Jserv's blog

幕後的英雄：談 Embedded Systems 設計

剛剛讀到 [Embedded System Design] 主編 Jim Turley 的文章 [A rose by any other name] (中文翻譯可參考 [為「嵌入式系統」正名] 一文)，給我頗多感觸。回到台北內湖瑞光路上班後，往往在下班時段除了見到車水馬龍的狀景外，抬頭張望還會看到許多「地標」，如仁寶大樓、光寶大樓、BenQ 大樓，以及其他大樓，可參考之前的 blog [內湖俯瞰]，周旋其中，更覺得自己的渺小，跟這些企業相比，我這個小小工讀生一點價值也沒有，我看到光鮮亮麗的商標與產品櫥窗，也見到琳琅滿目的消費性電子裝置，此時耳畔彷彿浮現出 BenQ 董事長李焜耀的專訪內容，基本上就是提到品牌與科技人才該如何在 IT 產業這個大舞台，演出最佳的戲碼。這些電子裝置，無論是消費性電子、主動與被動元件，還是車用移動電子裝置等等，都是所謂的 Embedded Systems，如果我們今天不看技術層面，而是核心價值的展現，就如 Jim Turley 的文章所提及：

Indeed, that's part and parcel of what makes an embedded system: one where you don't really see the technology. Contrast that with a computer (PC, Mac, workstation, supercomputer-take your pick) where the technology is the product. We talk about buying a 4-GHz PC with 512 Mbytes of RAM, but never about an 8-bit microwave with six interrupts and a 10-bit A/D. With computers, the guts come first (can you say, "Intel Inside"?), whereas embedded products are more coy and demure about their private parts.

Embedded Systems 的定義無論是學界或者業界，都有相當多種說法，應用的範疇更是遠超出一般人的想像，但是當我們手上拿著行動移動裝置，頂多只會留意這是 Moto 的手機、iPaq PDA、mio 的 GPS 裝置、... 一類的直覺想法，第一眼所見還是品牌，但這其中到底有多少技術需求，如果不是身在研發單位的人員，實在是難以察覺。於是 Jim Turley 又說了：

That's got to be frustrating for many embedded engineers. Their work defines the product, yet the work itself goes unnoticed. Indeed, it's generally required to be unnoticed. An overly technoid product is often a failure in the market. It's the deceptively simple ones that fly off the retail shelves.

從歷史的軌跡可以看出，一個過分技術化的嵌入式產品往往會在市場中失敗，而簡單的產品往往非常易於銷售，這個概念在我成長的年代，Palm 與其他同時代的競爭產品就是很好的例子，Palm 並不是開 PDA 濫觴的創始者，但我們大多只記得 Palm，不是嗎？這方面的評論不需要我多說，但回到 Embedded Systems 產品的議題，設計開發人員的挫折與失落感相對來說，面對媒體的對於非技術項目高度 highlighting，更為明顯，Jim Truley 說的實在太精確，不禁讓我沾染一襲淡淡的憂傷：

If you work on a recognizable product like an F/A-18 Hornet, a Whirlpool refrigerator or a Nokia phone, you can proudly point to your work and say, "I did that." For most of us, however, the "product" is a bit too nerdy and unrecognizable for the general populace. Grandma can grok a gramophone, but a real-time preemptive multitasking scheduler might be a bit beyond her ken.

作為一個軟體開發人員，可能會為了需求完成 Realtime System Design/Architecture 後，興高采烈的把心得紀錄成 [簡報：Approaches to Realtime Linux] 與 [Priority inversion 簡介] 一類的文章，就算真正被掛上品牌，成為商品後，也很難向一般人介紹自己的工作成果與貢獻，頂多只能苦笑說「我過去的加班是值得的」，Jim Truley 文章中的這句話寫得頗貼切：

Yet we're left staring at our shoes or waving our hands when asked to describe an embedded system. We're embedded designers and programmers, but we can't adequately define what that means. The very term, embedded, is weighted with contradictory and incompatible definitions, and it's not a word most people use frequently. It's time for a better description of what we do.

Jim Truley 提及 [Don Norman] (可參考：[Wikipedia 的介紹]) 的知名著作 [《The Invisible Computer - Why Good Products Can Fail, the Personal Computer Is So Complex, and Information Appliances Are the Solution》] 作為佐證。Donald Norman 在很多公司和教育機構擔任董事和理事，包括芝加哥設計學院，現為美國西北大學計算機和心理學教授，是 Nielsen Norman Group 諮詢公司的創辦人之一，曾任蘋果電腦公司先進技術部副總裁。他的著作包括《The Design of Everyday Things》、《Things That Make Us Smart》和《The Invisible Computer》，最近的著作《Emotional Design》強調情感在產品設計中所扮演的重要角色，他的目標不僅是幫助企業製造出滿足人們的理性需求，更要滿足情感需求的產品。在《The Invisible Computer》一書提到真正的電腦是極其複雜的，然而卻是無形的，也就是說嵌入式電腦無處不在，Jim Truley 更補充說：

By my own reckoning, the average middle-class American household includes about 40 to 50 microprocessor-based devices, plus another 10 to 30 for each car in the garage. Compare that with the number of PCs in the same house (bearing in mind that a PC includes several processors) and you've got an overwhelming advantage for the little guys.
...
The Invisible Computer makes a good start, but saying "I design invisible computers" is unlikely to generate comprehension. Explaining what "embedded" means is a bit like explaining a joke: By the time you finish, you've lost your audience. What we need is a better term for "embedded." We've labored under this confusing banner long enough. It's time for someone to propose a better one, so write in with your suggestions. Your industry needs you.

讀到這邊，讓我這個工讀生嘴角揚起會心一笑，好似一個產業外頭貼著二次大戰時，美國徵招入伍的廣告：
We Need YOU
是的，電腦是無形的，潛在其中的技術更是無所不在，作為一個技術人員，這個工作雖然辛苦，也不會有光鮮的外表，或許可能會被媒體遺忘，但無形的電腦發展中，技術人員的貢獻與突破是不會被埋沒的，你的產業需要你！類似的說法，除了之前的 blog [我為何選擇工程技術，而非其他行業？] 外，[Embedded System Design] 的兩篇文章：[Naming Things] 與 [The Name Game Continues: Invisible Computing] 很值得一看，後者提到：

Norman uses the term "invisible" to describe the attribute common to all effective, easy to use and popular tools in human culture: no matter how complicated the functions they may perform, the technology used to perform an action is not apparent to the user of the tool. Such tools are human-centered not technology centered. The technology is invisible.
The focus of much of Norman's ire in his book is the most un-invisible of all computers, the personal computer. There the technology is in-your-face, obvious and forcing you to use or try to use it.
According to Norman, personal computer manufacturers have compounded the problem through an addiction to creeping featurism. A good example of this is the typical word processing program. In 1976 one of the first word processing programs, called "Magic Pencil," fit into less than 8 kbytes of DRAM and had less than 50 commands to do basic typing functions. By 1992 Microsoft Word had about 300. Now, Word has nearly 1,100 commands.
I fear the same thing may be happening to the embedded systems now being built, which have moved from practically invisible to in-your-face obvious and overly complicated. The big question I have is whether or not connectivity will exacerbate the problem, or will it make it possible for embedded devices to return to their former state of invisibility?

Bernard Cole 寫作的時間是 2001 年，可以想見四年後的今天，複雜度更是提高，不僅軟體如此，硬體亦然，這些 "invisible" 的技術對許多技術人員來說，已經到了難以掌握的局面，各種 Hardware-Software Co-Design 的途徑相繼被提出，而 Bernard Cole 也舉出消費性電子裝置多元化的今天，MCP 從 4-bits, 8-bits, 16-bits，一直移轉到今日普遍的 32-bit MCP，GPS 的例子更是無比複雜的黑盒子 (black box)，讓人面對這些設計與技術時，不免感嘆說：

will it make it possible for embedded devices to return to their former state of invisibility?

無論如何，每個 Embedded System Devices / Designs / Mechanicals 背後都有 "invisible" 的幕後英雄，或許該商品不見得能在市場上獲得良好的評價，但是建構的過程絕對是可敬的，感謝這些投入電子產業的前輩和參與其中的開發者，而 Embedded Systems 絕對是值得投入的領域，我也相信無論是從硬體、軟體、機構，還是其他層面切入，有朝一日可以如 Donald Norman 的新書《Emotional Design》，讓設計師努力與投入的熱情，可以感染於消費者，發揮設計所存在三個層面，感官層面 (Visceral)、行為層面 (Behavioral)，以及反思 (Reflective) 層面。

群 於台北內湖瑞光路
由 jserv 發表於 October 27, 2005 04:56 PM