View low bandwidth version

Author Archive for alan

Aptivate Speaking at Africa Gathering, London

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

africa gathering logoI (Alan) am going to be talking at Africa Gathering London about the reciprocal relationships between participation and IT.

Here’s the synopsis… (although Africa Gathering has previously been described as an “unconference” so I may be tempted to slip into a bit of “unpresentation” if the situation warrants it).

The reciprocal relationship between ICTs and Participation

Over the last few decades of software engineering there is a rising tide of emphasis on the value of participation. The growth of the “Agile” software methodologies is a good example. The finding, which really shouldn’t be that surprising, is that participation makes better software. Participation with the client, with the users with the
stakeholders etc.

Seven years ago, at the start of Aptivate, that’s how we saw participation. As a means to creating better software. Over the last year we have seen that relationship reverse. IT is a means for better participation. It’s not just that new technologies like web 2.0 enable people to collaborate. Engaging in software projects themselves are excellent excuses for participation and human development. Finally, the dog is wagging the tail again and not the other way round.

Africa Gathering will be in London on the 2nd and 3rd of July. Get your tickets now while there’s still some left! For more information see the Africa Gathering site.

The (ongoing) need for speed

Monday, June 21st, 2010
Jakob Nielsen

Jakob Nielsen

13 years ago Jakob Nielsen wrote an important article stating that one of the most significant factors in web usability is speed.

In the work that we do, designing web applications that are used in developing countries, we have taken this advice very much to heart.

13 years later Jakob Nielsen has felt the need to write a new version of that article again. And I am glad he has! Despite the roll out of broadband web authors are still creating sites that are slow, although for different reasons, according to Jakob.

In the original article Jakob said that large images were the main culprit in causing slow web pages. Now he says, with the advent of broadband, large images are not the main problem.

Interestingly, with the sites we look at and the connection speeds we deal with, large images still are one of the main contributing factors to slow sites.

Jakob now lays the blame on too many fancy widgets.

I would agree with Jakob here. In my experience the size of javascript is now rivalling that of the large images for the sites we’re interested in.

The research into user interface response times is as true now as it was back in 1968 when it was done. From Nielsen’s article, remember these times:

  • 0.1 seconds gives the feeling of instantaneous response — that is, the outcome feels like it was caused by the user, not the computer.
  • 1 second keeps the user’s flow of thought seamless. Users can sense a delay, and thus know the computer is generating the outcome, but they still feel in control of the overall experience and that they’re moving freely rather than waiting on the computer.
  • 10 seconds keeps the user’s attention. From 1–10 seconds, users definitely feel at the mercy of the computer and wish it was faster, but they can handle it. After 10 seconds, they start thinking about other things, making it harder to get their brains back on track once the computer finally does respond.

A 10-second delay will often make users leave a site immediately.

Now consider the implications of these times in conjunction with your users’ connection speed, particularly if they happen to be in the developing world.

(see also our web design guidelines for low bandwidth connections.)

Alan’s Random Idea

Saturday, June 19th, 2010

You are probably familiar with Moore’s Law – that every year or so the power of computers doubles. I have a theory too, well… more a hypothesis…. ok let’s call it a “Random Idea”  – about progress in software.

Imagine for a moment you’re an engineer working on hard-drive design. Your goal is obvious – you want to cram more stuff in less area on a disk. You want it to work faster and for mobile devices in particular, use less power. It might not be easy to achieve but you know what you’re trying to do.

Imagine you’re a chip designer. What are your goals? You want to make chips with more stuff in less area, that work faster and use less power.
Alans Random Idea Graph
So while Moore’s Law states that the hardware capability follows a geometric increase, Alan’s Random Idea says that software capability increases linearly.

Imagine you’re working on the Microsoft Excel team. What’s your goal? You can already embed the kitchen sink in a cell. What are you going to make it do next? Put the cells in a cube instead of a grid? (Hey.. that’s actually quite a mad idea… hmm… that’s another blog post).

The goals for software, for what we want to do with computers, require more imagination. So REAL software capability progresses linearly.

