I mentioned a few weeks ago that I was testing a Facetime videolink to my mother. It's not my first attempt. I'd tried Google Video Chat two years ago, but after months of struggle I gave up; it had, and still has, dismal usability. iChat was even worse. In all cases I've been using the excellent Logitech QuickCAm Vision Pro for Mac. (Still the best webcam ever sold, though I fear it's going away without a true replacement.)
After a few weeks of testing I can report that Facetime is a big usability improvement over Google Video Chat. I configured my mother's machine to auto-answer my calls; I can call from my phone or desktop and her machine will pick up. Facetime doesn't need to be running, OS X 10.6.x will launch it.
There's only one problem.
After I close the call at my end Facetime continues to run on her machine. It doesn't auto-exit (and, at this time, she can't see well enough to reliably quit the app) [1]. This means her webcam stays powered on [3]. Under some conditions, perhaps mostly time, the embedded OS that manages in-camera focus and exposure control crashes. The Webcam still works, but it focuses to infinity and the light levels are very low. If you pull the USB cable, wait a few seconds, then plug it in again, the camera will reset.
I'm considering a few workarounds. Firstly, it would be great if Apple officially supported auto-answer, so FT could then auto-exit on close. Alternatively I could
I'm leaning to the nightly restart as the simplest fix, but I should also try remote control -- again!
[1] As her macular degeneration has progressed we've been focusing on her iPad use.
[2] Apple needs to kill AppleScript, but I fear there'd be not replacement.
[3] The webcam then stays in active mode, so it appears like it's always sharing an image.
See also:
Update:
When a Google search doesn't return much, it's often because the function one is seeking is now a part of the OS.
OS X Energy Saver allows one to schedule a restart. I'll schedule my mothers machine to reboot at 2am daily, that should clear out any dangling FT sessions.
Incidentally, there's a longstanding, perhaps ancient, UI flaw with OS X Energy Save scheduling. Look at this:
It looks like the first option is available for selection, but the second (schedule restart) is unselectable -- it's "grayed out".
Look carefully (it took me a while). The select box (drop down) on the first row is also grayed out. This is standard behavior. The reason the 2nd row is so confusing is that it starts with a drop down -- there's no preceding text to display in normal font. Despite appearances this row is available for selection. Just click the check box.
I deleted a prefs file and did a number of Google searches before I realized what was going on. I found others who made the same mistake ...
I implemented Google's two factor authentication about three weeks ago. It's mostly working, but there are a few issues:
The big positive is that with two-factor and https I'm now willing to connect with an untrusted machine. By untrusted I machine a machine that has a reasonable chance of hosting a keystroke logger. That means any machine running XP and any machine I don't control. My work laptop, for example, is doubly untrusted.
A second bonus is that I'm now more comfortable with using my Google account as an OpenID/OAuth server.
The biggest problem is application-specific passwords. They behave like regular passwords, so if a keystroke logger captures the password one it can be used to, say, get access to your email from OS X Mail.app.
You really, really, really do not want to use an application-specific password on an untrusted machine. Google should provide more warning about their use. I use them on my iPhone and and my home Mac.
Use of application-specific passwords on an iPhone is a PITA. You can't generate these from an iPhone and they're a nuisance to type in. I've stored one in the encrypted 1Password database I use on my iPhone for reuse only on that device. (I'm taking this risk since if my iPhone is stolen and the 1Password database is hacked I'm in a world of pain anyway.)
Having this password on my iPhone is particularly important because Google.app's current behavior is obnoxious. In my case I entered a application-specific password and authenticated. Subsequently other iPhone Google App references (example desktop shortcut to Google Reader) requested a Google account password, not an Authenticator password and not an application-specific password. Every two weeks or so, however, Google.app makes me enter a NEW application-specific password.
The second shortcoming is that there doesn't seem to be a way to easily de-authorize a computer. When you first connect to a Google account from a new machine you're asked to enter your Google password [1]. Then, if you're using Authenticator.app, you're asked to enter your Authenticator token. At that point, if the machine authenticates, there's an option to authorize it for a month.
There should be a way to reverse that decision from your Google account. For example - what if the machine is lost? What if, as in my case, you make that choice from an untrusted machine and decide it was a bad idea? (In theory deleting cookies will undo this, but, perhaps due to user error, that didn't work for me. Of course that also requires physical control of the machine.) For now, be careful to only "authorize" your primary, secured, non-portable, home machine.
Lastly I've found I needed around 8-14 application-specific passwords, even when I reuse one - such as for IMAP and SMTP authentication from OS X Mail.app. There's no way around this one -- I use a lot of Google services from many devices and accounts.
Overall I'm pleased with Google's two factor authentication. They've given it a lot of thought, and I love that they've open sourced key parts of the infrastructure. We needed this years ago, but I'm grateful to have it at all.
[1] At that point, on a keystroke logger infected machine, your Google password is public knowledge. That's why I was willing to simplify my Google password. I now assume it is public, though I obviously haven't made it public.
See also:
Google's parental controls are pretty feeble, though there's a roundabout way to lock filtering to the most severe setting.
What about Microsoft's Bing? Bing starts out with one significant advantage -- the connections are not https encrypted so OS X domain filtering actually works.
Alas Bing's controls seem even weaker (emphases mine) ...
... Ensure that SafeSearch is always on when your kids search on Bing, choose what they see online, set time limits and game restrictions, and more. Windows users can install the free download, Windows Live Family Safety....
Ensure SafeSearch is on, I presume, by standing over your favorite teen! [3]
Interestingly in 2009 Microsoft had a better approach to parental controls ...
Bing Modified To Enable Porn Filtering - CBS News
... , "explicit images and video content will now be coming from a separate single domain, explicit.bing.net...
... Almost all third-party filtering tools can be configured to block specific domains or sites, as can the parental controls in Microsoft Vista and Mac OS X...
After this 2009 press release however, Microsoft removed all references to explicit.bing.net [1]. I wasn't able to find any explanation of what happened to it. [2]
My own tests suggest Microsoft really did abandon this scheme. The domain 'explicit.bing.net' brings up the usual bing interface, so the domain still exists, but there's no longer any redirecting to this domain. For example, a search on "Hot Babes" with OS X Parental Controls blocking explicit.bing.net brought up an impressive array of high resolution images.
Without the ability to lock Bing's parental control settings, and with the inexplicable demise of explicit.bing.net, Bing manages to come in 2nd behind Google's parental controls. The one advantage of Bing is that the lack of https encryption makes it easier to track pages visited.
[1] Either that or their feeble Blog search doesn't work with Safari. Microsoft is falling apart almost as fast as it grew to power.
[2] I wonder if corporate lawyers advise against attempting to do parental controls. Microsoft probably has less liability if they do nothing than if they provide an imperfect solution.
[3] Though it doesn't help OS X users like me, Windows Live Family Safety sounds relatively useful.
I suspect there aren't many of us stuck in Apple's photo management Limbo. Maybe a few hundred geeks. Perhaps we should develop a secret handshake?
We are early iPhoto adopters who have our images distributed across several Libraries. Sometimes we did this deliberately because iPhoto was pretty wimpy in the old days; it couldn't handle large numbers of images. At other times Library multiplication was the result of travel or partnerships (ex: marriage).
We, the Lost, would like to put all the images together in one place. Once upon a time we thought Apple would add Library import to iPhoto, but about four years ago we realized that wasn't going to happen. Since then some of us have used iPhoto Library Manager to merge iPhoto Libraries but others are too chicken.
For years we thought we might join libraries in Aperture, or that Apple would create an 'iPhoto Pro' with Library management. By this time price had become irrelevant, but instead Aperture languished.
More recently Apple reinvested in Aperture, and dropped the price dramatically ($80 via App Store). It is clearly intended to be iPhoto Pro. iPhoto itself is becoming simpler and losing features.
The problem is, Aperture 3 doesn't really import iPhoto Libraries. Yes, I know it claims to do it. I know many people say it works. Wrong both times. The import process has not only been buggy in the worst possible way (indetectable loss of very valued data), it can't work correctly. Aperture 3.x doesn't even have a place to store some of iPhoto's metadata, such as comments on events. In other cases Aperture 3 does have a place to store iPhoto metadata but, astoundingly, the import process ignores this.
So we're in Limbo. Even if Apple tries to fix Aperture, it might be years before they succeed. I have a bad feeling they won't bother -- there aren't enough geeks like me. Most of us own Aperture anyway.
I'm guessing I'll have to stay with iPhoto and use IPLM's merge feature. I'll be approaching that with the same enthusiasm as juggling antimatter. Merging iPhoto's monstrous data structure would be a hard problem even if Apple tried to help ...
This post updates a prior article: Grandma's iPad - A user guide and review.
My son and I just spent a few days with my elderly parents. My mother's macular degeneration and rheumatoid arthritis continue their slow inexorable progress. She is no longer able to use her Mac Mini, it's now primarily a sync service for her iPod, an image server, and perhaps a facetime connector [2][3].
She remains thrilled with her iPad, despite a need for a skill refresher [1]. I've just completed the OS 4 update; the added complexity of multitasking was offset by improved usability features we really wanted. Here's what I learned ...
These are the apps she uses -- they're all on Page 1. I've found very few third party apps worthwhile for her:
These are embedded apps she doesn't use (all on page 2): Safari (uses via the web page links), App Store, iTunes, Game Center, Calendar, Maps, YouTube.
I'd love to buy more elder-friendly apps for her, but this is a largely untapped market [4]. So far Apple does the best, and even their best isn't so great.
[1] If she lived closer to me I'm sure she'd be a wizard at it, but she tends to lose skills since I'm not around to reinforce them.
[2] Upgrading to 10.6, which required a drive upgrade, cost us the mini's optical drive. Tip: If you take a apart a used Mini, keep the #$$$ dust out of the exposed drive slot.
[3] I've set Facetime to autoanswer, She has a lovely Logitech Pro webcam. We'll see how well this works, too early to report on.
[4] A tough market to reach. No interest to advertisers, has trouble buying software/apps, tends to have a limited lifespan as an active user. (A minimally-demented 75 yo geek is not in this market.)
See also:
