Science isn’t mobile friendly

Research papers aren’t mobile friendly, and therefore not as accessible as they could be.

All content published in science and research is published in PDF format, sometimes accompanied with code and other material. None of which is usable on mobile.

PDF files are not readable on smartphones. They are more readable on a tablet, but the discoverability and multitasking are poor.

Code examples and simulation resources are unusable on both smartphones and tablets.

Accessing research material requires a PC, and preferably a printer to read papers.

The “mobile revolution” in science and research isn’t happening yet.


I like the way you move

In computer graphics, photorealism drives the field toward a goal that everyone can relate to and evaluate. Other areas of computing, like user interface design, have harder goals to define. I’ll look at the example of computer animation tools.

1. Photorealism

Here’s a nice video about the making of the movie Jurassic Park:

Making of Jurassic Park
Making of Jurassic Park. Incredible computer graphics advancement and animatronics were developed to produce the movie.

The amount of work and invention required to produce convincingly looking dinosaurs is staggering. And it was done in 1993!

I think computer graphics are fortunate to have a clearly defined benchmark. In the physical world, we all have an intimate experience of how light, materials and living creatures behave. Our brain is extremely good at spotting inconsistencies. The public wouldn’t settle for less than convincingly looking pictures. That sets a very high bar for the visual effects teams, and drives formidable invention in the field.

Other computing areas where the upper bar isn’t defined precisely, or for which we don’t have a natural equivalent, are much harder to drive up. This includes the very way we use computers to do graphics (the user interface and the graphics programming languages), as well as everyday software we use to share and communicate.

2. Defining other goals

What would be the equivalent of photorealism for user interface design? We could think of “body realism” or “cognitive realism”: the idea that we should match our universal motor and cognitive abilities, and work out how we can best interface with the hand-eye coordination or temporal pattern detection that we can naturally perform.

For example, animators are mental dancers who have an intimate sense of timing. They can capture the nuances of body language and common physical behavior. But in practice, they have to lay out their intuition over a spatial representation of time, and learn abstract animation curves to express the inner dancing that naturally comes to them.

animation curves control in Cinema 4D
Animation curves. We can fine tune an animation by controlling its curves, which represent how a property like the object’s position changes over time.

When I see the tool above, I am impressed by its elegance and power. However, when working on actual shipping projects, animation curves are more likely to look like this:

complex animation curves control
Animation curves in actual projects. Interesting animated sequences quickly grow into an entangled set of curves for many concurrent and connected behaviors.

The animator has to handle the abstraction of representing time over space, and deal with the mental complexity that the representation quickly grows into. Learning how to use professional animation tools in order to ship anything interesting is a huge effort—no matter how much the big names in the animation industry downplay it as “just” a tool.

One of the magicians behind Jurassic Park, Phil Tippets, who was in charge of the animatronics and stop-motion animation, had this to say about digital computer animation:

We [in the stop-motion animation team] are used to actually walking up to the puppet, making each of these moves by hand. I’m not used to sitting down at a keyboard and having to hit buttons. It’s kind of like animating with boxing gloves on.

Tippets laments about the indirection of animating a digital puppet compared to animating a physical puppet. But that only calls for the opposite problem: animators have to animate their puppets, whether digital or physical, down to the rotation angle of the fingers joints. In real life, when we reach to grasp a glass of water, we don’t do so with an explicit knowledge of our fingers rotation angle. Instead, these details are implicitly integrated by our motor abilities, and we act on them on a higher level of abstraction. It is that level that’s meaningful to us and to the audience of animated pictures.

Pixar’s engineer presenting the studio’s animation tool
Low level control. A Pixar’s engineer presents the studio’s internal animation tool. Notice how he’s controlling the middle joint of the character’s finger. YouTube (0:52).

So it looks like the animation process happens at either one layer of abstraction above or below the layer that’s actually meaningful to the animator—without ever being at the sweet spot. I wonder if this constant up and down the ladder of abstraction is a fundamental limit, i.e. this is what makes an animator an animator, or an arbitrary limit, i.e. this is how the current animation systems work.

Does it make sense to think of an animation system where we direct characters by instructing meaning, instead of tediously manipulating single components? If I want to invoke rhythms like “3, 2, 1, go!” or “↗↘↗↘↗↘”, how would I tell the computer what to do in terms of what I want to do?



A peek into the Human Advancement Research Community.

HARC stands for Human Advancement Research Community. It’s a long range research group in computing funded by Y Combinator Research. It includes people like Alan Kay, Dan Ingalls, Bret Victor, Chaim Gingold and Toby Schachman, amongst many others I'd be excited to learn more about.

HARC is inspired by the early ARPA initiative from the 1960s: to be a high-risk, high-gain, far out research fund for computing related areas.

Götz Bachmann, Professor for Digital Cultures at the Institute for Culture and Aesthetics of Digital Media in Lüneburg, Germany, wrote an article about the research project on LIMN, a scholarly journal and art magazine. Here is the link for the article: Utopian Hacks.

This article is the first I saw relating some inside work happening at HARC. Bachmann specifically targets Bret Victor’s research group currently named “Realtalk”. Here is a selection of insightful quotes from the article:

Regarding HARC overall goal:

The overall goal is to create a rupture of a fundamental kind, a jump in technology equivalent to the jump in the 1960s and early 1970s when the quadruple introduction of the microprocessor, the personal computer, the graphical user interface, and the Internet revolutionized what computing could be by turning the computer into a medium.

Turning computing into media was already in the 1960s and 1970s meant to work with technology against technology: by using new computational capabilities, a medium was carved out that complies less with perceptions at the time of what computing is, and more with what a medium that forms a dynamic version of paper could look like.

Regarding Alan Kay’s research in the 1970s about programming and the object orientation idea (which is not what current object oriented programming languages are about):

The first iterations of Smalltalk [a programming language created by Alan Kay and his group] were experiments in object orientation that aimed to model all programming from scratch after a distributed system of message passing. Later versions gave up on this, and after an initial phase of success, Smalltalk eventually lost the battle over the dominant form of object orientation to the likes of C++ and Java.

The work of Alan Kay and his “Learning Research Group” can thus be seen as both a lost holy grail of computing before it was spoiled by a model of computing as capitalism cast in hard.

Kay’s work can be seen as a benchmark in radical engineering, as such enabling us to critique the stalemate and possible decline in quality of most currently available imaginaries about technologies.

About HARC Realtalk research group:

The group is constructing a series of operating systems for a spatial dynamic medium, each building on the experiences of building the last one, and each taking roughly two years to build. The current OS is named “Realtalk” and its predecessor was called “Hypercard in the World” (both names pay respect to historical, heterodox programming environments: Smalltalk in the 1970s and Hypercard in the 1980s).

As if to echo Nietzsche’s [...], a larger goal is to make new thoughts possible, which have until now remained “unthinkable” due to contemporary media’s inadequacies.

Enhanced forms of embodied cognition, and better ways of cooperative generation of ideas could cure the loneliness and pain that are often part of deep thought.

And a final thought-provoking reminder from some HARC researchers point of view:

The radical engineers would also be the first to state that the same interim solutions, if stopped in their development and reified too early, are potential sources of hacks in the derogatory sense. The latter is, according to their stories, exactly what happened when, 40 years ago, the prototypes left the labs too soon, and entered the world of Apple, IBM, and Microsoft, producing the accumulation of bad decisions that led to a world where people stare at smartphones.


Design by simulation

Ivan Sutherland invented a revolutionary way of designing on a computer in 1962. We can find some of his core ideas in modern 3D software.

Here's Alan Kay presenting a revolutionary program made by Ivan Sutherland for his PhD thesis in 1962:

screenshot of Ivan Sutherland's Sketchpad
Sketchpad. The user could draw two lines and tell the program that the two lines should be parallel. The program would figure out the rest.

Sketchpad seems smarter and different from common 2D drawing programs. In Sketchpad, you draw without trying too hard, then you assign goals and constraints to the computer, and it resolves the shape into what you instructed it to be. In contrast, regular 2D drawing programs encourage you to precisely build your shapes bottom up and step by step.