The area between Moore’s curve and mine I call “guff“. The not-so essential stuff we waste all our computing power on.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. Do you remember DOS? That thing we had before Windows? Even on an old DOS machine you can run WordPerfect, the word processor and Visicalc the spreadsheet. I bet you could even run an email program on it. A lot of the business value you get from a computer in most small businesses is in doing email, writing documents and working out things in spreadsheets.

Guff, the Great Leap and the Bicycle

The Brompton folding bicycle is a classic in design. Beautifully engineered and fantastically functional. People love Bromptons. You could own one for 10 years and it wouldn’t even lose 10% of its value. They’re expensive too.
A Great Leap Bike
At the other end of the spectrum we have the “Cambridge Bicycle“. Cambridge must be the world capital of bicycle theft. The un-written rule in Cambridge is you should spend more on your lock than on the bike. And most people don’t like to spend more than £20 on a lock. The bikes are atrocious. New-comers to Cambridge at first cower away when they see a typical bike worried that just being near the rusting, brake-less thing might pre-dispose them to having a nasty accident.

However, from a distance… a long distance… (like out in space), the difference in capability between someone with a Brompton and a Cambridge Bike is a lot less than that between having a Cambridge bike and having none at all. However terrible a Cambridge bike may be, it’s already made the “Great Leap“.

The same is true of the DOS machine, which is the Cambridge Bicycle of the of the computing world. It’s also already made the Great Leap between having no computer and having something useful. Moore’s Law means that the cost of making the Great Leap becomes, at least in theory, incredibly cheap. The current crop of mobile phones have enough processing power to run a business. In a couple of years time they will be throw-away items.

There are many people in the world who are seriously constrained by resources, who are living on just a few dollars a day. Perhaps Moore’s Law and Alan’s Random Idea might mean they have a chance, if they can get by without the guff, of making a great leap.

This was the gist of a last minute lightning talk I gave at SPA2010.

R&D: Robots and Development

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

The Samfya Resource Centre is a telecentre (Internet cafe) run by young women in Samfya, Zambia for other local young women – a component of Camfed’s “CAMA” network. As part of our ongoing support for the Samfya Resource Centre, we have sent them robots.

drawbot

(c) Fatuma Iseje

Why robots? As a child I grew up programming the Sinclair ZX81. A small computer about the size of a book, with a touch-(in)sensitive membrane keyboard and 1kB of memory. With computers we spend long hours staring at the screen interacting with a virtual world made of intangible pixels. I remember being constantly frustrated that my computer couldn’t do anything in the REAL world. It couldn’t turn lights on and off, it couldn’t move and back then it couldn’t even makes noises. In fact I killed the poor thing when I dropped a soldering iron through the CPU while trying to interface it to my physical world.

It’s all different now. With the advent of devices like the Arduino it’s now easy and cheap to get the computer to reach out into our world. And we can reach into its world. Not only does an Arduino let us physically interact with the computer it can also be automonous. We can make things that interact with us without needing the computer attached to the other end of its USB umbilical cord.

For those that haven’t come across it yet, an Arduino is a simple micro-controller board. OK… what’s so amazing about that, there’s been micro-controller boards around for decades? Well, a few things. Firstly it has a USB port so you can easily connect it to your computer. It has its own simple programming environment using a variant of the C programming language. So it’s not dumbed down at all – no visual programming environment or anything like that. And critically there is a large on-line community eager to share and support people who do not come from a technical background. Its design is open source, it’s cheap (£20) and you can find even cheaper clones.

This exploding field called “Physical Computing” is making computing more fun, more compelling and also sometimes more useful.

Ok robots might be fun, but why send them to Zambia?

The computer used to be like a calculator on steroids. It could “compute” things. If you knew a bit about SIN or COS you could make it draw a circle. Or calculate a volume. Now, although computers are enormously more powerful than the Sinclair ZX81, most of us use them like some mash-up of a TV and a phone. They give us access to information and lets us communicate. These are important and useful functions. But I worry most of us are in danger of treating our computers like new cars – like devices with “no user serviceable parts inside“.  Instead of seeing them as tools that we can fix, modify, improve, re-invent and tailor to our needs.

