Rolandt

Thanks to Kenneth Chan in the DailyHive for this on a new addition to Vancouver’s people space (or series of additions, depending on how the numbers turn out). DVBIA’s media release HERE.

Several Downtown Vancouver laneways are set to be reimagined in a pilot project that will beautify a number of gritty, under-utilized spaces, effectively turning the areas into vibrant pedestrian-friendly zones.

The first laneway to be revitalized is the city block-long laneway south of West Hastings Street between Granville and Seymour streets. . .

. . . As the first of the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association’s (DVBIA) ‘More Awesome Now’ laneway program, in partnership with the City of Vancouver and local firm HCMA Architecture + Design, this laneway has been painted in bright pink and yellow colours and will soon also boast basketball hoops and furniture. Additionally, decorative lighting and a geolocation orb will be installed over the coming weeks.

According to DowntownVancouver.net:

Where’d this idea come from?

Last year, 11,000 Vancouverites weighed in on the Downtown Vancouver BIA’s Re-Imagine process. They helped create a vision for downtown for the next 25 years. Refresh your memory.

One of the ideas that come up again and again – activate, decorate, commercialize, clean up/brighten up our laneways please! So, we are. . .

. .  official unveiling on Thursday, September 15 from 5-10pm.  Hastings West lane between Seymour and Granville Streets behind the Birks Building.

For the past year we’ve been taking a radical approach to development tools here at Tonic. Instead of treating IDEs, frameworks, and even languages as the fundamental building blocks for development, we decided to explore what it would mean to attack these problems at the system level. Could we make progress on some long standing development headaches by essentially beginning to build a developer OS?

We started by buidling module-fs, a virtual filesystem capable of representing the entire state of npm at any particular microsecond. With module-fs we could make every version of the over 300,000 packages on npm available instantly. With truly immediate and frictionless access to any package, you could begin to think of npm as the global standard library, as essential to development tomorrow as built-in libraries are today.

Similarly, we attacked the problem of time traveling debugging not at the application level, but directly on the OS by using the bleeding edge virtualization tools of CRIU on top of Docker. We knew that for a feature like this to truly be usable outside of simple demos, it would have to match real-world use by allowing developers to rewind any mistake, including forking a process or modifying the filesystem.

We’ve exposed these core features in a number of experimental products. Notebooks are our take on how a REPL can work in such an environment: quickly and safely prototype and share code with truly zero configuration. Endpoints re-imagined deployment by doing away with it completely: the code is simply always live, no longer requiring time-consuming installation thanks to module-fs. And finally, embed proposed that all online documentation and examples could be live by allowing any webpage to leverage these technologies:

A few months ago, we started talking to Patrick Collison, Stripe’s CEO, about our vision of building the future of development tools. I was already aware that Stripe had a history of investing in development, but Patrick made clear that lowering the bar to development is fundamentally aligned with Stripe’s interest in increasing the leverage of developers around the world.

From these discussions, it became increasingly obvious that it made sense for us to work together. Stripe decided to take a bet on our vision and our team, and I’m excited to announce that we are now officially part of the Stripe family. We will continue to operate independently, working from our office in the Haight in San Francisco, and we will also be changing our name to something that better encapsulates our vision: RunKit.

RunKit represents what we are truly building: a unique new platform to enable tomorrow’s development tools. In the coming weeks we’ll be releasing a number exciting updates that leverage our technologies, as well as better explanations of what’s going on under the hood. We are really looking forward to the things we can build by working with Stripe, and can’t wait to show you what we’re up to. Try it out yourself:

“What should I measure?” is the worst question you can ask.

It shows you don’t know what you’re trying to achieve or what you plan to do with the data.

If you don’t know what to measure, then you don’t know what you’re trying to achieve.

If you don’t know what you’re trying to achieve, then what’s the point in measuring anything?

Better questions begin with “how?” or “why?”

“How can I measure if more activity is increasing customer retention rate?”
“How can I measure if the community is increasing the number of people that sign up to our course?”
“How can I measure if members enjoy talking about products?”

These questions give you a starting point to work from.

These questions open the door to your assumptions, hypotheses, correlation and causality.

The answers might refute assumptions, challenge hypotheses, help you test correlation, and prove causality. These questions check if the relationship between the work you’re doing and the outcome you’re trying to achieve actually exist.

The ‘why’ of measuring

Of course, if you don’t know what you will do with the data, then what’s the point in collecting it? You’re just a wax pellet in a broken thermometer.

This is a question of reallocating your resources. If something is working you might spend more time on it. But this more time has to be at the expense of something else. You need to setup the decision tree before you collect the data. Or, to simplify, you need to know what you will do with the data before you collect it.

For example, if you find that members get 20% more satisfaction and value out of sharing product information than any other type of discussion, you might create 30% more of these discussions and 30% less of other types of discussions.

Never ask what to measure, focus on how to measure and why you will measure. What are you trying to achieve and what will you do with this information?

P.S. Two Podcasts & 1 Talk

Two podcasts I enjoyed participating in recently.

The first with Michael Britt of the terrific Psych Files podcast. We went deep into some of the psychology behind today’s most successful communities.

• Part 1.
• Part 2.

The second with Jeff Cobb of the Leading Learning Podcast. We spoke about the some of the fundamentals of communities.

P.S. I’m speaking at the Social Travel Summit in Scotland next week. If you work in travel, consider coming down (or up).

Karen Quinn Fung 馮皓珍 @counti8
Thinking about my trips to Courtenay, BC with @sillygwailo at this session on Economic Resilience in small towns. #WalkBikePlaces

Nicole Fenton @nicoleslaw
t.co links are garbage

Brian Lannin. Original illustrations of the three DPs for High Maintenance by Amber McCall

High Maintenance is an unusual show. The one regular character, a New York City weed dealer known as “The Guy,” played by Ben Sinclair, is rarely the central focus. Instead, each episode throws the audience into a brand new world of characters with their own particular relationships and conflicts, all of which must be introduced and explored within minutes. This kind of storytelling turns New York City into a sprawling landscape of compelling characters with intimate stories and surprising interconnections.  

This approach helped propel High Maintenance, co-created by Sinclair and Katja Blichfeld, into a hit web series and now an HBO series premiering September 16. But it can also present some interesting creative challenges to the show’s cinematographers. Typically, DPs are responsible for creating a consistent style and feel for a show, but when the only thing the characters share is that they buy weed from the same person and it all takes place in New York City, it opens up a lot more possibilities.

“[We] keep the episodes living in the same world, but I never feel constrained in what I’d like to do visually by a show bible. There is a flexibility and a desire to have each look a little different from the others,” says Dagmar Weaver-Madsen, one of three cinematographers who have been shooting High Maintenance since its early days. She gives the example of an episode in the upcoming season that follows a teenage girl where Weaver-Madsen felt a handheld camera would allow the audience to “sync up with her and her world” while in another episode, the stability of a Steadicam and tripod made more sense.

While High Maintenance offers a higher degree of flexibility than a more traditional program, naturalism remains its primary style.

“We keep it naturalistic but sculpted on the lighting side and want to make sure that the audience doesn't feel a layer of artifice between them and the story and characters,” says Weaver-Madsen. “They know these people and these interactions. They might find themselves in these situations and keeping the lighting more natural helps with keeping it approachable.”

Charles Gruet, another of the show’s cinematographers, calls this “capturing portraits of believable, personable, characters and telling a story that we can all identify with.” While the web series of High Maintenance was mostly dialogue in confined spaces that the cinematographers had to help keep the viewers’ interest. As the show has evolved, with longer episodes and more complicated narratives, it’s allowed the DPs to expand their approach and get more creative.

Another of the guiding aims of the show through all its episodes is capturing an authentic New York City—whether that’s a luxurious hotel room or (more typically) a cramped apartment.

“Ben and Katja build new worlds with each character and I love being able to work within the worlds and add to it when I can,” says Brian Lannin, another cinematographer for the show. “Even though we are shooting in a lot of familiar domestic locations, which may not seem to be the most exciting thing cinematographically, I'm always thrilled to photograph it because of the scripts are just great.”

That’s not to say shooting it is easy by any means. To help viewers quickly get a sense of a newly introduced character, the scripts often include montage sequences. That means lots of locations and a fast-paced shooting schedule, “often on the move, in and out of a location and on our way to the next one,” as Lannin puts it. “It’s part of the magic of the show.”

Charles Gruet. Original illustrations of the three DPs for High Maintenance by Amber McCall

Lannin is well experienced with capturing an authentic New York City show on a microscopic budget, having shot the well-received indie film Fort Tilden. Unlike High Maintenance’s one- or two-day shoots, Fort Tilden lasted 18 days, putting more work onto the tiny crew.

Tight spaces are an ongoing challenge for any show shot in New York City. Moving around in tiny locations can be tricky as the many components of the crew must work on top of one another. The cinematographers emphasize that having to come up with the best way to work within such a small space presents a puzzle that can be particularly satisfying to solve and often leads to more creative thinking in setting up shots.

In the second-to-last scene in the episode “Sufjan,” shot by Gruet, the main couple gets into a heated discussion about money and cutting back on smoking weed, with lots of quick back-and-forth exchanges. Creators Blichfeld and Sinclair (in whose apartment the scene was being shot) had the idea of shooting it as one continuous take. That meant framing out a bookshelf that had been noticeable in the “Olivia” episode and hiding lamps and lighting devices behind boxes the couple had as they were supposed to be preparing to move.

