I was trying to read the article about less-distracting tech, but I was distracted by a "create an account" popup that covered the screen while doing so
> requires an instruction booklet with a list of replacements and compatible parts
I appreciate this but it doesn't seem like it belongs in a certification about calmness per se. Even annoying tech should be clear about the extent to which parts are replaceable.
This is the danger with certifications: Making the certification too broad, causes very few things to be certified. Very few things being certified, means nobody knows why the certification matters.
In my mind, repairability, "calmness," accessibility - it's all separate.
Think of calm as the opposite of surprised. As in, wow I'm surprised this computer has a proprietary soldered on SSD I can't replace! I am no longer calm!
Amber Case's book on Calm Technology and design was a great read. Perhaps as a consequence of having studied Cognitive Science, I find this one to be the best book I’ve read on feature design — and not just for software.
It's full of easily digestible insights on attention and context, with excellent examples and clear explanations. It’s almost philosophical in its apparent simplicity.
I wasn't able to find a full list of all Calm Tech certified devices, but it looks like the union of these two URLs lists most of what they have certified:
I own that timer, or an Aliexpress knockoff there-of. It is great and helps my kids with their homework.
The daylight computer looked interesting too; but its website undermines the message it seems to give. I wanted a price and to order and could do neither, but there were long paragraphs about how revolutionary it was, with left to right and up-to-down transitions.
- AirThing View Plus: "This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content." Supposedly this has seven sensors, but only displays two values. How does that work? The values are displayed as numbers, too. A bar chart with green, yellow, and red sections would "calmer"
- Daylight Computer - Placeholder text again. No specs. What does it actually do? Writing only? Web browsing? Dark grey on off-white text, which looks like low-end E-Ink.
- Time Timer - looks fine, although everybody else's timers count down counterclockwise. How much does it cost? If it's $10, great If it's $100, come on.
- Unplug - if you need that, you have other problems.
This is disappointing. It's like the junk that used to be advertised in the magazines that were provided in airline seat backs. These are all non-problems or easy hits. They need something more useful, such as a more usable TV remote or home control unit or car infotainment system. Those all run from bad to worse.
I've run into "simple interface" people a few times. One was a guy who was plugging his book about how clever their design for a seat-back entertainment system was. He had a model of four typical users and how they'd use it to pick from a rather short list of alternatives.
I'd already read the book. I said, why not just have a channel selector knob? Then it comes out that the thing had a payment interface for pay per view. That wasn't mentioned when they were explaining how simple it was.
A few years ago, there was someone who wanted to build a GUI for some common Linux tool to promote their design shop. I suggested tackling Git, which really needs a GUI. That was too hard.
This goes way back. In the 1930s, there was a thing for radios with One Knob. Here's a 1950s TV ad for that.[1] There was a long period during which radios and TVs had a large number of knobs to be adjusted to get decent results. That was finally overcome.
My favorite simple interface is General Railway Signal's NX system.[1] This is the first "intelligent user interface", from 1936. What makes it "intelligent" is that, when a train is entering the interlocking, the dispatcher selects the incoming track, and then all the possible exit points light up. They pick the desired exit and push its button. The system then sets up the route, setting the signals and switches. Conflicts with other routes are detected, so this is safe. If there are alternate routes, NX can route around other trains. The previous technology was that the dispatcher had to figure out which switches and signals to set themselves. There was interlocking to prevent hazardous setups, but the lever machines couldn't plan a route.
This kind of UX design is really important and usually botched.
> This goes way back. In the 1930s, there was a thing for radios with One Knob. Here's a 1950s TV ad for that.[1] There was a long period during which radios and TVs had a large number of knobs to be adjusted to get decent results. That was finally overcome.
As I'm not sure if you're arguing for or against... I am generally pro digital for radios and TVs, and automatic seek is nice - but I've had it in (analog) car radios that the .05 or whatever resolution wasn't good enough, so a good old potentiometer knob helps.
But ever since I'm not sure if the best UX design exists. People have different problems to solve, and apparently "my favourite radio station has a weak signal" is one of them. Never had this problem with TVs auto-scanning for stations.
Look further back. The "one knob" concept was a reaction to tuned radiofrequency receivers of the 1920s and 1930s.[1]
Those required the user to perform simultaneous, coordinated adjustment of three tuning knobs.
The big advantage of superheterodyne receivers was that tuning only required One Knob.
All they needed was a tuning knob and a volume control/on-off switch.
That technology replaced TRF receivers, and radios became a mass-market product anyone could use.
I can't stop thinking that we're circling back to how "tech" was before when it was limited because it fits our needs better. Slower, some complexity, less possibilities at every time.
Yes I think the smartphone is an instance of "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.", when tech had higher constraints there was more thought put into determining what was essential.
When I want to put on headphones to do chores around the house I pick up my 2006-era iPod. No wireless pairing to screw with, no distracting notifications, just a library of music I've already listened to a hundred times so I can just think, which of these albums am I in the mood for, and choose. The interface is simple to navigate because there's just not much to navigate, and IMO that goes a long way to have a predictable experience that never introduces frustration.
The irony is that, the iphone era was somehow everything I wanted to see. But indeed this unified (incredible) device, ends up being a sink in itself that sucks so much of your thoughts to provide very few on average (there's some fun stuff given by having a pocket computer to be fair).
I think the universality hides the fact that these are not really made to stay in the flow of life but to be cute and shiny in themselves, capturing your attention instead of being the shortest path on providing what you need to keep going. Then there's the instability of platform (plethora of messaging apps..), the usual ad infestation (google maps now shows a lot of local shop whether you asked for it or not) etc etc. Old devices had to be tailored and became a side element in your life.
Even removing entertainment wouldn’t solve the problem because these devices have been engineered to be ad delivery platforms. You would have to ban advertising on the device.
Apple naysayers have been bitching at them for decades and decades about how simplistic their apps are and how they need to wake up and join the real world by adding features K-Z to their apps in ordered to be considered a real product.
Meanwhile Apple has had to wipe away their tears at such harsh treatment with their gigantic piles of cash.
To this day I don’t understand why we have half a dozen automakers creating sleek vehicles that take care of things automagically but in computers it’s just Apple. Where’s the Audi and Lexus of computers?
> Companies designing new products were unclear on what was right, or wrong, and uncertain about how they might put calm technology ideals into practice.
Nope. That’s not at all what the problem is. The problem is that when you implement features that respect the users attention an engagement metric dips slightly. And a shot caller notices. They roll the feature back. Because at the end of the day your calm means fuck all to the pursuit of endless growth.
Are you somehow able to lower refresh rate below 60Hz on phones? Would love to do this if possible (have an Android)
e: There's adb command to change the refresh rate: `adb shell settings put system min_refresh_rate 10.0`. Unfortunately my phone seems to have locked possible refresh rates to 60/90/120, any other values don't do anything. If someone wants to try this, there should be "Show refresh rate" setting under developer options which helps to detect if the adb command was successful or not.
I thought an interesting move for the next Light Phone is to dedicate an entire knob to screen brightness [0], although they indicate it will be user programmable too.
My previous phone had a scheduled "night time mood" which put the display into greyscale. Without this there's an intensity to the screen that reducing the brightness doesn't fix.
Maybe that's the spirit but you'll always have people who would like a clock on the wall, always visible and others who don't, but don't mind touching a button for it to light up. So I think "calm" can't be objective.
I mean right now just seems to be one of those business that one pays to put a logo of a nice green checkmark or a tree to make your product seem more legit and ethical
Sure it’s nice to push bunch of nice UI patterns but I imagine most of the “certified” products weren’t going to be attention hogs anyways. A positive outcome from something like this would be if governments started requiring these kind of certifications like they do for accessibility.
working on some product ideas now, finding that any code or set of interactions you can abstract up into an analog control loop is both calm and powerful.
if you have a system where you can dynamically dial resources up and down to find an optimal output, that's a high value system. I think understanding this balance is how aesthetic properties translate into value.
Need to try it here, dorry for OT:
Does anyone know investors in europe looking to fund something a little moonshotty? What i've been working on is fundamentally "calm" at it's core, yet more advanced tech.
Happy for any input (don't think VC is the route to go).
We're building a neuromodulation sleep headband, and we've always had the aim of getting to the point where the user puts it on, it does it's thing (slow-wave enhancement) the person takes it off in the morning and goes about their day.
I don't even want to put IO into the device at all. Not only because it increases cost and size, but because I don't what the user having to interact. We have to find better ways to fit the device in your life, so you don't even think about it.
I've answered a bunch of questions in this thread about the tech. I'll be doing a bunch of blog posts about our unique take on the sleep space, and where our tech fits in as we lead up to pre-sales.
There are a bunch of research papers on our website, as well as some very basic descriptions of how it works. https://affectablesleep.com
I love tech like this. You put it on and it just does its thing. My HR monitor is like that, although if the receiving device doesn't immediately pair, it can be frustrating figuring out what's gone wrong.
This was one of my biggest concerns as all over the wearable space you see comments about "I couldn't get my device to connect".
We haven't had too many issues with BLE, but I think the UI of the mobile app needs to clearly communicate the connection state, and not just "connected/disconnected" but more of "last connection, the device will ping in x seconds" so the person knows the device will be looking for the phone.
We have a few tricks up our sleeve, as we're like Santa (we know when you are sleeping, we know when you're awake), and seeing as the headband is only used for sleeping, we can have an open connection when you are awake, and then go into low power mode when we detect you've closed your eyes, and then we can ping on a more reasonable schedule.
I was working on a similar IO problem with wearables a while ago (though by the sounds of things, far less seriously than you are), and I had the idea that maybe that band/strap could function as an on-off switch, so when you undo the band (which you do when taking it off), it turns the device off, and vice versa. Could be something you could try too
I'm putting capactive sensors in my wearables to turn them on when in contact with a human.
I strongly believe that the class of widget I'm building should stay firmly out of the user's way. The point is to forget it's there. So, as simple IO as possible.
This is a fun material you could use to detect if a band was stretched or not, silver coated elastic [0], near 0 ohm resistance when loose, resistance increases when stretched. I built a voltage divider with a patch of it when I was experimenting with fabric input devices, mostly just noise makers, but you can see how responsive it is [1]
Polar H10 basically works like that. It's great until you are suddenly unable to connect to it via bluetooth, and have to blindly debug the reason. Is the device even on? Battery low? Broken? App issues? Who the fuck knows.
Yeah, you hit on a very important point. There are ways to handle this via lighting on the device (as far as, connected, battery, etc), and I think the app being clear about the state, beyond just "connected/not connected" is important.
We've had very few issues with BLE, but it is one of the things I'm most worried about as it absolutely kills the experience.
We've taken a similar approach, I won't divulge exactly what we've done yet, but our goal was to not have a button that would have to be placed somewhere that it wasn't going to get pressed in the middle of the night, would have to be large enough to be usable, adding thickness to the headband at some point.
There is a ton of snake oil in the industry, and I see so many people building similar products, that take the language of the research papers, and apply it to absolute nonsense.
There is over a decade of research in slow-wave enhancement, Philips funds a lot of research in this space, and even had a slow-wave enhancement device out in 2018/2019.
I'm not sure if what you are asking is "are we snake oil", or "do I get people asking". But in general, I hear so many people talk about grounding mats (no scientific evidence), EMF, neuromodulation to put you to sleep instantly, and so much other garbage, that I wish people would question things more.
I wish people knew how to read a basic research paper and decide if it even says what the company is claiming. I'm amazed that a company can put up a page that says "science", with a picture of a person in a lab coat, and people go "ok, must be true".
We're on a long view of this, and while VCs are dumping tens of millions into snake oil "neuromodulation" companies, we're taking a slower approach and playing the long-term game.
I'm a little worried, in your example, that there might be some configuration required that could be frustrating without a way to do it on the device.
For example, I helped someone transfer their stuff from their old iPhone to their new one a few years ago. The way you're supposed to do it is touch your old iPhone to the new one and it'll just work. Needless to say, it didn't. I think it was about an hour of rebooting the old and new ones before it finally caught. Since there weren't any logs or settings to change or any way at all to influence the process it was more frustrating than magic.
Now, it's possible your product really is as simple as turning it on and it'll just work, in the same way a lamp is "turn on and it works", but if there's any configuration at all that the device does, please expose it to the users. Human brains are incredible at finding patterns, generally better than computers, and if there's a mismatch between the human's model of how something works and the device's model, it's best to allow the human to change the device's model
Maybe this depends on the person, but I find a device with some buttons to configure it infinitely easier and less frustrating than an app.
An app to my brain screams "depends on your phone and will be outdated at some point; requires picking and unlocking your phone to use it; will have updates that change/ruin it at some point".
I just want to feel a button and press it, especially for things supposed to be used in the dark while sleeping.
> Maybe this depends on the person, but I find a device with some buttons to configure it infinitely easier and less frustrating than an app.
People's subjective experience may vary, but relying on an app objectively entails more complexity and risk exposure for the user than exposing on-device configuration.
It's quite possible that many people who say they prefer using apps do indeed experience a higher level of frustration over the full span of their usage, and are only expressing their immediate-term evaluation at the outset of usage.
I think there is the difference of calm in everyday use and initial set-up, maintenance, etc is...less calm.
There are functions managed in the app but we aim for those to be rarely interacted with. All the interactions that you have with the device should be as simple as your wireless earbuds, maybe even easier.
How does your headband work? I did some searching and it looks like there are 2 main technologies:
1. tES, transcranial electric stimulation, used by the Somnee sleep band.
2. acoustic stimulation (sound waves), used by the Elemind sleep band, which uses EEG sensors to determine the exact sound waves to apply.
I admit I was quite skeptical, but a brief look showed that both bands have a decent amount of clinical data backing them up, although funded by the companies (unsurprising at this point, but would be good to get some independent studies on their efficacy).
Curious if anyone has tried any of these bands and what they thought.
Our headband uses auditory (acoustic) simulation. But we are VERY different from elemind.
If you look at the research behind elemind, it is clear they designed a study to show a positive result. Somnee, less so, but it is only a single paper.
It's interesting to me you used "sound waves" to describe acoustic stimulation, which is exactly NOT what we are doing, or how auditory stimulation work (in our case).
A "slow wave" aka delta waves is the measure of the synchronous firing of neurons which is the hallmark of deep sleep and the foundation of health. It is the activity of the brain pumping the glymphatic system, which is clearing metabolic waste, and is linked to immune function, hormone response, parasympathetic response, and more.
Our EEG headband is detecting these slow-waves (the firing of neurons), and when we detect this brain activity, at a precise point in this synchronous firing, we interrupt the brain, with a brief pulse of sound. In response to this interruption, the brain goes "hey, this is vital to my health, don't mess with me right now", and increases the synchronous firing of neurons, both in that slow wave, as well as following up with another slow-wave after, sometimes 2, even 3, rarely 4 (but it is person dependent).
A slow-wave only lasts for 0.8-1.2 seconds, so this timing is very precise, and we can see the change in brain activity immediately. We stimulate in a 5 on/ 5 off protocol, so we can see the change in brain activity within seconds. We are not comparing different nights, as we know sleep is different across nights. The response is very consistent.
If you read the research from elemind and somnee, they sound very similar, with a huge red flag. They both say "we stimulate near the peak of an alpha wave, and then you fall asleep". There is no measure of a change in the brain activity. Just alpha wave, stimulation, sleep.
I found the Somnee headband unbearably uncomfortable, and it didn't do anything for me.
You mention acoustic stimulation as "sound waves" and that's where I wanted to clarify the whole "listen to a 120hz sound and it will improve XYZ".
As far as I am aware, all of this sound waves stuff and interacting with brain waves at certain frequencies is nonsense. A brain wave is a human construct for how we visualize the electrical activity of the brain, just like an EKG is a visualization of electrical activity of the heart.
You'd never say "we're interacting with your heart wave at this frequency", right?
I have many bug-bears with the industry as a whole, and it is a bit terrifying to me that I'm working in this space surrounded by so much nonsense.
We don't fund studies. The scientific principles of what we are doing has been known for about 10 years now. But it is difficult to do, and Philips have a TON of patents around this space - they fund a lot of the research.
However, we support researchers who are already looking into this space because we have the best technology (well, waiting to be proven but we have advanced beyond the protocols of Philips and Dreem).
I hope that helps understand where we're at, and maybe how we differ. I'm happy to answer any more questions.
Very interesting initiative. I think examining products on that level is very important.
What I think is also important though are tools which can embrace this and work with existing technology. The modern smartphone is simultaneously a great tool and an enormous distraction. There exist no device which offers the tools I genuinely need without all of the distractions.
Agreed, had a bunch of talks about this issue with the wife.
On one hand, we're both distractible people, and it'd probably be better if we could leave our phones behind on certain family outings and trips.
But on the other hand, there's definitely times where you really need your phone on said outings: for directions, for business info, to call people, to book things, etc. It's just hard to get the necessities without bringing along everything else.
Coincidentally there's an app on the front page that is an open-source and free for the Unpluq product mentioned in the Calm certification: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42782295
You know whats calm and not distracting? A notebook and pen. You can buy a LOT of decent notebooks for the price of one of the reMarkables mentioned in the article. (~30 or so?), and it will last a lot longer as well. Im starting to sound like a luddite.
Obligatory mention that the Luddites weren't against technology in general, they were against technology that was causing them to lose their livelihoods (while the country was already in the midst of an employment crisis and economic downturn due to a trade war (and real war) with Napoleon's Europe).
With the usual trade-offs between pen and notebook: namely durability and storage, for me. Some can account for all their notebooks going back years. I cannot, which makes me sad to have lost a lot of writing.
I have observed a strange/alarming behaviour when I carry a notebook - because friends and family don't typically have one, they find it intriguing and so will sometimes absentmindedly snoop through what I've written if I leave it unattended. The same thing just doesn't happen with a ReMarkable (and even if it did, you can set a PIN code).