It’s more than that. Computers aren’t just useful for the stuff they do. I believe that programming computers, tinkering with them, making electronic circuits and building robots builds highly transferable skills. Critical thinking, logical and abstract reasoning and problem solving. In addition, programming an Arduino makes you a dab hand at searching the Internet.

I got into robots at BuildBrightonBrightonRobot – the Brighton hacker-spaces based out of The Skiff – and in particular through Steve Carpenter’s amazing kits.

Eva with the Drawbot - (c) Fatuma Iseje

As an introduction to robotics, we’ve used the “DrawBot” packaged up by Steve with excellent instructions. How complicated and expensive do you think an autonomous drawing robot would be? How about 6 components that require no soldering costing about £3?

Steve has also designed a great robot kit based around the Arduino – the BoxBot. The kit is designed using the Interlocking T-Bolt Construction method, a cost-effective technique for low volume manufacture. With servos and everything you need minus the Arduino, the kit’s about £60. It’s a very flexible kit, you can bolt sensors or motors all over it – but this is not Lego. You need to drill holes in it.

Reading the educational posts about robotics I can see that from a teacher’s point of view an Arduino and the BoxBot may not be ideal. They don’t neatly fit into lesson plans. They don’t just leap into life in a way that keeps a lesson of 30+ students moving along. They take a bit more application and research to use. But unlike Lego, Meccano and other modular systems, they blur the distinction between the kit and the rest of the world. Once you’re empowered to drill holes and wire up your BoxBot you find you’re up for drilling holes and wiring up anything.

Using robots in this context is an experiment for us. We don’t know how it will go. But it’s an experiment the young women of the Samfya Resource Centre are excited about.

We’ll keep you posted on the progress of our latest bit of R&D.

Hi” and “Mulishani” to Bridget, Everlyn, Fatuma, Mary, Mildred and Penelope at the SRC from the Aptivate gang!

Getting Ready for Crisis Camp London – Day 2

Thursday, January 28th, 2010
Crisis Camp London

Crisis Camp London

We’re getting ready for the second Crisis Camp London day, this Saturday, at the London Knowledge Lab.

Considering how quickly last Saturday was put together we had a great turn out. We’re hoping for, and expecting, an even larger turn out this time.

We’re getting out all the laptops, network gear, and spare projectors we can find. We’ve got enough flip-charts to paper the Albert Hall. I even heard that Domino’s were considering sponsoring the pizza again – and with added vegan options too. Many thanks to them!

We’re on conference calls to the US Crisis Camps and projects. We’re part of a strong team looking after the organisation, infrastructure and facilitation of the London event.

It really is quite something the speed with which this is coming together and the level of interest and motivation. This looks set to become an important movement.

If you are technical (eg. an IT project manager, a coder, a user experience person) or have relief experience and want to help Crisis Camp London support Haiti, then please come along.

You can also help by printing out and displaying the Crisis Camp London Poster

#CrisisCampLDN

Crisis Camp Haiti – London

Friday, January 22nd, 2010

Following in the example in the US, Crisis Camp has come to London!

The first “work day” will be Saturday 23rd January… that’s tomorrow.

10am at the London Knowledge Lab.

It’s going to be a cross between a BarCamp and a HackDay. The purpose is to allow volunteers to contribute to technical projects that will help the relief efforts in Haiti. In the first instance these projects will be largely IT related.

Aptivate are supporting Crisis Camp. They’ve let me (Alan) help organise and facilitate the event on work time (thanks guys!!!). And Martin, one of our great software engineers will be coming along tomorrow to get involved… and bring projectors, laptops and networking gear. He’s got a big rucksack and is strong. (But if anyone is coming down from Cambridge and wants to help him carry some equipment, please get in touch).

Aptivate have also bought a heap of stationery for the project teams – flip charts, pens, index cards – we’re showing our Agile roots. Low-bandwidth High-value facilitation tools.

If you’d like to follow what’s going here are the links:

Twitter “hashtag”: #crisiscampldn
Twitter account: @crisiscampLDN

Crisis Camp London wiki: http://wiki.crisiscommons.org/wiki/Crisis_Camp_London

And if you would like to come along and help out – which I hope you do – you can register here:

http://crisiscamphaiti-london.eventbrite.com/

Crisis Camp Haiti – London is one of the international Crisis Camps organized in support of Haiti.

