steve kwan user experience designer

Humour journal, entry #7

(February 27th, 2007 - 10:22PM)

I was listening to a "Top 25 Web companies to watch" list, which recited 25 obscure Web micro-companies that are apparently going to completely change the world. All of these companies offer some variation of user-generated video content, cell phone software, or user-generated video content on your cell phone.

This, of course, is the flavour of the month: anything "user-generated" is in. It doesn't seem to matter if a company has a business plan or any possible way to generate revenue. Someone explain to me how a company that specializes in sharing personal video over cell phones is going to make money?

It's incredibly frustrating because we've already been through this before. Doesn't anyone remember 2001? I do. I remember the entire market tanking just as I was about to join the work force. And the big problems back then were stupid ideas, reckless enthusiasm and piles of venture capital. Now it's happening again.

When the dot com bubble burst in 2001, I was worried because I was about to get into the field. But now that I'm entrenched and my income is stable, I'm just amused.

Why do I find this funny? Probably because there's something comedic about watching people repeat the same mistake over and over again. Just like Sideshow Bob and the rakes. It's funny the first time, but repeating the mistake makes it funnier because it shows a pattern of stupidity. And as we know, we find this funnier if they show inferiority.

Humour journal, entry #6

(February 27th, 2007 - 9:15PM)

This season of 24 is so stupid it's funny.

I'm really disappointed, because the last season was so good. But in this season, they seem to have run out of ideas. It's evident because Jack Bauer's father has been worked into the storyline, and it's a sure sign of trouble when the main character's father makes an appearance. See Indiana Jones for an example.

The plot is so ridiculous that it's laughable, which says a lot because 24 has always been ridiculous. But this season it's a bit much. In case you don't follow the show, here's a paraphrased sample of this year's offerings.

Jack: "I tortured your husband to death. As you know, he was my brother. I'm sorry."

Woman: "That's okay. I was going to leave him anyway. Wanna hook up?"

That's paraphrased, but it's not far from the real dialogue.

So why is this funny? Well, it's just so stupid. It's incredibly stupid. And sometimes stupid things can be funny, especially when they want to be taken seriously. And people do take it seriously: apparently it's a real hit among Neoconservatives, who like 24 because it confirms their beliefs (see the Newsweek article). So what's even funnier than 24's awful dialogue is the fact that there exist people who indoctrinate themselves with it.

So while I'm amused by this season's awful storyline, I also find it funny that so many people think it's brilliant.

Humour journal, entry #5

(February 27th, 2007 - 8:17PM)

What else is there to say, really? The video says it all. Clearly some people don't learn from history. But what really did it for me is the Greeks hiding in the horse. Nice touch.

It's not funny because they're making fun of the people who let them by. It's funny because of the concept. Sometimes an idea alone is funny enough to carry a joke. In this case, the Trojan horse - and the thought of filling it with Greek soldiers - is completely absurd in the context of the twenty-first century. The lesson? Bisociation can be funny, especially when combining the old and new.

Humour journal, entry #4

(February 26th, 2007 - 6:50PM)

I was doing my laundry the other day. As I emptied my dirty laundry hamper into the washing machine, I noticed that I had filled my hamper with some used towels, gym clothes, shirts...and an apple core. I suppose the apple core wound up in there because I was going to throw it out, but in my absent-mindedness I threw it into the laundry hamper instead of the trash.

Donald Norman, Computer Scientist and Cognitive Scientist, calls this type of error a slip. A slip is basically an error that occurs when your subconscious gets mixed up. The particular type of slip I made above is called a description error: when you do the right action, but on the wrong item. The action (throwing out an apple core) was correct; the item (into the laundry hamper) was not.

The thing about slips is that they tend to be very amusing. My brother has a recurring slip: when he notices there's no more toilet paper in the bathroom, he'll go into the garage (where my parents keep the extra toilet paper), grab a roll, take it back to the bathroom, and throw the whole roll into the toilet. For those interested, this type of slip is called a capture error.

Because my area of interest is human-computer interaction (the study of how people interact with computers), I tend to find slips especially funny. Slips happen a lot when people try to use computers. Anyone who's ever accidentally sent a naughty e-mail to their grandmother can relate.

When developing software, you can learn a lot from slips. If users are making silly mistakes (the digital equivalent of tossing an apple core into a laundry hamper), you can modify the software to make these mistakes less likely. So in addition to being funny, slips can also be a learning experience.

So why did I find it funny that I threw my garbage into my laundry hamper? It's not that I enjoy separating fruit waste from stinky laundry. It's probably because sometimes it's easy to laugh at your own mistakes. And it's even easier if no one's around to mock you. And it's especially easy if you're supposedly a guru in the area of cognitive psychology, but you make the same silly mistakes as everyone else.

Oscar predictions vs results

(February 25th, 2007 - 11:07PM)

ACTOR -- LEADING

Predicted winner: Leonardo DiCaprio — BLOOD DIAMOND
Actual winner: Forest Whitaker — THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND
WRONG

ACTOR -- SUPPORTING

Predicted winner: Alan Arkin — LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE
Actual winner: Alan Arkin — LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE
CORRECT!

