I) I have to use (and know about) these social sharing technologies as an IT professional. As a private person however, I disapprove of proprietary technologies that may unknowingly inflict people’s privacy online (for even more scary stuff, learn about browser fingerprinting and read this recent Wired story about undeletable cookies). I also recommend and support using plugins and tools like

• Brian Kennish’s Disconnect extension for Chromium based browsers
• SRWare’s Iron Browser (a better Chrome alternative, see Iron vs. Chrome)
• Tor Project

II) The way how social sharing (and “social” per se) is done today is just plain wrong:

• It’s proprietary instead of based on open standards.
• Data usually gets pulled into proprietary, closed, data silos instead of giving users full and exclusive control over their very own data.
• All the big existing social sharing architectures follow a vulnerable (in so many ways), centralized approach instead of a robust, distributed (or at least federated) one.
• Erroneously, people try to solve “social sharing” on the web application level instead of on a lower level and as part of an open protocol and specification (an open social backbone) rather than as various incompatible and proprietary implementations.
• Giving users guarantees and full control about their online privacy and data is impossible with the current approaches. Users are required to care about their settings for every single social sharing tool out there instead of being able to specify a global policy (e.g. in the browser).
• So far, social sharing is de facto opt-out instead of opt-in, which is the wrong approach if you want to put the user in control and avoid being evil.

III) “tweet”, “like”, “+1″ buttons clutter up and “slow down” web pages and make for an unenjoyable user experience, also in regard to accessibility. It doesn’t scale (a separate button for each social network, for each shareable entity on a page , though it’s basically all just about “sharing something”? Oh no!). It’s not even necessary, pure lazyness (feel free to share by copy-pasting URLs manually until there’s a true social backbone). It simply s*cks on so many levels. The “share” button-itis as common today will largely disappear and be replaced by a browser built-in, extensible, standardized social sharing facility in a matter of 5 years.

IV) Do you know the code that hides behind a share button (or a fake thereof)? If so, do you know what exactly is going to happen when you click on it while surfing the web? Neither do I. Security, transparency, reliability, usability and accessibility could be improved a lot by moving “social sharing” from web pages to the browser.

Further (of less importance for the general discussion):

• As a private person I  don’t care much about popularity contests and popularity in general, neither that of my pages nor of myself (or my virtual alter ego).
• On this changelog, the “share” buttons were rarely used anyway. I’m confident people won’t miss them now that they’re gone.

Important note: This post reflects nothing but my own opinion as a private person (like everything else posted on this private blog). I can clearly distinguish between my own opinion as a private person and opinions and needs of other individuals, businesses (even my own business), organizations and customers and fully respect them.

Animation of an apple falling from a tree in Google’s doodle in memory of Isaac Newton’s birthday

As this seems to be the first animated logo on Google’s home page ever, I wondered how it was implemented (in particular, how well the code simulates gravity on earth). Short explanation: As expected, it’s a mix of JavaScript code and CSS formatting. And not surprising either, the algorithm used is an acceptable simulation of gravity on earth (in vacuum).

Here’s a “reformatted” version of the JavaScript code for better readability, along with some explanations as inline comments (note that this “reformatted” code doesn’t work as-is due to the inserted comments):

window.lol&&lol();
setTimeout( // execute this code once after a timeout of 2 seconds
  function(){ // an anonymous function
    var h=0, // initial horizontal offset (=0) of the apple's position
    v=1, // initial vertical offset ('delta_height' = b(t+1)-b(t)) of the apple's position
    f=document.getElementById('fall'), // get a reference to the apple image
    i=setInterval( // execute repeatedly in intervals of 25 msec
      function(){ // yet another anonymous function
        if(f){ // execute if the apple image exists (a safety net)
          var r=parseInt(f.style.right)+h, // add the horizontal offset (will move apple left for h>0)
          b=parseInt(f.style.bottom)-v; // subtract the vertical offset (will move apple down for v>0)
          f.style.right=r+'px'; // set the apple's new horizontal position
          f.style.bottom=b+'px'; // set the apple's new vertical position
          if(b>-210){ // the apple is above ground level (i.e. falling down or bouncing up)
            v+=2 // increase 'delta_height' by 2 pixels per interval (accelerate the apple's free fall or slow down its rebound)
          } else { // the apple hit the 'ground'
            h=(v>9)?v*0.1:0; // bounce apple to the left at 10% of the last 'delta_height' if speedy, else don't move it horizontally
            v*=(v>9)?-0.3:0 // bounce apple up at 30% of the last 'delta_height' if speedy, else don't move it vertically
          }
        }
      }
      ,25 // the interval in msec
    );
    google.rein&&
    google.rein.push(
      function(){
        clearInterval(i); // disable the interval loop
        h=0;v=1
      }
    )
  },2000 // the timeout in msec
)

The apple’s initial position: position: relative; right: 248px; bottom: 46px;

The apple’s final position (after the rebound): position: relative; right: 286px; bottom: -210px;

Some words about the physics:

The simple algorithm used above reflects the constant acceleration during free fall accurately, supposed we’re neglecting the effect of air drag. IOW: height(t) = height(t=0) – 0.5*g*t^2 = h(t=0) – k*t^2.

The rebound of the apple is less realistic though. I doubt an apple would rebound that high and the fact that it rebounds to the left seems to be rather arbitrary (given the image it’s difficult to judge where the apple’s center of gravity would be compared to the contact area when touching the ground on impact). Further, simulating rotational forces on the apple wouldn’t hurt the realism ;)

Symbolism:

It’s not without irony that Google shows a falling apple on its main page, as one reader points out on Mashable’s article about this animation ;)