David M Hood

Computers become much more powerful everyday.  We get new software that performs tasks we didn’t know were possible.  They become faster and are able to hold more information.  New operating systems, new programming languages, and new interfaces are the norm.  All this and yet I see people’s efficiency using computers not change much.  If anything, many people’s interactions with computers have slowed down.  It takes them longer to boot up, open a program, or find a file.

Our computers are central to many of our lives – especially to engineers like me.  Why are we improving computers on so many different levels, yet when I see others using their computer, it takes them forever to actually do the task they set out to do.  For example, once anyone’s had a computer for more than a few months, the Start Menu begins to become a huge unorganized mess. It takes people forever to get to the program they need.  Also, in order to find a desired file, you’ve usually got to click many times.

The operating systems and software programs themselves are not written for quick efficient use. The biggest problem with most computer operations that they’re too mouse-centric.  The mouse is an flexible tool, but it tends not to be the quickest way to do something.  For example, in order to copy and paste a row of text you can highlight it, right click and then click copy.  Then you can click on the other program you wish to copy to and paste it.  This probably took you 15-25 seconds.  Not bad. Except if you do that thousands of times a year, you can really save yourself a lot of time by learning how to use the keyboard shortcuts.  In order to the same actions as above with the keyboard, you can press shift + up/down, then Control C, then Alt-Tab, then control V.  This can take as little as a few seconds if you’re quick and maybe 7 or 8 seconds if you’re slow.  If you do this action 3000 times in a year, and you save about 15 seconds per action, then that gives you back 12.5 hours of your life just to simply learn 4 keyboard options.  If you know a lot of keyboard shortcuts, you can save many more hours.  Keyboard shortcuts just aren’t emphasized enough and so people don’t really take advantage of them.

Microsoft and Apple really need to lead people into these shortcuts because many of the necessary keyboard actions are there (at least for Microsoft products).  I praise Microsoft for making their programs very keyboard friendly, but there’s still a lot of room to grow.  Most importantly, again, the keyboard shortcuts just aren’t emphasized.  People just don’t know what their missing.  Or, more specifically, how much time and effort they’re wasting.

Yes, we’re making improvements. For example, anything like Launchy or Executor is a step in the right direction.  Even better would be using AutoHotKey.  But, those only get us part of the way there and are not widely used.  Accessing the files, folders, programs, and websites is only part of the battle.  Watching someone browse to a folder deep within a hierarchy tests my patience all the time.  I can see what they’re thinking.  “It only takes 20 – 40 seconds to find it.”  My top 40 most accessed programs, files, folders, and websites take literally 1 second to launch by pressing 3 keys at the same time.  From about 40 to 120 most accessed programs, files, folders, and websites take an aditional 1 second to launch with 3 keys at the same time, briefly followed by a 4th.  It really can be that simple if people are willing to put in a little bit of effort up front.  I emphasize the word “little” because its not hard and doesn’t take a lot of effort because earning the quick way of things can be done in small bits and pieces by learning one thing at a time.

In a later post, I’ll give more details on how to set your computer and skill set up to use a computer in an efficient manner.

The other day I heard on NPR that “Jobless claims jumped to 520,00.”  That’s all they said with regards to the number.  There was no background given before or after.  No information on what the jumped from.  What the historical % changes are during recessions…Nothing.  What a worthless statement when given by itself! I see numbers reported like this all the time.  Not just by news organizations, but also by supposedly scientific studies.

If you are reporting numbers like this, please, for the love of all that is good and mathy, stop.

There are two elements that are required to give meaning to a number.  First and foremost, there must be a relative vector.  What I mean is that we must be given not only the direction of the number, but the % change in that direction.  In order for there to be “relativeness,” there must be a before and after state – ideally with one raw number and % change.  For example(I’m making all the following example numbers up), “The Jobless claims jumped to 520,000 - a 5% increase since the beginning of 2008.”  In order for it to have “vectorness”, it needs to be spelled out in multiple dimensions.  For example, “50% of the new jobless claims are related to the auto industry.”

The second element that must be present is environment.  The environment is the background information that frames the number and puts its relative vector in perspective.  This is the area that we, as willing information receivers, are failed the most.  We need to know what has historically happened during similar periods (recessions).  For example, “During recessions, jobless claims tend to jump 8% before falling again.”  Also, “The auto industry tends to where a large % of the new claims come from.”  Not only that, but we should be told what the new jobless claims situation is like across the world.  Are we losing jobs at a faster or slower rate than other large countries?  For example, “Germany has had a 15% jobless claims jump over the last 9 months.”  The enviroment can be expanded upon from many angles and it is up to the data reporter to find the telling environmental numbers and give it to us.

The following is an example statement of a non-naked number just barely fulfilling requirments to give the number meaning:

Jobless claims jumped to 520,000 – a 5% increase since the beginning of 2008.  50% of the new jobless claims have come from the auto industry and 30% have come from the financial industry.  During recessions, jobless claims tend to jump 8% before falling again and the auto industry tends to be where the biggest loss of jobs comes from.  Germany has experienced a 15% jump in job losses.  Japan 10%.  Switzerland 2%.  And Canada has actually experienced a 4% decline in job losses.

It really must be hard for people to look up and give us that information so the number can have meaning.  Or are we expected to get everything after the original number just by tone of voice?  I don’t know, but its frustrating to continue to hear people state a naked number and then act as if they’ve actually told me something.  “Scientific” studies breach the naked number public contract in a different way, but I’ll leave that for another time.