ACTRESS -- LEADING

Predicted winner: Helen Mirren — THE QUEEN
Actual winner: Helen Mirren — THE QUEEN
CORRECT!

ACTRESS -- SUPPORTING

Predicted winner: Jennifer Hudson — DREAMGIRLS
Actual winner: Jennifer Hudson — DREAMGIRLS
CORRECT!

ANIMATED FEATURE

Predicted winner: HAPPY FEET
Actual winner: HAPPY FEET
CORRECT!

ART DIRECTION

Predicted winner: PAN'S LABYRINTH
Actual winner: PAN'S LABYRINTH
CORRECT!

CINEMATOGRAPHY

Predicted winner: THE PRESTIGE
Actual winner: PAN'S LABYRINTH
WRONG

COSTUME DESIGN

Predicted winner: THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA
Actual winner: MARIE ANTOINETTE
WRONG

DIRECTING

Predicted winner: UNITED 93
Actual winner: THE DEPARTED
WRONG

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

Predicted winner: DELIVER US FROM EVIL
Actual winner: AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH
WRONG

DOCUMENTARY SHORT

Predicted winner: Winner! REHEARSING A DREAM
Actual winner: THE BLOOD OF YINGZHOU DISTRICT
WRONG

FILM EDITING

Predicted winner: Winner! BABEL
Actual winner: THE DEPARTED
WRONG

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

Predicted winner: Winner! PAN'S LABYRINTH
Actual winner: THE LIVES OF OTHERS
WRONG

MAKEUP

Predicted winner: Winner! APOCALYPTO
Actual winner: PAN'S LABYRINTH
WRONG

ORIGINAL SCORE

Predicted winner: BABEL
Actual winner: BABEL
CORRECT!

ORIGINAL SONG

Predicted winner: "Love You I Do" — DREAMGIRLS
Actual winner: "I Need to Wake Up" — AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH
WRONG

BEST PICTURE

Predicted winner: THE DEPARTED
Actual winner: THE DEPARTED
CORRECT!

SHORT FILM -- ANIMATED

Predicted winner: LIFTED
Actual winner: THE DANISH POET
WRONG

SHORT FILM -- LIVE ACTION

Predicted winner: WEST BANK STORY
Actual winner: WEST BANK STORY
CORRECT!

SOUND EDITING

Predicted winner: LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA
Actual winner: LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA
CORRECT!

SOUND MIXING

Predicted winner: DREAMGIRLS
Actual winner: DREAMGIRLS
CORRECT!

VISUAL EFFECTS

Predicted winner: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST
Actual winner: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST
CORRECT!

SCREENPLAY -- ADAPTED

Predicted winner: BORAT CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA FOR MAKE BENEFIT GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN
Actual winner: THE DEPARTED
WRONG

SCREENPLAY -- ORIGINAL

Predicted winner: LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE
Actual winner: LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE
CORRECT!

My score

12 out of 24, or 50%

Humour journal, entry #3

(February 20th, 2007 - 6:29PM)

I was at the Bread Garden for lunch. I had a cranberry juice, and was sitting down watching video on my iPod. I'd shaken my cranberry juice vigorously before I opened it, and had taken a few sips. I put it down, and a few moments later I picked it up again. I'd forgotten that I'd already opened the juice, so I picked it up and shook it vigorously. This resulted in red cranberry juice spraying all over myself and the floor. At the time I didn't find this particularly funny, but in retrospect it must have at least been funny to the other people in the Bread Garden.

I'm not sure why I found this funny. It was really a mess. But once I envisioned it from someone else's perspective, I realized it must have been funny. If there's a lesson here, it's that people don't often laugh at their own misfortune, but they do laugh at others'. If you view your own misfortune from someone else's point of view, it may seem more humorous.

What's wrong with PIPEDA

(February 19th, 2007 - 11:24PM)

PIPEDA (the Personal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act) is both a good thing and a bad thing. This is mainly because PIPEDA has two parts: the first relates to Personal Information Protection (the PIP), and the second relates to Electronic Documents (the ED).

The Electronic Documents legislation is much needed, as it gives e-mail and other digital documentation the legal strength it's needed for a long time. PIPEDA allows the government to use electronic and physical documents almost interchangeably, which is important considering how prevalent electronic documentation has become.

The Personal Information Protection legislation, on the other hand, is questionable at best. It really seems to be a knee-jerk response to the privacy bandwagon, and most of its requirements are barely enforceable. For example, PIPEDA treats all holders of personal information the same, regardless of their size. It expects an individual person to exercise the same level of care as a massive corporation when protecting the privacy of others. See this excerpt from SCHEDULE 1:

"Accountability for the organization's compliance with the principles rests with the designated individual(s), even though other individuals within the organization may be responsible for the day-to-day collection and processing of personal information. In addition, other individuals within the organization may be delegated to act on behalf of the designated individual(s)."

This is clearly written with the mega-corporation in mind, but the legislation applies just as strongly to a lone entrepreneur. I doubt that most one-man companies have a "designated individual" for managing privacy.

Although PIPEDA may be ideal, it's hardly realistic. Were every company, group and person to follow PIPEDA to the letter, the amount of wasted energy required would bring business to a total halt.