Alan Kay laments about how surprisingly hard it is to find something like Sketchpad available for the general public today.

Design by simulation

The way Sketchpad does things reminds me of how we work with 3D software. Here's an example from Cinema 4D:

screenshot of Cinema 4D
Constraints based animation. We tell the head of the character to “aim” at the ball, and watch the result.

In this example, the scene is animated using physics and constraints only:

The result is a goofy character that follows the ball. There was no manual keyframing involved in the making of the animation.

This way of doing things is closer in spirit to Sketchpad's. We setup the initial conditions, we instruct the computer with goals and constraints, and the solvers do the rest. It is a wonderful way to experiment. The possibilities are immense. I'm often paralyzed by the combinatorial explosion of the interesting situations we can setup.

However, with this method of design, a great deal of blind trial and error is necessary to build a meaningful scene. It is like reverse engineering biological evolution. Most experiments won't snap into an "aha!" resolution.

It took me several attempts to find the right axis and degrees of freedom I should constrain to, as well as a careful setup of the initial conditions, before I got the animation above. And I still should tweak the animation to improve the character performance: I could add a delay between the ball position and the head tracking, and make the character body react to the ball when it hits it.

The learning curve required to art direct physics and constraints based animations is steep. I think there is a huge opportunity to make the discovery process more fun and natural with improved user interfaces and feedback loops.


The tools that were developed for digital computer animation and 3D visual effects, unlike 2D drawing programs, seem to be a direct descendant of Sketchpad. I believe this is not a coincidence. We can trace the inception of 3D graphics to the ARPA project and the University of Utah in the 60s and 70s. For example, Edwin Catmull, the inventor of texture mapping and other fundamental 3D graphics routines, now president of Pixar and Disney Animation, was a student of Ivan Sutherland.


Feel the ship

Another gem from Star Trek Voyager about user interface design in a 1998 episode. This time pilot Tom Paris wants to feel the ship.

Star Trek Voyager Tuvok pointing at shuttle knobs

Commander Tuvok and Lieutenant Paris are designing a new space shuttle craft. Tuvok warns about microfractures risks to the shuttle hull, and continues:

Tuvok: If we [have problems during flight], I suppose these useless design elements from your Captain Proton scenario will compensate for the problem?

Paris: Hey, every one of these knobs and levers is fully functional...

Tuvok: ...and completely superfluous.

Paris: Maybe to you! I am tired of tapping panels! For once I want controls that let me actually feel the ship I'm piloting!

Star Trek Voyager shuttle knobs



This note is too meta and is going to fall in

I was writing a note about a topic of interest. I made a quick and excited draft on my iPad. When I moved on to my PC to write the final note, a whole week flew by and I found myself lost in long paragraphs, over ambitious goals and no clear point to make. I had no idea what I wanted to say.

This happens constantly including right now.

So here's the point: writing is essential to clarify ideas. But be careful of rhetorics. Words and sentences can draw you where you didn't want to go and trap you there.

The Maltese Language

Did you know people in the Maghreb write their dialect in Latin and use numbers to denote specific Arabic characters?

The Maltese language is fascinating to me. It hits very close to home.

It is a mix of Arabic, Italian, French and English written in Latin script:

Moorish looking streets of Malta
Presentation of the Maltese Language by Paul Jorgensen.

In this video, we learn that the Maltese Language branched out independently from North African Arabic during the Middle Ages. It detached from the Quran, and managed to mix Arabic, Latin languages and English in an official form spoken by hundreds of thousands of people.

I knew nothing about Maltese culture and language, but I immediately felt intimate with such a mix.

Moroccans for example speak a mix of Arabic, Berber, French and Spanish in a dialect called “darija”. In order to write darija on phones and computers, people use a mix of Latin characters and... numbers! The numbers are there to make up for specific Arabic characters which Latin script has no equivalent for, like “7” for “ح” or “9” for “ق”. For example, we can write “مرحبا” as “mar7ba”, which means welcome:

Moroccan pronunciation of the word “mar7ba”.


Examples of goal driven programming

Is 3D animation with inverse kinematics a valid example of goal driven programming?

I'm interested in computer based tools that allow humans to create complex systems using natural user interfaces. I'm learning about computing tools from the past and present. I want to get the general landscape, and to understand what the capabilities and limitations of the available tools are. One way to do that is to find the right people and learn from them.

Alan Kay is a computer researcher and a member of a remarkable group who pioneered graphical user interfaces at Xerox PARC. Alan Kay claims that the current state of computer programming is sad. He says that we ignored and forgot important insights laid out by brilliant early inventors.

I'll give an example of such an early invention, then I'll present a modern tool, and I'll ask if the modern tool correctly represents the intent of the pioneer.

1. Sketchpad

In 1962, Ivan Sutherland created a revolutionary computer program called Sketchpad:

Sketchpad screenshot
Sketchpad. The user could draw two lines and tell the program that the two lines should be parallel. The program would figure out the rest.

Alan Kay frequently shows Sketchpad in his hypnotic talks. He defines Sketchpad as the first “non-procedural programming system”. That means the user tells the computer what he wants (aka. goals), instead of telling the computer how to do what he wants (aka. procedures). The audience is usually amazed by how advanced the system from 1962 is, and why such capabilities aren't common to all modern graphics software.

Bret Victor, a human-computer interface designer who helped resurfacing some of these groundbreaking solutions, defined Sketchpad as an example of “goal driven programming”.

2. Inverse kinematics

In modern 3D computer animation, there is a fascinating technique used for character animation called inverse kinematics:

3D skeleton character
Inverse kinematics. 3D computer animation uses character rigs that are carefully constrained to mimic biological structures. This specific example is recorded in Cinema 4D.

Consider the 3D skeleton in the video. Each joint of the skeleton is constrained to move and rotate in some directions only. The animator can then move and rotate specific control points like the wrist or the hip. In the video above, only the hip is moved and rotated. The rest of the skeleton follows along according to the given constraints. The result is a natural looking motion that doesn't require to manually position every single joint.

Here's the Wikipedia definition of inverse kinematics:

“An animated figure is modeled with a skeleton of rigid segments connected with joints, called a kinematic chain. The kinematics equations of the figure define the relationship between the joint angles of the figure and its pose or configuration. Inverse kinematics compute the joint angles for a desired pose of the figure.”

In short, inverse kinematics is a solver that runs behind the scenes to satisfy in real-time the intent of the animator.

Can we consider 3D animation with inverse kinematics as an example of goal driven programming?


Reinventing the wheel

You shouldn't reinvent the wheel. Reinventing the wheel is the best way to understand the wheel.

Example 1

I worked as a freelance web designer and developer. One of my clients was a director of photography. He wanted an online portfolio. My proposal was to build a static website without using any CMS (“Content Management System”: a computer application that allows the creation and modification of digital content, like WordPress).

I argued that my solution would cost less, take less time to develop, and require cheaper hosting.

On the flip side, updating the portfolio would require basic HTML and server management understanding. I offered to include a few HTML and file transfer courses in my proposal. I'd show how to add ready-made snippets of HTML into a document and upload it to a server, so my client could add new media content himself. My client was playful and smart. He agreed.

That project never shipped.

Example 2

I often want to tell something about an experience or an idea I had. But most of the time, it never gets out there. I start by writing a note, and I get lost thinking about presenting it nicely, packaging it into a separate web page, and making it relevant and thorough enough to stand on its own.

These are impossible and counterproductive targets for what is essentially thinking out loud notes. As a result, most notes I write end up forgotten on my iPad.

Then I got an idea: create a presentation template, make the process of adding new notes as automatable as possible, and dedicate a page to all the notes. In one word: blog.


It is very tempting to tinker and try to come up with new solutions for every problem. But sometimes the best way to go is to use a proven solution.

Nevertheless, I enjoy traveling the path and reinventing the wheel. It illuminates the history of things and how they came to be.

