connecting*the*dots

Can flickr be any more fun without spinning in circles before exploding into fiery, shimmering glitter dust?

For those of you not in the know, geo-tagging is when you apply specific (or general) geographical tags to an object in order to identify its location. flickr has done an amazing job out the gate with this puppy, as the drag and drop interface is so good, so very easy to use.

(click here for a full-sized interface screenshot)

I’ve spent this entire evening digging back through my photostream, eyeballing maps and looking up the addresses of specific places where I took my shots. Some are easy to find (my house, M’Coul’s), while others are a bit of a challenge (wedding pictures, scenic shots), but it’s a fun exercise either way.

My question to Stuart and crew: This is going to become socialized at some point, right? (UPDATE: The map just appeared in my Explore tab! More here.)

I mean, how fresh would it be to be working your map and easily flip from how you’ve experienced a location to how someone else has? Essentially, take the concept behind the tag globe icon and apply it as a metaphor within the map interface, opening it up as another exploration tool? (I realize that I’ve just described a lot of the functionality of Plazes, but it already relies on people uploading geo-specific flickr images of hot-spot locations to their interface… hm, another Yahoo! acquisition, possibly?)

The Business Of Mashups

When I interviewed/presented at A9 last June, they were in the midst of that highly publicized “send a college student around in a van to take pictures of every block of every city” campaign. The idea being that seamless visual context of a business location on a Yellow Page business interface could be both useful and fun.

Well, sure, but the most useful? I approached the interface challenge from a bit of a different angle.

My presentation ended up clashing with what I perceived to be their primary context scenario for the product (people finding particular businesses with city block pictures). I argued instead, focus first and foremost on improving Yellow Pages search results and try to get businesses to “tag” their particular inventories to expose their goods to the A9 engine. Simply put, lead with the most useful user scenario, not with the eye candy of street scenes, which can always come later.

Now, flickr is, and should be, all about enhancing eye candy (finding it, sharing it, etc.); enabling people to find geo-specific businesses that have what they need is someone else’s business model.

See where I’m going with all of this?

Imagine how sick of an API this geo-tagging feature would be for a Yellow Pages product — one completely optimized to the teeth with a killer business tagging interface, providing exponentially more degrees of findability than simply scraping language from the business name, description and reviews found on the business interface itself?

Say a kid, fresh on campus, is looking for a local Chinese food restaurant and stumbles across the smartly exposed collection of quarter-mile range of images on the business interface of a Yellow Pages service. I can imagine the following conversation busting out:

Dude, check this out! ‘Swallow Balls‘ Haha. I’m getting that for Joe, he’s such a ball swallower. Ha! Oh man… they even serve scorpion? Okay, we have no choice, grab your chopsticks, we’re so there!”

Viral goodness of flickr madness; good for you, me and Mr. Chen.

Gnar, dude.

… what would we call this incarnation other than 2.0?

About 10 minutes ago, I was in the midst of creating a post about Web 2.0 and how its principles can be viewed from both a macro and micro perspective when I paused briefly to research a few of the features within flickr to help illustrate my point. Lo and behold, I immediately trip right over a classic example.

This particular post was created via the "Blog this photo" feature in flickr, which interfaces with TypePad (my blogging tool), enabling me to easily share data and information while in the context of my current mental model: exploring photographs.

Web 2.0 Yellow Pages Case Study
Originally uploaded by spcoon.

I was reviewing my “Creating Humane Experiences” presentation image on flickr, and I switched right to blogging the image itself. How dope is that?

Before you shout out “super dope!” check out the feature for yourself and try to imagine which missing interface requirements would’ve make this feature even more “2.0″ dope. I’ve got one, modeled after the persona of a seasoned blogger (me):

How about a TypePad API which allows flickr to display my TypePad list of categories (tags) within its branded interface, providing me with the ability to tag my flickr generated post with one or many of my universe of tags and the ability to create new tags and add them to my current tag universe?

The decision to implement such a feature would be an even more concise example of domains working together to satisfy user goals and tasks. Interaction design 101, yet modeled across multiple domains and stakeholders. Without this tag feature, I had to jump over to TypePad to assign the tags separately, which greatly reduced the usefulness of the flickr blog feature for me, the potential, archetypal blogger.

If these domains were both open source, and if I weren’t so technically challenged, I guess I’d be able to whip up some code to make this feature a reality. Yet as much as I buy into that philosophy, that shouldn’t impede flickr from doing their due diligence in putting out the most useful and usable product, first and foremost. Yes, I know, flickr is in quintessential beta mode (another 2.0 principle) and will probably iterate to include the communication of tag libraries across both domains, but this example of a partially useful feature is why user research is so important when modeling the scenarios for useful experiences. Agile development and interaction design can live hand in hand.

Another example of cross-domain, data sharing needs can be found within Yahoo! 360. Most bloggers like having their own branded domain, so why not follow flickr’s footsteps in accessing any number of blog tools topost in the user’s own domain? Similarly, why not allow a member to access their blog feed from 360’s "Make your own blog page," instead of having to use the "Share feeds" area on the main 360 page to present their blog?

As a blogger, I appreciate RSS, but don’t make me retrofit my "blog" into a ill-labeled feed box in my own Yahoo!  360 environment, leaving the blog area unused. That says to me, "use our blog service or screw off." While Yahoo!, the behemoth corporation, has their finger on the pulse of the web, this particular approach is not very 2.0.

As for the viral aspect of Web 2.0, if you follow the top image to flickr and click the link within the description area, you’ll fall ever deeper into the rabbit hole of the Web 2.0 conversation. flickr provided the features for tagging personal photographs and creating HTML laden image descriptions; users extended that context scenario by leveraging the existing interface to accomplish other goals—in my case, the unabashed promotion of a user experience presentation.

Enjoy!

Peter Merholz has been on a philosophical bend regarding the continued development of Web 2.0 and the role of business for a few months now, and I’m pretty much in agreement with most of his assertions.

Changing a large, old school domain’s approach to interactive product development — specifically, in the Web 2.0 arena — doesn’t occur solely through the availability of smart engineers armed with APIs, feeds and Ajax alone. Unless the business has evolved its underlying approach and culture to facilitate this paradigm shift, the resulting efforts will be futile, or to quote Peter, “they’ll fuck it up.”

The powers that be must believe in and back the philosophy behind the technology.

So when it comes to business — I mean straight up, hardcore, numbers driven business — philosophy better equate with an explicit road-map to profit, otherwise we’re not talking business, we’re talking charity. More succinctly put, corporations won’t structure their annual and long-term corporate initiatives around Web 2.0 “open” principles and the investment in the underlying technology if they don’t explicitly understand how and why it will positively affect both their brand position in the market and the bottom line — both now and into the foreseeable future.

Now, I don’t hold a MBA from Wharton, so my ability to speak to the nuances of business is somewhat limited, but I did have the opportunity to spend the last three-years of my life within the walls of a conservative corporation. During my time there, it was extremely difficult to espouse any degree of change to their approach to design, development and serving their clients without raising agenda sniffing eyebrows — even when only attempting to sell the basic concept of listening to your own users when designing user experiences.

That concept alone took years to gain traction.

So while change within the Earth’s environment is as natural as a sunrise, within traditional businesses the mechanisms that foster change often signifies a threat to both the corporate strategy and the management team alike. One cannot move into traditional areas of business looking to flip long standing product development paradigms and revenue models overnight.

A recent Economist article ("Yahoo’s personality crisis") suggests that there’s a schism developing in the Yahoo! strategic and brand position, while Google is poised to sprint light years ahead. Peter’s latest post," Yahoo!: Walled Garden or Commons," tacks onto that perspective, suggesting that Yahoo!’s internal tugging between an open and closed  web philosophy, and their imminent plans to open a Hollywood office, could become a mission critical issue if not paid proper attention. The Economist even went as far as comparing present day Yahoo! to AOL from back in the days of the first web revolution.

AOL?

If we were talking about Bob Davis and Lycos, I’d have to agree, but we’re talking about Yahoo!, a company that has always been forward thinking, willing to tackle any attribute of traditional media and turn it on it’s head to make it useful on-line. With their soon-to-be-expansion into the mainstream media bastion of Hollywood, Yahoo!, for better or for worse, continues to operate as a change agent in the information age.

Simultaneous focus on open and closed aspects of the web is a solid business approach

Yahoo! has been at this web thing for more than 154 years now (posthumous math courtesy of Dick Sabot). In that time they’ve established a huge member base around the world, while designing a majority of their domain to be accessible to non-members with zero usage fees. A person can use most of Yahoo! without ever spending a dime until coming across a service with direct, fee-based competition already in the market. This holistic business model may seem passe by today’s standards, but that’s only because Yahoo! set the benchmark years ago; they were the early adopters of such an open business philosophy on the web.

This approach has provided Yahoo! with the means to both create and promote very precise revenue streams, leveraging the continuously growing reach of their membership and platform. Simultaneously, their focus on a variety of forward thinking, open tactical initiatives, such as flickr, 360, News, Music, etc. continues to move their domain forward with the best practices of the medium.

To the naked eye, this overarching strategy hints to be a metaphorical form of iterative change management, but not on the project or Yahoo! domain level, though; it’s more like change management for entering untapped external markets and media industries. In other words, Yahoo! seems to make closed moves (i.e. extending its domain by dealing with old school industries) in order to tap and evolve an established sector into a more open and web-centric format.

So does that make cents, compared to Google’s approach? Let’s see…

Google is also made-up of a brilliant group of people, creating forward-thinking user interfaces and search retrieval algorithms, but where Google’s daily operations differ from Yahoo! is their position in the market.

Their underlying funding relies almost solely on revenue established from their AdSense program and by floating company shares into a market that has provided a whopping market evaluation, based primarily on growth potential. So who really has the edge to last, riding through and continue contributing to the infrastructure of Web 2.0?

