Skip to content →

Category: zettel

scraps of paper

TwitterVision: Generative Infotainment

Signal Path for Producing Discreet Music: Eno

I downloaded the TwitterVision app for the iPhone last week. But I didn’t really get a chance to look at it until I had an in-between moment last night while visiting a friend’s new house up on a hill in Fairfax. Left to my own devices for a few minutes, I pulled out my iPhone and touched the TwitterVision icon. Suddenly I was seeing a stream of Tweets from people I didn’t know from all over the world. Seeing those personal moments, many of them in-between moments, brought a smile to my lips– and, of course, started a train of thought.

This kind of engagement brought to mind what’s variously been called furniture music, discreet music or ambient music. This kind of music has many origins, I first became aware of it through the music of Erik Satie and Brian Eno. Eno first discussed the concept in the liner notes to his album Discreet Music.

In January this year I had an accident. I was not seriously hurt, but I was confined to bed in a stiff and static position. My friend Judy Nylon visited me and brought me a record of 18th century harp music. After she had gone, and with some considerable difficulty, I put on the record. Having laid down, I realized that the amplifier was set at an extremely low level, and that one channel of the stereo had failed completely. Since I hadn’t the energy to get up and improve matters, the record played on almost inaudibly. This presented what was for me a new way of hearing music – as part of the ambience of the environment just as the colour of the light and the sound of the rain were parts of that ambience. It is for this reason that I suggest listening to the piece at comparatively low levels, even to the extent that it frequently falls below the threshold of audibility.

In the liner notes to Music for Airports, the concepts had become more refined:

Ambient Music must be able to accomodate many levels of listening attention without enforcing one in particular; it must be as ignorable as it is interesting.

TwitterVision strikes me as this same kind of engagement. It accommodates many different levels of engagement. There’s a sense in which it’s always on, and always changing, much in the way that generative music can create music algorithmically that can have a duration of 1 year or 10,000 years. It’s a kind of engagement that works very well for our in-between moments, the moments where the system puts us in a holding pattern. We provide our own hold music.

The pertinent correlation is the input that Twitter provides and the way that it’s incorporated into the loop. This area of exploration was opened by Terry Riley and his Time Lag Accumulator and by Brian Eno’s Frippertronics, signal delay processor. The cowpaths and paved roads from experimental music seem to point to the future layers that will be built out on top of Twitter. Stay tuned.

One Comment

Sketching a TinyURL Strategy for Twitter

Etch a Sketch

Take a hypertext link, some ajax and a little Jquery and shake them up and you get a sample of what a transaction might look like in the Twitter stream. This is just a sketch, a visualization, of one way placing your cursor over a hyperlink that might expand into an offer that you could respond to with a single click.

In the sample Twitter page below, go to the first entry and place your cursor over the hyperlink in the first Tweet.

Add to the list of Twitter’s possible business models: a proprietary URL shortener that expands into a special offer. Just a thought.

 

Comments closed

The iPhone’s Missing Copy & Paste: The Dog that Didn’t Bark in the Night

The great american philosopher Steven Wright wrote this profound fragment about the Network and Identity, or maybe it was just a joke.

I woke up one morning and looked around the room. Something wasn’t right. I realized that someone had broken in the night before and replaced everything in my apartment with an exact replica. I couldn’t believe it…I got my roommate and showed him. I said, “Look at this–everything’s been replaced with an exact replica!” He said, “Do I know you?”                    — Steven Wright

You can look to Jameson or Baudrillard to learn about the simulacrum, but Wright really nails it. In the digital world the line between an original and a copy is blurred. That’s why it’s difficult to bind a unique digital identity to a person. And as Chris Anderson has noted, the cost, or lack thereof, of digital copies has disrupted the economics a number of industries.

This connects to a mystery about the iPhone. What’s the reason that copy and paste is missing? The underlying operating system is OSX, so it’s obviously supported. It’s a function has been supported from the very beginning of the computer. Perhaps it’s a signal of a new kind of limit being enforced on the digital world.

