my MS research in. All men, of course. I related how Prof. Burnett said that women didn’t tinker, and how this obviously implied to me that CS departments should give some instruction on how to use tools. The guys had a different response: “The departments should teach the women how to tinker.”
That was an unsatisfying response to me, but it took me a while to figure out why. It suggests that the risk-averse pool doesn’t know how to tinker, while in my risk-averse model, it is not appropriate to tinker: one shouldn’t goof off fiddling with stuff that has a risk of not being useful when there is work to do!
(As a concrete example, it has been emotionally very difficult for me to write this blog post today. I think it is important and worthwhile, but I have a little risk-averse agent in my head screaming, screaming at me that I shouldn’t be wasting my time on this: I should be applying for jobs, looking for an immigration lawyer, doing laundry, or working on improving the performance of my maps code. In other words, writing this post is risky behaviour: it takes time for no immediate payoff, and only a low chance of a future payoff. It might also be controversial enough that it upsets people. Doing laundry, however, is a low-risk behaviour: I am guaranteed that it will make my life fractionally better.)
To change the risk-averse population’s behaviour, you would have to change their entire model of risk-reward. I’m not sure that’s possible, but I also think that you shouldn’t want to change the attitude. You want some people to be risk-seeking, as they are the ones who will get you the big wins. However, they will also get you the big losses. The risk-averse people are the ones who provide stability.
Also note that because there is such asymmetry in task completion time between above-median and below-median, you might expect that a bunch of median programmers are, in the aggregate, more productive than a group at both extremes. (There are limits to how much faster you can get at completing a task, but there are no limits to how much slower you can get.) It might be that risk aversion is a good thing!
There was a study I heard of second-hand (I wish I had a citation — anybody know?) that found that startups with a lot of women (I’m remembering 40%) had much MUCH higher survival rates than ones with lower proportions of women. This makes perfect sense to me; a risk-averse population would rein in the potentially destructive tendencies of a risk-seeking population.
Thus I think it does make sense to provide academic training in how to use tools. This should perhaps be coupled with some propaganda about how it is important to set aside some time in the future to get comfortable with tools. (Perhaps it should be presented as risky to not spend time tinkering with tools!)
UPDATE: There’s an interesting (though all-too-brief!) article that mentions differences in the biochemical responses to risk that men and women produce. It says that men produce adrenaline, which is fun. Women produce acetylcholine, which the article says pretty much makes them want to vomit. That could certainly change one’s reaction to risk..
Update: it turns out that lots of people have done exactly what I asked for: see Instruction-level Tracing:
Framework & Applications and the OCaml debugger. Cooool! (Thanks DanE!)
In my user studies, programmers used the debugger far less than I had expected. Part of that could perhaps be due to poor training in how to use a debugger — it is rare to get good training in how to use a debugger.
However, I think the answer is simpler than that: it is just plain boring and tedious to use a debugger. One guy did solve a thorny problem by stepping through the debugger, but he had to press “step over” or “step into” ninety times.
And when you are stepping, you must pay attention. You can’t let your mind wander, or you will miss the event you are watching for. I can’t be the only person who has done step, step, step, step, step, step, step, boom, “oh crap, where was I in the previous step?”
Omniscient debuggers are one way to make it less tedious. Run the code until it goes boom, then back up. Unfortunately, omniscient debuggers capture so much information that it becomes technically difficult to store/manage it all.
I suggest a compromise: store the last N contexts — enough to examine the state of variables back N levels, and to replay if desired.
I can imagine two different ways of doing this. In the first, the user still has to press step step step; the debugger saves only the state changes between the lines that the user lands on. In other words, if you step over the foo() method, the debugger only notes any state differences between entering and exiting the foo() method, not any state that is local to foo(). If the user steps into foo(), then it logs state changes inside foo().
In the other method, the user executes the program, and the debugger logs ALL the state changes (including in foo(), including calls to HashTable.add(), etc.). This is probably easier on the user, but probably slower to execute and requires more storage.
You could also do something where you checkpoint the state every M steps. Thus, if you get to the boom-spot and want to know where variable someVariable was set, but it didn’t change in the past N steps, you can
- look at all your old checkpoints
- see which two checkpoints someVariable changed between
- rewind to the earlier of the two checkpoints
- set a watchpoint on someVariable
- run until the watchpoint.
A while back, I hypothesized that women don’t go into computer science because it is a high-risk field. Today I want to share some anecdotal evidence from my own experience about how risky high-tech is. Since I turned 18, I have worked at many places, both as a contractor, summer intern, and regular full-time employee. Of the seven companies where I have a regular job, five ran out of money, one got bought, and one no longer makes the product I worked on. None of the companies I worked for were profitable when I left.
- NexGen (2 years). Bought by AMD. (This counts as an eventual success, but it took them eight years, three product cycles, and I-don’t-know-how-many-rounds-of-funding before they released their first product.)
- Cray Research (3 weeks). Bought by SGI, then sold to Tara Computer, which took over the Cray name.
- Data General (2 weeks). Bought by EMC.
- SGI (6 months). Filed for bankruptcy today.
- Apple (6 months). While the company still exists, they no longer make printers, which is the product I worked on.
- Sun Microsystems (6 months). In talks with IBM for IBM to buy Sun. Update: IBM didn’t buy Sun, but Oracle did.
- Triquest (1 month). Gone.
- Chicago Tribune (1 week). Still in business, but I wouldn’t bet on it being in business next year.
- EIT. Bought by VeriFone, which was then bought by HP. (This counts as a success!)
- Google. Still in business!
I realize that I’m probably on one long tail of the distribution, while my husband is on the other end. (Jim worked for Adobe for 16 years, and Adobe is still in business!) However, it shows that working in high-tech does have risks.
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »