|
|
||
|
Portable
Profiles Theory Introduction: The lack of consistency that I’m referring to is in personalization. I’d like to be able to walk up to any computerized device, anywhere in the country, or the world, and identify myself to it, and feel as if I’m using any of the many machines sitting on my desk. Where are the technological means to accomplish this goal? They are everywhere I look. Radio waves, telephone wires, high speed networking. It’s all sitting there, ready to be used by myself to ease my own personal stresses. High-speed Internet access (and even low-speed) has the power to transport my color and font selections to my fingertips on any machine, no matter what type it is, no matter where I am. Larger reasoning for
consistency: Macintosh, Windows, Palm, *nix. It should all be consistent and personalized. This is the step that we need to bring more people to the computer world. My mother should know that when she uses my Aunt’s computer it’s going to appear the way hers on her desk does. She needs to know that my Grandmother’s TV box will appear the way that her desktop does. She needs to know that the kiosk at the airport will appear the way her desktop does. It is important that we find a way to make the computing experience consistent so that people who are new to the field, or just not very technical can have an enjoyable experience. Where to
begin: As it stands now, almost every computer is different. Two machines sitting next to each other in the same exact computer lab may appear and act totally differently from one another. Click “print” on one of them and you’ll get a dialog box asking for the number of copies to print. Click the same button on a second machine and it asks you to configure your printer. Click it on the third, and it asks you a totally different set of questions. Why do these machines act in this fashion? That’s a topic for a different article. The point is, even large attempts at consistency are failing. I know for a fact that in one particular lab, all the machines are reformatted and reinstalled from disk images upon reboot—yet they all act different. Where is this beginning that I’m looking for here? It’s in the operating system. Bill Gates and the folks over in Redmond, Washington need to make sure that versions of Windows are brought together and are consistent. This is already happening, so I don’t need to speak of it further. The next flavor of Windows, XP, will bring the NT and 9x camps together, finally. It will be an attempt at consistency that is stronger than the previous ones. (Check out roaming and portable profiles in 9x, NT4, and 2k, and you’ll see they don’t function very well.) I also mentioned that I’d like this consistency to appear on other platforms as well, and so their developers must be prepared to follow the same rules. A good example is the Macintosh operating system. I am not a heavy Mac user, but from what I’ve seen, they’re pretty good about it. My last run-in with a Mac OS was with System 8, and it was almost exactly like the System software I had on my Apple IIgs and my Mac Classic. I won’t even comment on the *nix camp, as they have way to many issues to worry about before interface consistency. I would like to say that when this software is used in a public area, that there should be facilities to implement a consistency program. This should be true in all distros of Linux as well, so that when I’m at a friend’s home, I can access consistency files from my desktop. A solution for the software
part: The first major communications issue that is required to implement consistency is establishing semantics and syntaxes that are common. What may be called “Web Browser” on one machine, may be called “Internet Access” on another. Or, it may be implemented as a specific program name, such as “Internet Explorer” or “Netscape”. Similarly, a word processor can be “Typing Program”, “Document Software,” or simply “Word 2000.” I understand the need for these distinctions. We’re all aware of protecting intellectual property and copyrights. The Trash Can on the Mac had to become the Recycle Bin in Windows. I can deal with that. But how about a little addition that could bring my consistency needs to fruition? How about if whatever I have it named on my desktop is what it’s called, and where I have it located on my screen is where it’s located on the screen of any machine I step up to? If I’ve left the Windows default of “Recycle Bin,” then it should show as that, perhaps even with the same icon on the Mac machine I attempt to use, or on the Kiosk at the airport, or on a Palm Pilot. How would something like this be implemented if every OS and platform uses a different name? Well, that’s an easy one, and hopefully something that will give this article some attention by someone in a position to effect change. What if every OS or platform that was attempting to implement consistency maintained a cross-reference table connecting local names and common names? The common names would be ANSI, or some other group, standard. What I call “My Computer” in windows would be referred to as “Local Resources” in the common name. The Recycle Bin and Trash Bin can be “Trash” or something similar. The point is, when I establish consistency on my own desktop, I’ll tell it how to connect my items to the common names table. And when I get to the remote machine, it will bring my items into the realm of the local platform with the use of the common names, and my personal data. While my login on the Mac machine is being processed, the icon names on the desktop are being magically renamed, or perhaps even created if they do not already exist. I’d like to think that a system like this is easy to establish and get running. It would require that all operating systems, or “platforms,” as I’ve been calling them, contain the knowledge of the common names table. It would also require that platforms be able to maintain their local resources in a way that allows renaming. If a platform doesn’t have the ability to create and rename icons on the desktop, this scheme will fail miserably. I should point out that security measures, such as not allowing users to rename their icons, should not apply to “consistent machines,” since using verified consistency files would be a certified secure method of making changes to system settings. Once I log out, the settings should be restored to the system defaults. Other Considerations for
Candidacy: There are other types of resources that should be included in this scheme besides icon names. The icons themselves would be nice. Most new users know the look of their Internet icon. Also, colors and system fonts should be carried over. There are already plenty of ways to download and install fonts on the fly. There are other things that should be considered for transport as well. Volume labels and drive names would be nice, especially drive letters. If the main CD-ROM appeared as the D drive on all machines, as it does on mine, I would be a happy camper. If that means a second hard drive on the remote box has to be G: for a while, so be it. If a particular resource is not available, such as no E: <Zip Drive> then it should tell me that. Perhaps E: <Zip Drive Unavailable> would be nice. But, hold the letter and the description so I can be aware of the problem. A quick look through the Windows Control Panel generates a large list of other preferences. How about the keyboard typematic rate? Or the mouse button setup or speeds? How about the wallpaper on the machine, or even the resolution of the screen? When something isn’t available on a particular machine, like a high screen resolution, then the system should let me know. Perhaps my consistency file contains my second favorite setting as a fallback. Transport and Hardware
Issues: I knew that when I started writing this piece that I’d have to defend one major issue, and that is transport. Who owns my consistency data, where does it reside, and how do I get to it from a remote machine? I think the one thing that is important is that the technology is lined up to be limited to machines with high-speed Internet connections. But I’m not certain that this has to be the case. The “consistency file” that I envision may be nothing more then a text file. Colors are specified by hex codes, just like those used on the web. Not all devices display these in the exact same way, but it will be very close. Perhaps the common table will know how to correct so that it always does look the same. The file would also have lists of common names and my personal names. What we are left with is a very small text file that can optimally configure the machine to my liking, as long as it has the means to do so. This leaves the transport mechanism with not much load to carry. Perhaps it may need to retrieve a few icons, or a wallpaper JPEG, but those are minor, and I can specify their locations online within the consistency file. For platforms with very limited bandwidth, the system may exclude certain items. Perhaps it will refuse to download my wallpaper, or my icons, but will be glad to rename the icons it does have and to set my color settings. Another approach to this issue might be to have me specify in my configuration that for certain bandwidth connections; I don’t need to have certain items set up. I may say that for connections slower then 10k/sec (all modems) that I don’t need to have my wallpaper downloaded and installed. So, now that we’ve established that the file sizes can be small, or forced to be small, we’ve opened up plenty of devices that can utilize this. Even simple machines that are using a wireless connection can access a simple text file. We now need to decide were to store and maintain my consistency data. With file sizes so small, it becomes very easy to keep on your own personal web site. Or perhaps there will be a breed of dot-coms who will host your files for you—for a small fee, of course. Another totally separate alternative, for when networking is unavailable or inconvenient, would be to just keep the required files on a floppy disk. This allows you to keep a bunch of resources, such as wallpaper, icons, sounds, and small programs, with you at all times. Once the consistency file is loaded onto the machine, all the resources will be as well. Once you log out, the machine will remove them. It may even update the floppy with any changes you’ve made to your configuration. When it all takes
place: To begin using consistency, one of two things has to happen. The first option is for the operating system will need to support it natively.. This shouldn’t be a big issue. If the big companies begin to work on it, it could appear in the next versions of the major platforms. The second option is for 3rd party software to implement it. This would bring older technology such as Windows 95, and even 3.x, into the game. There is no reason why they should be excluded, as long as program can be written to perform the tasks on those platforms. So, to get into the game yourself, you activate this feature in the OS, or install a piece of software to do the work. Then you will have to tackle the tasks of examining your system settings and specifying what gets shared and what does not. A good piece of software will look over your machine and your registry and find all of the items that may be important to you. Once this is completed, you will need to let the software know when you want your settings moved. Do you want your remote consistency file updated every time you change a setting? Also, do you want it to be updated when you make a change from a remote machine? This would also be stored in the file. Finally, a storage location needs to be chosen. Most likely, an FTP or web server would be specified that the user has access to, to store the files. Once this is established, an update will occur right away and then again anytime a user changes a setting. On the remote machines, consistency profiles need to be retrieved at login. Almost any system that allows for multiple users provides a way for users to identify themselves to the system. Some require it. During that recognition period, an effort should be made to have the user identify their consistency file’s location. Or, a registry can be kept of usernames and locations where the consistency file can be obtained automatically. The file is then temporarily installed on the local machine. When the user is done, the original settings are either restored from a backup file made at login, or from a default file that is used to set the normal look of the machine. Also, on boot up of the local machine, original settings should be restored, in case a user just crashed it while their profile was installed. Further Issues: I’m sure there are many more things that need to be considered before a system like this can be put into use. Where do themes fit into this? And what about the security issues? Also, existing methods should be examined and their benefits and drawbacks catalogued. But, once these issues are dealt with and I can have the same color desktop on every machine I ever sit at, I will be a happy computer user. Document
Summary: Consistency across computers can provide new and unfamiliar users with a familiar computing environment and can satisfy advanced users who have tweaked their machines to their liking. All participating platforms will have need to have a way to move to and from a common format to provide consistency to their users. File and data sizes will be kept small, or accommodations will be made for access mechanisms that are not up to the task of retrieving large amounts of information. Finally, setup and use of the system must be quick and easy for it to become widespread. Example Configuration File: # Sample file First Hard Drive = C: POP3 Mail Server =
mail.yahoo.com First System Font = Verdana # Specific program info (even though
some do their |
|
Copyright (c) 2001 THPDG. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of THPDG is prohibited. HullBreach, www.hullbreach.com, and the graphic/logo are the intellectual property of The Homepage Design Group, and are protected by US Copyright and Trademark laws. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