“Working within confined spaces, that’s New York!” says Gruet. “We shoot in actual locations and not on stage. I feel this lends to the authenticity of the show and guides us towards our compositional approach. And of course, they are usually fifth-floor walk-ups.”

The tight spaces offer another benefit: “It means you get really cozy as a crew and can’t help but become a small family,” says Weaver-Madsen.

Weaver-Madsen has done cinematography for a range of projects, including music videos, commercials, and films such as Unexpected, which premiered at Sundance in 2015 and 10.000KM, which premiered at SXSW in 2014. Whatever the project, she begins with one main question: What is the story? This brings up related questions: What are the main emotional beats for the story? What should the audience feel? What character do we want them to identify with?

“These questions work for all types of projects — from features down to commercials,” says Weaver-Madsen. “You're using visuals to subtly affect the subconscious and help shape the tone of the piece and thus the emotions the audience is experiencing.”

She adds that each project requires its own look, with a bolder or more stylized appearance in some cases, and more naturalistic in other cases. Such flexibility is ideal for a show as multifaceted as High Maintenance.

Dagmar Weaver-Madsen. Original illustrations of the three DPs for High Maintenance by Amber McCall

Gruet’s background in nonfiction film has aided him in this effort to infuse a sense of naturalism into the show—and also to be adaptable. He shot the feature documentary Meet the Hitlers, and for programs including “CNN Heroes” and “Stand Up 2 Cancer.”

“When shooting nonfiction, it’s important to listen to what the subjects are saying and anticipate emotions, movement, even the edit,” says Gruet. “This translates well when shooting fiction because I love to watch the rehearsals. It allows me to get in touch with the emotion of a scene and helps inform my instincts on where to observe the scene from.”

To this end, Gruet particularly enjoys the use of handheld cameras, which helps him keep the filming loose, lighting the space rather than the actors, so they can move freely from take to take. This means Gruet is free to move the camera and adjust when the actors do.

With such an interest in naturalistic styles, it’s no surprise that High Maintenance’s DPs find inspiration in the natural world. When Weaver-Madsen sees an interesting light pattern or reflection, she records it, and considers how to work it into her projects. She finds wind a useful way to think about the movement of the camera — sometimes moving in a slow and steady breeze, other times a stillness that shifts into a fast rush.

She finds paintings to be a rich source of inspiration, “They are often manipulating light in unnatural ways but still trying to keep it appearing real and that's very similar to our job as cinematographers. Use the light to guide people's eyes in the image and also emotionally cue them in.”

For Gruet, much of his inspiration comes from the actual world around him. “I like to observe people and situations, and how natural light affects faces, skin, structures, and also how practical lighting sets a scene,” he says. “Your life experiences are reflected back into our work, so it’s important to try to get out into the world and see and experience as much as you can.”

HBO’s High Maintenance premiers Friday, Sept. 16 at 11 PM ET.

This content was paid for by the advertising partners and was created in collaboration with VICE creative services, independently from The Creators Project editorial staff. 

Related:

We Talked to the Creators of ‘High Maintenance’ About Going Legit

HBO’s ‘High Maintenance’ Looks Like High-Quality Stoner Bait

The Creators of ‘High Maintenance Are Stoned and Eating All the Snacks in Vimeo’s Office

Glenn Smith and Andrew Knapp for the Post and Courier investigate the current police practice of keeping digital record of people’s activities.

Law enforcement agencies have for decades used what’s known as field interview or contact cards to document everything from sketchy activity to random encounters with people on the street. But the digital age has greatly expanded the power and reach of this tool, allowing police to store indefinitely reams of data on those who draw their interest — long after any potential link to a crime has evaporated.

As you might expect, there are certainly advantages for law enforcement to have access to such a database when they try to solve crimes. But it gets weird when data is incorrectly recorded or perhaps recorded too much.

Tags: crime, surveillance

I'm not saying it was 'easy' in any way for Apple to go from, say, the iPhone 6S to the 7. But they didn't need to swallow any pride. They did with WatchOS 3, and that's a good sign. The way to be right all the time is not to be right all the time, because that never happens. If you're pushing the boundaries of any endeavor, mistakes are inevitable. If you convince yourself that you're right all the time, you'll slip into denial regarding your mistakes. Then the problems compound. The way to be right all the time is to be smart enough to be right most of the time, and humble enough to recognize your mistakes and address them.

More >

I’m skeptical about “teach the kids to code!” as a panacea for all of society’s ills. Yet today, I’m at the White House to participate in a summit on Computer Science for All. Why would a skeptic still think it’s important to make computer science part of everyone’s education?

---

It’s almost impossible to overstate the breadth of cultural enthusiasm for the idea of teaching kids about computer science and computing. No matter where they sit on the political spectrum, leaders will proudly tout America’s high tech companies as the future of innovation and high tech companies as the future of opportunity and employment. Tech has become something of a secular religion in America, and as a result there’s been a rush toward enthusiastically advocating for technology education, without as much substantive and nuanced critique as the idea deserves.

The Myth of Perfect Tech Jobs

As someone who’s been making software and Internet technologies for 20 years, I’m skeptical about the enthusiasm that so many in the policy-making world have for saying, “let’s teach kids to code!” To start with the obvious elephant in the room, many of the people advocating for these programs aren’t particularly knowledgeable about technology, or the economics of today’s tech startups, in the first place. (Most people making policy haven’t yet realized that there is no “technology industry”.) And most of the technologists advocating for these programs aren’t particularly literate in how today’s educational systems work, or what constraints they face.

But my skepticism starts at a lot more fundamental level than the literacy gap between policy, tech and education. Even though I do know how to code and I do love technology, I am intimately aware of the weaknesses of many of the signature companies that define tech culture, and those are the biggest concerns we need to address.

---

Many tech companies are still terrible at inclusion in their hiring, a weakness which is even more unacceptable given the diversity of the younger generations we’re educating today. Many of the biggest, most prominent companies in Silicon Valley—including giants like Apple and Google—have illegally colluded against their employees to depress wages, so even employees who do get past the exclusionary hiring processes won’t necessarily end up in an environment where they’ll be paid fairly or have equal opportunity to advance. If the effort to educate many more programmers succeeds, simple math tells us that a massive increase in the number of people qualified to work on technology would only drive down today’s high wages and outrageously generous benefits. (Say goodbye to the free massages!)

And at a more philosophical level, a proper public education, paid for by taxpayers, shouldn’t be oriented toward simply providing workers for a group of some of the wealthiest, most powerful companies to have ever existed.

That’s a pretty damning case against teaching kids to code? So why would somebody still favor the massive investment and cultural shift required to pull it off? Well, it’s the oldest excuse in the political realm, but we have to think about the children.

Going beyond CS

There’s a much more powerful vision of “computer science for all” that can address all of the concerns raised by the current state of technology and tech companies. Technology literacy, and a strong basis in computer science, can be a powerful way to empower the most marginalized, most needy people in society.

We simply have to commit to some broad principles about how we teach CS:

• Teaching computational thinking: Aside from simply teaching how programming works, we need to ensure that young people can understand the way that human concerns are translated into problems that computers can help solve. Like media literacy or general critical thinking skills, we should provide this information as a necessary part of teaching students to understand the systems that run the world around them. It’s essential that concerns like ethics and systemic biases be incorporated into any education about technology systems.
• Applied CS over theory: A lot of yesterday’s computer science programs emphasized abstract concepts that could often be hard to translate into practical impact. Given that more students have access to technology in their everyday lives than ever before, recontextualizing CS education to connect directly to the tools and devices they already use can ensure that what we’re teaching is relevant. By analogy, we’re going to need a lot more electricians than electrical engineers, even if we know that the two related disciplines are both important and valuable.
• Jobs in every industry, not tech startups: While we shouldn’t add to curriculum simply to satisfy the demands of industry, it’s reasonable to want to make sure education can translate into real-world jobs. The vast majority of technology jobs, both today and in the future, are outside of the signature startups and tech titans of Silicon Valley, in technical roles in companies that are otherwise not seen as being primarily in “tech”. These jobs may not have the high profile of Google or Facebook, but companies with a longer track record are likely to be stable, more geographically distributed, and aligned with the career and life goals of a broader swath of the population. We can de-emphasize the high-risk startup style of tech employment in favor of a much more accommodating style that could be described as blue-collar coding.
• It’s not about making more programmers: While a lot of young people who learn about computer science may choose to go into programming or engineering or related disciplines, we should not design curricula with the goal of turning everyone into a coder. Every industry, every creative discipline, every line of work from farming to fashion, engineering to english, management to marketing, can be improved by including insights provided by being deeply technologically literate. It’s possible to teach computer science in a way where it amplifies the interests and ambitions that young people have in any discipline, and unlocks their full potential in whatever field they find meaningful.

Being literate in technology and computer science has opened up an unimaginable set of lifelong opportunities for me. From meeting friends, to having a fulfilling career, to getting to speak at the White House again today, I’ve been incredibly fortunate. And I want as many people as possible to enjoy the same potential for new opportunities and a meaningful, fulfilling career.

As we commit to broadly teaching technology, we must do a better job of addressing all of the personal, social, cultural, and civic concerns that arise with technology’s transformation of our society. Teaching CS as simply a way of filling a pipeline of employees for giant high-tech companies is not enough. Indeed, if that’s all we succeed in doing, we’ll have failed. But if we can show a whole generation of young people that technology and computer science can be one of the tools they use to pursue their passions, and amplify their impact on the world, we’ll have made a worthy addition to the canon of material that students use as a basis for their life’s work. It’ll take years of concerted, continuous effort. So let’s get started.