> and so will sometimes absentmindedly snoop through what I've written if I leave it unattended
I'm glad I'm not the only one who experienced that! Such a fascinating experience, though really quite upsetting at the time. Doesn't happen now with my PIN-locked e-ink device.
I get you're being snarky, but I'll politely push back.
I remained skeptical for a long time. Then I got one. I absolutely love it. In particular, the ability to have multiple notebooks with me and cross-linking via tags. And "infinite pages" lets you insert space in the middle of a page or continue moving down without having to worry about physical page sizes. I can also screen-share the tablet with the desktop app to draw diagrams on zoom calls.
Admittedly, it is only incremental over a spiral notebook and a bic pen. But they do that incremental thing pretty well, particularly because of their focus on the "calm tech" aspects and lack of mainstream ecosystem to track upstream.
I had the opposite experience. I am an avid note taker, love the idea of a remarkable and got one for all the benefits you mentioned, especially the screen share part and just found it unsatisfying. Couldn't stick with it, wound up sending it back and going back to pen and paper
My paper notebooks can't do linking, I can't easily rearrange pages, rearrange my notes on the page, and getting it off my paper and into my work PC is more challenging. My Kindle Scribe is excellent for all of this, and I can't go back, personally!
>I can't easily rearrange pages, rearrange my notes on the page
okay. so don't do those things.
for me, that's what "calm tech" is all about - it's not just notifications and distractions, it's all the desire for more features, and for software to solve all problems. sometimes we can just not have features, and keep some problems, instead of trading our problems for the problems that more features bring.
You’re better at writing than I am then! I make mistakes all the time, so being able to move my words around on the page is super useful.
This to me is calm tech, because that’s all it does: note taking. If your definition is such that only pen and paper meets it, that’s not a very useful definition for tech IMO
There are of course pen-and-paper approaches to all of these.
Links in text are called references. These can be internal within a document or codex, or external, referencing third-party works. Either case is far less subject to linkrot than URLs have turned out to be.
One of the killer concepts of a bullet journal is the use of indices and spreads to provide an interlinked and searchable reference. If you go back in time, there are numerous journal and commonplace book organisational schemes.
Pages can be easily rearranged using a removeable binding (three-ring binder or various other options), or by using an unbound format such as index cards (the original database solution).
Data can be entered into a computer through scanning and handwriting recognition, though this is admittedly slow, cumbersome, and inexact. On the other hand, you may want friction between your paper-based and electronic data systems.
> Either case is far less subject to linkrot than URLs have turned out to be.
I do not mean URLs, though, I mean locally linking from one page or notebook to another. It's internal references on steroids, and is much more useful to me than my collection of paper notebooks and references were
I'm a BuJo afficionado too! I'm still adapting it to my e-ink note-taking system, starting to get there via folders and notebooks instead of one big notebook, and its exactly why internal linking is so useful!
In a BuJo: list the page you want to reference. I also create several pages of initial index at the beginning of my BuJo, and generally put spreads at the back, working forward.
That way the BuJo reads as: index, calendrical pages, spreads/references (at the end).
The advantages are non-electronic storage with ready reference. You can only access the current year's BuJo generally (unless you're where your archive is kept), but current references should be readily available on you (e.g., addresses, current information, calendar, etc.). You can only lose the current journal should you misplace it, and the information won't leak out readily as it can from digital storage.
For an index-card system, look up Zettelkasten if you haven't already. Very robust and useful indexing systems have been at the heart of academic and commercial research for over two centuries now, and the systems developed are quite powerful. Digital systems are more powerful still, but have their own downsides: loss or corruption, data exfiltration, and devices which may not be convenient to use in all circumstances.
With a BuJo or Zettelkasten, information capture is possible by carrying a few index cards with you and jotting notes. You have capture, can file these into your journal (or an indexing system, or a loose-leaf binding), and don't risk losing the rest of your archive in the process. The lack of digital distractions is its own powerful benefit.
I hope either Amazon or Remarkable come out with a 13" e-paper tablet. I want to be able to read and mark up A4 sized pdfs. The Fujitsu Quaderno is out there, but it feels semi-abandoned.
FWIW the Boox devices are good and are in the 13" space, but my annoyance with them is 1) Android and 2) I broke the screen on my Boox Note 2, and there is no way to repair it, even a screen replacement is impossible apparently, so YMMV.
Yeah totally fair on both points. I'd bought the Note 2 before I'd heard about the GPL violations... Android is funnily enough exactly why I went back to the Kindle with the Scribe instead, though Amazon has it's faults as well. My ideal device for this space would be the reMarkable Paper Pro but with the Kindle app for reading books installed :)
Out of the four categories they show only one needs consent: targeted ads, the others can be fully anonymous. The "essential cookies" can't be disabled, the "analytics" can be fully anonymous, the "personalisation" can be fully anonymous.
If they didn't have ads that track me, then they would have no need to ask my permission to use cookies that track me.
There is no requirement so seek permission for other cookies needed to run the website. Quite why some readers of a technical news site (!) are still confused about this is bizzare.
In short, blame the scummy adtech industry. Not the legislation that gives us our privacy.
People say that but it's not really true. If they just have 1P cookies for basic functionality (login), then I believe there can be a discreet notice at the bottom informing the user of that fact. Groups like IEEE should be the ones pioneering those patterns.
That's true. Strictly technically necessary cookies do not need consent or even information with a banner. Guess it's nice to know, but probably not legally necessary.
You don't HAVE TO have a cookie banner for cookies which don't require consent.
Cookies not requiring consent :
- "technical" cookies: for session, saving some user preferences (consenting to cookies or not, language etc.)
- cookies used for load balancing or to protect against fraud
- cookies used to save a cart or used to invoice some service
- usage statistics cookies IF the data is anonymous
Also, the law is about trackers, not specifically cookies: so data in local and session storage are concerned as does browser fingerprinting.