Other examples

Using “it's simple” to explain something

While reading tutorials or watching presentations, I often come across this sentence: “it's simple!”. The author uses that sentence to introduce an idea and explain something. I think “it's simple” shouldn't be used to explain something.

Using “it's simple” didactically means:

But saying “it's simple” can:

Examples of “it's simple” misuse


Whenever I witness a coincidence, my inner voice shouts biological evolution!

By that I mean: I just witnessed a collision of chains of events that makes sense in my perspective.

Example: I crack my fingers, and at the exact same time, the door cracks because of the wind. Two similar sounds happening at the same time are worthy of notice.

Biological evolution is the history of coincidences happening in a deterministic physical world. Structures of the world can produce simultaneous events that resonate with each other and create something new.

Mobile vs. Desktop

There is a debate in the tech world about mobile computing (smartphones and tablets) vs. desktop computing (desktops and laptops). Below is a perspective for the creative professionals.

I think the problem is about where does work happen.

Sitting at a desk is the symbol of getting work done.

Tools like pen, paper and desktop computers have evolved around the desk + chair model. But I can't sit at a desk all the time. I'd rather move freely and choose my spot and body configuration depending on my mood.

I do desks because that's where I find the tools I need. I need Cinema 4D, Photoshop, After Effects, Sublime Text, note editors, web browsers, file compressors, server files uploaders, as much processing power as possible, and the ability to handle and switch between tens, sometimes hundreds of elements to ship a project.

Ideally I'd like to do all that wherever I want: sitting, standing, walking, next to my friend, inside, outside, going to bed, waking up, in the kitchen, in the toilets, all with maximum compute power and energy autonomy.

That's why mobile spread out wider than desktop. It's about the mobility.
Below is one of the series of tweets that prompted this post:

“No need to debate “kids use phones” or “iPad sits in a drawer”. Reality, laptops sit on desks, used less by most. Mobile = important.”

Steven Sinofsky

Right now mobile devices, i.e. phones and tablets, have nowhere near the power and speed of use PCs provide. Current mobile devices are extremely frustrating for people having complex workflows: 3D graphics, software development, video editing, etc.

The future is keeping the mobility of mobile devices:

While matching the speed and depth current desktop computers provide, so you could:

Creative people dream of continuous tooling availability, but the current crop of mobile hardware and software isn't capable enough for digital creative workflows.

Update 7 April 2017

The question isn't whether or not we can create on mobile—of course we can. Creation has been mobile for thousands of years. Creative people can create with anything. The question is: how will we do on mobile what we currently do on desktop?

Further reading

Staging is Paramount

Afford the world to human perception.

Look at this installation:

photo of an art installation

The installation looks important and immersive, because it is well staged. It is afforded to human perception in a way that makes it a part of the world we live in. Humans pay attention to it.

Nature is full of mind blowing structures that science helps capturing. But relatively few of these structures are widely afforded to human perception as if they were part of this world. Yet, the world is made of these mind blowing structures.



The second ultimate work of art.

In Star Trek Voyager, Season 6 Episode 14, “Memorial”, the spaceship's crew experiences unexpected memories of a massacre. They remember the killing of dozens of innocent people. Those memories put the crew in deep pain.

Later on, they discover that their memories were created by this structure:

Star Trek Voyager Memorial 0 Star Trek Voyager Memorial 1

A civilization has erected this monument. It emits a signal throughout the system. Anyone who comes close enough will experience memories of the massacre.

Star Trek Voyager Memorial 2

The structure contains a synaptic transmitter, says Seven of Nine, a member of the crew. It was designed to send neurogenic pulses throughout this system.

This device makes visitors remember arbitrary events. If the device was configured to generate memories of a massacre, a visitor would get a vivid memory of a disaster and feel the loss of many loved ones.

Words alone cannot convey the suffering.

Words alone cannot prevent what happened here from happening again.

Beyond words lies experience.

Beyond experience lies truth.

Make this truth your own.

I think such a device would constitute the second ultimate work of art. It maps directly to the emotional structures of the mind and creates any emotion the author intends to.

The ultimate work of art would be to capture and rebuild the emotion itself.