Efectividad en aplicaciones móviles

Releyendo los 12 tips para crear un sitio móvil amigable (12 Tips for Creating a Mobile-Friendly Website) recomendados por Jennifer Lonoff Schiff en CIO...
Algunos de los tips son previsibles y conocidos, alguno difícilmente realizable (Don't go overboard with Java[...script?];  "consider replacing bulky JavaScript libraries like jQuery Mobile with standalone JavaScript"). Pero en conjunto, no deja de ser una buena guía.
Detrás de la simplicidad y síntesis requerida por una aplicación móvil hay un monto de trabajo y conceptualización superior al usual "en otras eras" del desarrollo de aplicaciones, particularmente basados en dos características especialmente dadas en ellas: la vida de una aplicación puede ser considerablemente corta, y debe prevenirse su visualización sobre un número alto de clientes, formados por dos dimensiones concurrentes de actores: sistemas operativos diversos, y visualizadores (browsers) diversos. Y las diferentes versiones de sistema operativo y visualizadores...Sólo puede salvarse de esta matriz de conformidad una empresa que desarrolle aplicaciones para su propio uso...y fuerce el uso de un producto y una versión.
¿Es posible encarar una serie de proyectos móviles sin contar con un marco de recursos que simplifique el trabajo de desarrollo?
Pero un marco tal, en muchos puntos entrará en conflicto con este tipo de recomendaciones, fundamentalmente aquellas que hacen a la construcción en sí misma. En mi caso, trabajando con plantillas de Webclient, existe una oportunidad de refactorización, en la propia capa intermedia. Webclient recurre a Dojo (aplicaciones web) o Sencha (aplicaciones móviles). Si bien técnicamente podría recurrir a javascript personalizado, mucho más económico y adaptado a la recomendación ("Avoid excessive JavaScript in your mobile websites where possible, because it runs differently across different browsers and devices," says Hume. "Even different models of the same phone can often behave quite differently when it comes to JavaScript"), esto requeriría algo así como reinventar la rueda, dedicando un tiempo precioso. Más económico es revisar las propias plantillas cuando resulte necesario, y buscar medios de simplificar su solicitud de servicios del marco Dojo/Sencha. Un compromiso entre resultado final y optimización.

A propósito de liderazgos, Twitter

Alejandro Laso, en El Confidencial, enfoca el futuro de Twitter, viéndolo como un interrogante sobre su gerenciamiento, con dificultades todavía para hacer la empresa rentable. Dadas las condiciones presentes de guerra desatada por posiciones en los negocios en la web, Twitter está bajo mira...:

Puede presumir de tener 200 millones de usuarios que suben diariamente 50 millones de tuits. En el ‘boom’ de las redes sociales, Twitter ha logrado posicionarse como una de las más populares, aunque sus finanzas dejan mucho que desear. La plataforma de microblogging sólo generó unos ingresos de 30 millones de dólares durante 2010 por publicidad, una cantidad irrisoria al lado de los 1.275 millones que facturó Facebook -600 millones de usuarios- y los 5.737 millones de Google.
Y es que los comienzos de la red social de microblogging ya fueron complejos. La idea surgió a principios de la pasada década con otro nombre y otros protagonistas, pero poco más tarde fracasó porque Internet no tenía la suficiente madurez como para entender un concepto tan innovador. Tuvo que ser en 2006 cuando una pequeña start-up de Silicon Valley fundada por Jack Dorsey llamada ‘twttr’ –luego rebautizada como Twitter- rescató esas ideas originales, las mejoró hasta revolucionar la forma de comunicación con mensajes de 140 caracteres.
Su popularización vino de la mano de famosos, periodistas y profesionales influyentes que quisieron utilizar esta red para comunicarse. Gracias a ellos, la red de microblogging ha conseguido popularizarse y sumar millones de adeptos los últimos meses, aunque la compañía todavía se enfrenta al gran dilema de no saber cómo rentabilizarlos.
El problema es que su modelo de negocio es muy innovador y complejo al mismo tiempo. Para empezar Twitter no tiene nada que ver con Facebook. Es un sistema más complejo que además se ha convertido en una de las empresas pionera en orientar su modelo de negocio a los dispositivos móviles. Precisamente, esta decisión empresarial se ha convertido en la clave de su éxito. Gracias al ‘boom’ de los smartphones, la inmediatez de sus mensajes se ha convertido en un arma con la que Facebook todavía no puede competir. Twitter se ha abierto camino en un terreno virgen y en poco tiempo se ha convertido en una agencia de noticias, potenciando el periodismo social, y que ha favorecido que se produzcan hechos tan relevantes como las revueltas en el mundo árabe.
Sin embargo, la ventaja del uso en los ‘smartphones’ también se ha convertido en un ancla para las finanzas de Twitter. La publicidad a través de los teléfonos móviles todavía está en pañales y aún debe pasar un lustro para que las compañías realmente puedan encontrar la fórmula mágica para vender bien en este soporte. Entre el caos del universo de las ‘apps’, los usuarios siguen prefiriendo acceder a través de navegadores, donde la publicidad todavía no ha conseguido adaptarse. Quizá por eso la compañía ha hecho una oferta por Tweetdeck -una aplicación online orientada a Twitter-, con la que la pretende vender más anuncios en los dispositivos tradicionales.
Y por si el sistema de anuncios en móviles aún no está nada logrado, otras fuentes apuntan a que el verdadero problema de Twitter radica en su gestión. La revista Fortune asegura que la red social tiene problemas de liderazgo y se apoya en declaraciones de uno de sus empleados que asegura que el cargo de consejero delegado “parece una puerta giratoria” de la cantidad de personas que han pasado por ahí. El resultado es que en poco más de dos años, Twitter ha cambiado tres veces de CEO, un dato que haría que se le erizasen los pelos a cualquier dueño de una multinacional.
Hoy por hoy, el rumbo de sus 500 empleados todavía está pendiente de definirse. A la red de microblogging se le acaba el tiempo. Su número de usuarios a nivel mundial se ha disparado, pero algunas fuentes, como la consultora ComScore, aseguran que en Estados Unidos el crecimiento se está frenando. Mientras tanto la competencia sigue creciendo de forma sólida. La compra de Skype por parte de Microsoft y las futuras salidas a bolsa de LinkedIn y Facebook, se han convertido en una verdadera cuenta atrás para que Twitter encuentre su rumbo.

¿Extensión o profundidad?

Nicholas G. Carr escribe el 5 de junio en The Wall Street Journal a propósito del estilo de pensamiento que promueve Internet, sin mucho optimismo (Does the Internet Make You Dumber?). Carr se ha ocupado gradualmente con más atención sobre el impacto de Internet en la elaboración de pensamiento, y tanto sus definiciones como las críticas que mereciera, dan lugar para mucho mayor trabajo que el que le destinaré hoy. Qué dice Carr en su artículo:

The Roman philosopher Seneca may have put it best 2,000 years ago: "To be everywhere is to be nowhere." Today, the Internet grants us easy access to unprecedented amounts of information. But a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that the Net, with its constant distractions and interruptions, is also turning us into scattered and superficial thinkers.
The picture emerging from the research is deeply troubling, at least to anyone who values the depth, rather than just the velocity, of human thought. People who read text studded with links, the studies show, comprehend less than those who read traditional linear text. People who watch busy multimedia presentations remember less than those who take in information in a more sedate and focused manner. People who are continually distracted by emails, alerts and other messages understand less than those who are able to concentrate. And people who juggle many tasks are less creative and less productive than those who do one thing at a time.

The common thread in these disabilities is the division of attention. The richness of our thoughts, our memories and even our personalities hinges on our ability to focus the mind and sustain concentration. Only when we pay deep attention to a new piece of information are we able to associate it "meaningfully and systematically with knowledge already well established in memory," writes the Nobel Prize-winning neuroscientist Eric Kandel. Such associations are essential to mastering complex concepts.

