The New Sudan Vision has posted an interesting story about the Language Center for Newcomers (LCFN) in Alberta, Canada and the man who founded it, Michael Nuul Mayena. The LCFN is said to use an insider and peer-based approach to instruction:

…encourages immigrants from every nationality to come and learn the English language without abandoning their native languages. It is why the center also has a literacy program called ‘immigrants educating immigrants’, basically allowing knowledgeable individuals to teach classes to children and adult in their own languages. For example, Dinka language is taught at the center.

The New Sudan Vision story also gives a nice example of why risk and security issues are not always linear.

Michael exhibited charisma and leadership qualities early on. Born to Dinka parents in Baping, a village on the outskirt of Wang’ulei Payam in Twic East County, Jonglei State, South Sudan, Michael enjoyed good yet brief upbringing. He benefited from exceptional parenting, from caring and loving parents to a community that provided cultural values that nurtured him —something that definitely played a key role in how he faced life in the crucible of Africa’s longest civil war.

His first job and passion was in herding family cattle before war intervened and cut that short. While in refugee camp in Ethiopia those great leadership qualities became handy as he took care of younger children.

“I think the tough situation inspired me. When I was a child living in the bush without guardians that taught me and now it is my personal responsibility to help children to realize their own potential. We have missed many things during our childhoods in Sudan, because of the civil wars and I don’t want to see the children growing up with the similar situation that I passed through during those days,” he said.

A former employee of Bill Gates says the Microsoft leader wanted all user interfaces always to be exactly the same, which led to an awkward exchange

At one particularly frustrating moment, I offered the following: “Bill, a shower, a toilet, and a water fountain all have mechanisms to control water flow, places where the water comes out, some sort of porcelain basin to hold the water, and a drain, but we don’t combine them into one thing to reduce their learning curve. We don’t merge them into one object because each of them are in use in fundamentally different ways at different times.”

Then the pause.

Then Bill’s verdict. [There was an almost interminable pause in the conversation, as Bill thought about what I had said. And then he looked up at me after some processing and exclaimed: ‘That’s just rude.’]

Ouch.

As I saw my career disintegrate before me, I started to question just how “beautiful” my analogy really was.

So I guess now we know why today so many people sh*t on Windows.

But seriously, I am reminded of all the use-cases where we have similar but not the same interface. Motorcycles and cars, for example, are similar within the group but not the same as each other.

As much as a unified interface has some advantages, it certainly doesn’t lead to innovation/competition.

I’m not bothered that I have to ride a road bike differently than a mountain bike, or sail a catamaran differently than a mono-hull…this story also suggests it’s always a good idea to go to the bathroom before having an important meeting to ensure analogies do not go where the mind may already be.

A dramatic look at the history of bicycles can be found in an excerpt from Victorian Cycles, Wheels of Change. It is particularly interesting to see the emphasis on safety (versus horses).

…this controversial machine forged roads into society that revolutionized politics, fashion, and social policy as well as paved the way for the mechanized world of motion to come. Victorian Cycles, Wheels of Change is a fascinating documentary about the bicycles coming of age and its tremendous impact on society.

I suspect the growth in numbers of women who rode bicycles had more to do with the cost of horses and the inability of women to operate and own them without assistance than the need to protect women from harm. In other words, if women were able to independently earn wages to afford the lifestyle of a horse-owner then they would have been less likely to need or want to try to adapt to the new and unknown risks of bicycles.

The simple economics of transportation make horses a no-go option to any low-income group. And that is not to mention the many other drawbacks of horses; it was said in the 1800s that New York could be smelled from a hundred miles away. No one ever complained about the urban odour of bicycles.

Ok, so maybe some men really didn’t want to allow their women to ride horses for fear of injury. That perspective just seems slightly off to me, however, given the other high-risk tasks that women were “allowed” at the time.

Working conditions for women, as well as for children, were awful and exposed them to life-threatening dangers (as depicted in Charles Kingsley’s The Water Babies, Elizabeth Gaskell’s North and South; Life of Charlotte Bronte, Benjamin Disraeli’s Sybil, etc.) . Many lived tortured lives and suffered greatly during industrialisation.