Tag: Apple

Macbook Wheel Predictive Sentence Technology

The aard­vark admit­ted its fault.
The aard­vark admit­ted it was wrong.
The aard­vark asked for an aard­vark.
The aard­vark asked for a dag­ger.
The aard­vark asked for health.
The aard­vark asked for a ride.
The absinthe arrived by air­mail.
The abor­tion went well.
The actor asked for an aard­vark.
The actor asked for absti­nence.
The actor asked for redemp­tion.
The adver­tise­ment was effec­tive.
The agile aard­vark arrived by air­mail.
The agile aard­vark bathed with beau­ties.
The agri­cul­ture was cul­ti­vat­ed by the coral.
The aggra­vat­ed dri­ver beeped on his horn.
The aggra­vat­ed roost­er scratched the dirt.
The Althusser­ian schol­ar gave his copy of Lacan’s “Ecrits” to the
abor­tion doc­tor.
The ami­able Althusser­ian schol­ar asked the aard­vark for absinthe.
The ami­able croc­o­dile brushed his teeth with a tooth­brush.
The ami­able doc­tor per­formed the oper­a­tion admirably.
The annex was cov­ered with asbestos.
The annex was crawl­ing with bee­tles.
The apple was air­mailed by the doc­tor.
The apple was con­sumed by the ami­able croc­o­dile.
The apple was inquir­ing about the ami­able croc­o­dile’s friend.
The aqua­ma­rine lifevest was not used.
The aqua­ma­rine lifevest was unpop­u­lar.
The arm­chair was uncom­fort­able.
The arm­chair was favored by the ami­able house­cat.
The ass asked for a bet­ter absinthe.
The ass brayed at the moon.
The assump­tive doc­tor did not accept our per­son­al check.
The assump­tive agri­cul­tur­al expert eyed our absinthe sus­pi­cious­ly.
The attrac­tive peanut farmer grad­ed the term paper.
The attrac­tive roost­er preened its feath­ers to attract absinthe.
The aux­il­iary gen­er­a­tor has mal­func­tioned!
The awning cov­ered the agile aard­vark dur­ing the ami­able rain­storm.
The awning was too tall to touch.
The bab­bling baby asked the aard­vark for some absinthe.
The bab­bling baby baked brown­ies with the ami­able croc­o­dile.
The bab­bling baby basked in its moth­er’s affec­tion.
The bab­bling baby bounced the ball at the bab­bling brook.

Alphabetization Is Not Fit for Music Libraries

Wikipedi­a’s arti­cle on alpha­bet­i­za­tion explains:

Advan­tages of sort­ed lists include:

  • one can eas­i­ly find the first n ele­ments (e.g. the 5 small­est coun­tries) and the last n ele­ments (e.g. the 3 largest coun­tries)
  • one can eas­i­ly find the ele­ments in a giv­en range (e.g. coun­tries with an area between .. and .. square km)
  • one can eas­i­ly search for an ele­ment, and con­clude whether it is in the list

The first two advan­tages are things you almost nev­er need to do with music libraries. And the third has been sup­plant­ed by now-ubiq­ui­tous search box­es: if you know what you’re look­ing for, you search; and if you don’t, an alpha­bet­ized list is not the way to find it.

Web vision­ary Ted Nel­son (<mst3k>Dr. Ted Nelson?</mst3k>) has been para­phrased as point­ing out that “elec­tron­ic doc­u­ments have been designed to mim­ic their paper antecedents,” and that “this is where every­thing went wrong: elec­tron­ic doc­u­ments could and should behave entire­ly dif­fer­ent­ly from paper ones.” If the fold­er metaphor is inad­e­quate for dig­i­tal doc­u­ments, no won­der it’s so piti­ful at han­dling music. The prox­im­i­ty between pieces of music in a library should least of all be based on the first let­ter in a band’s name – it’s as arbi­trary as sort­ing them by the vocal­ist’s month of birth – yet this is how it’s uni­ver­sal­ly done.

Music library orga­ni­za­tion needs to be re-thought from the ground up. We need to con­sid­er how it is that peo­ple used to lis­ten to music before it was all on their iTunes. How are your CDs orga­nized (or dis­or­ga­nized) on your shelf? How are they orga­nized in your head? What is it that prompts you to lis­ten to what you lis­ten to when you lis­ten to it? And how can we use com­put­ers to adopt and enhance these ways of think­ing, rather than forc­ing us to think like com­put­ers? Con­tin­ue →