I gave two presentations yesterday, one to a faculty cohort at Coventry University about Domain of One’s Own, I also presented a session titled “The Overselling of Open” as part of the Open Education Tuesdays series through the UNLR. The series started back in May, and has been organized and hosted by Fabio Nascimbeni—a fellow Italian

The event kicked off with a talk by Andreia Inamorato from the Instituto de Prospectiva Tecnológica discussed the topic of “Open Education cases that can change your teaching and learning” (archived presentation here). it was followed up in June with a talk by Daniel Villar from Coventry University’s Disruptive Media Lab who talked about ““OER, MOOCs and beyond: the history of Open Education” (slides). And next month, October 11th to be exact, Martin Weller will be talking about the 100 best films of the 21st century, don’t miss it. There was also a suggestion towards the end of the session that this conversation would continue beyond, and there may soon be another date added with the great Catherine Cronin, so stay tuned.

They couldn’t find anyone decent (or European) for September, so they reached out to me, and they got what they deserved! I approached this talk with a certain amount of fear and trembling because I’m quite ambivalent about the open movement more generally these days. What seemed like a movement defined by an anarchic spirit of revolution from 2004-2011 (at least for me—this was a fairly personal narrative) morphed into a fairly tame, almost conservative approach to education: massive lectures and free textbooks. I’m oversimplifying here of course, but at the same time the mad scramble around corporate sponsored MOOCs for elite universities from 2012 until just about now, coupled with the re-branding of OER, at least in the U.S., as predominantly a cost-saving measure left me fairly depressed. This was not all of ed-tech, for sure, but it certainly has demanded much of the time, energy, and resources of the field for years now. And I must admit I remain somewhat bitter about the funneling of massive resources almost exclusively into these two approaches—though I’m sure that has been part a significant part of their own struggle.

Anyway, this talk was my feeble attempt to start to come to terms with that—kind of like presentation as personal therapy. In preparing the talk, if you can call it that, I kept returning to two people: Martin Weller and Audrey Watters. Specifically Weller’s The Battle for Open and just about everything Audrey has done since 2011, but probably most powerfully for me (although it’s hard to choose) was her 2013 keynote “The Education Apocalypse” wherein she frames the Silicon Valley narrative that is driving the defunding and dismantling of higher ed. That talk was like a diamond through my forehead explaining what’s really happening in ed-tech.

At the same time, I think the idea undergirding Weller’s book that while Open has won, the hard part of actually shaping what it looks like is the reality we are currently working within. The point reverberated deeply with me this time around, and I think Weller’s assessment of the situation in his book defines my confusion and frustration far more cogently than I ever could. At least in part, the reason I fell relatively quiet during the larger conversations around MOOCs and OERs has been my concerns with the obsession with scale and money (often framed as savings).* So re-reading The Battle for Open was a good reminder that in the wake of the hype there is a lot of important work to be done. I haven’t entirely been sitting on my hands given the work with ds106 and then Domain of One’s Own, which gave way to Reclaim Hosting—all of which reinforce the idea that small is beautiful—and the best way at building an open web that matters is helping as many people as possible start small and reclaim a piece of the web. I don’t think this is the one true way, but it’s what I know and what I have done—my ideas in many ways are the product of this blog.

And while this is anything but a summary of my discussion, which was even more free-ranging and incoherent, Mike Caulfield’s recent post “Putting Student-Produced OER at the Heart of the Institution” (born from a rich Twitter discussion) helped me articulate another concern I have with framing OER as an institutional concern. Caulfield notes that many of the projects he has been working on over the years have been ghost-towned, and one way to avoid this that the OER content folks have been successful is making the broader institutional, and even federal charge for managing and producing these resource that would give the open pedagogy folks far greater resources in time. In fact, institutional funding and support become the key to the life of these web-based resources:

But institutions, they are what make these things last. And my sense is that the recurring cycle of CELT and TLT center layoffs is all you need to look at to see how much of what we do is built on sand. It scares the heck out of me. It really does.

For me its that first sentence “but institutions, they are what make these things last” that I deeply question. One of the things I discussed in this regard during this talk was the amazing panel at OER16 where some impressive folks (Lorna Campbell, Viv Rolfe, David Kernohan, Simon Thompson, and Pat Lockley) from all over the UK talked about how so many of the openly produced OERs that were publicly funded were no longer available. And these are resources supported by public institutions, and eventually that money ran dry. I think this should be a huge cautionary tale for OER as an ongoing institutional resource.

But wait, there is more. The second part of this quote by Caulfield wherein he talks about the cuts of ed-tech groups like his former group at Keene State University (and recent cuts at Plymouth State as well) suggest that if anything the institutions have become less and less of a solution to our educational problems. And an example I kept harping on yesterday was the unprecedented faculty lockout at Long Island University, Brooklyn. I mean this highlights for me the larger context in which these conversations are happening, and the austerity we have lived through since 2008 (or since 1980 if you are counting all of it) in higher ed has put institutions of higher ed in direct conflict with those who work there. And I believe the cost-cutting promises of ed-tech more generally in the form of open courses or open resources has further fueled the politics of defunding higher-ed. This was no where apparent to me during my time in Virginia when it was apparent politicians were only interested in OERs because they could immediately point to saving people money, while at the same time stagnating, or even cutting, funds to institutions and salaries.

This look at salaries over two decades for public 2 and 4 year institutions in the US is alarming

The idea of funding stuff like textbooks or technologies rather than people may have short-term benefits for saving students money that we can see as a short-term win within the world we live, but the idea that may lead to larger long-term victories (which I read as a recognition and funding of people and pedagogies) is dubitable at best. But when you look at the state of labor and salaries in U.S. higher ed (not to mention the attack on tenure in Wisconsin) I tend to doubt that institutions, given the funding bind they find themselves in, will be the safeguards of these resources.

All of which reminds me of who, when all was said and done, saved more than a decade of web history in the form of Geocities from deletion at the hands of Yahoo! in 2010? Was it other corporations? Higher ed? The government? Nope, it was dozens of rogue archivists, technologists, artists, and librarians from around the world that cared, and for me that is a reminder that we can’t leave something as important as teaching and learning on the web to institutions—no less the archiving and preservation of those resources. That has to be managed by faculty and students themselves as part of a broader sense of awareness of owning and managing their digital education.

But I protest too much, I know. This is kind of what I wanted to talk about yesterday, but I’m not sure I covered it all, but I can promise it is no more coherent than this. The recording is not up yet, but when it becomes available I’ll be sure to link it here. But this post is also my attempt to stop moping about some of this and frame the open I want to see more clearly. Complaining is the easy part, working towards something else is the hard part.

---

*Though the fact was probably not a noticeable loss in the broader scheme given the regular, unforgiving, and often fun critique from folks in ed-tech like Audrey, Mike Caulfield, David Kernohan, and Alan Levine to name a few.

Image credits:

• Alan Levine’s image of Audrey Watters is awesome.
• Found image of Martin Weller on Steve Wheeler’s blog, who attributes Martin.

A year ago we launched Club MacStories, and since then we have published 60 newsletters across MacStories Weekly and the Monthly Log.

We realised a few weeks ago that as we’ve built up this archive of newsletters, there is a lot of content, and we wanted to create a distilled version of the archive. With that in mind, we have created this interactive iBook which contains a small selection of the best content we have published over the last 12 months in MacStories Weekly and the Monthly Log.

Our goal in this was to give new members a more easily digestible highlight of what they can expect over the coming weeks and months as they begin their membership. But equally it is for existing members who want to revisit some of the content we’ve published, or to catch up if they missed a few newsletters. So whether you’re a new member, or an existing member, we hope you enjoy reading this iBook.

We’re excited to begin the second year of Club MacStories, and we hope you are too.

Thank you for being a Club MacStories member.

– Federico, Graham, and John

Club MacStories: Year One

This iBook is available exclusively for Club MacStories members. Club MacStories offers access to weekly MacStories extras – including workflows, app recommendations, and interviews – and it starts at $5/month.

You can download the Year One iBook from the member Downloads area (to download files on iOS, see here).

Get exclusive extras and support MacStories by signing up for Club MacStories today.

What's in it?

The Year One iBook includes excerpts from the past 60 email newsletters that we have sent since launching Club MacStories last September. It includes:

• 16 MacStories Favorites;
• 10 MacStories Collections;
• 11 Tips;
• 18 answers from the Workfow Corner;
• 10 answers from the Weekly Q&A;
• Every Ongoing Development column;
• Every edition of Federico's Note;
• 7 columns from the Monthly Log; and
• Links to John's WWDC Interviews

iBooks Reading Tips

This is an interactive iBook, and unlike a traditional eBook or PDF, there are a few things to be aware of.

Compatible with iPhone, iPad and Mac

We've designed this iBook to be fully compatible with the iPhone, iPad, and the Mac. As a result, there is both a landscape and portrait orientation. In order to switch between the modes, simply tap the ᴀA button on the right side of the Navigation Bar in iBooks. By activating the Scrolling View you will switch from the landscape version to the portrait version.

Navigation
First of all, there is a bug in iBooks which means that when you first launch the iBook, it may open to a random page. If this does happen to you, just follow the below instructions on how to switch between chapters.

No matter where you are in the book, or whether you are in landscape or portrait mode, you can quickly navigate to the chapter list by pinching inwards. When you are in landscape you can switch between chapters by swiping left and right. Some chapters, such as Ongoing Development, also have interactive links for individual sections of the chapter so that you can jump directly to a specific edition of Ongoing Development.