They both do.

Yahoo! has a consistent, upwardly moving market cap SMA since the bubble burst, whereas Google is on a meteoric rise post-dotcom crash. How much do you think the assertions of this chart tie directly into the two company’s strategic approaches to extending market reach? What about their commitment to open forms of Web 2.0 development? To the non-economist (that would be me) it would seem that each company has it’s own DNA to deal with and make decisions accordingly.

• Yahoo! took its bruises, but made it through the bust and learned their business lessons
• Google’s people felt the crash, but missed it all together as a company with a bottom line and shareholder’s interests to protect, so they’re more aggressive
• Yahoo! has more than a decades worth of experience, so they operate like a surgeon
• Google swings wildly at product opportunities with brilliant, broad strokes and precise algorithms to quickly iterate change

Basically, there’s room for multiple approaches to paving and extending Web 2.0.

Crafting an interactive world, one industry at a time

Take a moment to think about your life before Yahoo! took off. Ten years ago, the average American received their daily news through a newspaper and/or a TV broadcast. Due to Yahoo!’s revolutionary efforts to establish News aggregation for the public, I can barely remember the last time I read the newspaper during the week. Yahoo! forever altered that paradigm, shifting me and countless others in front of their screen for a news upload each morning.

Since Yahoo! News launched, Google raised the bar by expanding indexed sources to include international and local perspectives, while recent feed services like Rojo have cropped up, pushing the information boundaries into gourmet concept feeds.

Yahoo! set all of this in motion and continues to play a major role in how a large number of people (members or not) receive a variety of news items at their fingertips. By iterating the open, tactical aspects of their holistic user experience (i.e. feed widgets, top mailed articles, reviews of articles, etc.) while adding content (i.e. specific opinion blogs such as the HuffingtonPost.com), Yahoo! innovates by keeping one foot in the tactical realm of Web 2.0, with the other firmly planted in the strategic realm of the business philosophy.

It takes two feet to walk the walk.

As DeWitt Clinton has recognized, Web 2.0 is also about working together to reach a common goal across company lines. Forget the feeds and the tagging and the asynchronous display of data; collaboration between progressively run web firms is the biggest open paradigm shift one can imagine. Could this concept of collaboration and strategic balance be something that Yahoo! — a former Google-type firm which did experience the market correction of all market corrections in the bust of 2001 — has mandated itself to follow? Maybe it’s not schizophrenic to play both sides of the Web 2.0 fence; maybe it’s a solid business model.

With their historical record of successful brand extension — creating and/or acquiring useful, engaging experiences to change actual industries (i.e. News, Finance, Jobs, etc.) — I wouldn’t bet against Yahoo! in convincing Hollywood, through either the front or backdoor, to operate in a fashion that is more open than not.

Will the geek-to-media employee ratio be higher in the Valley than in Santa Monica? Sure. When in Rome, hire Romans, but so what? 154 years of Internet experience isn’t going to be thrown out the window because a handful of media executives are brought on-board. Will the output of this venture be as revolutionary as Yahoo! News or Finance? That’s left to be seen, but with Yahoo!’s track record, why be pessimistic?

Yahoo! espouses the tactical and philosophical pillars of Web 2.0, yet also understands business and how to engage in change. They’re no AOL.

UPDATE: AOL bought Weblogs, Inc. Let’s see how long it takes them to assert full control.

Newsweek and Technorati are in bed together and I’m really hoping it isn’t a monogamous relationship.

I’m not sure when this started, but Newsweek is now citing "Blog Talk," creating a contextual column from the Newsweek article page (first image, click for larger image) that links to a full Blog Talk page (second image) which presents the last 10 blogs posts that have linked to the Newsweek article. This is being done automatically, sans any editorial review.

I’m currently working on a project for which I presented this exact context scenario for our blogger design persona. I couldn’t believe the serendipity. So to ensure the API and execution would support our needs, I ran a quick test and posted a response to the "I’m So Sorry" article, linking back to the story URL. Within 10 minutes of pinging Technorati, my post appeared on the Newsweek page. Okay, that’s very progressive. Sure, it’s only a glorified trackback system, but the underlying philosophy has huge implications.

We’re quickly moving to a sustainable model for presenting the individual perspective on the same level as mainstream media’s editorial-driven journalism. It’s a win-win; a site like Newsweek gets an increased blogger readership and bloggers have the opportunity to share their perspectives with people that tend to stay away from the scattered blogosphere.

From my perspective, this is the first step to truly legitimizing the blogosphere. What’s next? Well, if Google, Yahoo! and other mainstream news aggregators began to index blogs for their search queries, we’d be one step closer to breaking through the mainstream media stranglehold on information for the average American that receives their news on-line. All of this is what the promise of Community TV was supposed to provide twenty years ago, but ran into the obvious production challenges.

This is really good. It’s good for business, good for bloggers, and most importantly, good for bubbling the truth of a story to the surface. This is discourse.