A cool-looking box arrived unannounced at my apartment two days ago. It was Google's Cr-48 notebook for the Chrome OS Pilot Program. It was a pleasant surprise, and I've been happy trying to crash it for the last 48 hours. Here's an analysis of this gift horse's mouth:
Trackpad
A lot has been made of the Cr-48's keyboard's lack of a caps lock. To me, though, the trackpad is the interface device that has caused the most trouble so far.
On my [aluminum] MacBook, I'd configured the trackpad to right-click when the pad is clicked from the right region and left-click for the left region. This helps out in the OS quite a bit, but is most handy in the browser for "Open Link in new tab," I use that context menu item in reddit, Google Reader, facebook, and for 'shopping' in incognito mode; in other words, for the sites I visit most on the web. I could connect a mouse and click the scrollwheel and get back a lot of lost link-opening productivity, but I want to note that it would be a departure from my previous expectation of laptop trackpads. The "two finger click" right-click gesture on the Cr-48 is terribly-inconsistent and annoyingly-different from previous experiences.
I'm also personally used to a three-finger swipe on the trackpad to go back and forward. Having to use function keys, shortcuts, or move the mouse pointer and click are all super slow in comparison. It won't be fun to browse the web without these features.
Keyboard
I like the function keys a lot. They're: back, forward, reload, full screen, toggle windows, brightness down, brightness up, mute, volume down, volume up.
The search key replacing the caps lock is novel. However, when I accidentally hit the caps lock on any other computer, what I type continues to print to screen, albeit in all caps. On Chrome OS, a new tab pops open and what I type shows up in the omnibox. It hasn't happened yet, but I anticipate it'll cause me some annoyance. Since I use ctrl+t constantly and consistently to open a new tab, I don't really get a huge benefit from the replacement key.
The arrow keys are all scrunched. Meh.
What the keyboard needs desperately is a backlight. It's an all-black machine with a lowercase keyboard (a nice UI touch in my book, since the default letters that appear when you press the keys are lowercase), so it's hard to see what key you're pressing. Perhaps this will be less of a concern when I get used to the slightly-different layout. Also, it's testing hardware, so production mileage will vary. One thing that's occurred to me is that a backlit keyboard might make some of the trackpad issues more bearable.
Performance
Startup is snappy. In fact, it was a breezy process to get the notebook on the internet after unboxing it.
I've found that there's a slight delay in establishing connectivity after opening the lid, but it's not bad at all.
The OS would feel snappier and be more usable if the new tab page loaded faster. For me, it's a race between the URL coming up in the omnibox and the app link appearing on the new tab page. Since the tab page looks cool, I like when it wins the race sometimes.
The big performance problem is flash. I'm not sure if it's the hardware or flash itself or the sandboxing model or some combination of all those things, but watching video on this thing is just the worst. Since I'm a hulu junkie, keeping to my promise to use this as my primary machine is going to suck unless flash performance improves significantly. To be honest, I've already sort of gotten used to watching hulu all jumpy-like in just the last two days. Work with what you're given, I guess.
OS
It's Chrome. I like Chrome.
I think there's a legitimacy to the complaints that you can't really produce content effectively without a robust filesystem and using only web apps. However, I see these as solvable problems that will only get better with time. For instance, I'm confident in my present ability to produce documents in Google Docs (as I have for 3 years now), edit photos and make vector graphics in Aviary, and do other limited media production using web apps.
In order to do this more effectively, though, access to files on peripheral devices has to be better-supported. I've found the core file system satisfactory so far, but can envision it would be better if the various prompts were more unified and the keyboard shortcuts more memorable. I think it'd be cool if downloads piggybacked to my Google Docs storage asynchronously. If local files appeared in a Google Docs List-like interface with the ability to quickly search those files, I think it would be a knock out of the park.
Fun Stuff
ctrl+alt+t brings up the Chrome Shell, or crosh for short. It has a very limited list of commands. I was able to use ssh, so that's cool.
If you click "About Chrome OS" in the wrench menu and select "more info," you can switch between the beta and dev channels.