But it's so much more effective to pretend like there are onerous requirements imposed by governments that interfere with the user experience. See: TikTok's early and unnecessary self-imposed, location-based shutdown with a pop-up message blaming the big bad government. Bonus points for ass kissing the easily manipulated current administration.
TikTok was not required to restrict access to the app from devices in the US. Rather US companies (web hosting and app stores) were required to cease support. This means app stores like Google and Apple had to prevent downloads and installs (Apple still is). But the blanket shutdown of anyone with GPS coordinates within the US was not required. People were even still allowed to side-load the app where possible like in Android. So, the early and overly restrictive limitations from TikTok was for show and messaging to manipulate public opinion.
Edit Reference:
> If not sold within a year, the law would make it illegal for web-hosting services to support TikTok, and it would force Google and Apple to remove TikTok from app stores — rendering the app unusable with time.
AFAIK, only 3rd party cookies require this consent. I am pretty sure you require consent for 2nd party as well. Your own site's cookies? Do what you want.
GDPR, however, also covers other things like your storing user's data, but that is separate from cookies. Cookies are stored on user's device.
My take: if a law and it's enforcement almost universally lead to a worse outcome, the burden is on the lawmakers and enforcers to do better. You can yell about the websites all you want but being mad at most of the internet at once is a losing game.
To say you have fallen for a political play is not a personal attack. It is not some sort of personal failing, but a trap set for you. Informing you of that is a nice thing this person has chosen to do for you.
> Access Thousands of Articles — Completely Free
> Create an account and get exclusive content and features: Save articles, download collections, and talk to tech insiders — all free! For full access and benefits, join IEEE as a paying member.
My son just had an X-ray and there were checks and balances and careful professionals. It’s taken a hundred years plus to go from early tech to available in local hospitals.
We have barely begun to address the sharp edges of social media, mobiles and more. We will get there, a calm UI and backgrounded tech (hint AI won’t do it magically we need to intentionally give up selling ads every second) but democracy helps.
I don't really understand what it is about. The general idea is be less distracting, but that's pretty vague, a lot of things are not distracting, in fact most things aren't, we just don't notice and that's the point.
The criteria seem to be "attention, periphery, durability, light, sound, and materials". Very broad. It looks like it even addresses openness and repairability with "an instruction booklet with a list of replacements and compatible parts", something I really care about, but how does it relate to calm?
Maybe it will be clearer when the certification document is out.
Probably because your brain is mush from being born into a world where everything is a high tech attention grabbing nightmare. Those of us born 40-50 years ago see the consequences of this mess and are glad to have someone quantifying it, and hopefully creating a competitive market for devices that don’t intentionally make life harder.
About the age, I am actually one of you. But as an experiment, list the devices at home that are "high tech attention grabbing nightmares", and those that aren't.
You are going to find the attention grabbers really fast of course, that's the idea, but if you are like me, the list is relatively short.
Smartphone, PC, and that's about it, you may have a TV and a couple of device with annoyingly bright blue LEDs, but now the things that aren't: toaster, coffee machine, kettle, washing machine, dryer, fridge, various tools, hairdryer, etc... These things are not so different from how they were 40 years ago in terms of attention grabbing. In fact, many have improved by being less noisy. Oh, and I don't have that bright red alarm clock radio anymore.
less distracting, less distracting, less distracting than what?, oh ! oh! I know this one
its called lowering the bar, all the way, from where a device or a technology does something that saves you time and effort, to where it costs you time and attention from the things you need to do, but thats ok.
where is a ludite with a big wrench
My list of calm (+), somewhat calm (o), and non-calm (-) pieces of technology that I have owned:
+ kindle from 2010
- laptop
- phone
- Ipad (but it's still much calmer than my computer or my phone)
+ Harmonica (musical instrument)
o Amplifier (I use it with my harmonica through a mic)
- Linnstrument (musical instrument that requires computer or ipad connection)
+ Pencil and paper
+ Paper books
o Handwritten notes on Ipad
- Notes in obsidian
o Nintendo Switch
+ Paper dictionary (for language learning)
- Dictionary + Claude AI on my phone
PS: Electrical tape is better than duct tape because it's A: Black, B: It's rated for up to (typically, verify) about 200F and 600V. When I've resorted to this it's been on some things like stereo components that both get quite warm and have the tape pretty close to things like speaker terminals so being reasonably insulating is a nice safety blanket.
Been using Emacs for over 15 years and, now you mention it, I guess that is why. At the time it was normal for people to use a different IDE per language and these would be littered with buttons, menus, tabs etc. I thought this was ridiculous so looked into vim and Emacs. Emacs is obviously better so I made my config completely distraction-free (which is trivial to do).
Now 99% of my window is the text I'm editing (two lines reserved for modeline and minibuffer). Nothing pops up or makes its presence known until the moment I need it. Tabs are a good example. I often have close to a hundred files "open" in Emacs but I don't need to know about them until the moment I'm ready to switch to one.
I was 10 years ahead of VS Code taking off but when I look at that I still see a bunch of useless distractions taking up valuable screen space.
I use vscode in neovim mode, but it does have a habit of "notifying" me about everything. Whose idea was it for there to be a marginal popup repeating everything I do?
I do a thing, and there's the popup "hey, you did a thing!" Stop it...
143 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 206 ms ] threadI appreciate this but it doesn't seem like it belongs in a certification about calmness per se. Even annoying tech should be clear about the extent to which parts are replaceable.
In my mind, repairability, "calmness," accessibility - it's all separate.
It's full of easily digestible insights on attention and context, with excellent examples and clear explanations. It’s almost philosophical in its apparent simplicity.
https://www.calmtech.institute/calm-tech-certification
https://www.calmtech.institute/blog/tags/calm-tech-certified
The daylight computer looked interesting too; but its website undermines the message it seems to give. I wanted a price and to order and could do neither, but there were long paragraphs about how revolutionary it was, with left to right and up-to-down transitions.
- AirThing View Plus: "This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content." Supposedly this has seven sensors, but only displays two values. How does that work? The values are displayed as numbers, too. A bar chart with green, yellow, and red sections would "calmer"
- Daylight Computer - Placeholder text again. No specs. What does it actually do? Writing only? Web browsing? Dark grey on off-white text, which looks like low-end E-Ink.
- Time Timer - looks fine, although everybody else's timers count down counterclockwise. How much does it cost? If it's $10, great If it's $100, come on.
- Unplug - if you need that, you have other problems.
This is disappointing. It's like the junk that used to be advertised in the magazines that were provided in airline seat backs. These are all non-problems or easy hits. They need something more useful, such as a more usable TV remote or home control unit or car infotainment system. Those all run from bad to worse.
I've run into "simple interface" people a few times. One was a guy who was plugging his book about how clever their design for a seat-back entertainment system was. He had a model of four typical users and how they'd use it to pick from a rather short list of alternatives. I'd already read the book. I said, why not just have a channel selector knob? Then it comes out that the thing had a payment interface for pay per view. That wasn't mentioned when they were explaining how simple it was.
A few years ago, there was someone who wanted to build a GUI for some common Linux tool to promote their design shop. I suggested tackling Git, which really needs a GUI. That was too hard.
This goes way back. In the 1930s, there was a thing for radios with One Knob. Here's a 1950s TV ad for that.[1] There was a long period during which radios and TVs had a large number of knobs to be adjusted to get decent results. That was finally overcome.
My favorite simple interface is General Railway Signal's NX system.[1] This is the first "intelligent user interface", from 1936. What makes it "intelligent" is that, when a train is entering the interlocking, the dispatcher selects the incoming track, and then all the possible exit points light up. They pick the desired exit and push its button. The system then sets up the route, setting the signals and switches. Conflicts with other routes are detected, so this is safe. If there are alternate routes, NX can route around other trains. The previous technology was that the dispatcher had to figure out which switches and signals to set themselves. There was interlocking to prevent hazardous setups, but the lever machines couldn't plan a route.
This kind of UX design is really important and usually botched.
[1] https://anyflip.com/lbes/vczg
As I'm not sure if you're arguing for or against... I am generally pro digital for radios and TVs, and automatic seek is nice - but I've had it in (analog) car radios that the .05 or whatever resolution wasn't good enough, so a good old potentiometer knob helps.
But ever since I'm not sure if the best UX design exists. People have different problems to solve, and apparently "my favourite radio station has a weak signal" is one of them. Never had this problem with TVs auto-scanning for stations.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuned_radio_frequency_receiver
When I want to put on headphones to do chores around the house I pick up my 2006-era iPod. No wireless pairing to screw with, no distracting notifications, just a library of music I've already listened to a hundred times so I can just think, which of these albums am I in the mood for, and choose. The interface is simple to navigate because there's just not much to navigate, and IMO that goes a long way to have a predictable experience that never introduces frustration.
The problem comes when they are both a tool and an entertainment device, as they are inseparably linked together.
Meanwhile Apple has had to wipe away their tears at such harsh treatment with their gigantic piles of cash.
To this day I don’t understand why we have half a dozen automakers creating sleek vehicles that take care of things automagically but in computers it’s just Apple. Where’s the Audi and Lexus of computers?
Nope. That’s not at all what the problem is. The problem is that when you implement features that respect the users attention an engagement metric dips slightly. And a shot caller notices. They roll the feature back. Because at the end of the day your calm means fuck all to the pursuit of endless growth.
e: There's adb command to change the refresh rate: `adb shell settings put system min_refresh_rate 10.0`. Unfortunately my phone seems to have locked possible refresh rates to 60/90/120, any other values don't do anything. If someone wants to try this, there should be "Show refresh rate" setting under developer options which helps to detect if the adb command was successful or not.
https://www.thelightphone.com/blog/light-iii-design-manifest...
Sure it’s nice to push bunch of nice UI patterns but I imagine most of the “certified” products weren’t going to be attention hogs anyways. A positive outcome from something like this would be if governments started requiring these kind of certifications like they do for accessibility.
if you have a system where you can dynamically dial resources up and down to find an optimal output, that's a high value system. I think understanding this balance is how aesthetic properties translate into value.
Happy for any input (don't think VC is the route to go).
I don't even want to put IO into the device at all. Not only because it increases cost and size, but because I don't what the user having to interact. We have to find better ways to fit the device in your life, so you don't even think about it.
There are a bunch of research papers on our website, as well as some very basic descriptions of how it works. https://affectablesleep.com
We haven't had too many issues with BLE, but I think the UI of the mobile app needs to clearly communicate the connection state, and not just "connected/disconnected" but more of "last connection, the device will ping in x seconds" so the person knows the device will be looking for the phone.
We have a few tricks up our sleeve, as we're like Santa (we know when you are sleeping, we know when you're awake), and seeing as the headband is only used for sleeping, we can have an open connection when you are awake, and then go into low power mode when we detect you've closed your eyes, and then we can ping on a more reasonable schedule.
I strongly believe that the class of widget I'm building should stay firmly out of the user's way. The point is to forget it's there. So, as simple IO as possible.
[0] https://lessemf.com/product/stretch-conductive-fabric/
[1] https://youtu.be/Xjo4w4OiBS8
We've had very few issues with BLE, but it is one of the things I'm most worried about as it absolutely kills the experience.
There is a ton of snake oil in the industry, and I see so many people building similar products, that take the language of the research papers, and apply it to absolute nonsense.
There is over a decade of research in slow-wave enhancement, Philips funds a lot of research in this space, and even had a slow-wave enhancement device out in 2018/2019.
I'm not sure if what you are asking is "are we snake oil", or "do I get people asking". But in general, I hear so many people talk about grounding mats (no scientific evidence), EMF, neuromodulation to put you to sleep instantly, and so much other garbage, that I wish people would question things more.
I wish people knew how to read a basic research paper and decide if it even says what the company is claiming. I'm amazed that a company can put up a page that says "science", with a picture of a person in a lab coat, and people go "ok, must be true".
We're on a long view of this, and while VCs are dumping tens of millions into snake oil "neuromodulation" companies, we're taking a slower approach and playing the long-term game.
