LAB -- basic electronics
I blew out my first LED trying to put it in a parallel circuit with no resister, what a moment. I can't wait to blow up bigger stuff. Putting the first LED in series was no problem. I used a 220-ohm resistor. I feel like Jebus when that little yellow light comes on ... and stays on. At first I soldered the wires on the switch the wrong way, but process of elimination solved that problem. It turns out that a switch is just a break in the power line. Once I understood that my switch worked fine. But I am still not sure what the third connection on the switch is for. If it is a ground, it seems pointless.

After my switch was working I added three more green LEDs in series. Green means go. In one series I used a photocell. That was cool. In another, I used a variable resistor. That was even cooler. Once you understand how power flows through a circuit wiring all of these things is easy. However, I noticed that my green lights got dimmer as they moved away from the power source, but I wanted all of my lights to equal. So, I tried using capacitors. I thought that because they store energy, if I put one at each light, it would build up and release enough energy to make them all really bright. It didn't work though. They all got dimmer. I tried every capacitor that I could find. They all did the same thing.

Finally, I decided to try and create a cool switch, something of my own devising. I searched through the junk pile trying to find inspiration. No luck. So, I grabbed some alligator clips and made jumper cables. I used the screws of my project box as conductors so that when you touch each screw with a clip the lights go on. YAY! It would have been more fun if I could get my motor to work. All it would do is flinch. I chalked it up to low voltage and moved on. As a final note, the aesthetics of my box will blow you PIC chips right out of your breadboard.

I promise to get pictures soon, text is boring. Is anyone giving away free cameras?

Big-up to Canal Street 269.


READING -- Buxton, "Less is more (more or less)"
I'm not sure if this is exactly true, but what I thought he was proposing is that some technology that is multifunctional focuses too much on what it can do and not how the user can do it. Does that make sense? Probably not. Anyway, I completely agree that when designing anything it is absolutely important to consider how it functions for the user. Especially complicated technology whose functions behind the interface are much too complex for the average user to understand. However, as a web designer I know that it is impossible to create a site that performs at 100% for every user without sacrificing some level of design and/or functionality. Some users just don't have the technology to run high bitrate sites. So, you have to take those users, the technology they might use, and their computer knowledge into consideration. Depending on which users are the largest parts of your audience, you may have to dumb-down your site for them. The same goes with all technology. In order to design something that everyone can use, you must simplify the design to the point where you must sacrifice some level of technology. Simplifying the design of all technology would drastically slow its development. The other issue is money. Buxton gave the example of how a cell phone in a car should work. I believe that, that technology exists. It comes with BMWs, Lexus, Mercedes and so on. Good design cost money. The more complicated the technology, the more time it takes to design it in a way that is simple to use. Design + Time = Money (D+T=$). That's my equation. The more something costs, the less it will be available to the general population. Should I draw a graph?