This note isn't just about Chrome OS, but about the web app store in general. Google specs a 128x128 icon for apps and extensions, but asks that they be 96 pixels square, centered, with padding. This makes the icon ecosystem inconsistent, since developers sometimes glaze over the part about the padding. For instance, Aviary's icon is huge compared to the Google icons.
Conclusion
There are some things I don't like that are probably easy fixes; or they won't apply to consumer hardware. Once the OS gets those fixes or I get used to living without them, this will be a great machine for surfing the web and for occasionally producing stuff.
I'm optimistic that the web is moving forward, and that the few remaining things I rely upon desktop apps for will have viable cloud-based equivalents soon. I'm also confident that Chrome OS will have a novel, simple, usable solution for handling peripheral storage devices and for the necessary interaction with some sort of file system.
It's been fun these past two days, and I look forward to testing this machine a lot more.
Unfortunately, my testing of that product and the conversation with an LT representative that followed (which I consider due diligence in reporting security/performance bugs prior to this post) left a bad taste in my mouth. For full disclosure:
LibraryThing Password Security Issue
Being a compulsive reddit-lurker, I saw this warning about LT passwords on the front page a few weeks ago. It reminded me that I had sent an email 6 months before with performance and accessibility (but not security) suggestions to which LT never responded. Last week I re-sent that email, along with the reddit link.
The issue outlined in the reddit thread means that, if a hacker were to compromise the LibraryThing database, all the users' passwords would be easily available. Since people often re-use usernames and passwords between sites, this can lead to identity theft. Sending passwords to users as plain text via email can lead to other security concerns as well.
For the non-technical: Even though there doesn't initially seem to be a way around saving passwords as themselves, it's actually described by experts as "Security 101". Instead of storing a password, you store something unique and irreversible created by the password. Then, when someone signs in, you run the same process and compare the results for a match. There's more to it, but the best practice for sensitive credential storage includes cryptographic hashing.
It was an issue before the reddit mention, likely for around 5 years. It might be more of an issue now, given that identity thieves may have seen it widely advertised that plaintext passwords were available on a particular site. It has been over 2 weeks and LT passwords are still stored as plain text. Additionally, I received no update about that issue in my email, have not seen a blog post about it, have not seen an activebug report, have not seen a tweet, reddit reply, or any other indication that LibraryThing is taking this security concern seriously.
If you are a registered LibraryThing user, I suggest that you:
Change your password on any site using the same password as your former LT password in case it has already been compromised
Library Anywhere Security Issue
As part of reviewing the performance and accessibility suggestions I had made previously, I dug into the front-end code of the Library Anywhere product. This isn't hacking since I just observed code using Firebug during the normal operation of the app.
In my analysis (which you can duplicate if you've used an inspector like Firebug), I found that most every action at the library level — search queries included — in the full-featured version of the app returns much more than just search results. It also returns institutional customer information, such as: contact full name, contact email, billing preference, billing status, etc. I have not found anywhere in the Library Anywhere interface where that information appears, and am unsure institutions know that their information is being quietly disclosed every time a patron searches their library using the app.
I did not get the feeling the LT developer I corresponded with was very concerned with this issue.
Library Anywhere Under-Performance
As you might imagine by the above-mentioned security issue, unnecessary information is sent from the server to the user every time they perform a search. After removing the customer information and some other redundancy, I estimate search results could be less than half the size they are currently. I suggested specific optimizations to their JSON response that I'd be happy to further explain if anyone's interested, but the basic premise here is that reducing the size of that file is a win-win.
This is particularly important because we're talking about a mobile app. There is a certain lag that's necessary in Library Anywhere; LibraryThing has to search an institution's catalog, process the data they get, then format it to make it useful before sending it along. However, the size of the file sent from LibraryThing to the user can still effect noticeable changes in speed (and tentatively save LT money on bandwidth). This is more true on 3G or EDGE/Cellular connections than broadband/wi-fi, so you'd assume a mobile app would pay extra-close attention to it.
In the particular case of the search results, a speed boost multiplies the responsiveness of the app. Search results include images of book jackets, which can't be loaded until the first file gets returned. So, the faster the results file gets there, the faster a whole bunch more files can arrive, leading to a progressively-faster experience.
Library Anywhere Accessibility Issue
I'm only speculating, but my guess is that many institutions were interested in Library Anywhere because it advertised a Section 508-compliant version. With higher-ups mandating compliance and ILS vendors being slow to fulfill, there's a market for accessible alternative solutions.
The "universal version" may be Section 508 compliant, but the bells-and-whistles version is far from it. The disturbing part is that they have full control over the interface, so there is zero reason why it couldn't be. After all, separate accessible versions of websites are considered a last resort by standards bodies. Here's an example of the lack of Library Anywhere accessibility:
This is how the regular version of Library Anywhere appears in a browser with JavaScript turned off. This may sound like a red herring at first, but the most recent numbers I've heard put non-JavaScript users are around 5%, while blind users, traditionally the standard-bearers of accessibility, at around 0.3% of web users.
What's particularly messed up here is that a user cannot even get to the "universal version" from this blank screen. They are stuck. This is true for other accessibility situations besides JavaScript being off. But it doesn't have to be this way.
Progressive Enhancement is a principle by which web applications are made to work without JavaScript and CSS. Then, style via CSS and advanced/fancy behaviors via JavaScript are added to that interface to make for a nicer experience on more-advanced browsers. Since the underlying version of the app works without any bells and whistles, it should be accessible to many different sorts of users. Further advancements in HTML and JavaScript can even make the additional and fancy features accessible. I provided rather detailed suggestions (which I'm omitting here but would be happy to explain) for how to accomplish such an effect.
LibraryThing doesn't have to make Library Anywhere accessible. But, I think prospective customers have a right to know that the advertised Section-508-compliant version is only part of a woefully-inaccessible product.
I owe a debt of gratitude to my former classmate Lane Wilkinson for the discussion about transliteracy we shared via email. More importantly for you, dear reader, is that Lane writes a blog called Sense and Reference with some of the best and most thought-provoking posts in the library world.
If you've followed the series of posts about transliteracy on this blog, perhaps you'd agree that I've approached the topic somewhat backwards:
In this post I'd like to illustrate that the issues with the definition are causing problems: namely inconsistent communication among transliteracy researchers.
Definition Type
In his post, On defining transliteracy, Lane asserts that since transliteracy is a young term, it may not be appropriate now (or ever) to define transliteracy intensionally. I would absolutely agree with this notion if transliteracy were defined extensionally.
In the literature, the PART working definition is not only the current definition of record, but the basis for a functioning intensional unit. If we acknowledge that transliteracy is trans- plus literacy without making the necessary pre-assumptions of my previous posts, people still naturally use the word to mean "An ability to [do something] across [something]."
Do Something
The first blank, "the ability to [do something]" is much less contentious among transliteracy writers. The PART definition fills the blank with "read, write, and interact" while my suggestion instead goes for "encode and decode information." I think in both instances the intent is largely the same:
A sensory ability that goes beyond basic perception. A literate being takes sensory input, recognizes certain patterns, signs, or symbols, and can then use that input cognitively
The entity can often produce similar or identical patterns, signs, or symbols and transmit them over the same or similar channel
This sensory ability applies to more than just the written word
My review of the literature confirms the agreement on these conditions of the first blank, despite the difference in wording I suggest.
Across Something
A review of the literature (which you're free to contribute to) shows us what transliterate entities are purportedly doing something across:
The agreement isn't total, but the clear majority of those discussing transliteracy have latched onto 'medium' as the unit that transliterate people are literate across. As such, the "precise necessary and sufficient conditions for being an instance of transliteracy" are asserted overwhelmingly by writers in the field to be met by being able to read, write, and interact across media.
But medium is used inconsistently with regard to scope, and often outside of the usage of any other field. As such, the condition-facilitating uncertainty that would otherwise be attached to an extensional 'transliteracy' is instead confusing the word 'medium'.