The Full Archive

This iBook contains just a fraction of the content that we've published in MacStories Weekly and the Monthly Log. Club MacStories members, even if they just joined today, get full access to the Newsletter Archive, complete with every edition of MacStories Weekly and the Monthly Log.

---

Like MacStories? Become a Member.

Club MacStories offers exclusive access to extra MacStories content, delivered every week; it’s also a way to support us directly.

Club MacStories will help you discover the best apps for your devices and get the most out of your iPhone, iPad, and Mac. Plus, it’s made in Italy.

Join Now

The prolific Jerry Whitehead has this mural near the Home Depot on Terminal Avenue in Vancouver. It’s on the structure of the First Avenue viaduct.

Google’s monthly updated chart showing the distribution of the Android operating system reveals Marshmallow is now powering 18.7 percent, up 2.5 percent from August.

Following similar trends from previous months, Lollipop has continued its dominance by being on 35 percent of devices, which is a slight decrease of 0.5 percent from four weeks ago. KitKat, which was released in October of 2013, dropped in usage to 27.7 percent from 29.2 percent of Android devices.

4.X Jelly Bean is still prominent but also continued its drop by a percentage point to be found on 14.9 percent of Android devices. Froyo, Gingerbread, and Ice Cream Sandwich are still being used somewhere around the world and active on just 3 percent of devices.

On the horizon are newly named Pixel smartphones, which shed the Nexus branding of previous years. These new HTC-made handsets are expected to be announced on October 4th.

Next month’s data should also bring the adoption of Android 7.0 Nougat.

The iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus are now available to pre-order directly from Apple as well as various Canadian carriers.

Depending on what model you select, the base price for the iPhone 7 will run you $899 unlocked for 32GB of storage to $1,309 for the iPhone 7 Plus 256GB version. Canadian carriers have the iPhone 7 starting at $379.95 on a 2-year contract all the way up to $800 for the top model of the iPhone 7 Plus.

Apple stated last week it will not disclose opening weekend sales numbers for the new smartphone. This number is typically indicative of the iPhone 7’s demand.

“As we have expanded our distribution through carriers and resellers to hundreds of thousands of locations around the world, we are now at a point where we know before taking the first customer pre-order that we will sell out of iPhone 7,” said Apple spokesperson Kristin Huguet. “These initial sales will be governed by supply, not demand, and we have decided that it is no longer a representative metric for our investors and customers.”

The iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus are widely available across Canada from most carriers, including Telus, Bell, Rogers, Fido, Virgin, Eastlink, MTS, Videotron, Koodo, and SaskTel.

We reached out for comment on specific details of iPhone pre-order numbers. As expected, the numbers were not revealed, but various carriers have indicated that interest in the new iPhone 7 and 7 Plus has been strong

Telus:
“As you know, we’re not able to share specific sales figures, however, we can tell you that we’re pleased with the positive feedback we’ve received from many of our customers regarding our efficient pre-order system and Premium Plus rate plan options.”

MTS:
“MTS is proud to offer our customers the amazing iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus with a range of flexible and attractive data plans. Pre-orders at MTS have launched and we look forward to our customers’ response.”

Rogers/Fido:
“There’s no question, our customers are iPhone fans and that’s reflected in our pre-orders for both Rogers & Fido.”

Eastlink:
“We are pleased with pre-order results so far.”

SaskTel:
“The pre-sale was very successful and we are working to fulfill the orders as quickly as possible!”

Bell:
“Pre-orders have been very good – Canadians are clearly excited to have iPhone 7”

Related: iPhone 7 review: Apple sets the stage for 2017

Despite being arguably the best, although admittedly probably the most funny looking wireless ear bud-style wireless headphones on the market, Apple’s AirPod wireless headphones have become a running joke in the tech industry right now.

Even though the headphones come with a carrying/charging case, because they’re wireless, the chance of losing them is still very high. According to Mashable, however, Apple plans to sell individual replacement AirPods through what it calls “normal service channels,” which could mean getting an additional earbud might be as easy as visiting your local Apple Store.

It’s unclear exactly how much the replacement AirPods will cost, but given the headphone’s $230 Canadian price tag, we’re guess they’ll be priced at somewhere between $90 to $100 each.

I brought this Jabra Halo Smart headset back from IFA 2016. It's not that I don't have enough headsets, but I was curious about the collar design. Plantronics has the competing BackBeat 100 product, and I wanted see who came out on top.

Both headsets share the same idea. You wear the electronics, the Bluetooth chipset and the battery around your neck, and you have two wired earbuds hanging from this collar. You are wearing nothing on your head, you are not tethered to your phone, and yet, you can drop the earbuds quickly without losing them.

Although they have the same idea, the execution is different. The collar on the Plantronics device only manages the wire around you neck and has all the electronics at the right end while the Jabra design puts the battery around your neck. That is why it is a more solid affair while the Plantronics is more flexible.

The Jabra design has a massive advantage. The battery is rated for 17 hours of playback, while the Plantronics runs out after only eight hours. I also like the flat cables on the Jabra and the magnets on the collar, that can park the earbuds. It's completely tangle-free.

Both designs also will hold the earbuds together in front of you when they dangle since their magnets attract each other.

The BackBeat 100 has rather thin wires and the earbuds are smaller than in the Jabra design. I find them more comfortable. Both need to be adjusted to your ear by replacing the gels that come with the headset. You need a good seal to keep the sound waves from escaping and to keep ambient noise out.

While the Plantronics design looks more appealing to me, I was a bit disappointed with small details like the MicroUSB door falling out. At this price point we are not looking at products in the Voyager class of headsets. You will not get a comparable voice quality when making phone calls and the sound will also not rival that of the Voyager Focus or Sense products.

Jabra comes out on top for a simple reason: with a 17 hours battery you will never run out of power during the day, no matter what. Both don't win the editor-refuses-to-give-it-back award, for the simple reason that I have much better.

And now for something completely different: :-)

The unlikely winner of this year's "headset in my pocket" is the Samsung Level Active, although I cannot use any of their performance tracking features. And I expect this to change when I have the Apple AirPods or the Jaybird Freedom.

Visualization is complex, but if I were to break it down simply, I’d say it’s something like the process below.

Start with real life, the environment, or the actual phenomenon you want to measure. Collect data to estimate and record, because it can be a challenge to observe things right as they happen. Then visualize the data.

Now here’s the key. You have to get from here — the visualization — back to real life. Or, if the visualization is for an audience, you have to get them back to real life.

You have to connect data, which is simply a representation, to the real thing. The shorter the path, the better.

Colin Ware, in Information Visualization: Perception for Design, breaks down visualization perception into three stages.

1. Parallel Processing — Seeing colors and shapes.
2. Pattern Perception — Seeing patterns among the colors and shapes.
3. Goal-Directed Processing — Interpretation of patterns based on what you look for.

People agree on most research and advice on the first two stages. Certain visual encodings are easier to see than others, and you must be wary of visual blindspots and biases.

At the extremes, you end up with optical illusions like the one below. It shows 12 dots, but no matter how hard you try, your brain won’t let you see all of them at once.

In less dramatic examples, you might end up with color differences or slope changes that look more significant than they actually are.

So learn visualization basics and the rules of human perception. Otherwise, you or your readers are stuck midway in the path back to reality.

Now for the third perception stage: Goal-Directed Processing.

Goals change by individual, by audience, and by application. Someone who works with data on the regular interprets the results in a graph differently that someone who barely knows what visualization is. Sometimes we are after something more visceral or emotional than quantitatively insightful. This requires different design decisions.

Part of why geographic maps work so well is that they’re rooted in the physical world. It’s less of a challenge to connect a picture of roads on a map to the actual road you drive on. If you’re familiar with a place or boundary, you can recognize what a map shows even if it doesn’t have labels.

In contrast, a more abstract visualization method requires explanations and guidance for someone to first, read the data behind the encodings and second, to recognize what the patterns mean.

Whatever it is you’re looking for, remember this path to reality. Try not to make it too difficult to get back to where you started.

Tags: insight, real life

Depending on which iPhone 7 model you have—a 7 or a 7 Plus—your new smartphone likely cost you anywhere from $650 to $970, so protecting it with a case makes a whole lot of sense. A case can protect your handset from scratches, dents, and dings, and some can even prevent bending or a broken screen. (And if you chose a Jet Black iPhone 7, a case is a must unless you don’t mind scratches.) Adding a case also personalizes your iPhone, and some models add useful features such as card holders, waterproof protection, or even extra power, and a case also lets you personalize your iPhone. But no matter what you value in a case, there’s a model for you.

The next iteration of the iPhone likely won’t have a physical home button according to Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal and, most recently, The New York Times.

WSJ was the first to publish the rumour in late June, noting that “people familiar with the matter” said big design changes in 2017 could include an OLED screen and the inclusion of the fingerprint sensor into the phone’s display.

Bloomberg‘s Mark Gurman chimed in next, stating that next year’s major redesign will include a stronger focus on the display by removing the home button, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Now, in The New York Times‘ iPhone 7 review, the publication wrote that next year’s iPhone will “have a full-screen face with the virtual button built directly into the screen,” citing two internal Apple sources.

With the leaks coming from such well-established sources it seems all but certain that the iPhone 8 — or 10, if Apple chooses to bump the number to fall in-line with the phone’s tenth anniversary — will indeed ditch the home button.

The only remaining question is: how it will look? Will it pick up on Android design strategies and use capacitive buttons or a rear-facing fingerprint sensor, or will it pull something truly innovative out of its hat? Only time will tell.

Related: iPhone 7 review: Apple sets the stage for 2017

My aunt started an e-mail thread in my family. I’ll include excerpts here periodically.

