Skip to content →

Category: interaction design

I unpushed an elevator button, and didn’t stop on the 5th floor

Elevator Button

I’d like to be able to unpush an elevator button. How many times have you been in an elevator and pushed the wrong button? How many times have you seen someone else do it? The only remedy is to let the doors open on the errant floor, and then push the “close doors” button.

A double-click on the button could unpush it. Could the elevator biometrically register the identity of the button pusher and then limit unpush privileges to that individual?

Hmmmm…maybe I should just take the stairs.

Comments closed

Disrupting the book: What if Kindle was free?

Books

Can the book be disrupted? It seems like piling on to write about Amazon’s new e-book device “Kindle.” Universally hated, except for the free EVDO. In general I’m in favor of single purpose network attached devices. For instance, I crave a Chumby. But the Kindle seems doomed to failure. How many attempts have been made in the e-book space? Of course, it’s not really an e-book, it’s an electronic text reader. A book is an entirely different experience.

Would I spend $400 to buy a device that would allow me to spend $10 more to download the text of a book? I think I’d prefer to read news and features on a device like that. If that’s true, how is it better than an iPhone? Perhaps Kindle should be like a razor. Give it away and charge for the razor blades. I don’t know if that model would work, but it’s the only way it could gain wide acceptance.

Although we’re trained not to buy content, we ascribe the emotion of “wanting to be free” to it. Perhaps both the reader and text are free and supported by advertising. Macbeth, brought to you by Dawn dishwashing liquid. It’s tough on dirt, but gentle on your hands.

One Comment

“Macs just work” It depends on the meaning of “work”

Apple or Microsoft: Choose your platform

Scoble and Winer are crowing about the fact that Apple products break sometimes. And if you use them in the margins of their functionality, they break more often. Now clearly Apple products break sometimes, they have strange limitations and can infuriate developers who create in the space close to core functionality. They’re claiming that this contradicts Apple’s brand promise which they define as “it just works.”

It depends on the meaning of “works.” If you mean Macs always function perfectly from a mechanical and software perspective— well that’s simply impossible. And certainly Winer and Scoble should know that. Especially Winer, who once said: “I make shitty software. With bugs!” The truth of it is, everybody does. Apple does too.

The “it works” I like about Apple’s products is they’re easy for regular folks to learn how to use. They make it easy to get started, easy to get online and browse, easy to get into digital photography, easy to buy music online and transfer to an mp3 player. That’s the brand promise. The very idea that any company could have a brand promise that implies their products are perfect and never break is absurd. A lot of brands trade on the idea of quality and reliability. That doesn’t mean they never break. Those of us immersed in the digital sometimes lose sight of how difficult it can be to use a computer. A translation of “it just works” might be, “even I can use this computer.”

Chumby

A related thread is the introduction of Chumby. The digerati hail the hackability of the device, but that’s not what’s really interesting about it. It’s that it’s simple. It takes away almost all of the power and flexibility of a computer, but the user is left with enough value to make it interesting. It’s the beginning of a wave of single purpose websites and network connected devices.

Comments closed

Aggressive weeds in the garden of your social graph?

It’s a cold world out there. In the beginning there was the walled garden. AOL was a safe place, but in the end it couldn’t  compete with the wider network of websites. But once we were out in the cold cruel world, we needed someone to help us find our way around. A personal start page like MyYahoo, or a search engine like Google provided an orientation point for any journey into the network.

Social networking sites like Facebook seem to provide a new entry point that filters the larger network using one’s friends as editors; transparantly journals friend activity; and provides the opportunity to create facets, or nodes of connection, through the assertion of interests (preferred modes of attention) within the social network.

The battle for monetizing the network revolves around which company can provide the best orientation point for entering the network. Facebook puts you into the stream of your friend’s activity. Techmeme puts you into the stream of technology news and opinion. Twitter puts you into an edited collection of small moments, stream of consciousness and conversation. MyYahoo is a personal newspaper. Google is ready to show you whatever you’re interested in. Google Reader puts you in an edited stream of blogs. Del.icio.us puts you into an edited stream of categorized bookmarks and pointers. Mahalo is a variation on Google, it’ll show you whatever you’re interested in, but edits the search result to make it more human readable. Where do you want to enter the network today? Perhaps, I’d like to enter through my teleputer…

Trust is hard to earn and easy to lose. This is the primary lesson for social networking sites, what was so painstakingly created and nutured can be destroyed very easily. The structure of a social network is biological, it’s growth is organic. But it is subject to disease (viruses, the madness of mobs, etc) and environmental factors. For instance, you could introduce social objects (nodes) that aren’t individuals, but representatives of corporate entities. You could ask people within the network to vouch for these new objects. You could have just figured out the best way to monetize the social network as an entry point, or you could have introduced an aggressive weed into your garden. In any case, the ecology of the system is irrevocably altered. Trust is hard to win, easy to lose.

3 Comments