When we're constantly distracted and interrupted, as we tend to be online, our brains are unable to forge the strong and expansive neural connections that give depth and distinctiveness to our thinking. We become mere signal-processing units, quickly shepherding disjointed bits of information into and then out of short-term memory.

In an article published in Science last year, Patricia Greenfield, a leading developmental psychologist, reviewed dozens of studies on how different media technologies influence our cognitive abilities. Some of the studies indicated that certain computer tasks, like playing video games, can enhance "visual literacy skills," increasing the speed at which people can shift their focus among icons and other images on screens. Other studies, however, found that such rapid shifts in focus, even if performed adeptly, result in less rigorous and "more automatic" thinking.

In one experiment conducted at Cornell University, for example, half a class of students was allowed to use Internet-connected laptops during a lecture, while the other had to keep their computers shut. Those who browsed the Web performed much worse on a subsequent test of how well they retained the lecture's content. While it's hardly surprising that Web surfing would distract students, it should be a note of caution to schools that are wiring their classrooms in hopes of improving learning.

Ms. Greenfield concluded that "every medium develops some cognitive skills at the expense of others." Our growing use of screen-based media, she said, has strengthened visual-spatial intelligence, which can improve the ability to do jobs that involve keeping track of lots of simultaneous signals, like air traffic control. But that has been accompanied by "new weaknesses in higher-order cognitive processes," including "abstract vocabulary, mindfulness, reflection, inductive problem solving, critical thinking, and imagination." We're becoming, in a word, shallower.

In another experiment, recently conducted at Stanford University's Communication Between Humans and Interactive Media Lab, a team of researchers gave various cognitive tests to 49 people who do a lot of media multitasking and 52 people who multitask much less frequently. The heavy multitaskers performed poorly on all the tests. They were more easily distracted, had less control over their attention, and were much less able to distinguish important information from trivia.

The researchers were surprised by the results. They had expected that the intensive multitaskers would have gained some unique mental advantages from all their on-screen juggling. But that wasn't the case. In fact, the heavy multitaskers weren't even good at multitasking. They were considerably less adept at switching between tasks than the more infrequent multitaskers. "Everything distracts them," observed Clifford Nass, the professor who heads the Stanford lab.

It would be one thing if the ill effects went away as soon as we turned off our computers and cellphones. But they don't. The cellular structure of the human brain, scientists have discovered, adapts readily to the tools we use, including those for finding, storing and sharing information. By changing our habits of mind, each new technology strengthens certain neural pathways and weakens others. The cellular alterations continue to shape the way we think even when we're not using the technology.

The pioneering neuroscientist Michael Merzenich believes our brains are being "massively remodeled" by our ever-intensifying use of the Web and related media. In the 1970s and 1980s, Mr. Merzenich, now a professor emeritus at the University of California in San Francisco, conducted a famous series of experiments on primate brains that revealed how extensively and quickly neural circuits change in response to experience. When, for example, Mr. Merzenich rearranged the nerves in a monkey's hand, the nerve cells in the animal's sensory cortex quickly reorganized themselves to create a new "mental map" of the hand. In a conversation late last year, he said that he was profoundly worried about the cognitive consequences of the constant distractions and interruptions the Internet bombards us with. The long-term effect on the quality of our intellectual lives, he said, could be "deadly."

What we seem to be sacrificing in all our surfing and searching is our capacity to engage in the quieter, attentive modes of thought that underpin contemplation, reflection and introspection. The Web never encourages us to slow down. It keeps us in a state of perpetual mental locomotion.

It is revealing, and distressing, to compare the cognitive effects of the Internet with those of an earlier information technology, the printed book. Whereas the Internet scatters our attention, the book focuses it. Unlike the screen, the page promotes contemplativeness.

Reading a long sequence of pages helps us develop a rare kind of mental discipline. The innate bias of the human brain, after all, is to be distracted. Our predisposition is to be aware of as much of what's going on around us as possible. Our fast-paced, reflexive shifts in focus were once crucial to our survival. They reduced the odds that a predator would take us by surprise or that we'd overlook a nearby source of food.

