Week 8 - Interoperability and Standards

W3Widgets

Problems trying to solve: Have a full-fledged client side application that uses technologies such as HTML and then packaged for distribution.

Obstacles to adaptation: the application is packages as zip file which can be difficult for some operating systems such as older Macs to unzip and utilize files. However, additional applications such as 7zip or WinRAR can be used to extract and edit files.

Weaknesses: Zip file must be created in a specific way and older Mac software would have issues zip files and default program.

Strengths: Open source software, developers can provide constant feedback and help to make better versions.

https://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/

http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2009/04/introduction_to.html

JSON

Problems trying to solve: provide stateful, real-time server-to-browser communication protocol without using plugins such as Flash or Java applets. Alternative for XML.

Obstacles to adaptation: Because of open source and security issues, this can be misused. However, the adaptability is good due to it being open source.

Weaknesses: There are no standard file extensions in JSON Schema. Unlike XML, JSON does not support comments. Some functionality/data types are not available in JSON. JSON cannot be formatted or styled like XML. Can be used to run JSON as JavaScript which is a security concern. Limited whitespace allowed.

Strengths: open source and language independent. It has low-overhead compared to XML.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Json

SOAP

Problems trying to solve: SOAP exchanges data across various browsers and operating system as it uses XML.

Obstacles to adaptation: Because of security, the messages can be larger than using other protocols. For example, financial messaging using SOAP can lead up to 4 times larger message compared to older protocols. However, this would provide higher security.

Weaknesses: HTTP without using ESB or Web Services Addressing results in only one client using the service. Slow parsing speed of XML and lack of standardization leads to use of other protocols.

Advantages: SOAP is neutral but most common implementation is with HTTP. SOAP with HTTP post/response does not require modification of firewall for communication. SOAP is available to XML.

Creating your own standards

A standard for a distributed system should follow a similar protocol like HTTP. Such a protocol would ease the transfer of data across various systems just like an email can be directed to various providers. The standard should be open source and have security features built in. Social systems must share from whom a message is coming along with a geographical location such as city for easier identification and tags such as common interest. These tags can be used to find people with similar interests or near geographical location. Dead links can be taken care of an automated script trying to find links along with a service where users can provide feedback.     

Week 8 - Thoughts

This is some heavy reading, which incolves some very technical details. Interesting to think aboput developing a protocol or standard for social system. the very nature of social system is to find people and connect to them and in some cases, meeting with people that we barely knew. However, email is a bit different where usually they are send to known people. One challenging task would be to provide accurate details in social system while not being too restricted. For example, social sites does not have strict rules on the type of picture a person can upload to their profile. They can upload the picture of their dog if they want to. However, if emails would have pictures of the sender, they would upload their own picture. Ho can a system be developed to keep it casual but have corect details? Maybe that is for future tudy.  

http://forum-informacje.com.pl/index.php?topic=558
- errornKag

"It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it!"

Do you mean that the way an e-reader device is used in the environment will be a more important consideration for comfortability (i.e., eye strain) than what e-reader device is used?

@Steve - not so much, although that is probably something to factor into any study. I mean that it is not important that it is an e-reader, but it is important how it is designed.

There are way more current and possible designs for e-readers than for p-readers (notwithstanding - or perhaps because of  - thousands of years of evolution) and, if any of the design factors make a difference (and I am sure most do), it is always possible to design them differently. It's significantly more complex than that, too, because of the rich interplay between design elements.

It's exactly the same issue as comparing e-learning and p-learning and expecting to find some universal qualitative difference in learning. It's a bit like saying all paintings are better than all drawings, or all blues music is better than all classical music. Makes no sense. We can probably fairly reliably find out how one particular design configuration compares with one other design configuration, and we can probably find out that some things (e.g. shining 100 lumens of light directly into someone's eyes) are (almost) always a bad idea for at least some kinds of activity, and we might even be able to discern some generalizable patterns that have held in the past but, unless they have held 100% of the time across all contexts, there is no reason to suppose that, given our capacity to alter the design, they will hold in the future. Of course, if we do find something is a universal problem, then the next step is to look for a solution. But it is no more sensible to investigate whether learning (or reading, or art) is better (or worse) with or without electronic media than it is to investigate whether it is better (or worse) with or without glue.

Based on your noting that there is a difference between direct and indirect light to the eye, would it be useful to research human interactions to visual displays?  In example, a cinema display of reflected light is a different interface to the eyes, from a digital display screen of the same size (your flashlight note). The majority of humans (with 1B+ smartphones) have adapted to digital displays. This adaptation to non-natural/virtual direct light has no biophysical change? or has exposure to such technologies been too short in our species timeline (or human lifetime) to investigate?