The day is dedicated to working on Crisis Commons projects, hoping to make life easier for people on the ground by doing what we can do from here. Common tasks are programming, working on maps, and helping to gather information from around the web into usable forms.

Please come if you think you can help in any way, even simple things like helping peoplewho are not at the camp keep in touch with what is going on, or keeping the hackers fed-and-watered. There are plenty of tasks anybody can do.

We are actively looking for people to help resource and organize Crisis Camp London. There is a lot to do!

Please bring a laptop if you have one. 3G dongles/Mefi may be very useful as venue wifi often has problems with the large load. Pens, pencils, paper, anything you need to be productive.

This is a day at the office, saving the world.

London Knowledge Lab are hosting the event. Vinay Gupta (Hexayurt Shelter Project) (hexayurt+ccl@gmail.com, @leashless) will be lead on the day, with Barry Sage(@OBazaS) leading overall.

What’s the difference between Open Spaces and BarCamps?

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

Having one foot in the world of IT and another in facilitation I keep getting asked

“What’s the difference between Open Spaces and BarCamps?”

Here’s how I described it to a good facilitator friend of mine (Julian from DecisionLab)…

“I suppose a BarCamp isn’t exactly like a pure Open Space. It’s got it’s own nuance.

For instance it’s generally not well regarded to plan BarCamps too far in advance. For no real reason in particular, it’s just not the BarCamp way.

People do prepare some stuff to take with them to a BarCamp knowing they will have an opportunity to talk about it – but they make no commitment until the day so they can change it or not give it at all.

Having people declare before hand makes it feel much more like a traditional conference and I think will discourage others from joining in on the spur of the moment.

One thing to remember about BarCamps, the big difference between BarCamps and Open Spaces is the ludic nature of BarCamps – they’re supposed to be fun and don’t have a particular outcome – they’re more like Popular Education rather than group decision making.

I think of it like this. Imagine you’re 11 years old and you and a gang of your friends are mad keen on technical lego. You’ve arranged one weekend to have a sleep-over with a lego theme. You’re parents have sorted out pizza and ice cream for everyone. Everybody brings lego with them and you take the half finished robot you’re working on. During the lego-fest the gang comes up with an idea – wouldn’t it be cool if we put all our lego together and see if we can make a bridge over the stair well.

THAT is a BarCamp. You might prepare something because it’s fun. But you’re just going along to learn, be inspired, get enthusiastic, hang out with some cool people and have a bit of a laugh.

The idea of getting people to coordinate their talks so they don’t have duplicates is I think wrong. You should have duplicates. If that’s what people want to talk about – duplicates give more opportunities for people to hear about it.”

When it comes to websites… small IS beautiful

Thursday, July 9th, 2009

There are two reasons why you should make your websites as small as possible. By small I mean minimising the size of data your user must download to see your web pages.

The first reason is usability. Time and again it has been shown that users like speedy websites. Google and Amazon have recently found even a delay of half a second can mean a 20% drop in users. Obviously your site must provide what your audience is looking for, and it must make it easy to find, but the number one factor that contributes to a positive user experience is speed. Ideally you want your pages to load within 1 second. They must load within 10 seconds; research shows consistently that visitors will leave a site if it doesn’t load in 10 seconds or less, the fewer seconds it takes to load the more engaged a visitor will be. Even with the ever increasing connection speeds of broadband we are seeing in the UK, if you’re not careful, it’s still perfectly possible to make sites that are too slow.

The second reason – the reason that most interests me and Aptivate, the organisation I work for – is global accessibility. Like us, you may feel we have a moral duty to ensure important information is accessible in the developing world or you may see the developing world as an interesting emerging market. Either way, if you want your content to be accessible in the developing world you need to seriously consider the size of your web pages. Aptivate, has been focussing on this issue from the perspective of users in less developed countries. We’ve found that the majority of information is inaccessible; even information that is intended to be used by this audience. The fact is that the developing world is years behind the broadband revolution we are witnessing in the “global North”.

bandwidth vs page size

bandwidth vs page size

Not only that, but as more bandwidth becomes available in developing countries it is matched by increasing demand. We foresee that bandwidth will remain much lower in developing countries than in wealthy ones for some time to come. This must be considered when designing for a global audience.