To read a book is to practice an unnatural process of thought. It requires us to place ourselves at what T. S. Eliot, in his poem "Four Quartets," called "the still point of the turning world." We have to forge or strengthen the neural links needed to counter our instinctive distractedness, thereby gaining greater control over our attention and our mind.

It is this control, this mental discipline, that we are at risk of losing as we spend ever more time scanning and skimming online. If the slow progression of words across printed pages damped our craving to be inundated by mental stimulation, the Internet indulges it. It returns us to our native state of distractedness, while presenting us with far more distractions than our ancestors ever had to contend with.

La evolución de estas ideas en Carr es muy interesante. Las críticas que recibiera también lo son. Éste es un tema de importancia, no sólo porque la introducción de la tecnología en la educación se apoya fundamentalmente en los elementos que Carr descalifica, sino porque ese estilo de trabajo ha ganado un lugar principal en cada uno de nosotros. Será tema en posteriores oportunidades...

Leído en primer lugar en The Atlantic, apuntado por Niraj Chokshi, quien acota una referencia al escrito de Theodore P. Zanto y Adam Gazzaley (Neural Suppression of Irrelevant Information Underlies Optimal Working Memory Performance).

La fotografía: Nicholas Carr, en Wikipedia (irónicamente)

Cloud Computing bajo fuego (¿o un sistema de responsabilidad?)

Publicado el 11 de octubre en New York Times: "algunos" usuarios de T-Mobile y Danger, subsidiarias de Microsoft, perderían la información personal en sus cuentas (agenda, fotos, listas de tareas):

The cellphone provider T-Mobile and Danger, a subsidiary of Microsoft and one of T-Mobile’s partners, said over the weekend that a technical glitch in their computer systems would probably result in some customers losing their personal information like contact names, phone numbers and digital photos.
T-Mobile and Danger operate what has become known as a cloud computing service to store important information for their customers. In theory, such a service should make life easier on people by leaving the management of complex computing systems to the pros and having data held in sophisticated computing centers. But when problems crop up, embarrassment ensues.

[...] Employees at the companies have worked over the weekend to try and fix these problems, but, as of Sunday afternoon, there were still some data and software application service flaws.

“Our teams continue to work around the clock in hopes of discovering some way to recover this information,” T-Mobile said in a statement on its Web site. “However, the likelihood of a successful outcome is extremely low.”

Lo que inicialmente alerta sobre la confiabilidad de la computación "en la nube", adquiere un color más personalizado en otros comentarios: En el curso de una actualización de hardware, no se habrían hecho respaldos adecuados (la hipótesis es algo más cruda: no se habrían hecho, llanamente):

By now the word is out on the street. Microsoft/Danger has most likely lost everyone’s personal info including contacts, notes, calendar entries, to-dos, etc. The question remains: How did this happen? Microsoft is a big software company, they’re well versed in the enterprise world and should have systems in place that allow them to weather any sort of issue like this. Of course everyone (T-Mobile, Microsoft/Danger) hasn’t come out with any details on the cause of the failure, but we’ve got some theories and rumors floating around.

Currently the rumor with the most weight is as follows:
Microsoft was upgrading their SAN (Storage Area Network aka the thing that stores all your data) and had hired Hitachi to come in and do it for them. Typically in an upgrade like this, you are expected to make backups of your SAN before the upgrade happens. Microsoft failed to make these backups for some reason. We’re not sure if it was because of the amount of data that would be required, if they didn’t have time to do it, or if they simply forgot. Regardless of why, Microsoft should know better. So Hitachi worked on upgrading the SAN and something went wrong, resulting in it’s destruction. Currently the plan is to try to get the devices that still have personal data on them to sync back to the servers and at least keep the data that users have on their device saved.

We’ve heard this from what appears to be several sources and it seems to hold weight. Needless to say it all boils down to one thing: Microsoft did not have a working backup.

