MOBILE COMPUTING REVOLUTION

copyright MMC2 2008

First there was the computer revolution. This introduced the term Electronic Data Processing. The term 'revolution' referred to the quantum change in the way that information was handled. Hand written information, and pieces of paper, might get the job done, but there was now a better way. This fact is sometimes highlighted when we are in the bank or some office, and are told that the computers are down. Our expectations have moved on to such an extent, that even being told that the computer system is slow, brings groans from the waiting customers.

Within the computer revolution, which is still going on, we can identify a number of sub revolutions. These include the massive changes that occurred when computers no longer required a computer room with air conditioning and masses of fluorescent lights, but rather, sat on your desk. The same basic elements of the computer, a processor, memory and a software program, could now be arranged in ways that meant new applications could be efficiently computerised. There was no reason why these applications could not have been computerised before the advent of desktop computers, at least not from the computer side of things. But for something to be feasible, we must take into account more than whether the computer program can be written. We must take into account the people using the computer, and the context in which it is being used. The reduction in both the physical size and the stringent requirements, changed the context that the new type of computers were in, and this is the reason why they were able to be efficiently used in areas that had not been previously applicable. Perhaps the idea that Desktop computers, often called PCs (Personal Computers), was a sub revolution of the greater Computer Revolution, is not accurate in some ways. In many ways the use of PCs has far outstripped what we think of as the 'Original' computer revolution.

The advent of Laptops and/or Notebooks further extended the relentless forward march of computers. Somewhere along the way, commentators realised that it is not so much the computer itself, no matter how powerful and impressive it may be, but how we use it, that really counts. This realisation brought forth the concept not so much of the 'computer revolution', but gave birth to the new term, the 'Information Revolution'. The computer is the tool, but the use, or the application of the computer is where it is all at.

A major part of the 'computer package' is the Operating System. First there is the physical computer itself, or the hardware, then the operating system, e.g. Windows, and then there is the application, or the particular computer program, maybe a game, maybe a word processor, maybe a business program, maybe a sports scoring program. It is the writer's opinion that a good operating system should have similarities to a sports referee. Both should do their jobs, and do them well, but in so doing have a degree of invisibility, or in other words stay in the background, only becoming obvious when needed. But somewhere along the way operating systems became more and more prominent asking, in fact demanding to be replaced by newer and 'better', and costly ones. They are also demanding of our time and attention with the time it takes to boot up your computer, and the seemingly endless interruptions and messages that appear on the screen. They require updates and notifications and registrations and for some of the messages, who knows what they mean or how you should respond?

Games require the most resources on computers. This may provide an argument for more sophisticated operating systems, but for many users there is no justification for having to buy a new operating system every couple of years. I could name one such operating system that had on the box that one reason to buy it, was because it had less bugs in it than the previous version. This is enough to turn some people off. I can speak from personal experience.

Out of this grew a dissatisfaction with computers. It was time for the context to change again. This time the revolution, and we are at the beginning of a massive new phase of the computer revolution, is called MOBILE COMPUTING. Computers have become smaller yet again, with Palmtops and PDAs and Mobile Phones. But a part of this change, and it is a part that is a fundamental principal of the design philosophy behind MMC2 software applications, is known as the DEVICE APPROACH. Palmtops and PDAs have operating systems similar to PCs. Indeed some mobile phones do as well. But at MMC2, we design and supply Mobile Phone Software Applications based on the Device Approach. Imagine two similar programs, doing equivalent jobs with, on the one hand a computer with a Windows type operating system, and on the other hand a mobile phone with a 'device approach' type of program. They may look the same because there are similarities. But there are also significant differences. This is not to imply that one is 'intrinsically good' and the other 'bad'. Its just that there are differences that are both subtle and real. There is choice available to the end user and it is worth understanding that choice, before making your purchasing decision. What you purchase is most likely what you will use, and it is here that the difference will be felt.

One way of quickly getting to the 'nuts and bolts' of a situation is to have a look at the Frequently Asked Questions, if there is such a section. An example of the differences to the end user, between the two approaches described above, can be seen by looking at the FAQs for a couple of programs. Following are samples from the FAQs for two tennis statistics programs that run on Pocket PCs and PCs. They are ProTracker Tennis and TennisStat. This is not intended to be critical of either of these programs. The point being made, is the difference in complexity, in this example concerning system setup, between software designed to operate with the conventional approach, and software designed for the DEVICE APPROACH. While this example concerns system setup, the differences are by no means confined to system setup. The situations described in the following excerpts, are simply not applicable to software designed by MMC2 for mobile phones.