For instance, is facebook a medium? What about twitter? Is there a single "facebook literacy" or "twitteracy"? Is medium intended as it is in the field of Communications? Of Art? In a McLuhan sense of the word?
There is no agreement in the literature.
Placeholder
The word 'medium' is being used as a placeholder for an ill-defined unit of literacy. This placeholder isn't serving anyone because of the stark variation in usage.
This is a long-ish essay about transliteracy that I've been editing for a few months now. I've asked for feedback from the Libraries and Transliteracy group [full disclosure: you can read the discussion here. I come off as arrogant, but luckily, not wrong] and Sue Thomas, and have based this version on their responses. Thank you to everyone who helped in getting this essay ready.
Introduction
The working definition of transliteracy, as defined by PART (Production and Research in Transliteracy):
Transliteracy is the ability to read, write and interact across a range of platforms, tools and media from signing and orality through handwriting, print, TV, radio and film, to digital social networks.
This definition is both internally and externally inconsistent. The combination of problems requires a re-definition of the term such that transliteracy can be an effective interdisciplinary field of study.
Working Definition Inconsistencies
The definition mentions signing, orality, handwriting, and other things claimed to be platforms, tools, and media. Questions naturally emerge: Is handwriting a platform, tool, or medium? What about orality? It is unclear whether the things in the list are platforms, tools, or media at all, and if they are it is not clear in which category any one of them belongs.
A second problem follows. If handwriting is a medium and orality a tool (purely for example), how does one go across them? The trans- prefix of transliteracy means across or between; how does one go across not just different things, but different types of things?
Additionally, “signing and orality through handwriting, print, TV, radio and film, to digital social networks” is imprecise. There are ostensibly infinite platforms, tools, and media that fit into the framework. Listing a random, partial set of supposedly-included concepts is not how definitions are written.
The list also appears to assert a hierarchy, as if signing is somehow primitive compared to online social networks. Since the list is not purely alphabetical or chronological (TV comes before radio and film), it appears haphazard at best and literacy-elitist at worst.
It is also unclear why interaction is listed with reading and writing as it is redundant. Interaction is merely a series of reading and writing acts.
The biggest problem, and the one that leads to a solution, is that literacy is not the ability to read, write, and interact on a particular platform, tool, or medium. Literacy is the ability to encode and decode (since reading and writing are handwriting-centric activities) information in a particular language. Surely trans-literacy should then be
an ability to encode and decode information between or across languages.
This definition can be shortened to
an ability to communicate across languages
for most purposes. However, this iteration is less precise since the concept of communication often includes meaning, which is addressed later in this essay.
Defining Assumptions
The ability to encode and decode information in a particular language is not a definition for literacy in any known dictionary. Owing to its precision, it should be in the future.
The most common dictionary definition of literacy is concise: “The ability to read and write.” What is it that the literate person reads and writes? Information.
What does the literate person read and write information in? A passer-by on the street, asked if they were literate in the English language but not the Russian language, would be able to confidently answer yes or no to the query. Languages themselves are defined as systems for encoding and decoding information. Language as the base unit of literacy thus follows inductively from the vernacular and deductively from the definition of language.
Literacy purists may scoff at switching from reading/writing to decoding/encoding. There is a hearty debate as to whether understanding a spoken language constitutes a literacy. It is simple enough to agree that it does, with the caveat that generalizing makes the concept deviate slightly from the vernacular form.
Languages
Must an English-literate person learn English Braille? When someone first learns to understand spoken English, are they conclusively literate in English?
No. Very few people can be considered completely English literate. Spoken English, written English, and English Braille are all different languages. They are different systems of signs and symbols for encoding and decoding information. Surely they share similarities to the point that they can be considered in the same language family, but each facilitates communication using a different method. A person who understands spoken English is spoken English literate. Even to that point their literacy may not be comprehensive, as the English lexicon is huge and constantly-growing, and various spoken dialects of English exist that differ significantly.