How this happens in today’s day and age is beyond belief. Hundreds of thousands of customers that generate millions of dollars in revenue means you back their stuff up, in triplicate. You test these backups regularly, and you move a copy off site that doesn’t get touched except in case of an emergency (i.e. right now). The head of the mobile division (and person in charge of what’s left of Danger) is Roz Ho, who has been at Microsoft for 18 years. You would think she’d know something about how to run a business.

What does this mean for the future of the Sidekick? Unless Microsoft pulls a miracle out of thin air the Sidekick is dead. People are already jumping ship to other phones with this news, and the exposure of how inept Microsoft is when it comes to the mobile world is huge. If Microsoft can’t continue to run Danger, a company that was ground-breaking and solidly built, how can we expect anything from the Windows Mobile department?

(Comentado en Hiptop3.com, un sitio dedicado a Sidekick).
Otras referencias: Om Malik, y Eric Zeman, en Information Week.
Zeman saca la conclusión genérica: usa la nube, y haz tus backups:

T-Mobile isn't alone in the service they provide. Other mobile companies, such as Google, Apple, Palm, and Microsoft, have cloud-based data management systems that users can take advantage of. I think the bottom line here is pretty clear. Cloud storage can certainly provide for a back-up that's mostly trustworthy, but making sure you back-up data locally can prevent real disasters.

Algo más sobre la orientación a la Web en la construccion de aplicaciones

Un post de Stefan Tilkov, seguramente ajeno a la discusión que generara Michael Braude, refuerza el criterio de prestar atención a las aplicaciones creadas para la Web. Redondeando esas ideas, Tilkov, que hace tiempo que opta por posts minimalistas, por primera vez dedica varios párrafos al tema:

I recently noticed more and more often how badly applications within the typical large-scale enterprise suck, and how much they would profit from some basic Web sanity applied to them. But for some reason, many enterprise software developers, whether they’re working with the .NET platform or with Java (more common among our customers), still believe that their software is different from what people use on the Web.

I’ve become convinced that you need something like an Eclipse RPC or Swing app only in very exceptional circumstances, most of which are usually not there in typical enterprise apps. The benefits of being able to centrally change something without having to deploy some sort of client alone usually outweigh any perceived or real disadvantages. But even if you don’t care about this aspect (because of the super-smart software roll-out solution you have), I still think that there are many more benefits of building Web apps:

• Your users probably don’t care much about the things you think they do. They basically want to find information, enter some data, hit a button, enter some more data, and be done with it. They don’t care about being able to use the right mouse button, don’t care for dragging and dropping things, and entirely happy with a pretty basic design.
• Even if you want to add some of these things, there are pretty easy to do nowadays with simply CSS and Ajax magic (no need for anything fancy like Air or Silverlight or Flash)..

But even if you buy into these arguments, many people still build Web apps that suck. Both within the enterprise as well as on the Web, I think good Web apps expose some, or ideally all of these characteristics:

• There are meaningful “entry points” into the app - URIs. (No, I’m not going to mention the R-word.) It’s simply entirely unacceptable for a Web app to expose only a single URI, break the “Back” button, and disallow linking. Frameworks that don’t support URIs for application concepts, such as every customer, order, contact report, document etc. should simply be banned.
• Application boundaries are a concern to developers, not users. The Web is about linking stuff together, without any concern about application boundaries. There’s absolutely no reason why you shouldn’t be able to follow a link in your CRM application that takes you to a product page in your online catalog, or from a customer record to the information about when they last logged in to the Web site, or from a page that’s part of a complex business process UI to the appropriate documentation and on to the discussion group where you can tell everybody how much it sucks.
• Documents are accessible in a standard way. The idea of accessing any kind of document, such as an insurance application form that’s been scanned in, a letter sent to a business partner last year, or a contract with a business partner, by any other means than an HTTP GET is just stupid.

In other words: Many web frameworks, especially those within the Java space, try to support the development of desktop applications that are delivered over the Web as opposed to “web sites”, and I believe this idea is deeply flawed: Any Web application should be measured against the criteria that are used to judge web sites.

If you are an enterprise developer building applications, I suggest that you consider turning them into web sites instead. Why not do what makes your users happy for a change?