An example of the frequently asked questions for ProTracker Tennis. This is not to suggest that it is not a good program, but to show the possible complexity of 'computer approach' applications when compared with 'device approach' applications.

Now lets have a look at the frequently asked questions for TennisStat. Again this is not to imply that there is anything wrong with the program but to highlight the possible complexities of a 'computer approach' program when compared with a 'device approach' program.

I would like to quote at length from a computer software design book to reinforce some of the claims that I have made. The book is called 'Writing Mobile Code', subtitled 'Essential Software Engineering for Building Mobile Applications', written by Ivo Salmre and published by Addison-Wesley 2005.

The quotes are from the preface and from the early part of the book and have been 'cut and pasted' to summarise and to suite my purpose. I believe that nothing has been put into a different context or misrepresented. Emphasis by use of bold type is mine

Beginning of quotes “

There is a mobile device revolution underway. ...

This book is a software engineering guide focusing on mobile application development because good software engineering is so important for making great mobile applications. It is a topic that has not been addressed yet, and the lack of clear guidelines and techniques is responsible for a great deal of frustration both for developers attempting to move to mobile development as well as for end users who bear the brunt of software developers' design mistakes. ...

It is difficult to overestimate the impact truly mobile and ubiquitous computing will have on the way we work, the way we live, the way we communicate, and the way we interact with the world around us.

Intelligent mobile device software is central to the sea change that is underway. ...

mobile devices are different. Simply running a desktop operating system and applications on a mobile device will not produce a satisfactory experience for the end user. As anyone using a modern mobile phone or PDA is familiar with, the device they are holding is indeed a rich computer, but it is in significant ways different from their desktop or laptop computer. The design priorities and user expectations for mobile devices differ from traditional personal computers. ...

Successful mobile applications bring a highly focused experience to their users, enabling them to zero in on and quickly accomplish desired tasks. ...

Mobile device applications tend also to be more focused on enabling a few specific features very well as opposed to offering the general-purpose exploratory environment that successful desktop applications do. Because mobile devices are often operated using a single hand ... it is important that users of the device be able to quickly discover and navigate to the information and features they want. The ability to quickly navigate a small set of key features is an important aspect of a great mobile device experience. ...

A common mistake developers make when trying to bring a desktop application to a device is trying to bring down the whole application and shoehorn it in to a device. This never works satisfactorily because of the usage differences between desktops and mobile devices ...

there is a huge gulf between “being able to write code” and “being able to build great applications.” The latter challenge represents the inherent difficulties of modern software development. It is one thing to be able to sit down, write, and debug code and quite another to knit all the code into a well-performing, reliable, and flexible application.

“ end of quotes.

It would be a mistake to say that mobile computing is just about running the same programs, maybe cut down a bit, on physically smaller hardware. While a cursory glance may make it appear so, nothing could be further from the truth. If the end user is to maximise the advantages, of surfing the wave of the mobile device revolution, it is essential that the software engineers who designed and crafted the product are not only familiar with, but enthusiastic for the new approach. At MMC2 we call it the DEVICE APPROACH.

The Device Approach means having a thing that does a job. It is true that the thing is a computer, contained within a mobile phone, that runs a computer program. It has this in common with the conventional computer system. But there are differences.

These differences include:-

• you don't have to interact with an operating system, eliminating delays, confusion and annoyance.
  

• the program is sharply focused on what is important. This makes it easier and more enjoyable to use.
  

• the use of the two or three main 'soft keys' means that the program can be designed for a very simple operation. The soft keys are the main keys on the phone directly under the screen. Their meanings change under software control, hence their name. As their meanings change, relevant labels are displayed on the screen directly above them. Using the soft keys, makes it possible for the designer to present to the operator a simple 'this or that' choice, in not all, but many cases. This significantly improves the user-friendliness of the application.
  

• a general tightness and sharpness of focus that is available when the software engineer appreciates the device approach. These issues are often subtle and particular to each application. They are nonetheless real and important. It it these small things that provide the 'polish' to the final product.
  

The power of a computer combined with the simplicity of a phone.

Michael McLean B.A.(Wollongong) M. Litt.(Sydney)

MMC2.