My company sometimes hits roadblocks with privacy legislation, and not always in ways that make sense. In one situation, a prospect told us that they couldn't use our software in the most efficient way possible, because doing so would require the software to access patron information, which would violate regional privacy legislation. This despite the fact that the patron information had already been provided to the institution at the patron's consent. But apparently, that data couldn't be shared between two systems in the same institution.

I'm not trying to downplay the importance of privacy. If you're entrusted with someone's personal information, you should do your best to protect it. But there comes a point where people have to take responsibility for their own personal information. If you scrawl your social insurance number on park benches across Canada, you shouldn't be surprised if it falls into the wrong hands. Or if you e-mail me your credit card number and someone hacks my account, I shouldn't be held liable. PIPEDA expects the recipients of personal information to be entirely responsible for the consequences of the giver's bad judgment. I don't want to be an unwilling steward for anybody's privacy protection.

The above is a slightly modified assignment for a BCIT course I'm taking.

Humour journal, entry #2

(February 19th, 2007 - 10:01AM)

I found this funny. Sorry if it's too naughty.

Image originally from here.

This picture reminds me of a guy I went to school with years ago. A scrawny white guy. He had a Japanese symbol tattooed on his body, and on his computer desktop as wallpaper. "It means 'wolf,'" he once explained to me. "It's a symbol with which I can really relate." I nodded my head, attempting to look impressed, or at least interested. But in the back of my mind, I was thinking, "YOU DON'T KNOW THAT! YOU DON'T SPEAK JAPANESE! HOW CAN YOU KNOW WHAT IT SAYS?"

I think I find the cartoon funny because it reminds me of this guy. It confirms what I'm already thinking: it's pretty silly to tattoo a symbol on your body if you aren't completely sure what it means.

Perhaps we find things funnier if we can relate them to events from the past. Having a previous context for humour makes us more likely to find it funny.

Miscellaneous updates to stevekwan.com

(February 16th, 2007 - 12:03AM)

I've added some new features to the site, such as:

• Permalinks/Digg this links. Here's an example. Currently the links only appear if you access a single post at a time. If you're viewing an entire month's worth of posts, the links won't show up.
• Proper feed reading by Technorati. It hadn't been indexing my posts for a long time.

I'd still like to add:

• Permalinks/Digg this links that appear regardless of how you view a post.
• Comments associated with posts, instead of just being listed on the side.

Spoofs on Apple's Mac vs PC ads

(February 14th, 2007 - 4:46PM)

Did you notice the new tag browse?

(February 9th, 2007 - 10:30PM)

The browse by tag page has been improved. Check it out. It's about time, too; the old version was really embarrassing considering I'm supposed to be an expert in archives.

It organizes postings by tag. And the tags are hierarchical. Anyone can tag all their postings, but it takes a real blogger to hierarchically tag them!

EAD humour

(February 7th, 2007 - 9:44PM)

I came across this while perusing the archival data of one of my clients.

Let me just clarify: this item is on file in a historic archives. Someone thought this had enough historical value to file it away, write up a description for it, and publish it to the world.

This record is encoded as EAD, but you don't need to know what EAD is to understand why this is funny.

<c02 level="item">
    <did>
        <unittitle>Papa John's Gift Certificate</unittitle>
        <container label="Box" type="Box">14</container>
    </did>
</c02>

Humour journal, entry #1

(February 2nd, 2007 - 7:27PM)

I've been taking a BCIT course called Humour Studies - Learning with and about Humour. The funniest part of the course, as you can imagine, is that I paid over $600 to take a course called Humour Studies.

But anyway, one of our assignments is to keep an ongoing journal of things that we've found funny. We have to explain why we found them funny, what we've learned from the experience, etc.

I've decided to post my entries on here, thus inflating my blog content while gaining BCIT credits. So without further ado, here's entry #1!

I was standing behind my co-worker the other day and noticed a sticker on the back of his sweater. It read, "SUPER SWEET." It looked like it had been peeled off a fruit label, and stuck to his sweater during a drunken night out. The poor sticker was extremely worn, and looked like it had been through the wash a few times, so I imagine it had been there for quite a while.

I found this quite amusing, probably for two reasons.

1. "SUPER SWEET" is not the way that people commonly label themselves. And with the exception of a classic excerpt from Dude, Where's My Car?, not many people would put a label like this on their backs. In all fairness, though, this co-worker of mine is pretty sweet. Dude! What's mine say?
2. This incident completely fits my mental stereotype of this co-worker. He's the kind of guy who is completely oblivious to the world around him. I'm not at all surprised that a sticker had been stuck to his sweater for so long without him noticing. I remember one time I asked him if he was going to vote in an upcoming Federal election, and he replied, "There's an election?"

I've learned a few things from this incident. First, this co-worker's friends are jerks. They put a sticker on his back and left it there for months. Second, things are funnier when they match your preconceived notions about people. If this co-worker weren't so oblivious, I probably wouldn't have been so amused about the sticker.

Sorry about the Dude, Where's My Car? reference. Hopefully that will be the last one in this journal.