John Siracusa is right about electronic voting. People have been trained for years to be skeptical about computers replacing our ancient paper ballot systems. It’s sad for me to hear otherwise intelligent people spew out all the various rote reasons why we could never vote via the Internet from our own laptops or phones.

“It’ll be the end of democracy!” “Hackers will steal elections with a single click!” “Paper systems are so much harder to manipulate!”

Nonsense, plain and simple. Like fears of Terminator style artificially intelligent machines taking over the human race and enslaving us, fears of electronic voting are just plain illogical.

First and foremost, it’s important to understand that computers are already involved in tabulating ballots. (You don’t think we add up all the votes from all the counties in all the states with an abacus, do you?) In fact, computers are involved with every part of the vote counting except the part where we actually vote. Eventually, all the numbers from all the little polling places everywhere get fed into a computer, which then is just as easy to “hack” as any other computer. So what we’re really talking about here is the one piece of the process that isn’t already electronic.

But what about those electronic voting machines? Another argument I often hear is “Every electronic voting machine we’ve ever deployed is a piece of crap and easily hackable.” True, but that doesn’t mean a good machine couldn’t be invented. It doesn’t mean that if we put the top computer scientists into a room for a week they couldn’t come up with something a billion times better.

We invented the Atom Bomb. I think we could figure this out.

I may not understand computer security nearly as well as John Siracusa, but I don’t need that knowledge to reason that if we wanted to, we could of course invent a system that was equal to or better than our current paper voting systems in security. A system that was fully transparent, verifiable by disinterested parties, and much harder to hack than the current system. A system where, as he said, individuals could actually log in and verify that their votes were indeed counted. The technology is there. We just need the will and some time.

But will the public ever trust what they don’t understand?

Let me ask you this: Do you understand the technology behind securing your credit card number on Amazon?

If we trust computers with our money, we can trust computers with our voting. We can cry “democracy” all we want, talk about our inalienable rights until we’re blue in the face, but at the end of the day, nothing is more sacred to people than their money. And we’re doing our banking online, with systems that are frankly subpar when it comes to security and modern standards of transparency. So getting people to trust an electronic voting system is not going to be an obstacle for long. People will distrust, then they’ll talk to friends who had great experiences with it, and then they’ll realize it’s just a hell of a lot more convenient to vote from home than to wait in line for seven hours. Game over. Give it four or five election cycles, and most of the country will come around.

Now, Siracusa rightfully wanted to avoid being political in his discussion, but there is one obvious side effect of a fully-electronic, cryptographically secure system, at least here in the United States: Increased participation. If voting were as easy as ordering something on Amazon, we’d have much higher voter turnout in this country. And much higher voter turnout is definitely not in the best interest of the people in power (and one political party in particular, though I suspect both major parties would fear it). Thus, keeping people scared of electronic voting is paramount to the continuation of the status quo.

Ironically, many of my smart friends who are most afraid that an electronic system would be “hacked” are in fact making it easier for those they want to keep out of office stay in office longer. Keeping computers out of our electoral process is the hack. It’s a clever form of voter suppression.

It’ll probably be a few more generations before we see any real reform in this area. That’s unfortunate, because increased convenience in voting, which would cause increased participation, would ultimately make our elected representatives more accountable. Contrary to popular belief, electronic voting would very likely boost our democratic freedoms, and thus ensure a better future for democracy. Because democracy only works when people show up. And with the current system, very few are showing up.

Apple’s Institutional Slingshot: Rational Explanation Of Irrational Stock Action – Seeking Alpha: “As this slingshot terminology has morphed into mainstream vernacular, we’ve noticed that some still fail to understand the underlying forces that produce the slingshot action. Let’s begin by explaining what the slingshot is not. The Apple slingshot is not a hedge fund conspiracy. It is not caused by any of the negative rationale that you may hear in the media, which includes the underwhelming launch of Apple Maps, the lack of innovation from Tim Cook, iPhone 5 supply constraints, iPad mini cannibalization, Samsung (SSNLF.PK) competitive threats, the earnings miss, and of course the absence of Steve Jobs. To the uninformed, these variables sound reasonable enough to support a selloff, but to those who understand Apple’s historical stock precedent, these reasons appear to be nothing more than noise. Seasoned Apple investors know there is more to it.”

(Via. seekingalpha.com)

Everyone crying about Apple’s stock drop over the past few weeks needs to read this. It’s cyclical, and it’s temporary. And, as I’ve told many people lately, it’s a good time to buy.

The first big challenge in designing the iPad version of x2y was the placement of the controls. Looking at all that screen real estate, you are tempted to concentrate only on the visual aesthetic and forget that you want the design of the app to conform to the users’ hands as well his or her eyes.

This is why it’s essential when designing an app to mock it up and get it onto the device as early in the process as possible. Tap around and see how comfortable (or uncomfortable) all the controls are. (I use Bjango’s excellent Skala for this purpose.)

People hold the iPad very differently than the iPhone. It’s a two-handed device, for the most part. (Even the new iPad mini, while comfortable to hold in one hand while reading or viewing a video, is not very easy to operate with one hand. You tend to go two-handed when you need to start tapping things.) Placing the controls where they are easiest to get to, then, is essential.

I started with the number pad. The common solution to the number pad on the iPad is to place it at the center bottom, so that it’s equally reachable by either hand. Makes sense, after all, as this works perfectly for the keyboard. But since the number pad, unlike the keyboard, only takes up part of the width of the screen, I thought this placement would waste space and ultimately make it slightly uncomfortable for both hands, rather than perfectly comfortable for either one, as you have to reach out to get to the center of the screen. Considering that the main thing you need to do with x2y is change the values with this number pad, I wanted it to be as effortless as possible. This wasn’t working for me.

What if I place the number pad directly under the thumb? That way, you can type on the number pad without lifting your hands from the device at all. I mocked up the pad on the far bottom right, and immediately it felt perfect to use with the right hand. I knew this was a far better choice.

But what about those who prefer using their left thumbs? Being a southpaw myself, I’ve always been hyper sensitive to designs that don’t conform well to my preferences.

So I decided to add an orientation toggle. A simple button tap, and the entire layout of the app switches to an alternate, left-handed layout. The number pad moves to the left bottom corner, and the settings sidebar moves over to the right.

On first launch, the app assumes you favor your right thumb (a sensible default, as 90% of the world is right-handed), but once you set the orientation to your preferred side, the app will remember your preferred layout on future launches.

And this orientation preference works in landscape as well as portrait mode, of course.

This simple little change added more complexity for me on the backend. I ended up rewriting a lot of code to get two alternate views working properly. (Lots of AutoLayout debugging, too.) All for a switch that most users will press once and then forget. But every time I tap out a new value with my thumb, I’m reminded that it was totally worth it.

Meanwhile, adding the infrastructure to save that orientation preference made it trivial to save current field values between launches as well. So now, even if you haven’t launched the app in weeks, it’ll open up exactly where you left off, on both the iPad and the iPhone. A nice added benefit.

x2y is now a universal app for iPad, iPhone, iPod touch. You can get it here on the App Store. Or visit the web site for more details.

I think John Siracusa is exactly right: just about all of Apple’s products are in transition right now, and thus none of them feels spot on.

We can look at a product like the iPad mini and immediately fall in love with its smaller form factor and easier-to-hold light weight. But then we wince at the non-Retina display. We can easily picture a future where this awesome new iPad has that perfect screen, but we know we have to wait another year or more for that to happen.

All great design is compromise. What to put in, what to take out. But in this age of Retina screens vs. battery life, Apple is being forced to leave out a little more than we’d like. Or, in the case with the iPads 3 and 4, they leave in something we don’t want: bulk and weight, in order to get that crisper display.

We can see the trade offs far more clearly this time.

This didn’t seem to be an issue when Apple released its first Retina display on the iPhone 4. That device felt like most Apple devices; a nice improvement over the previous generation in all respects. Because Retina was new, we never expected it on previous devices. Apple had the luxury of releasing it when battery and weight specs were ready.

But Retina is a technology that doesn’t scale so easily.

Take a look at the laptop line. The laptop everyone wants is the MacBook Air with Retina display. Instead, we get the 15-inch and 13-inch MacBook Pros, much heavier machines that cost more and can barely handle the extra graphics overload from that quadruple dose of pixels. A laptop line that a year ago was dominated by the super-thin, wedge-shaped Air has now taken a step backwards, in terms of size and weight, in order to move forward with the screen.

Owning a Mac with a Retina screen at this point is definitely a mixed bag. Between the graphics card struggling to keep up with simple tasks like scrolling, and web pages and apps that are not yet fully optimized for Retina, having either the 15-inch or 13-inch Retina laptops at this point feels like you’ve arrived 15-minutes early for a party. You know it’s going to be great eventually, but at the moment you just feel alone.

This leaves die-hard Apple lovers like myself in the strange position of not necessarily wanting the latest and greatest Apple products right now. I’m willing to wait for a Retina MacBook Air; I didn’t even consider the current Retina Macs. At the same time, I’m about to sell my 3rd Generation Retina iPad and get a non-Retina iPad mini with 4G, rather than getting a 4th Generation Retina iPad. And I’ll very likely replace my aging iMac with a new non-Retina model in another month. I’m not rejecting Retina as a technology. Far from it. I just think the trade offs are too great at the moment.

Apple is clearly aware of the current pubescent state of its lineup. That’s why products such as the non-Retina MacBook Pro and the iPad 2 are still around. They know that for some, the cost of Retina is still a little too high.

The need for this transition is obvious. Retina displays are simply better, and it’s only natural that all of Apple’s devices (save the iPod shuffle) go Retina eventually. Those of us with rational minds and a bit of knowledge about the current limitations of technology don’t fault Apple for putting these compromised products into the world. After all, they are the best machines that can currently be produced, and in most respects they do their jobs just fine. But in our hearts, we’re longing for the devices we can’t yet have. We’ve seen a brighter future, so the present no longer satisfies. That’s a serious challenge for Apple moving forward. The sooner Apple can get its products out of this weird adolescent stage, the better.

Reading the Twitter and App.net reactions to the mostly positive reviews of the iPad mini today, I’m left with the impression that many people wanted

• $199 price point
• Retina display
• 10-hours of battery
• aluminum case, and all the fit and finish you expect from Apple

And anyone who doesn’t criticize Apple for not having all of these is a shill.

But design is about compromise, remember?

There’s no physical way Apple could have kept its “legendary” battery life (Tim Cook’s word, not mine) with the mini without sacrificing the Retina screen. And there’s no way it would have that beautiful aluminum fit and finish for $200. So choices were made. And if you follow Apple at all, you know why they made the choices they did.

Now, you can say that you would have preferred the Retina display in a cheap plastic case, or that you could live with five hours of battery instead of ten. But you have to make choices yourself in your imaginary preferred device. No one can currently make a device with all four of those things.

That’s not to say that Apple doesn’t deserve to get dinged in a review a little for having a screen that’s sub par compared to its competition. But from what I’ve read, the mini has been getting that ding. Most reviewers, even those who tend to be Apple positive, are wishing the mini had Retina.

(I’ll agree that rationalizing, i.e. “most people don’t care about Retina” is silly. Of course they care. And they will notice. But I’m betting the mini will still win most of them over.)

Apple operates on the “all or nothing” principle when it comes to resolution. It’s quadruple the pixels, or it’s not. There’s no in-between resolutions, where none of your apps work right or everything is fuzzy. Obviously I’d rather have a Retina screen on my mini, as I think that would be my ideal iPad. And by next year, when that’s physically possible, thanks to more advancements in battery technology and power management in iOS, I’ll have that. But in the meantime, I absolutely think Apple made the right choice to go with non-Retina before sacrificing battery life or making it even more expensive. And I certainly wouldn’t want a screen with 1200 x 900, or some other in-between resolution that made my apps look like crap.

As far as price goes, I’m also hearing a lot of talk about how Apple could “crush” its competition if it just made the mini $200. Sure. It could crush it even faster if it made the mini $100. Or heck, why not give it away?

Take a look at Amazon’s latest earnings report if you want to know how the cheap tablet market is doing. I don’t think Apple needs to crush anything. Those cheap tablets are money pits. Wall Street may give Amazon a pass for losing money on everything they sell, but when Apple warns profit margins will be lower than their usual 35%, the stock takes a nose dive. I think Apple is right to wait it out until it can make a profitable tablet at that price.

Are people still seriously thinking Apple needs to get into the razor-thin margins game? Because that’s how Apple got to be the world’s largest company, right, by competing on price?

Didn’t we learn anything from Netbooks?

I was as surprised as everyone else when I saw that $329 starting price. But mostly because it’s such a goofy, Marketing un-friendly number. Once I thought about it for a minute, I figured, “Well, that must be the compromise that went along with the manufacturing process.” This is what Apple does. Rounded corners, when squared corners are cheaper. Aluminum, when plastic is cheaper. Glass, when a plastic screen is cheaper. They build a great product, then price it as cheap as they can, not the other way around.

Anyone who takes a look at an iPad mini and a Kindle Fire will immediately know why the mini is more expensive. And they’ll choose according to what suits them best. Apple is happy to let them make that choice. They don’t cater to cheapskates.

But what about the iPod? I can hear some arguing. What about it? It was several years before Apple made an iPod that was cheap enough to not leave the “price umbrella” under it, and that iPod didn’t have a screen.

I have no doubt the umbrella will be gone in a few years. But that will take time, technological advancement, and a lot more creative thinking. Remember, this is the iPad mini, not the iPad shuffle. That’ll come later. In the meantime, let the competitors lose money for a while. Market share is not remotely important compared to making profits and keeping your reputation for best-in-class products.

You can’t beat Amazon in a pricing war. Why would you pick that fight, knowing you’re going to lose?