Like many people, I use heuristics when choosing between food products. My algorithm goes something like this:
What’s the lowest unit price? 25 cents per ounce vs. 40 cents per ounce?
Pick up the lowest
Look at the saturated fat RDI
If reasonable, look at ingredients
Is list too long to read in 3 seconds?
If yes, pick up next cheapest item for comparison.
If no, look for “partially hydrogonated” or “high fructose corn syrup”
If either found, pick up next cheapest item for comparison
If neither found, purchase.
Wouldn’t it be great if someone did steps 3-9 for me? Or if they considered factors I’m too lazy or uneducated enough to balance and comprehend? Well, the ONQI has stepped up to the challenge. The ONQI, or Overall Nutritional Quality Index, is coming to products near you as a single scale for all foods. As the site states, it finally allows the comparison of apples to oranges (oranges win, by the way.)
One of the things I’m most impressed with is the ONQI’s use of the entire scale. Unlike choosing wine by points (where nearly every advertised bottle is above 88 points on a 100 scale), on the ONQI soda gets a 1 while oranges get 100. Now we know that although pretzels aren’t bad for you… they certainly aren’t good for you with a rating of eleven. Eleven is a lot closer to Coca-cola than it is to oranges.
The second thing I’m impressed with is their attempt at transparency. Their conference presentations are available online. However, due to patent, the actual algorithm used is not available. We are asked to trust that experts have tested it and found it reliable. Hopefully this will change as soon as the patent expires and it may be examined by numerous independent investigators.
One thing it does not do (that the food pyramid has been trying to do for 50 years) is recommend a balanced diet. Oranges and strawberries may score 100s, but a pure diet of those won’t do much but prevent rickets. However, I like their concept of attacking the nutrition problem at a food-by-food level. If I have my meal basically planned, I can use the scale to decide between individual options.
Last, I enjoyed this bit from their website:
What about products that don’t score well? Aren’t you at risk of alienating some brands? The ONQI was developed based on sound science, independent of any food company or commodity organization bias. Since the ONQI can be applied to all foods, beverages, recipes and meals, it levels the playing field, and provides consumers with a universal tool to measure any food they wish to purchase. It can also provide a benchmark for product development and reformulation.
The failed food pyramid is a good example of how difficult it is to create a nationwide understanding of a complex topic. The ONQI does the work for the consumer; work we’re clearly not interested in doing ourselves. I’m going to be watching closely to see how the ONQI pans out in studies of purchasing behavior changes.
So I finally made the plunge and obtained an Amazon Kindle E-book reader. This isn’t a gadget review site so don’t expect a full review but I just wanted to comment on some of the ergonomic/human factors considerations after using the device for the past few days. The bottom line? There are some critical “book behaviors” that the device does not afford but are critical to me. My reading material is primarily articles, reference books; not narrative fiction (that typically flows in a linear, page-by-page fashion).
The hype concerning the display is warranted. It is extremely high contrast and easy to read even in dim light. What makes this different from reading on an LCD is that the pixels are actually closer to the reading surface (just like paper). The pixel density is also very high (167 dpi) compared to LCDs.
The device is very thin and light. The screen is small but not unusably so.
Search is a nice function. However, I am not sure if this perfectly replaces book indexes. With an index, you can rely on recognition instead of free recall (necessary in search).
Built-in 3G wireless for free.
The software is very simple and the navigation is easy. It is similar to an ATM with soft-options.
The BAD (in no particular order):
Page turning is a bit sluggish (probably .5 to 1 second). I don’t have empirical data to back up actual “performance” differences but it bothers me.
The page forward and backward buttons are too easily pressed when you pick the device up (not a big deal but an inconvenience).
I can dog-ear pages and include notes on pages or passages. My notes are accessible as a text file for use later. However, the text file is sort of meaningless. While my note is there, it is devoid of context (I don’t know where it goes). It would be nice if this functionality was improved.
The on-off switch is located on the back of the device. So when I want to turn it off, I always inadvertently jump a page or two.
Instead of using page numbers to navigate the text, it uses something called “Locations.” I still have not figured out what this is. At the bottom of the screen, it might display, “Locations 203-15”. Are these lines? Paragraphs? Pages?
There is the “previous page” button, but also a “Back” button…and they seem to function similarly under some circumstances but differently in others.
Anne and I are writing a book and I’ve been doing quite a bit of research with articles and books. Typically, I will read a page from a book or article and make notes. Currently, there is not an easy way to export these notes or even email them to myself from the device. As I mentioned, the notes it creates are unusable. Another big thing is that I cannot open multiple books or articles at once–this is a problem with the whole class of devices, not just the Kindle.
These are just some of my recent thoughts on the device. The tentative bottom-line is that I probably won’t be buying expensive reference books on the device (it just can’t yet replace a paper book for my use cases). But reading PDF articles and Word .docs is quite pleasant.
Here are some pictures (the device and the device’s text presentation compared to a real book).
RALEIGH – No more “Inner” and “Outer” for Raleigh’s Beltline. Soon it will be Interstate 40 and Interstate 440, east and west.
The state Department of Transportation is about to make good on a long-standing promise to get rid of the Inner Beltline and Outer Beltline signs that get lots of motorists mad, confused and lost.
This human factors redesign feels personal. I’ve bemoaned the difficulties with the Raleigh loop signs for as long as I’ve lived here. I know people who have no trouble with it, but I am incapable of translating “inner” or “outer” into actual directions, especially during the multi-tasking required for driving toward an entrance ramp and thinking about where my destination is in relation to my current position.
I think the greatest difficulty comes from translation. To know which way the inner beltline goes, the driver must mentally step through the following (at least until s/he just memorizes what ramp to take).
Raleigh is surrounded by a loop with 12 o’clock in the north.
I’m at about the 9 o’clock position approaching an on-ramp from outside the city.
My destination is close to the 4 o’clock position, so it would be best to go right to get there.
Right is… uh
Right is inner or outer?
Ok, inner means inside the outer. In the U.S. cars go in prescribed directions on certain sides of the street, so looking down at the beltline I can expect cars on the inner side to be going north from where I am.
Wait, is that true 180 degrees on the other side of the circle? I think so…
So that means that the inner beltline is going clockwise?
That means that the outer beltline goes counter clockwise which is to the right and where I want to go
I want the counter clockwise entrance
The counter clockwise entrance is the outer beltline
No wonder I’m always late.
For a bonus, don’t miss out on the typical “common sense” comments attached to the News & Observer article.
I‘m impressed by Slate’s detailed look at ballot design. Check out the alternative designs!
The answer: not far. A study carried out by USA Today and seven other newspapers in 2001 concluded that faulty design, not punch-card machines, was responsible for voters’ confusion in Palm Beach County in 2000. Despite this finding, states have focused their election-reform energies on upgrading old punch-card machines to optical-scan systems or on implementing electronic voting. They have dismissed or ignored the butterfly layout’s problematic design as an aberration—a stupid mistake on the part of local officials….
…Developed with a team of graphic and industrial designers, Lausen’s elections redesign proposal convinced the state of Illinois to change its election code to allow candidates’ names to be printed in lowercase, among other things. Oregon is implementing the group’s recommendations, and Lausen was just contacted for consultation by Texas. And this January the AIGA is publishing Election Design: Models for Improvement, a book of templates based on the principles of good typographic design….
How many times do we have to say that paper is not the problem?
*On the original, be sure to note the Cali tagline of “I voted, have you?” Um, when is someone going to tell them that the person reading this is actually IN the voting booth? What’s the right answer… “Yes” “No, forget this! I’m leaving!” “Well, I was halfway done when you asked me”?
In July, builders broke ground on a new hospital in Rwanda’s Burera district, near the Uganda border. The design relies on simple features to reduce the spread of airborne disease: outdoor walkways instead of enclosed halls, waiting rooms alfresco and large windows staggered at different levels on opposing walls to keep air circulating.
Interesting scenario of the future web browser from Adaptive Path and Mozilla. I can see many potentially interesting human factors research questions. It seems overly complicated on first look but I guess that’s an empirical question!
I‘ve previously posted on the topic of tagging. As more products attempt to automate the process of creating tags from content, more problems are bound to appear like below. A pretty clear case of automation gone wrong!:
It wasn’t what anyone expected to see while perusing a news article. But there, in the final paragraph of an online story about the call girl involved in the Eliot Spitzer scandal, Yahoos automated system was inviting readers to browse through photos of underage girls.
Yahoo Shortcuts, which more frequently offers to help readers search for news and Web sites on topics like “California” or “President Bush,” had in this case highlighted the words “underage girls.” Readers who passed their mouse over the phrase in The Associated Press story were shown a pop-up window with an image from Flickr, Yahoos photo-sharing Web site.