Over the past 5 years the average web page has increased by 300%. Meanwhile, in developing country universities, we estimate the bandwidth available to an individual user will have increased by 20 – 60% – and this is from a very low starting point. Bandwidth is increasing slowly for developing country universities whilst bandwidth demands from their users and from websites, document downloads and on-line applications are increasing rapidly.

It CAN look good

When I talk to people about low-bandwidth friendly websites the first concern is that they would be somehow sub-standard. We must dispel the myth that low-bandwidth websites are boring and ugly. This is simply untrue.

Let’s make an analogy with building a house. If you wanted to build an energy efficient house would it have to be ugly? No. You may need to spend a bit more effort designing it in the beginning. The construction costs are nearly the same and there is no reason, other than the lack of imagination of your architect, that your house cannot be beautiful. And so it is with websites. The requirements to be small, fast, usable and globally accessible are just additional parameters for your designers. These additional requirements will be of negligible additional cost and yet will transform the user experience of all your users. Your designers are likely to produce a website that looks clean, clear and concise – all qualities that users have been found to prefer. If your main market is in the global North your users will benefit from a fast response which is the main contribution to their satisfaction in using your site. If your audience is in the developing world, designing for low-bandwidth will make the difference between them being able to see your website and not.

Small, fast, responsive web pages are good practice and are globally accessible. This is a win-win situation. The big players like Google and Amazon understand this. Others have not yet got the message.

Developing country universities

In 2008 Aptivate estimated that the bandwidth available to individual university students and researchers in low income and developing countries (for example, in most of Africa, parts of Latin America and South Asia) is 20 kb/s – which is about 1/100th the speed of a broadband connection to a typical UK home. While bandwidth will have increased since then it is still going to be about a factor of a 100 slower than the average domestic UK connection which is now over 3000 kb/s (3mb/s).

Recently I did a survey of 27 publishers’ websites. This was not an in-depth study just a quick temperature check but I think the results are still interesting. I chose the 27 publishers from the sponsors of a major conference. I “googled” each publisher then measured the size of the first page I got to from the Google search results, usually the publishers’ home page. The average page size was 250 kB which is not far off the current global average page size. However the largest was 800 kB while the smallest was 20 kB.

What does this mean for users in developing country universities? The average web page from this sample would take over a minute and a half to load. The table below shows the various page load times with times over 10 seconds high-lighted.

page load times in seconds

Connection Speed

Developing University

(20 kb/s)

Dial-Up

(56 kb/s)

UK Broadband

(3000 kb/s)

Page

Size

smallest (20 kB)

8

3

0.1

average (250 kB)

100

36

0.7

largest (800 kB)

320

114

2.1

These figures should be read as minimum download times. There are other factors besides bandwidth that effect download times like the complexity of the website. I find it’s pretty rare even in the UK to see pages loading in less than a second.

PDFs

If you’re a publisher it’s likely that you publish your articles as PDF files. In which case you may be asking yourself what’s the relevance of all this talk about web page optimisation. Firstly it should be noted that a lot of what I’ve said about web pages is true of PDF files as well. It is possible through bad formatting options to make PDFs unnecessarily large. PDF files can be optimised for printing which will make them higher quality but much larger. Alternatively they can be formatted for screen reading in which case they are a lot smaller. If you’re using a computer to read PDF optimised for screen reading you wouldn’t normally notice the difference… except in the amount of time you would have to wait for it. Giving the user a choice between these formats can help those with slow connections.

A year ago we did a small survey of PDF files from scientific journals. We found that most of the time these were well optimised. They were still large but this is because they contain a lot of information – graphs, charts, equations etc. When working with African university researchers we found that the large size of PDF files was not the biggest problem. The articles themselves represent high value content. Even if they take several hours to download (which, in some cases they did) this could still be tolerated by the user. They found ways of adapting to this for instance by doing other work while the article downloads or, in the rare cases where the power is left on, downloading the files overnight.