I am cleaning the house of more pictures — so many. In the album Grandma Omma left, I found some pictures your mom. I will send another email of your mom and dad’s wedding that you probably have seen already.

My mom, like her father before her, loved science. She started in physical chemistry like her father but her heart condition caused by rheumatic fever led her to work in biophysics studying the neural network of the heart and heart arrhythmias.

Because of her health condition, which she eventually succumbed to, her father, my grandfather, would not allow her to leave Salt Lake City for college or graduate school.

[Here is a photo of your mom] Apchang’s graduation. Back of this photo has the date March 1961

So she got her Ph.D. from the University of Utah in Chemistry at the age of 23, finishing her undergraduate in three years and her graduate in two. (This includes the half year my father forced her to repeat her senior year in high school, her first year in the United States.)

I’m told the University of Utah still has a three year post-graduate residency requirement. That rule was put in place because of her.

I also found a picture of the three sisters having fun with Grandpa Aboji and Grandma Omma.

This photo needs no commentary.

“I love you, too, mommy Chay.”

Your son,

terry chay

Apple News: Greatly Improved

Apple News launched last year in iOS 9, and despite my early enthusiasm, I found the experience at launch to be deeply flawed and disappointing. However, in the past twelve months I have been pleasantly surprised by a number of improvements that Apple has made to News. These improvements go a long way in addressing nearly all of my major complaints about News from last year.

Shortly after completing my review last year, I stopped using News regularly – only checking in occasionally. But since installing the iOS 10 beta in late June I decided to give News another go, and this time, I'm finding it both enjoyable and useful.

Human Curation

As I wrote last year, my biggest complaint about Apple News was that there was no sense of what the biggest stories of the day were:

Arguably the most frustrating part of For You is the fact you never get a good sense of what the big stories of the day are. To me, this is vital to any news app, website, or service – I don't just want to read interesting articles that I might like, I want to know the most important of those stories.

It appears that Apple quickly recognized this flaw in Apple News because even as I published that review they had already begun hiring journalists. Then, in December last year, Apple introduced the concept of "Top Stories" to News with an iOS 9.2 software update. Top Stories did not replace the algorithmically generated For You section (which recommends stories you might like), but supplemented it with human curated recommendations for what the top stories of the day were.

Apple updates the Top Stories section twice a day, once in the morning and again in the late afternoon. On both occasions, you'll typically see five new recommended stories. This may not seem like much, but the addition of a Top Stories section in News makes a tremendous difference. Before you were faced with an endless stream of potentially interesting and relevant (to you) news. Now you can quickly glance at News and get a good sense of the stories of the day, without spending copious amounts of your own time evaluating the importance of each story.

I should preface this discussion by noting two things. Firstly, I have only had access to the Top Stories curated in Australia, which are different to those in the US or UK. Secondly, I am interested in domestic politics, and as you might expect, these kinds of stories regularly feature in Top Stories. For the most part, the Top Stories have been picked for their mainstream appeal, and I understand that some will dislike this approach.

That brings me to one of my criticisms of Top Stories; it is limited in a few ways. All you see is a headline, image thumbnail, and the publication it is from. There is no brief summary of the story – your only option is to tap into the article and read it. Admittedly that's not much of a problem, particularly because articles load really fast in Apple News. The second limitation is that Apple are only featuring 5 articles in the morning and afternoon. It's a good start, but I think there is easily the capacity for that number to increase to around 10 - particularly on busy news days.

Editors' Picks

The other major human-curated section of News is in the form of Editors' Picks. These will appear in the For You section, frequently as one of the Top Stories, and they contain a list of articles on a particular topic. Some of the topics you'll come across are "Entertainment", "Your money", and "What to read this weekend". Unlike Top Stories, the Editors' Picks feature a brief summary of every story they feature, but you can also jump directly to the article by tapping on it.

Trending Stories

Below the Top Stories section is another new section that has been introduced into News: Trending Stories. As you would expect, this is a fairly self-explanatory section, featuring the popular stories of the day. I'm not entirely sure how frequently this list is updated, but my impression is that it is around twice a day. Like Top Stories, this is done on a regional basis, so the Trending Stories in Australia are different to those in the United States.

Design

Apple News received a quite radical redesign in iOS 10, and now shares strong design cues with Apple Music and the new Home app. The most striking part of this new design is the use of large text in a very heavy, bold, weight. You'll notice at the top of News, when you launch the app, there is a brief "welcome" section which tells you the date, the current temperature, and a static Apple News icon.

The other big change from last year is that the For You section is now broken up into various sections. The sections could be Top Stories, Trending, Politics, Sports, More For You, and so on. Each section typically features between 4-10 articles. This may seem like a subtle change, but it makes the For You section feel far less daunting than what it was like before. You are no longer in an endless stream of news, and are instead doing the iPhone equivalent of turning the page in a newspaper to a new set of stories. It sounds a bit silly, but I really appreciate this adjustment.

A Failure to Globalize

The biggest mark against Apple News is that for most of the world it doesn't exist – it remains an exclusive app for those in the US, UK, and Australia. I'm not surprised that it remains geographically limited, because my experience with News has shown that without the local human curation, News is not a good product. So it seems fairly clear that Apple won't introduce News into further countries until it has the required staff. What has surprised me however is that Apple hasn't yet been able to do this in the past year for even an extra country or two like Canada or Japan. I hope it doesn't take until iOS 11 for more countries to get News.

Miscellaneous Tidbits

Speed
A complaint I had about News last year was how slow it was to fetch new stories when you open the app. It is much faster now, taking just a second or two to fetch new stories. A huge improvement.

Notifications
You can now choose to get Notifications from selected publications. Simply go to the Favorites tab, tap the bell icon in the top-left corner of the screen and turn notifications on or off for each individual publication.

Current Temperature
News now displays the current temperature at your location on the top-right, next to the News logo. This is a nice touch, but I'd like it to go further and become more useful by also displaying the forecast to some degree.

In fact, I would be quite interested in seeing a future version of News which integrates weather, finance and sports scores into the For You feed – just as you get in the evening news.

Widget
The News widget in iOS 10 features some of the day's Top Stories. If that's not your thing, you can disable the widget.

Politics vs US Politics
Whilst I am primarily interested in domestic Australian politics, I do occasionally follow the shenanigans of US politics. News is smart enough to recognise this, and I see both a "Politics" section (I'm in Australia, so this refers to Australian politics) and a "US Politics" section interspersed in my For You feed. To my surprise, I haven't seen any articles which were incorrectly classified – I wonder if this is all algorithmically done, or if there are journalists monitoring the key categories such as politics.

Wrap-Up

Apple News is a vastly improved product today, compared to what it was just a year ago. Big changes, like the introduction of human curated Top Stories, the decision to break-up the For You tab into more manageable sections, and even the bold new design have all been worthwhile efforts that make News far better. There is still room for improvement, but for now, News is good enough for me to use it as one of my main sources of news on my iPhone.

---

Like MacStories? Become a Member.

Club MacStories offers exclusive access to extra MacStories content, delivered every week; it’s also a way to support us directly.

Club MacStories will help you discover the best apps for your devices and get the most out of your iPhone, iPad, and Mac. Plus, it’s made in Italy.

Join Now

I'm a fan of David Smith's apps for the Apple Watch. He gets what makes an app great on the Watch, and his focus on health and fitness resonates with me. David shipped some solid iOS 10 and watchOS 3 updates today – but Background Refresh in Sleep++ is my favorite:

Sleep++ has been updated to take advantage of the new Background Refresh mechanism in watchOS 3. Now rather than performing all of the sleep analysis in the morning when you wake up, instead it is able to analyze your night while you are sleeping. So when you wake up only the last few minutes of the night need to be processed. The end result of this is that you should barely seen the Analyzing Night progress dialog any more.

I have a feeling that Background Refresh will make me re-evaluate several Watch apps I stopped using (except David's – one of the very few apps on my Watch).

→ Source: david-smith.org

The Government of Canada, has been accepting proposals from the public on how to promote global science excellence. This is a subject of interest to me; I co-signed a submission from NRC researchers on the subject, and have been reading the other submissions.

I spent several hours today reading the suggestions and the supplementary material provided by many of the contributors. This post summarizes and comments on some of those other submissions.

Administration and Oversight

I think it is a common observatiuon that the previous government over-managed science, much to the detriment of science. Numerous contributions pointed to this:

• Trevor Charles points to the dissonance between leadership and practitioners in the sciences. "From my perspective, the main reasons for the desperation are 1) stagnated support for basic research, 2) attempts to force innovation by ineffective and obstructive industry co-funding requirements, and 3) futile efforts to predict the areas in which breakthroughs will occur." 
• The Agricultural Institute of Canada recommends "the reduction of the administrative burden preventing researchers from participating in high-impact research projects."
• 66 NRC researchers suggest (PDF) "conditions that provide them the freedom to use their expertise and knowledge, including their awareness of the important issues in their scientific fields, related industries, and society at large."
• The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PDF) writes "Overly restrictive communications policies imposed by the previous government muzzled government science" and "research staff of the National Research Council (NRC), have seen their inventiveness blunted through the imposition of poor project management and the loss of independence." 
• To address the delay between funding application and funding, Darren Lawless suggests we "create a funding program that allows post-secondary institutions to apply for a fixed funding envelope over a specified time frame that could then be redistributed to fund eligible projects."

There is also a desire, though, to make sure that the scientific community doesn't run away with itself.  People want oversight, and they want to ensure we get a return on our substantial investment.