I'm keen to hear your thoughts.
For example, I helped someone transfer their stuff from their old iPhone to their new one a few years ago. The way you're supposed to do it is touch your old iPhone to the new one and it'll just work. Needless to say, it didn't. I think it was about an hour of rebooting the old and new ones before it finally caught. Since there weren't any logs or settings to change or any way at all to influence the process it was more frustrating than magic.
Now, it's possible your product really is as simple as turning it on and it'll just work, in the same way a lamp is "turn on and it works", but if there's any configuration at all that the device does, please expose it to the users. Human brains are incredible at finding patterns, generally better than computers, and if there's a mismatch between the human's model of how something works and the device's model, it's best to allow the human to change the device's model
An app to my brain screams "depends on your phone and will be outdated at some point; requires picking and unlocking your phone to use it; will have updates that change/ruin it at some point".
I just want to feel a button and press it, especially for things supposed to be used in the dark while sleeping.
People's subjective experience may vary, but relying on an app objectively entails more complexity and risk exposure for the user than exposing on-device configuration.
It's quite possible that many people who say they prefer using apps do indeed experience a higher level of frustration over the full span of their usage, and are only expressing their immediate-term evaluation at the outset of usage.
There are functions managed in the app but we aim for those to be rarely interacted with. All the interactions that you have with the device should be as simple as your wireless earbuds, maybe even easier.
1. tES, transcranial electric stimulation, used by the Somnee sleep band.
2. acoustic stimulation (sound waves), used by the Elemind sleep band, which uses EEG sensors to determine the exact sound waves to apply.
I admit I was quite skeptical, but a brief look showed that both bands have a decent amount of clinical data backing them up, although funded by the companies (unsurprising at this point, but would be good to get some independent studies on their efficacy).
Curious if anyone has tried any of these bands and what they thought.
If you look at the research behind elemind, it is clear they designed a study to show a positive result. Somnee, less so, but it is only a single paper.
It's interesting to me you used "sound waves" to describe acoustic stimulation, which is exactly NOT what we are doing, or how auditory stimulation work (in our case).
A "slow wave" aka delta waves is the measure of the synchronous firing of neurons which is the hallmark of deep sleep and the foundation of health. It is the activity of the brain pumping the glymphatic system, which is clearing metabolic waste, and is linked to immune function, hormone response, parasympathetic response, and more.
Our EEG headband is detecting these slow-waves (the firing of neurons), and when we detect this brain activity, at a precise point in this synchronous firing, we interrupt the brain, with a brief pulse of sound. In response to this interruption, the brain goes "hey, this is vital to my health, don't mess with me right now", and increases the synchronous firing of neurons, both in that slow wave, as well as following up with another slow-wave after, sometimes 2, even 3, rarely 4 (but it is person dependent).
A slow-wave only lasts for 0.8-1.2 seconds, so this timing is very precise, and we can see the change in brain activity immediately. We stimulate in a 5 on/ 5 off protocol, so we can see the change in brain activity within seconds. We are not comparing different nights, as we know sleep is different across nights. The response is very consistent.
If you read the research from elemind and somnee, they sound very similar, with a huge red flag. They both say "we stimulate near the peak of an alpha wave, and then you fall asleep". There is no measure of a change in the brain activity. Just alpha wave, stimulation, sleep.
I can go on and on about all the red flags, but you can read about elemind here - https://neurotechnology.substack.com/p/avoiding-neurotechs-t...
I found the Somnee headband unbearably uncomfortable, and it didn't do anything for me.
You mention acoustic stimulation as "sound waves" and that's where I wanted to clarify the whole "listen to a 120hz sound and it will improve XYZ".
As far as I am aware, all of this sound waves stuff and interacting with brain waves at certain frequencies is nonsense. A brain wave is a human construct for how we visualize the electrical activity of the brain, just like an EKG is a visualization of electrical activity of the heart.
You'd never say "we're interacting with your heart wave at this frequency", right?
I have many bug-bears with the industry as a whole, and it is a bit terrifying to me that I'm working in this space surrounded by so much nonsense.
We don't fund studies. The scientific principles of what we are doing has been known for about 10 years now. But it is difficult to do, and Philips have a TON of patents around this space - they fund a lot of the research.
However, we support researchers who are already looking into this space because we have the best technology (well, waiting to be proven but we have advanced beyond the protocols of Philips and Dreem).
I hope that helps understand where we're at, and maybe how we differ. I'm happy to answer any more questions.
What I think is also important though are tools which can embrace this and work with existing technology. The modern smartphone is simultaneously a great tool and an enormous distraction. There exist no device which offers the tools I genuinely need without all of the distractions.
On one hand, we're both distractible people, and it'd probably be better if we could leave our phones behind on certain family outings and trips.
But on the other hand, there's definitely times where you really need your phone on said outings: for directions, for business info, to call people, to book things, etc. It's just hard to get the necessities without bringing along everything else.
Calm Technology - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29115653 - Nov 2021 (68 comments)
Calm Technology - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21799736 - Dec 2019 (155 comments)
Principles of Calm Technology - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12389344 - Aug 2016 (66 comments)
Calm Technology - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9107526 - Feb 2015 (1 comment)
Calm Tech, Then and Now - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8475764 - Oct 2014 (1 comment)
Designing Calm Technology (1995) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7976258 - July 2014 (2 comments)
Obligatory mention that the Luddites weren't against technology in general, they were against technology that was causing them to lose their livelihoods (while the country was already in the midst of an employment crisis and economic downturn due to a trade war (and real war) with Napoleon's Europe).
I'm glad I'm not the only one who experienced that! Such a fascinating experience, though really quite upsetting at the time. Doesn't happen now with my PIN-locked e-ink device.
I remained skeptical for a long time. Then I got one. I absolutely love it. In particular, the ability to have multiple notebooks with me and cross-linking via tags. And "infinite pages" lets you insert space in the middle of a page or continue moving down without having to worry about physical page sizes. I can also screen-share the tablet with the desktop app to draw diagrams on zoom calls.
Admittedly, it is only incremental over a spiral notebook and a bic pen. But they do that incremental thing pretty well, particularly because of their focus on the "calm tech" aspects and lack of mainstream ecosystem to track upstream.
okay. so don't do those things.
for me, that's what "calm tech" is all about - it's not just notifications and distractions, it's all the desire for more features, and for software to solve all problems. sometimes we can just not have features, and keep some problems, instead of trading our problems for the problems that more features bring.
This to me is calm tech, because that’s all it does: note taking. If your definition is such that only pen and paper meets it, that’s not a very useful definition for tech IMO
Links in text are called references. These can be internal within a document or codex, or external, referencing third-party works. Either case is far less subject to linkrot than URLs have turned out to be.
One of the killer concepts of a bullet journal is the use of indices and spreads to provide an interlinked and searchable reference. If you go back in time, there are numerous journal and commonplace book organisational schemes.
Pages can be easily rearranged using a removeable binding (three-ring binder or various other options), or by using an unbound format such as index cards (the original database solution).
Data can be entered into a computer through scanning and handwriting recognition, though this is admittedly slow, cumbersome, and inexact. On the other hand, you may want friction between your paper-based and electronic data systems.
I do not mean URLs, though, I mean locally linking from one page or notebook to another. It's internal references on steroids, and is much more useful to me than my collection of paper notebooks and references were
I'm a BuJo afficionado too! I'm still adapting it to my e-ink note-taking system, starting to get there via folders and notebooks instead of one big notebook, and its exactly why internal linking is so useful!
That way the BuJo reads as: index, calendrical pages, spreads/references (at the end).
The advantages are non-electronic storage with ready reference. You can only access the current year's BuJo generally (unless you're where your archive is kept), but current references should be readily available on you (e.g., addresses, current information, calendar, etc.). You can only lose the current journal should you misplace it, and the information won't leak out readily as it can from digital storage.
For an index-card system, look up Zettelkasten if you haven't already. Very robust and useful indexing systems have been at the heart of academic and commercial research for over two centuries now, and the systems developed are quite powerful. Digital systems are more powerful still, but have their own downsides: loss or corruption, data exfiltration, and devices which may not be convenient to use in all circumstances.
With a BuJo or Zettelkasten, information capture is possible by carrying a few index cards with you and jotting notes. You have capture, can file these into your journal (or an indexing system, or a loose-leaf binding), and don't risk losing the rest of your archive in the process. The lack of digital distractions is its own powerful benefit.
But also Android makes it something I’m not very interested in. The Fujitsu device is also running Android.
If they didn't have ads that track me, then they would have no need to ask my permission to use cookies that track me.
There is no requirement so seek permission for other cookies needed to run the website. Quite why some readers of a technical news site (!) are still confused about this is bizzare.
In short, blame the scummy adtech industry. Not the legislation that gives us our privacy.
It isnt, why should I care?
Cookies not requiring consent :
Also, the law is about trackers, not specifically cookies: so data in local and session storage are concerned as does browser fingerprinting.Is my understanding of that situation wrong?
Edit Reference:
> If not sold within a year, the law would make it illegal for web-hosting services to support TikTok, and it would force Google and Apple to remove TikTok from app stores — rendering the app unusable with time.
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/24/1246663779/biden-ban-tiktok-u...
GDPR, however, also covers other things like your storing user's data, but that is separate from cookies. Cookies are stored on user's device.
My take: if a law and it's enforcement almost universally lead to a worse outcome, the burden is on the lawmakers and enforcers to do better. You can yell about the websites all you want but being mad at most of the internet at once is a losing game.
We have barely begun to address the sharp edges of social media, mobiles and more. We will get there, a calm UI and backgrounded tech (hint AI won’t do it magically we need to intentionally give up selling ads every second) but democracy helps.
The criteria seem to be "attention, periphery, durability, light, sound, and materials". Very broad. It looks like it even addresses openness and repairability with "an instruction booklet with a list of replacements and compatible parts", something I really care about, but how does it relate to calm?
Maybe it will be clearer when the certification document is out.
You are going to find the attention grabbers really fast of course, that's the idea, but if you are like me, the list is relatively short. Smartphone, PC, and that's about it, you may have a TV and a couple of device with annoyingly bright blue LEDs, but now the things that aren't: toaster, coffee machine, kettle, washing machine, dryer, fridge, various tools, hairdryer, etc... These things are not so different from how they were 40 years ago in terms of attention grabbing. In fact, many have improved by being less noisy. Oh, and I don't have that bright red alarm clock radio anymore.
+ kindle from 2010 - laptop - phone - Ipad (but it's still much calmer than my computer or my phone) + Harmonica (musical instrument) o Amplifier (I use it with my harmonica through a mic) - Linnstrument (musical instrument that requires computer or ipad connection) + Pencil and paper + Paper books o Handwritten notes on Ipad - Notes in obsidian o Nintendo Switch + Paper dictionary (for language learning) - Dictionary + Claude AI on my phone
Has no Blue LEDs: Pass
Has a Blue LED: Fail
Edit: Honorable mention for text boxes that silently eat newlines.
Having to use duct tape to prevent an appliance from lighting up my entire room at night is egregious.
The blue ones are just so much brighter, and many of them seem to have a flicker, too.
Black nail polish is more elegant! I've said it before and I'll spread the word for as long as I live!
Its hard to find these kinds of devices but i have to believe there's a market. I can't be the only one.
RMS -vs- Doctor, on the evils of Natalism:
http://www.art.net/studios/hackers/hopkins/Don/text/rms-vs-d...
Now 99% of my window is the text I'm editing (two lines reserved for modeline and minibuffer). Nothing pops up or makes its presence known until the moment I need it. Tabs are a good example. I often have close to a hundred files "open" in Emacs but I don't need to know about them until the moment I'm ready to switch to one.
I was 10 years ahead of VS Code taking off but when I look at that I still see a bunch of useless distractions taking up valuable screen space.
I do a thing, and there's the popup "hey, you did a thing!" Stop it...