Connected TVs - Good Idea, Bad Implementation?

RWW just published a short article on “Connected TVs,” and I thought I would share my thoughts.

I think the “idea” has great promise, but I am not sure baking this functionality directly into the TV hardware is the best approach.

I think I might prefer it included in a small dedicated device (essentially a computer with only a small OS, a browser, and something to integrate with your TV) or another popular electronic device (like a video-game system - more on this later!).

I do agree, however, with RWW’s assessment that people do not want to browse the Web on their TV - and that whatever is done, it needs to be closely integrated with what people most use their TVs to do. (Most people would prefer to browse the Web from their own personal laptop or desktop - instead of using the house TV set - where the screen may be shared among a bunch of people and/or be too far away to reliably see content.)

BUT, I do see an increasing number of people wanting to enjoy the growing amount of multimedia on the Web - from YouTube videos, to Netflix, to Hulu, to niche video sites - from a larger screen.

Like many, I am sure, my wife and I opted out of our cable service a few months back, deciding to instead just hook up our computer to our TV and watch our favorite programs online.

Having a TV (or other small dedicated device) that includes this functionality by default without involving S-Video cables, audio/video splitters, and/or a trip to Radio Shack would be great!

(*Especially considering the hassle of trying to change programming using a traditional laptop/desktop. Without a presentation-style mouse, it’s nearly impossible - and those cost almost $100 by themselves.)

The ideal would be something you could just point at the screen, e.g. to switch from the latest episode of 24 on Hulu to that Netflix movie you have been watching about the Golden Gate Bridge.

That is one reason I was really bummed when I found out that the Internet Service you can purchase for $5 for the Wii does not allow viewing of video content. (Their Safari-based browser lacks the necessary plugins, whether based on a lack of interest or a conscientious choice.)

This would have been an extremely nice feature to have with the Wii and would have boosted its usefulness considerably for me.

Not only would this allow me to play Tennis on the Wii - then switch over to an episode of the Rockford files on Hulu - using just my Wii remote (That would have been cool!) . . . it would also hold the promise of opening up the WWW to a whole new group of people.

I know my 75 year old Mother-in-law has become comfortable with visiting the sites of her favorite Christian pastors online to watch videos of their sermons - at least since her son set her up with the proper bookmarks in her browser.

But, this sort of thing would be so much easier using a small software/hardware device and something similar to a Wii remote - or even a traditional remote that could be “pre-programmed” somehow with the content she enjoyed, e.g. news, weather, or video/audio offerred through various other venues.

My wife and I also use our TV to listen to music from sites like Pandora, using just a standard RCA to stereo cable, but this would be so much easier again using a dedicated device.

So . . . I guess we will see: If “Connected TVs” offer enough of the services people want (Hulu, Netflix, weather news) in a completely integrated package - I can definitely see them working.

But, I hope others also explore an inexpensive “add on” device (say $99) that worked seamlessly with my existing TV/cable/gaming set up - and still added the basic Web browsing features I wanted.
If this could work with standard TV set, rather than having to purchase HDTV or other high-end set, that would be even better.

I know personally that even with dropping prices I do not anticipate spending money on a LCD or Plasma Screen TV, given the amount of time we watch television.

I love IDEA Conference 2008

I had a great time at IDEA Con 2008 . . . It was probably the best conference I have ever attended, and surprisingly, it’s not because it had the most innovative session formats, or most “sexy” lineup of presenters. Rather, it was merely because it provoked the most new ideas for me, and I guess that’s what the whole conference was exactly supposed to be.

For beginners, it had a truly diverse array of speakers and thinkers.

David Armano on “micro-interactions” and direct engagement

One of the first to get up was David Armano, who talked about the impact of “micro-interactions” (see whole talk here) on the overall “brand experience” of a product, service or company: Think of a hospital that has a nurse who’s especially nice (or especially mean). Think about a customer service call you had (bad or good) and how it framed your view of a company. Think about all the small ways in which we come into contact with a brand or product - and think about how that impacts your view of the product.

More importantly, think about how the Web multiplies this phenomenon times 1,000.

From Web ads, to Twitter posts, to blog feeds, and support websites, the “presence” of a company online IS that company in today’s world. It represents them better than a series of television ads or a marketing slogan ever could.

“Your brand is the sum of these interactions” according to David. Reminds me of Oliver Reichenstein’s assertion that “the interface is the brand.”

I loved David’s talk, and not just because I agree with it, but because it drives home the point that it is indeed the “small” things that matter when it comes to building a brand or making the kinds of “vital connections” (my phrase) to which all business and organizations should aspire.

(Something organizations of all sorts - from libraries to healthcare facilities - could learn.)

Alberto Canas on CMap Tools

Very simply, CMap Tools entails not only a super cool software tool/platform - but an awesome way to think about ideas, knowledge and learning in general.

I love the fact that he spent most of the time talking about what Concept Maps were and how to use them, rather than just showcasing his software.

But man, the software is cool! (And as it happens, is the best way to illustrate what concept maps are.)

Basically, it allows individuals to create whole websites based on making connections (using verbs) between nouns.

Their website makes the point pretty clear. It is simply a concept map of all the important things that can be known about their product.Information architects and user experience designers (or just professional “info” nuts) like myself must love this software!

However, it gets really cool when Alberto started showing us concept maps created by grammar school students in Costa Rica and Panama - and not surprisingly, they are both sophisticated and revealing.

It makes you ask the question: How much better would students learn if they were tasked with creating concept maps for a subject, instead of a research paper?

The fact that this software also allows people to create collaborative concept maps across countries, regions, and locales - just makes you that much more amazed at its potential. (I have got to try making my own concept map soon, or I am just going to be a complete hypocrite.)

Jason Fried on “Getting Real”

“Build it - and they will come!” This was the singular message of Jason Fried’s funny, pithy, and candid talk of the software “design” process at 37 signals.

They basically start by brainstorming ideas for what content or functionality they want, sketching out ideas on whiteboards and paper using only sharpies to prevent getting caught up in the details.

They then immediately “build it.”

In their case, this means creating a working HTML prototype of the page or feature,which once they are happy with they pass on to their programmers to make happen. The funny thing is they seem to do no usability testing, no formal or informal user research whatsoever, or UI Mockups (other than their random sketches).

Instead, they build, use it themselves (to see if it works), and if they like what they see, put it into production.

Just sketch it, build it, implement it - and done.

The name of his talk was “getting real,” but I felt it was more about “getting it done” (and still doing it well.)

It was a refreshing talk for me considering this was a “design” conference - and provided additional justification for my own current habit of not creating a bunch of unnecessary documentation and formal structure around my own user research and design.

Instead, take an idea - build it FIRST and then see if it works!

Jesse James Garrett and Aurora

If you have not heard about Aurora yet, you need to take a look!

This is an exciting new concept video about what the browser of the future might look like. It has a lot to say about not only what shape browsers will take, but what the Web will become as well.

(For a semantic web “nut” like myself, a lot of what they suggested about the creation, exchange, and distribution of raw data made me excited - whether it turns out to be weirdly prophetic or a total pipe dream.)

Check it out and see what you think!

Dave Gray and the Book

Okay, the librarian in me absolutely loved the idea (as well as careful thought and research) behind this presentation. It basically showcased the book as an innovative “information technology” that has shaped the way we see the world ever since (who knew those outside libraries thought this way?) showing its potential relevance for today.

Dave Gray gave some very persuasive (and insightful) reasons why interaction designers should continue to look at the book as an inspiration for creating user experiences of the future. One idea he mentioned, in fact, has already been adopted by Microsoft in the new version of IE: A feature where the tabs opened from a particular tab all bear the same color. (So that, there is a hierarchical “history” of sorts embedded in the browser.)

Of course, Aurora envisioned a similar idea, but that just goes to further confirm Dave’s hypothesis “all that’s old is new again” and that we have much to learn from the past.

Also, if you have never seen a powerpoint presentation with slides drawn entirely by hand, you really need to experience it!

Other Speakers - Too Many to Mention

So, it seems I have already run out of steam describing all the great experiences I had at IDEACon.

But needless to say, there were tons of other great speakers too - among others a landscape designer who worked w/ Frank Gehry, an artist who attempted redefine the idea of “information in space,” and a former architect turned service designer.

I could talk for ages about many of these - but alas, I think that’s enough for today! (I am sure things from other presentations will float up in other topics of discussion on this blog.)

Until then, please think about attending next year - personally, I can’t wait.

(Also, thanks to all who I met, gave my card to, and/or connected w/ on LinkedIN afterward - if you’re reading this message, I sure hope we can “keep in touch.”)

Sorry for hiatus . . . starting back up soon!

Okay, I have been meaning to get back to this blog for weeks, but issues at work and home have kept me.

However, the conference I attended this weekend has inspired me to get back to it (now that I finally have time), not only to finish Part 2 of my previous post but to blog about some of the fascinating things discussed at Idea Con 2008 this week.

Be well - and do not let me recent troubles keep you from subscribing.  I will be back soon - and w/ a vengeance!