• Tim Harford says "We cannot insist that scientists ought to be accountable only to themselves."

But is the role of government to micromanage research? Some contributors thought the government's perspective should be loftier, setting out a grand vision or national challenge.

• Wayne Robert says we need to create a Canadian dream to stimulate our interest.  "These things drive innovation at home and create a sense of pride and unity." 
• In a similar vein, Alfred Pratt suggests we try to attract a large science project to Canada. "Something similar to the Large Hadron Collider at CERN."Researchers might point to TRIUMF, though, which already exists (see below).

By and large, though, I think that people found that most of the problems in oversight stemmed from the overseers, and they called for more stability and perspective, instead of going for the quick fix.

• Ron Rogge advocates for constancy in government policy. "One can fathom the impact an ill-informed, inappropriately-motivated decision can make on the country’s standing in global science excellence.  A capacity that has taken tens of person-years to develop can be quickly lost, and to rebuild will take a much greater investment than the cost of retention." 
• Tanya Roussy says we should stop trying to buy talent and instead try to develop it. "We have plenty of bright people right here in Canada; who, with the right support, will be the superstar scientists of tomorrow - if we start to remove the barriers to their success."
  Rene Sugar recommends that research be funded independently of Parliament. 

The last suggestion might be a bit over the top. But it does tap into the idea that the increased government oversight of recent years hasn't been helpful, and people are looking for alternatives.


Private Sector and Industry Input

People outside the sector (or who feel they are outside the sector) want a say.

• Decisions about research funding should have more industry input, say some. For example, the CCentre for Excellence In Mining Innovation recommends "ensure broader participation by suitably qualified private sector representatives on grant application review boards" because "Right now, they’re dominated by academics."
• The Council of Canadian Innovators argues "Colleges and universities need to continue to consult with Canada’s scale-up community when designing their programs to ensure that the needs of the current and evolving labour market are being me.
• Polytechnics Canada (PDF) calls for "this consultation is to be inclusive and to allow Canada’s polytechnics and colleges to make their optimal contribution to increasing Canada’s innovation impact."

This is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is always valuable to get more input - the contributions to this consultation are themselves evidence of that. On the other hand, if more input means more oversight, then it runs the risk of compounding an already difficult problem.

A lot of what follows below addresses the role of the private sector, colleges and polytechnics in scientific research in Canada.


Fund Fundamental Research

There was substantial support for funding fundamental research, with proponents making it clear that without fundamental research Canada will not have any innovation capacity at all. Indeed, there was concern that fundamental research was not sufficiently address in the consultation documentation, and that insufficient attention has been paid to funding mechanisms that support foundational research.

• The Alliance des universités de recherche du Canada (ACCRU) argues "L'excellence en recherche n'a pas d'adresse...Investir dans les universités partout au pays" (research excellence is not addressed... invest in universities throughout the country.). 
• The Agricultural Institute of Canada argues, "Basic (foundation/pure) research must also be considered as it is the fuel for innovation and commercial application.... The public sector must to play a leading role in providing an enabling environment for innovation and performing R&D in areas of public good, such as basic research, where the private sector has less incentive to invest."
• The Canadian Association of Physicists advocates (PDF) for continuing the NSERC Discovery Funds. "This overall model of 'unfettered funds' works well for training flexible and innovative thinkers, and should continue, at a much higher funding rate," it argues. Also, "Allow for multiple and broad-based funding avenues to support diverse activities, especially when it comes to international collaboration. One size does not fit all." 
• TRIUMF argues (PDF) for "big science" saying "Because they are built on a foundation of world-class research and education, large-scale research facilities have the expertise and capacity to grow and foster Canada’s innovation economy." It advocates "a 'needs driven' innovation program to fund research aligned with national objectives." 
• Tev Stachniak argues that diversity enables prosperity. "There are no rules to producing innovation save one: diversity enables prosperity. Frequently this is discussed in terms of the value of curiosity-driven research, where the history of innovation highlights a central role for serendipity in generating truly novel discoveries." 
• Garth Huber (PDF), Canadian Institute of Nuclear Physics, and others, argue for reform in funding mechanisms to support basic research. " As the science develops and new opportunities and ideas arise, it is important to allow researchers to pursue a diverse program of excellence in fundamental science research." 
• Roland Kuhn (PDF) re-examines NRC's mission and questions its focus on revenues. "The suggestion that DARPA’s economic impact be measured by its revenues would be considered ludicrous by any expert on R & D policy, anywhere in the world," he writes.

Foundational research is often contrasted with applied reasearch, which is discussed below, but it is important to keep some comments outlined by Roland Kuhn in mind here: "Basic research versus applied research is a false dichotomy. The range is much more graduated than that. The implication of what we were being told was that if you are not doing exactly what a client wants you to do at this moment in time then you are not doing applied research. As there are only two options, you must be doing basic, blue sky, research."


Innovation, Knowledge Translation and Applied Research

A number of contributors made the point that while Canada is strong on basic research, it is weak in innovation, that is, in bringing basic research to market. This has been a refrain for years. 

• As le Conseil d'administration de l'Association francophone pour le savoir says, "Le Canada est fort en recherche, mais faible en innovation" (Canada is stong on research, but poor at innovation).
• The Agricultural Institute of Canada argues,"the gap between Canada and the world’s top five innovation performers has widened. In the most recent World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Competitiveness Report (2014-15) Canada ranks 23rd of 140 countries in capacity for innovation, significantly below levels in the United States (3rd).
  
• L'Institut professionnel de la fonction publique du Canada argues "L’économie du Canada manque d’innovation" and suggests "les scientifiques du gouvernement fédéral pourront s’engager pleinement dans l’atteinte des nouvelles priorités du pays en matière d’innovation" (government scientistscould fully commit to meeting the priorities of becoming an innovation nation).  

The natural reaction has been to shift resources to support an innovation agenda. This reaction is echoed by a number of contributors.

• The Agricultural Institute of Canada argues, "An effective innovation agenda must then set medium and long-term national R&D priority areas that promote business participation. An innovative private sector is critical to translate Canada’s high-quality knowledge production into marketable products that bring productivity gains and deliver commercial solutions to various industries."
• The Office of Applied Research & Innovation Algonquin College says "there needs to be a cultural shift and a redirection of incentives to support innovation and commercialization activities." 

The principle here is that research needs to be 'translated' or 'transferred' into innovation or economic development, often in specific sectors, "so that we as Canadians can extract maximum benefit from the investments that we make in research."

• So suggests the Centre for Excellence In Mining Innovation. 
• And the Forest Products Association of Canada argues "greater federal support in research and development would help maximize engagement in the forest sector’s innovation agenda."
• As Rick Jeysman notes (PDF), "The Massachusetts Life Sciences Centre (MLSC) operates to carry out its MLSI mission choosing investments with a range of priorities: (1) Funding translational research that converts discoveries from Massachusetts into marketable products and services; (2) Investing in promising new technologies; (3) Building connections; and (4) Ensuring alignment of skills with needs of life sciences industries." This approach should be 'Canadianized', he says.
• The Agricultural Institute of Canada also says "Participatory research approaches bring valuable opportunities to engage science graduates in research projects and knowledge transfer (KT) activities on the ground."
• The Council of Canadian Innovators  argues we should "develop policies that help our entrepreneurs commercialize ideas coming out of our universities."

Here's the problem: this is exactly what the government has done over the last decade, diverting hundreds of millions of dollars into knowledge translation, applied research, and commercialization. his has not addressed the fundamental issue: the private sector in Canada does not invest in research. And without this investment, no amount of government intervention can buy an innovation society.

Other people are looking for other solutions. Some, for example, think it's a match-making problem.

• Steve Leach writes that we should "build a platform where new patents are examined and vetted by experts, where inventions are matched to industry needs, and where new opportunities for pure and applied research are aligned with commercial interests."
• Similarly, Emma Brown suggests we join the IN-PART platform, "a global matchmaking network that connects university technologies with companies who are actively seeking to commercialize research." 

This has been attempted in the past. Maybe it can work with better technology, or maybe the problem isn't a matchmaking problem. Then there's this:

• Sarah Diamond and Karl Vredenburg write, "Many organizations recognize the importance of innovation, but they don't know how to achieve it. The answer is design. With design thinking, Canada could innovate toward an inclusive society that brings the national values of equity and inclusive design to the international arena."

I'd love to think that this is the answer, but it once again rings of being the quick fix. I think that the answer lies elsewhere.


Transfering IP to Industry

Some people has been calling for more direct industry access to government-funded IP:

• As noted by Tim Harford, "any IP generated by government scientists stays with the Crown." He recommends we "allow Canadian companies free access to any IP generated on behalf of Canadian citizens.
• "Maximizing private sector experimenting or use of IP should be the goal," writes J.B., pointing to the barriers facing people wishing to commercialize publicly created IP. 
• Guillaume Cote supported "prestigious chairs in industrialization", saying "We need an incentive for the most creative and adaptable researchers to work with industry for a period of time, where do would not be expected to publish, but to support the development of intellectual property owned by businesses." 

One of the major changes that took place at NRC not long after I joined was that a long-standing policy of encouraging researchers to create spin-offs and of rewarding them for their discoveries was discontinued. We've seen, as well, a nation-wide move on the part of universities to manage the commercialization (and retain the benefits) from researcher IP. Maybe this was a mistake.

• Majid Jowhari argues "Universities and hospitals sometimes claim too much ownership of a discovery and as such eliminate incentives on academics, researchers and others to innovate and come up with new idea. Universities do not have the opportunities, nor the knowledge to take an idea from the lab and make it practical and execute."
• The CIHR 'Proof of Principle program' should be reinstated, says J.P. Heale, Managing Director, UBC Industry Liaison Office. It "was a unique funding opportunity for Canadian researchers to de-risk and develop their research discoveries so that they could form spin-off companies, or license the intellectual property to established companies."

Much of Canada's innovation strategy has been centred around the idea of attracting large industry (with tax benefits, access to research, and use of government IP) in the hope that they would invest here and create a cluster of supplier industries. This hasn't happened.

By contrast, if we look at actual innovation clusters - at Silicon Valley, in Massachusetts, or even in Kitchener-Waterloo - we find that the economy develops as a result of a combination of basic research and spin-off startups. In other words, an innovation ecosystem.


Innovation Ecosystem

But what is an innovation ecosystem?

• Steve Larter and Claude Laflamme suggest expanding our models of innovation. "We must not be too prescriptive about which models of innovation work, or key skill sets of individuals, the key is that the team overall, has the necessary ambition, energy, inspiration, focus, diversity and delivery skills combined with good internal communication."

A number of contributions described and recommended the development of aspects of an innovation ecosystem consisting of skills development, communications and networking, and access to resources. 

• The Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences says (PDF) "Investments in skill development, knowledge production and collaborative networks will help Canada build a rich and diverse innovation ecosystem."
• Additionally, an anonymous contributor recommends improving science communication.  "Models of science communication exist.  Canada should build upon these models to become a leader in science communication."
• Nathalie Mousseau argues for investment in scientific and research libraries. 
• Sara Rubenfeld argues that public services employees should have better access to electronic resources that contain the most recent research and information available from around the world.
• Gail Garland notes "one recommendation identified in OBIO's report "How Canada Should be Engaging in a $9 Trillion Dollar Health Economy" (www.obio.ca) industry CEOs indicated that for Canada to create an ecosystem for scientists to connect and compete with proposals for global participation."
• Darren Lawless suggests "the creation of  'pop up' innovation zones within post-secondary institutions with the support of the government. These zones would build on the concept of successful maker spaces."

I think these are ideas that need to be taken more seriously. Most government investment in innovation over the last decade has consisted in funding to specific companies for for specific projects, and much less for services and facilities that support all companies or entrepreneurs. An innovation ecosystem, by contrast, resembles more an infrastructure investment.

Some people, meanwhile, think that we need to reshape society itself.

• J.B. calls for decreased immigration levels. But a commenter says "for research scientist positions, I know that we cannot limit our search to Canadian university graduates." 
• Sean Elliott calls on science to buy locally. "If more Canadian products are purchased, production cost per item will reduce, making our products more competitive globally (than they currently are)."

I think that most scientists would concur that nationalism and research are a poor mix.


Improve Research Efficiency

A number of respondents made recommendations that would contribute to an innovation infrastructure by increasing the efficiency of Canada's research investment. I think they have a point.

Consider openness, for example. Merely by employing more open source, by encouraging the use of open resources, and through open cooperation, we can eliminate many of the inefficiencies of Canada's innovation ecosystem.

• CANARIE notes "research software developers spend time re-creating existing software components instead of expending their efforts on new and innovative functionality" and recommends that the Government should encourage researchers to move to more collaborative models of software development and reuse."
• Similarly, Camille O'Byrne recommends "une sorte de récompense (monétaire, ou sous forme d'accès à des formations, par exemple) pour avoir fourni du travail, du savoir et des nouvelles technologies à la Société en mettant leur(s) création(s) sous licence libre" (some sort of compensation for open source contributions to the ommunity) 
• Michael Christensen also argues that we should find a way to make Canadian science more open. "For example, publication could be in open-access (pay-to-publish rather than pay-to-read) publications, and underlying datasets could be posted online for deep-dives by other researchers.
• There is also the potential to make research data more widely available. Research Data Canada argues "it must be easy to find, access, reuse, and the data must be accompanied by sufficient descriptive information and permissions to make it useful. In other words, the data should be Open."
•  

There was also a call for centralization and national coordination.

• The Total Innovation Management  (TIM) Foundation (PDF) recommends "adopting and nationalizing an Innovation Management Standard" that would define a common language and process for innovation management, be employed by government departments, and inform incentive programs.
• The Agricultural Institute of Canada argues,"A stronger strategy to coordinate research priorities and strategies will reduce risk of duplication and produce efficiencies," and recommends "a  knowledge transfer and translation component should be a mandatory condition for conducting research with public funds." 
• David Kennedy notes "We currently produce considerably more phD scientists annually than we can support," he writes. "Canada can build a more competitive scientific force by adjusting funding levels to train fewer scientists while at the same time employ(ing) more of them."

Again, though, attempts to create efficiencies through coordination (or standardization) create more problems than they solve. They increase the bulk of administrative overhead, create barriers to good research, cost time and money, and don't actually achieve coordination or standardization.


Public Sector-University-College-Industry Collaboration

There is traditionally a close link between colleges and industry which according to many writers  should be leveraged to support the research ecosystem.

• Colleges should "have all the necessary tools to enable students to choose an entrepreneurial path right after they complete their studies," says Rui Fernandes, arguing they should be a "production line" for innovators.

I don't think anyone wants to think of their institution as a "production line". But it gets at the question of why we would find colleges - and college research - in the first place. Colleges and polytechnics argued they should get more direct access to research support themselves, as a part of their support for the innovation agenda.

• NAIT Research and Innovation argues for an increase in "the amount of funding for applied research programs that support partnerships between Canadian companies and polytechnics and college." They also call for an increase in the number of applied research centres across Canada.
• The Office of Applied Research & Innovation Algonquin College says "colleges should be given greater access to grants programs that support the continuum of the research enterprise." It recommends a Canada Research Chair program for colleges and access to funds to support the indirect costs of research. 
• They also recommend increasing support for the “College and Community Innovation Program” (CCIP) program from $70M to $300M per year. CCIP budget submission. The Polytechnic Institute also calls for this. Kevin Holme also indicates his support.
• The submission from George Brown College Research & Innovation makes similar points, and adds that "An example of this difficulty is seen in the allotment is SSHRC’s CCSIF fund: many projects that were selected as successful applications and declared eligible for funding but could not be due to insufficient funds."
• The Sheridan College Applied Research and Innovation "applauds the success of SSHRC’s pilot Community and College Social Innovation Fund (CCSIF) and would welcome the establishment of the CCSIF as a permanent program." 

I think that the government should look into ways to more effectively (and more sufficiently) fund research at colleges and polytechnics. But I don't think that the price for this funding should be close collaboration with industry. This should be decided by the colleges themselves. If colleges decided that collaboration - through, say, co-op placements (see below) - are beneficial, they should be free to proceed. But they should not be wedged into programs of dubious benefit simply for the purpose of qualifying for research money.

There were also some calls for greater research-industry collaboration in other areas.

• The DAIR Hub says "industry-academia-government cooperation is needed to develop and facilitate regional cluster"such as the Downsview Aerospace Innovation and Research (DAIR) consortium (www.dairhub.com).
• Andre Sobolewski suggests funding industry leaders to take sabbaticals at universities. A commentator suggests funding professors to take sabbaticals in industry.

In fact, I find it a bit surprising that there weren't many more calls for this sort of collaboration. But my experience is that industry does not contribute to the consultation process through public fora such as this (I can imagine they would not like the reception they get from the public). We have to assume that there is support being expressed behind the scenes for the very substantial collaboration between industry and all aspects of Canada's research infrastructure, so much so that it probably counterbalances (and perhaps countervails) this entire consultation process. Openness on the part of government regarding the advice it receives directly from industry would go a long way toward restoring confidence in the science and innovation strategy overall.

There were some calls for improved cooperation between government and universities, which has been strained recently (because of government's focus on industry). 

• The Agricultural Institute of Canada says "existing federal government funding regulations prevent public sector agricultural scientists from collaborating with university scientists" and argues "the current regulatory framework governing the interactions between academia and federal research institutions should be revised." 
• Jean-Pierre Monchalin writes, "NRC should also renew links with academia and be present internationally, while particularly researching association with scientific and technological leaders. He suggests NRC is the linkage between low-TRL research produced by universities and high-TRL research needed by industry, helping Canadian companies through 'the valley of death'.
• TRIUMF notes (PDF) notes that while "a number of federally funded programs, such as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council’s industrial partnership programs, support linkages between academia and industry in order to encourage innovation" these "are not directly accessible to large-scale research facilities."

Support Individual Innovation


While most research support goes to institutions, support could also be provided to individuals.

• Takin K writes, "you have to have a rich family to establish a business in Canada; this is Inequality at work." 
• Flemming Rasmussen asks, "how can innovations from 'citizen scientists' be included in funding and resource consideration?" Grant proposals should be allowed from all Canadians, he says.
• For example, Camille O'Byrne suggests "Le gouvernement pourrait par exemple offrir à chaque citoyen une période de deux ans pendant laquelle il/elle recevrait une allocation suffisante pour bien vivre, pour acheter du matériel, pour voyager, et qui serait consacrée à un projet innovant" (the government could for example offer to each citizen a two year period during which they would receive enough to live on, to purchase material, to travel, and could support an innovative project).O'Byrne also suggests that a universal minimum income would reduce the need to work and foster the development of innovation.

 I think these are good points. Why is funding only available through institutions? How could social policy help individuals get on their feet and do something interesting?

Moreoever, it is worth noting the barriers some individuals face within institutions:

• Patty Hajdu points to "systemic barriers facing women regarding research and development grants." She recommends "emphasis on financial / business literacy for women, increased support for student travel to conferences, and increased connections between local politician & student unions/campus groups." 
• John Bergeron also points to the issue of women in science. "The makeup of Canada’s most prestigious and expensive talent selection program, the Canadian Excellence Research Chairs has only a single woman scientist but 24 men." 

I think that Canada could do more to open opportunities in science and innovation to more people and to support increased diversity. This has a little to do with affirmative action and a lot to do with ensuring that support, infrastructure, and access to services are there for everyone (and not just those who can afford them).


Research in Specific Areas

Many submissions recommended the government fund research in specific areas. I will list these for completeness, but I think personally that research ought to be funded if it is high quality reserach, as opposed to whether it supports the specific needs of the day.

• The Stem Cell Network argues "Stem cell research and regenerative medicine are disruptive technologies that will transform the practice of medicine in the coming decades." 
• Rahul Malik suggests we invest in high performance computing and computational materials science.
• An anonymous contributor suggests locating reserach in the northern territories "to further the idea of space travel and colonization, food growth methods in third world areas with extreme weather condition." 
• Gord Campbell argues for research to combat global climate change by the NRC. "NRC has the diversified research expertise, integrated corporate structure and enterprising culture to play a pivotal role to generate new knowledge and technologies to combat global warming, but they must be given the directive by the federal government."  
• Alastair McIvor argues we can build on our current expertise in large scale hydro and nuclear power. 
• A large number of physicists from Chalk River and associated institutions wrote (PDF) in support of and urgent need to retain neutron-based materials research competency. 
• George Brown College Research & Innovation recommends research in Building Information Modeling (BIM). 
• Flemming H Rasmussen recommends research on "understanding personal 'elementomes' and adjusting them for long-term health benefits, and monitored and tunable adjustments of body cell conditions." 
• Montréal InVivo and Life Sciences Ontario argue Canada should become competitive in clinical research. More. 
• RESULTS Canada (PDF) recommends research on global health issues, especially those related to poverty. 
• Alex Munter, president and CEO of the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario calls for research in health care. 
• Rod Pantony argues for research to reduce brain and mental disorders. He  writes "Canada has cutting edge research but GPS Cancer is more advanced and it has been commercialized in the USA."  He also wants to address the problem of black ice. 
• Robert Fraser recommends developing a roadmap for implementing personalized medicine in Canada.  
• Michael Christensen argues for more funding to support replication studies.

All of these are perfectly worthy candidates - except maybe 'elementomes' - and we would do well to support them.


Research, Innovation and Education

It's no surprise that a science and innovation agenda would also get to education. Proposals fell into two categories. The first was support for co-op programs and internships of various types:

• NAIT Research and Innovation suggests "There is increased industry interest in workforce integrated learning approaches that provide post-secondary students with work experience while they are attending an educational institution" and recommends increased support.
• J.B. writes "Colleges need to have shorter specialized certificate programs, in coordination with professional or industry sectors and provide internships or work experience"
• Mitacs Inc. argues "an effective innovation strategy must therefore respond to these trends by supporting effective education and training of future innovators" and suggests "Canada will need to significantly increase the number of work-integrated learning opportunities available for students." It offers "a plan to foster talent for growth by scaling Mitacs’ programs to deliver 10,000 annual innovation internships across Canada by 2020.
• Darren Lawless suggests a mechanism called 'sprintboard mentorship'. He proposes "funding and a mechanism that allows recent graduates to be engaged in solving industry or community problems while still having the ability to learn from an experienced professor over a short period of time – say six months to a year. Further, these graduates could mentor junior students who are working their way through their programs by providing insight and guidance"
• The Sheridan College Centre for Elder Research points out that "There are more opportunities at the college-level (than there typically are at the university level) to engage in “real-world” projects as part of co-op placements, field practicums and capstone projects."

I am not surprisingly supportive of practical experience in learning. Indeed, I think that the majority of a student's education should be actual experience in the community. But I have some caveats. First, and foremost, students aren't just cheap labour, nor are they valuable simply as a source of government funding. Second, many placements would be better served in support of community development and infrastructure support. It's not only about placements in industry.


The second category was focused on the need to teach people about something.

• For example, the Centre for Excellence In Mining Innovation suggests, "We would like to encourage more teaching on the basics of mining and on mining’s contribution to making everything around us happen."
• The Agricultural Institute of Canada recommends  "actors in the research value chain should undertake mandatory training in dissemination and public communication." 
• Albert Friesen writes Integration of science, innovation and entrepreneurship education should start early, at the elementary and even preschool."
• Futurpreneur Canada proposes that we "Include entrepreneurship in the mission statements and objectives of every post-secondary institution, and appoint an entrepreneurship champion or an entrepreneur-in-residence in every faculty," and "Integrate entrepreneurship into existing courses and add courses where gaps exist.
• An anonymous contributor recommends we research the value of a STEM graduate to society and then use various advertising and teaching mechanisms to make this knowledge widely known. 
• Ernesto Icogo calls for increased STEM teaching. "From young age to high-school, intensive STEM (in my case, mathematics) should be developed in the individual's mind, provide enough competition at national and international level,motivational reward and recognition." 
• Tanya Roussy proposes  that a grant is created to specifically address the lack of leadership training in academia.

While I appreciate the good intentions of those who contributed in this way, I need to remind them that education is not a propaganda engine. The purpose of to help students think for themselves and make their way in life, not to inculcate specific belief-set. These criticisms apply especially to those who would make entrepreneurship mandatory. There are many other ways to regard one's interactions with the rest of society, and it would be inappropriate to equate success with founding a business.
 


A Healthy Society and Ethics

I think it's interesting that almost nobody commented on these.

• In their submission RESULTS Canada calls attention (PDF) to 'stunting' - that is, the reduced development and capacity created by poor childhood nutrition and recommends that the nation's innovative capacity could be increased through its elimination.
• An anonymous contributor opposes the increasing use of animals in research and testing.

So much more could have been said in both areas, and more besides. We just received news this week of potential interference by the sugar industry in research regarding heart attacks. There has been no shortage of other ethical issues related to research, and there is no shortage of other social factors that impact our capacity to be a science and innovation society in general.

But that - by way of postscript, I guess - is grist for another day.

Alongside today's release of the "biggest" iOS update ever, Apple provided its promised iWork update, featuring real-time collaboration and a better layout for the 12.9" iPad Pro.

Undoubtedly, the headlining feature of the iWork update is the new collaboration functionality. By adding members to your team, you're able to work on documents with a group, all updating the file at the same time. Whether in Keynote, Pages, or Numbers, Apple's foray into Google Docs-like collaboration is a welcome addition. It should be noted, however, that Apple currently lists this as a beta; if you have any necessary documents, make sure to save another copy in case of a malfunction

Also packaged into the update was an improved "format pane" for the apps, allowing for a better design on the 12.9" iPad Pro. Included below are screenshots of the update:

Apple has also optimized iCloud's handling of documents in each of the apps, only downloading the file when you're going to be using it. This is surely aimed to limit the amount of storage used by the Keynote, Pages, and Numbers, freeing up more space on your device.

In terms of smaller but significant features, all apps now support a wide color gamut display and have enhanced keyboard shortcuts and navigation abilities. Keynote users can also now highlight with the Apple Pencil and present to others on iOS devices using Keynote Live.

---

Like MacStories? Become a Member.

Club MacStories offers exclusive access to extra MacStories content, delivered every week; it’s also a way to support us directly.

Club MacStories will help you discover the best apps for your devices and get the most out of your iPhone, iPad, and Mac. Plus, it’s made in Italy.

Join Now

Matthew Panzarino has written quite a piece:

Apple is mid-stride in building out physical manifestations of the iPhone’s core abilities. If the Apple hardware ecosystem is a body then the iPhone is the brain, the Apple Watch is the hand and the AirPods are the mouth. Your memory and cognition, the way you interact with the physical world and how you speak to it. ... There will come a day when we will view poking and prodding at an iPhone’s screen as just an archaic interaction method as the punch card. And that’s where Apple is skating.

That's a famous quote from legendary ice hockey player Wayne Gretzky: "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been."

I recommend you read Matthew's review in full. It's the best I have seen in a long time. I recommend it even if your conviction demands you despise Apple.

More >

Microsoft researchers have reached a milestone in the quest for computers to understand speech as well as humans. Xuedong Huang, the company’s chief speech scientist, reports that in a recent benchmark evaluation against the industry standard Switchboard speech recognition task, Microsoft researchers achieved a word error rate (WER) of 6.3 percent, the lowest in the industry. ... This past weekend, at Interspeech, an international conference on speech communication and technology held in San Francisco, IBM said it has achieved a WER of 6.6 percent. Twenty years ago, the error rate of the best published research system had a WER of greater than 43 percent.

The advances in speech recognition are simply amazing. And I have actually tried it (more than) 20 years ago.

More >

Coinciding with the release of iOS 10, Toronto-made Alto’s Adventure has been updated with new 3D Touch functionality.

Alto’s Adventure version 1.4 now allows iPhone 6s, 6s Plus, iPhone 7 and 7 Plus users to open up a new menu to switch between standard and Zen Mode. You can even flip modes mid-run if your mood happens to shift.

3D touch also now toggles your character’s wingsuit, of course, given you’ve reached that part of the game. As a side note, Snowman, the studio behind the game is also releasing new Alto’s Adventure stickers for iMessage.

Users who have updated to iOS 10 can find the amusing llama stickers in iOS 10’s new iMessage store.

Related: Alto’s Adventure review: Mobile gaming at its best