Visual language works the same way. People can use different visual dialects with different visual grammars to communicate the same message. This is the terminology that artists and designers use to talk about their crafts. If transliteracy studies seeks to be interdisciplinary, using linguistic terminology is a great start.
The Medium is the Message[‘s Partner]
When someone communicates, they go through a process of encoding information into a language. The message travels on the medium to its destination. In this sense the medium is synonymous with the term ‘channel’ as it applies to the transmission model of communication.
For the purposes of talking about transliteracy, the important endpoints in a model of communication are where people either encode messages onto a medium or decode them from one. However, the medium itself only carries the message and is, as such, one of the two components of language.
Multiple messages can be encoded onto the same medium at the same time. A business memo can deliver in written language one message, while providing another via the typeface.
In a similar way, the same message can be delivered via two different media at the same time. A person shrugging while saying “I don’t know” illustrates this notion.
In both circumstances, two separate communications acts are being performed simultaneously, despite the sharing of a common component. Since language comprises both message and medium, a change in either changes the language and its encoding and decoding processes.
Is Transliteracy Meaning-less?
Some models of communication put emphasis on the concept of meaning. The sender intends to attach a certain meaning to the message and the receiver derives their own meaning upon decoding the message. Often these meanings do not agree. The meaning-making process occurs outside of the encoding/decoding process, however.
This appears to be a cold notion, that meaning is outside the scope of transliteracy. However, it meshes well with the original divide between transliteration and translation. A person who transliterates is able to do a literal, meaning-independent task. A person who translates takes meaning into account such that the completed translation is not a literal comparison to the original work.
It is worth noting, since the examples provided are placed in the context of the transmission model of communication, that the transmission model is often criticized for not explicitly addressing meaning or action. In both cases, such criticisms are unwarranted. Since meaning-making occurs before the encoding process or after the decoding process, a separate meaning-making process can be attached to a sender or receiver where applicable. Similarly, action is often a separate communication act. Communication acts of a common thread may be daisy-chained, ran parallel, and branched using the components of the model to illustrate concurrency and causes and effects.
Reconciliation
It is also worth noting that a general definition of literacy, and by relation transliteracy, should be as compatible with other definitions of both general and specific nature as possible. This facilitates interdisciplinary discussion and a useful pedagogical framework. For instance, a commonly-cited definition like
[the] ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, compute and use printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to develop their knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in their community and wider society.
as set forth by UNESCO, should be reconcilable with the general notion of the base literacy definition used to define transliteracy. “The ability to communicate in a particular language,” to use the short form, has no prima facie incompatibilities. The UN definition is broad. Likely this is by perceived necessity to include areas where bilingualism is prevalent. It also does not explicitly group literacy competencies by language, though this characteristic does not make the definitions incompatible since “varying contexts” is suitably ambiguous.
As previously explained, the vernacular form of literacy is text-centric. This is a necessary consideration for a body that uses its internal definition to measure worldwide literacy rates. However, the concept limits the perception of language to a particular sensory set of signs and symbols when such a distinction is unnecessary and potentially-biased. The UN, as such, may rank areas with verbal or other communicative emphases lower than print-prevalent areas.
All literacies should be treated equally. The printed word should not be considered superior by fiat. The ability for a person to communicate effectively in common cultural contexts to an extent that makes them a functional member of society does not necessarily mean having native written language literacy. In many cultures illiteracy in the area’s official written language may make it difficult for a person to function in society. In other cultures it may not. This functional distinction is a necessary lens for measuring base literacy of a country, region, or person.
Other Literacies
Media Literacy, Multimedia Literacy, Computer Literacy, Digital Literacy, and many others fail the test of being language-based. Thankfully, the OED steps up to offer a solution:
2. competence or knowledge in a specified area
Many of these literacies, as such, can continue to be defined as they are without hurting anything. Without too much effort, though, the situation can improve: by making all of these literacies plural.