The Shape of Things to Come: Publication and Knowledge Creation on the WWW — Part 1

For this post, I want to talk about the the nature of Web-based publishing and the way it has changed (and will continue to change) how knowledge is created and shared.

I have been thinking about this for some time and make no claims to be an expert, but I hope I can provide a few useful insights.

So what makes publishing on the Web different than traditional print publishing?

I have boiled it down to 8 multi-faceted “characteristics” and 1 somewhat tongue-in-cheek acronym:

  • Continuous (chronogically-speaking)
  • Revisable
  • Evolving
  • Distributed (and democratic?)
  • Individualized (as well as format-Indifferent)
  • Blendable
  • Linkable (and …)
  • Emergent

In short, Web communication is C R E D I B L E.

So, why do I think so?

Keep reading and you will see. (Beware, this may end up being a two-parter.)

Continuous

First of all, the nature of Web publishing is continuous - at least chronogically-speaking.

Whether daily, weekly, or monthly, traditional print publishers have always had to put out their information in short “bursts” rather than in a steady stream.

An author writes a piece. A newspaper breaks a story. But, in the print realm, they all still have to wait until the next issue to let their readers or audience know.

Not so on the Web. You can publish a new story, article, or tidbit of information whenever you want. Whether a blog post, a tweet, or a NYT article, the time of “posting” may be recorded, but it is no longer tied to a set publication schedule.

This continuous flow of data, facts, and commentary has served to make the Web more closely resemble television as a communication medium — serving up various “information channels” that the user can browse, sort, or filter at their discretion.

This trend will no doubt grow even more pronounced in the future, as Web producers continue to “live blog” conference meetings and journalists post updates on events as they happen to various newswire services.

How far are we from seeing Web authors creating useful content in real-time right before our eyes - much like embedded journalist reporting live from the front?

Revisable

In addition to being published continuously, Web publications also hold the honor of being instantly revisable.

Unlike published materials, which must wait until the next issue to print a retraction or provide further updates on a story, web publications can post updates, corrections, or additional information at any time.

Furthermore, these various Web “editions” can be tracked and revisions kept indefinitely to record the provenance of a particular piece of content, while still allowing it to grow and be updated continuously.

This carries a number of advantages, including transparency in content-creation in many cases, but I will move on.

Evolving

Of course, because of content is instantly revisable, it also is no longer static but constantly evolving. Wikipedia specifically, and wikis generally, are the most obvious example of this capability.

Rather than remaining relatively static storehouses of knowledge, they constantly grow and change, improving their content — or at least expanding the scope of their content — every day.

Distributed (and perhaps more Democratic?)

Speaking of Wikipedia, of course, we have yet to talk about the benefits of mass collaboration on the Web (so called Wikinomics).

Obviously, Wikipedia has shown that when millions of people get together their collective knowledge can often produce high-quality content among other unexpected benefits.

However, collaboration is just one example of the way that authorship and content creation is becoming increasingly distributed online.

If you look at social communication on the Web - blogs, microblogs, lifestreaming sites, etc. - the Web is also seeing a surge in the growth of distributed conversations.

Take a popular blog post, for instance: it may be written by a single author, but it also might receive dozens or even hundreds of reader comments.

Some of these comments may be insightful enough to represent useful content themselves. Others may provoke a response from the author, allowing her to clarify or revise her argument. Both blur the boundaries of what makes up an article or topic.

Someone may also respond to a blog post using their own blog, creating a virtual discussion (or community) of sorts across the blogosphere..

And if that was not enough, readers still have the option of “sharing” a post with their friends via Google Reader, del.icio.us, Digg, Twitter, etc.

All of this social activity has come to represent a kind of sprawling network of content and commentary that has no clear borders. (Standards such as SIOC seek to knit some of these disparate elements together, but as yet, has not gained much traction.)

This distributed form of publication also empowers individuals to be part of reporting the news and may lead to further “democratization” of the press.

While there is still some debate as to what degree this happened or will happen, it no doubt makes public involvement in publishing and journalism possible like no medium ever has before.

Next time: I B L E

Introducing StructurallySound.org

You are reading the opening post of my new blog, aptly titled Structurally Sound: The New Shape of Information on the Web.

I plan to post here about topics of professional interest to me, including but not limited to:

  • libraries
  • web development
  • user experience design
  • information architecture
  • the semantic / social graph
  • and many other topics . . .

For a bit more about why I chose this title, see my about page.

As you can see, I am not quite ready for prime-time yet, but you should be able to expect my first “real” post to appear by Sunday, June 29, so please bookmark me for now or add me to your RSS Reader.

In the meantime, for more information about who I am, you may check out my newly-minted web hub or contact me.

Otherwise, stay tuned for more (very, very) soon.