Imagine an abstraction layer up the stack from the digital. Imagine a new digital world where there are no originals and there are no copies. The iPhone only consumes pointers, names that point to a location. The location can be secured and access controlled, and a form of the old economics emerges. Sure, once you’ve downloaded a file, digital economics rule the day, but not on the iPhone. No copy and paste.

Comments closed

Boundaries of the Real-Time Conversational Flow through the Network

The time tunnel

There are many kinds of “time.” Sometimes we use the adjective real to describe time. As we talk about the Live Web and begin to imagine the possibilities of XMPP, a new set of online experiences come in to focus. Real time computing has come to mean very short system response times. But how short is short? Where are the borders of the real time experience? What are the human factors?

Jakob Nielsen is as good a place to start as any. In his book Usability Engineering, he discusses Robert B. Miller’s classic paper on Response Time in Man-Computer Conversational Transactions. Miller talks about three threshold levels of human attention.

  • 0.1 second is about the limit for having the user feel that the system is reacting instantaneously, meaning that no special feedback is necessary except to display the result.
  • 1.0 second is about the limit for the user’s flow of thought to stay uninterrupted, even though the user will notice the delay. Normally, no special feedback is necessary during delays of more than 0.1 but less than 1.0 second, but the user does lose the feeling of operating directly on the data.
  • 10 seconds is about the limit for keeping the user’s attention focused on the dialogue. For longer delays, users will want to perform other tasks while waiting for the computer to finish, so they should be given feedback indicating when the computer expects to be done. Feedback during the delay is especially important if the response time is likely to be highly variable, since users will then not know what to expect.

The other rule of thumb is Akscyn’s Law:

  • Hypertext systems should take about 1/4 second to move from one place to another. 
  • If the delay is longer people may be distracted. 
  • If the delay is much longer, people will stop using the system. 
  • If the delay is much shorter, people may not realize that the display has changed. 

This puts the range of real time interaction between 1/10 and 1/4 of a second. This gives us some sense of the boundaries for the flow of a real time conversation through the network. The maxim that “faster is better” is supported in the laboratory. Experimental research by Hoxmeier and DiCesare on user satisfaction and system response time for web-based applications reported findings on the following hypotheses:

Satisfaction decreases as response time increases: Supported 

Dissatisfaction leads to discontinued use: Supported 

Ease of use decreases as satisfaction decreases: Supported 

Experienced users more tolerant of slower response times:  Not Supported 

But in the war against latency in system response has gone well beyond tenths of a second to thousandths of a second. The front lines of that battle are on Wall Street, or New Jersey to be more specific. Richard Martin of Information Week reports on data latency and trading in Wall Street & Technology.

Firms are turning to electronic trading, in part because a 1-millisecond advantage in trading applications can be worth millions of dollars a year to a major brokerage firm. That is why colocation — in which firms move the systems running their algorithms as close to the exchanges as possible — is so popular.

Wall Street isn’t stopping at milliseconds: “Five years ago we were talking seconds, now we’re into the milliseconds,” says BATS’ Cummings. “Five years from now we’ll probably be measuring latency in microseconds.”

If services like Twitter are going to scale up to become primary gesture/attention markets they’ll need to extend their real-time flow via an API to their partners. If they’re going to get that right, they’ll need to focus on delivering high volume, high quality data liquidity. The key question is under what terms that data will be available. The economics of real time stock exchange data is well established. Information asymmetry models assume that at least one party to a transaction has relevant information whereas the other(s) do not. Relevant information is a tradable advantage. Initially we just need enough speed to keep the conversation flow alive. But a live conversation is only the beginning of the creation of tangible value. The architecture of Wall Street’s trading systems provides us with a view into our future need for speed.

TS Eliot

Real time is important only as it relates to future time. Real time data is the input into the Bayesian calculation of the probability of future outcomes. Predicting the future correctly is big business. To understand the meaning of the flow of time, perhaps it’s best to start with T.S. Eliot.

Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future
And time future contained in time past.
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.

Burnt Norton by T.S. Eliot

 

One Comment