The real problem was the path the user had to follow to get access to the PDF article. While the PDF files represent valuable content for the user, the many web pages the user must navigate to gain access to the PDF usually represent little value. It’s important that this path is as direct as possible. We must be careful not to let too much branding or gadgetry thwart the user in their goal. While an African researcher may be prepared to start a PDF download that will take a long time they should not be expected to navigate through a dozen pages each of which may take several minutes to load. It is this kind of frustrating experience that will drive users from your site.

The causes

What makes web pages so big? Isn’t it the features that our users demand? Most of the time I don’t think it is. It’s just wastage and bloat.

When I get introduced to a new organisation I often have a look at their website and measure how big it is. If I have some spare time I like to see how hard it would be to halve the size of their home-page. This usually takes between 10 minutes and half and hour with little discernible difference to the user.

The most frequent culprits and the easiest to fix are the images. In many cases it would be better to change the design to rely less on large images. Even without changing the design large savings can be made simply by optimising the format of the images.

Next it’s worth trying to optimise the code. The HTML and CSS files that make up websites can be full of “comments”, white-space, unused sections and other unnecessary bits and pieces. It’s often straightforward to remove the wastage.

Another area of bloat is the JavaScript – chunks of code that are part of many websites and run on the users machine. Optimising the JavaScript can be easy or can be hard.

Sometimes the JavaScript just isn’t needed. For instance when it’s used for styling tricks which can now be done in more efficient ways.

Sometimes there’s lots of it that just isn’t used. There are JavaScript “library” files that contain many functions. A site may include a large library file but may only call one or two functions in it.

Sometimes the JavaScript comes as part of the Content Management System (CMS) the site uses. In this case it can be a bit trickier to sort out but still possible.

Things to do

If you’re interested in making your site faster and more globally accessible here are some ideas that might interest you.

The first step is find out how big your pages are. Tools like PingDom will measure the size of your pages. Tools like Google’s PageSpeed and Yahoo’s YSlow[5] will even make suggestion of what you can fix.

We have written on-line guidelines for designing website for global accessibility. We discuss the reasons why designing for low-bandwidth is a good idea and give concrete guidance on how to do that. We also list tools like YSlow and various automatic optimisers. You can see our Top Ten design guidelines here:

http://www.aptivate.org/webguidelines/TopTen.html

On the 11th of September (2009) we will be speaking at the ALPSP conference in Oxfordshire. We are also going to be running short “Halve Your Home Page” workshops – a hands-on session where we show you how shrink the size of your own site (email info@aptivate.org for details).

New Open Education Resources site

Friday, May 15th, 2009
OER Logo

OER Logo

Aptivate have launched a new site for developing and publishing Open Education Resources – particularly resources relevant to ICT training.

oer.aptivate.org

It is our intention to publish any training materials we produce on this site under a Creative Commons license so the can be re-used by others. The site is based on MediaWiki so it will others to edit and create their own materials on-line.  MediaWiki can export to OpenOffice and PDF document formats making it a good choice for collaboratively creating training resources.

We will be using this site to develop training courses in collaboration with participants.

We encourage anyone to re-use our materials, use the commenting function to leave us feedback and to submit their own ICT training materials to this site.

The UnPresentation

Saturday, May 2nd, 2009

Sitting in the audience of the Africa Gathering, a kind of unconference, I was struck by a thought – what would an untalk or unpresentation be like? (I wasn’t the first person to have this thought.)

So here’s one possible idea of what an unpresentation could be…

The rules of an unpresentation

  1. The unpresenter is allowed to start by saying only one short sentence followed by an invitation for questions eg.

    “Hi, I’m Alan from Aptivate, this unpresentation is on low-bandwidth web design. What would you like to know?”

  2. After that, everything the unpresenter says is in response to a question from the audience.
  3. The use of presentation software (powerpoint, OpenOffice presentation etc) is not allowed.
  4. If a computer and projector are used then only images are permitted and chosen in order to respond to a question.
  5. Images are chosen from a non-narrative list, like a grid view, thumbnails or file-system folder (ie. not from a presentation).
  6. Images are shown full screen with no banner, footer, logo or other unnecessary blemishes.
  7. Diagrams are drawn live.

I then started to wonder what unpresentation software would look like…

unpresentation sketch

unpresentation sketch