Computer literacies would then be all the language (the cool, system-for-transferring-information kind) abilities involved with using computers. Wine literacies would be the language skills necessary for the theory and practice of Oenology. This simple semantic change makes the second definition of literacy superfluous and makes the umbrella term transliteracy easier to wrap around existing literacy models.
Finally, the term “Information Literacy” must die. Since all literacies are information literacies, the plural form “Information Literacies” would encompass the entire namespace of knowledge. Information Literacy cannot be a single literacy, either. Information itself is not a language. Information must be encoded into useful forms via language for people or other things to use it.
The concepts presently under the umbrella of Information Literacy are valid and useful. The practice of teaching the skills and abilities currently associated with Information Literacy should continue. Those skills and abilities should just be called something that makes sense. Information Literacy (or Literacies) is not the right term.
So What?
If Transliteracy is to be an academically-respectable field of study, it needs precise, discipline-compatible language for its core concepts.
Please comment on this post regardless of if you agree or disagree. Let’s talk about this. If you feel strongly enough, put the word transliteracy in a tweet; the people most involved with the concept will hear you.
Bobbi Newman and Jason Griffey had a recent tweet-versation(?) about mobile devices and broadband access. They ended up agreeing to blog about it instead of debating 140 characters at a time:
As this post’s title implies, both make good points about mobile’s place in internet access among all people. Due to semi-recent poll results, this argument is most apropos to cultural minorities and low-income respondents.
Bobbi — The Good
Shows compassion and caring as it regards equal access to information
Uses socio-economic context from poll-based articles correctly
Jason — The Good
Acknowledges mobile is different from PC, but not worse necessarily
Puts debate in a forward-thinking context
Bobbi — The Less-Good
It’s harmful to lump low-income and racial minorities together
Distinction between access rights and subsidized access is blurry
Jason — The Less-Good
Argument appears to assert that in the future everything will be better
Focuses on device capabilities rather than the end use of the device
Notes
It’s wrong to lump cultural groups with economic groups when the behaviors of either, or each as separated sample groups, may yield clearer insights. For instance, it’s likely that low-income African Americans have a different browsing trend than higher-income African Americans. The same is likely true of Caucasians. The difference across income and between cultural identities may show us that the mobile trend isn’t entirely income-based or race-based. One indicator that this is true is that Young Adults are identified as a mobile-predominant group. It’s not insinuated that young people are low-income, while the articles and posts both tie race to income at least once.
As Bobbi alluded to in her post on the matter, there’s a difference between a right and an ‘entitlement’. That’s why it’s so difficult to talk about broadband access being a right without being very precise about what you mean. It’s also why it’s important not to lump racial and economic groups together. If there were racial discrimination with regard to internet access, that would be injustice. If people with lower-range incomes cannot afford the luxury of a massive information source and the technology necessary to tap it (speaking in present terms), then it becomes a matter of welfare politics. Citizens have the right to property (Locke called it ‘estate,’ Jefferson “the pursuit of happiness”), but the government doesn’t give everybody lots of land just for being born. I’m not going to talk about my political belief on the matter of subsidizing broadband access; I’m just pointing out that whether or not broadband access is a right, the consequences of such a declaration revolve around entitlement politics.
While it’s likely that the near future will bring advances to mobile data speeds, more processing power within the same form factor, and perhaps further improvement in data layout/usability/etc., it’s merely wishful thinking. What about now? What about people who can’t afford top-of-the-line mobiles OR any PC + Broadband? Looking at it from a present perspective, people without a PC or a smartphone with data plan have limited options for accessing the internet. Is the playing field level or not? What can we do, working only from assumptions at our current level of technology/information, to level the playing field? Is there anything inherently wrong with the playing field not being level that would necessitate intervention?
When talking about broadband access, the end use is the important part. Can mobile users, albeit in a different way, get to (and/or publish) the same information that PC users can? If not, is the alternative largely the same, save for form factor considerations? Can information, styled across form factors, be considered the same information?
I’m so glad that Bobbi has written on the topic and Jason has furthered the debate. Information access via broadband connections may very well be a huge social and political issue in our time, so I’m glad to see librarians taking up the cause.
