terriko: (Default)
I've started up a regular Wednesday thing on the CUWISE blog, inspired by some folk I knew in high school who used to do fun things on Wednesdays to break up the week a bit. I'm queueing them up well in advance as I find things that are kind of fun.

Today, I found this cute video of dolphins blowing bubble rings (embedded below):



And then I started writing up some text to go with explaining why this felt like fun science and engineering to me:


Observing animal behaviours is an important part of biology, but a part that maybe doesn't have as long a history as one might think: one of my relatives told a tale of how birdwatchers used to shoot the birds and identify them later, rather than the more modern (and humane!) way of trying to identify them on the wing. I've met naturalists who hope we'll see a switch to observing bugs the way we do birds. And Jane Goodall, when she was visiting Ottawa for the Writer's Festival, talked about how when she recorded her observations of chimpanzees many people told her that she was being foolish to ascribe emotions to them when trying to explain their behaviour!


Now the thing I'd like to verify is that Carm (the relative who has/d the stuffed bird collection and who was telling us about birders of yore) mentioned that he didn't think regular folk really got interested in bird identification (as opposed to just bird shooting) until the Peterson Field Guides became available. The wikipedia page for the guides does imply that they were a very practical guide for non-scientists, but doesn't really credit them with changing the face of birding. Does anyone know if Peterson is really the one who really changed the face, or was it another guide that started the trend, or is it all murky? I'm trying to find a way to fit that little tidbit of info into the post because I thought it was cool, but I don't know how accurate it is!
terriko: (Default)
This summer has been unusually damp, and the mosquito population has bloomed as a result. I haven't worn mosquito repellent much since I was a teenager, preferring instead to rely on the "someone else will be tastier" defense, which has worked for years, but apparently is less effective when there are this many mosquitoes around.

For the first time in ages, I've got itchy mosquito bites. And as I was mastering the self-control necessary to keep from scratching, I started to wonder why I was doing this. So I turned to a friend and asked, "Why aren't you supposed to scratch mosquito bites?"

He replied, "Oh, because it makes them itch longer."

I looked at him. "But why does it make them itch longer?" And then, perhaps realising that I sounded like a 5 year old, i went on, "I mean, if they're injecting you with some itchy anti-coagulant, wouldn't it be absorbed by your body at the same rate regardless of how much you scratch?"

"I don't know. I know it does make them itch longer, because I've done it, but I never thought about why," he answered. "Darn, now it's going to bother me."

We guessed that one reason to avoid scratching is to avoid scars, but that didn't explain the fact that mosquito bites itch longer if you scratch them.

So I've done a bit of web research and verified it with friends and relatives with biology backgrounds (because I don't trust what I read on the internet), so here's the answer:

1. Scratching can produce scars
2. Scratching really does make mosquito bites itch longer!

Turns out that the anti-coagulant that mosquitoes inject (to keep your blood nice and thin and easy to suck) isn't itchy in and of itself -- it's actually that most of us are allergic to it. Your body produces histamines, which cause the itching. Unfortunately, scratching the mosquito bite also produces histamines, and more histamines means more itch.

While I was looking it up, I also found some suggested ways to make things less itchy. These ranged from baking soda paste to the (now obvious) anti-histamine drugs (same as you take for hayfever). But what's the number one way to deal with the itch? Distraction!

So... I recommend video games to treat mosquito bites. Now you know. ;)
terriko: (Default)
One of the more irksome problems when it comes to being a feminist is constantly explaining that no, feminism is not being about anti-men. So I have to say, I'm rather enamoured of this study that shows that feminists aren't that hostile to men -- Not a surprise, it's just going to be hilarious the next time someone's throwing accusations about and I'll be able to say, "actually, they did a study and showed that that's not true." (Surprisingly, being able to cite random studies actually does stop some folk in their tracks, particularly geek folk who like to believe that they respect science.)

What's much weirder is that the study actually implies that some of the real man-haters are non-feminists. I'm not sure I quite buy the theory for this put forward in the blog article I've linked, but it's interesting food for thought.
terriko: (Default)
In the course of doing some thesis research, I stumbled across this fascinating paper in aesthetics and usability.

I'm not sure I've ever read a paper where the researcher seems so thoroughly flummoxed by his/her results.

The idea of the study was to test whether objects rated as more beautiful would also be rated as more functional. The author, I suspect, found this idea faintly ridiculous, but previous work in Japan had shown that people did indeed rate prettier banking machine interfaces as more usable. He suspected that perhaps this was just an effect related to Japan and its "culture is known for its aesthetic tradition." He would repeat the study in Israel, where the culture has a stronger emphasis on action over form. Surely, he thought, the practical Israeli people would not be as affected by aesthetics.

But what happened? "Unexpectedly high correlations" The author says, "usability and aesthetics were not expected to correlate in Israel" but they did. Oh, they did.

Even though I'd not read this paper until this week, it's something I'd noticed in doing basic testing of my web projects (back when I made more of a living writing web code rather than deconstructing and mocking... errr... inspecting its security). I used to test designs on clients, friends and invariably, I'd get more positive results (and useful!) feedback if I spent the bit of extra time to make the first draft look clean, if still aesthetically simple. Pretty matters.

It's kinda nice to have a couple of scientific papers to back up one's gut feelings, eh?




Want more than a gut instinct to explain why attractive things work better? Don Norman suggests an answer in his book, Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. (I noticed it when seeing who had referred to this study and am working my through it. Research is fun!)

The theory goes like this: pretty things change your emotions in a positive way, make you happy, less stressed. Your emotional state changes your perceptions and ability to work. When you are happier, you often find things easier to use. Thus, pretty things are easier to use. And ugly things make you more easily annoyed, stressed out. Stress makes you perform poorly. Thus, ugly things are harder to use.

And in honour of the new Star Trek movie, I'll finish with a single word:

Fascinating.
Page generated Jul. 3rd, 2025 06:21 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios