connecting*the*dots

Jackson Pollock is my all-time favorite American painter. Now, thanks to Miltos Manetas, both you and I can emulate his signature “splatter” painting technique… online.

Apparently, the Flash site has been up since 2003, but I just stumbled upon it today.

Sheer brilliance.

Thank you, Miltos.

Suggested context: The next time you’re in Long Island, consider driving out to East Hampton to visit Pollock’s home & studio. I toured the grounds in the summer of 2005 and the experience expanded and edified my respect for both Pollock and his wife, Lee Krasner.

Charlie Rose on the career of Jackson Pollock, below:

I had a meeting yesterday over lunch with a client of mine — Louis Bowles of locally based Louis’ Healthy Breads. Louis, John Ford and I are in the midst of planning a web strategy for his small business; an execution that will include the implementation of a blog and a redesign of his e-commerce enabled site.

At first glance, the scope of the project seemed extremely manageable and somewhat simplistic — essentially, it’s a blog with a product template and a tie-in to PayPal’s fulfillment processing. Over the past few months, though, I’ve come to recognize that the challenge of the project isn’t in its technical complexity or feature set, rather, it’s in pulling off the personable nature of the brand.

When Shiny, Shiny Design Doesn’t Work

Louis didn’t start his company to make short-term killer profits (though, I’m sure he wouldn’t turn them away); Louis took his creation to market because, quite honestly, it saved his life and he feels that people need great tasting, healthy aternatives in their diet.

My challenge is translating that degree of authenticity into the experience design of his web site.

Chris Fahey just posted the sixth installment of a brilliantly focused series entitled Class and Web Design. The ensuing conversation regarding the impact of class on the output of design is fascinating (read the posts and comment threads; I could never do it justice here). While I doubt “class” is the proper signifier for categorizing Louis’ concerns about coming off like a cold, mass-produced food industry giant, to Chris’ point, a company’s outwardly focused brand position is intrinsically tied to their target (and if they’re responsive, their actual) market.

Just take a look at the redesign of (and the conversation surrounding) the New York Post for an example:

As The Post shoots for local readers with specific desires of sports, entertainment and gossip coverage (all big type desires), Louis’ brand needs to register as if he’s your next-door neighbor — someone who deeply cares about your health and just so happens to have a busy kitchen at work to help you make sensible, delectable choices.

Does that mean the design of the site needs to be overly pedestrian? Not at all, but as with the example of The Post redesign, it needs to remain true to its core principles of Louis being Louis. The visual language of the site needs to reflect his engaging personality, while presenting a strong enough degree of credibility for people to latch onto.

The beauty of this project is that there’s enough room to play and enough leeway to iterate.

Design Basics

Subtraction is the standard approach to good design and focused communication — particularly within the interactive medium — so it’s essential that we reduce the brand to a distinct visual language and behavioral model that clearly communicates with the people who benefit the most from the product.

And because we’re adding the communicative element of the blog to the mix — somethat that will improve our responsiveness in meeting customer needs and steering the direction of the brand — the last thing we want to do is bury the product behind a conversation about the product.

With a brand as personal as LHB, we’re going to have to tow the line between authenticity and credibility. Prioritized simplicity, both visual and organizational, is key in making a step in that direction.

FORTUNE COOKIE: Sometimes the biggest challenges come wrapped in the smallest packages.

If you’re an interaction designer, think about the process of generating design personae while listening to Gladwell.

How’d this wild and crazy guy get an interview from BusinessWeek?

Congrats, Dan, on both the new book and introducing the mainstream to IxD. As soon as the book drops below $20 I’m all over it. ;)

Back in February, NBC made a completely bonehead business move by making YouTube take down the hugely popular video short Lazy Sunday. My instant response was to fire off a salvo at NBC for being old media ogres (NBC: We Get Web 2.0… Sike!) and not working within the limitless parameters of the web to strike a business deal that suits their needs to protect their copyright, while allowing us to continue to enjoy their content when we want and how we want.

Well, today NBC announced that it’s embracing a few of the ideas I previously lobbed into play:

[…]

“Under the deal, YouTube will create a separate channel for NBC video, so that visitors can easily pull up the half-dozen or more items that NBC plans to offer at any given time. It will be similar to channels that other companies, filmmakers and everyday users create.

[…]

NBC and YouTube officials acknowledged the possibility that fans will reject the clips if they appear simply as promotions, but YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley said fans would likely embrace the video if it is compelling and not available anywhere else.”

[…]

Promotional video is somewhat of a start — I suppose you can’t expect major change from a major television network without them testing the water first. Give the experiment a few months; if uptake begins across numerous types of unbundled content, I’m sure they’ll be banging on YouTube’s door, attempting more creative ways to “let” people upload their content.

Affecting The Interface

In terms of the user experience, I only ask one thing of YouTube: please refrain from creating a pulldown of “channels” on your interface.

Asking people to assign ripped video to a “media channel” in the upload process makes sense:

• It alerts you (YouTube) to content that needs to be assigned a “shared monetization flag” and
• It automatically assigns network metadata to the video object to help people finding content they desire

Balancing the two-way participation of a user base with the business opportunities of old media is a difficult conversation to manage and execute, for if you transform your main interface too far towards the navigation of paid-for, primary channels, the entire participatory, community vibe will begin to deteriorate.

Remember, your brand is YouTube.

Dave Winer has expanded on his “It’s the users, dummy!” statement and I couldn’t agree with him more:

There’s actually a neater solution, especially if you’ve put a piece of software on the user’s desktop to facilitate uploading and editing of the data — keep a copy of all the data on the user’s desktop, and just mirror it in your web app. There goes the problem (or is it an excuse) that your competitor would be using your CPU cycles to grab a copy of the user’s data (with the user’s permission, I should add, you need a username and password to get access, so the argument that they’re protecting against scrapers and abusers doesn’t hold water).

Following the Beyond Broadcast conference in May, Nate Aune and I began jamming on a similar concept; something we loosely called myTag.

(click for entire .pdf)

The major difference in our approach is that we’re trying to create a “piece of software” (actually, an online service) that can work across all online services, serving as a meta-data hub for all personally tagged information objects — blog posts, photography, video, audio, social bookmarking and possibly service metadata, such as Amazon tagging.

Unlike Dave’s example, we would scrape external services for newly updated, tagged objects. The goal is to centralize people’s meta-data and provide ownership of said meta-data, not to interfere with people interacting with these decentralized services. The scraping would only occur when a person accesses myTag to review their current tag universe, so the impact on external server CPU cycles would be innocuous at best.

Dave’s idea focuses specifically on the data editing and management issues that exist when users attempt to move their data across existing services:

With a local copy, the user can point any service at the data, and it can suck up a copy, and the competitor’s app would run on the user’s desktop too, using their (abundant) CPU cycles. The vendor’s server (in this case Flickr) wouldn’t even know that a copy of the data has been made, and since it’s the user’s data, that’s exactly as it should be.

Yet another reason to use rich clients. I use Flickr Uploadr, always. It’s just a bit easier to work with than the browser-based method of uploading, and that bit of easiness has proven to be worth it. Then of course the competitor has to offer a desktop tool as well. We do it with the OPML Editor. The server components, the directory browser, blog renderer, work with a copy of the data, the originals reside on the user’s machine. It also protects against a system failure, or a company failure.

I completely agree with his ownership point regarding meta-data, and his perspective of safeguarding information objects from system or company failure is extremely valid as well.

So how could we extend his concept of locally managing data (both the information object itself and its meta-data) across same-type services (flickr, zooomr, riya, etc.) to include culling meta-data across different-type services that leverage tagging (del.icio.us, YouTube, flickr, WordPress, etc.)?

See, the reason we’re sketching a thin client is because our primary goal is to enable individuals to be able to review and curate various slices of their own concept terminology — meta-data or tags — as they’ve been applied to information objects over various services and periods of time.

The way I look at it, an aggregate of tags can serve as a looking glass into the personal linguistic structure of each of us, as we make explicit choices when applying specific concept terms to our objects. As competition to flickr and YouTube enters the market, our POV’s will undoubtedly become further dispersed across the web, increasing the findability of our objects, yet conversely affecting our own understanding of our perceived output.

If we’re going to arm citizens with media tools, then we need to provide intuitive, smart representational interfaces for accessing and modeling our own strategic output. Why? Well, we need to be on-point, constantly iterating our understanding of our own perspectives and biases as we venture further into producing our own media.

Otherwise we fall into the same trappings of the mainstream media.

An example… take the limited nature of my tag cloud on this blog as an example. Click on a term, such as Greensboro, and a narrative will unfold over the period of time that you choose to explore and read. While it’s useful to understand more about my relationship with and perspective on Greensboro, the cloud doesn’t include my photos tagged with Greensboro, nor my video clips tagged with Greensboro.

Citizen media operatives need an centralized interface to access decentralized information objects. From my perspective, the value of these interfaces is huge — both to the content creators and potentially to the content consumers.

The first two scenarios I mapped out in the above sketch were for searching and browsing ones existing tag library. Any other primary scenarios jump out at you?

The day that AOL/Netscape reduces their decade-long focus on squeezing profits from dial-up deals with web newbies long enough to compete with a niche, early adopter site like Digg, is the day that online, participatory communities will have reached the ROI tipping point.

Eh-hem! That day is here.

Michael Arrington frames the move nicely:

[…]

The fact that AOL is launching the new service under the Netscape brand instead of building out a new property says how serious they are about the space. According to statistics provided by AOL, Netscape serves a whopping 811 million monthly page views - far more than Digg today.

Putting this kind of audience in front of a Digg like service could spell trouble for many sites that ultimately make it to the top of the site. A Digg or Slashdot story can send tens of thousands of visitors to a site in a matter of minutes or hours. With Netscape, this effect could be many times larger - possibly resulting in outages at sites headlining the new service.

There are a number of other notable features of the new Netscape. Story submissions can be tagged by the submitter along for easier search in the future. Every category, user and group of friends has their own RSS feed. Also, category anchors will follow up on many stories and post their own editorial content on those stories (see below)

With all of the recent moves, one has to be wondering where the participatory news space is heading:

• Newsvine is already an “all category” user-generated article space
• Digg is rumored to be expanding from a niche site to an all-encompassing domain
• Netscape is launching a full-force, broadly targeted, participatory interface into the mix

At first glance, the long-term benefits of this growing industry and competition seem to land in the laps of the end user.

In the real world, industry competition drives quality standards while the invisible hand of the market usually corrects pricing issues (except for oil and other lobbied industries, but that’s a whole other article).

If you follow similar logic within this segment of the internet economy, the domain with the most intoxicating experience design and participatory incentive programs should retain the largest share of the participatory market (and I’m not talking about the bread and circus returns of shiny AJAX widgets and karma points).

Interfaces that are primarily designed for an optimized, ad sales, click-through scheme and not unique, behavioral, user experiences, just won’t survive in the long-run. Domain competition will force top notch user-centered interaction design, reducing opportunities to implement old school, bean counting advertising schemes to piggy-back user behavior.

Even more disruptive; in order to increase sign-ups, retain customers and increase degrees of participation, one would think that revenue generated from these new user-centered, advertising paradigms will have to be efficiently shared with this new workforce of virtual attention laborors.

While it’s true that these particular industry domains are already branding the very idea of 2.0 community — essentially “soft-locking” people into committing to a domain as with neighborhoods — without certain concessions (such as revenue sharing) I’d imagine that tactic alone to be short-sighted. I mean, wouldn’t corporate abuse of our participatory nature by these enabling domains drive us to be quick to change our attachment to these particular 2.0 communities?

I have to profess, this is where my faith in the many falters.

Honestly, my “fear” is that the masses of early-adoptor geeks who are driving the emergence of this participatory economy are just as self-centered as the capitalistic drivers of the attention economy itself.

Let me rephrase and explain my thoughts more clearly.

Are we more interested in participating as authentic medic creators and information contextualizers from afar, while being left alone to receive our timely, customized, community-centered, topical information? Or do we believe in standing together as a workforce of developers of this information revolution and as personal, information contextualizers to create change in our overarching financial system itself, ensuring a greater diversity of fiscal opportunities for people living on the other side of numerous socio-economic divides?

This is where the rubber hits the road, just before the fork.

We Don’t Have To Follow The Same Path We Used To Get Here

Big business is just beginning to view participatory systems as an obvious line extension of the profit vehicles that mass production provided in the industrial age through financial capitalism. If you understand the underlying principals of the first go-around, the evolutionary patterns of the second pass make themselves quite obvious:

• In the 20th century, capitalists leveraged cookie-cutter product design, simplified mass production assembly lines, ensured low-wage labor systems and implemented hardcore, mass marketing and psychological advertising within an imbedded entertainment mass media to drive product consumption
• In the 21st century, capitalists have the advent of collaborative filtering and personalized interfaces, running on the movement, interactions and contextualization of data and perspectives of the people who use them, driving contextualized ad placement, resulting in both revenue and product consumption with much less overhead

VC’s drool over the possibilities of the attention economy, because they see exactly how to take advantage of the situation, turning passionate information junkies and connectors into ad sales generators, which is fine, because it’s in their nature.

(photo by illmatic)

The question I desperately want to ask “the masses” is do we, the designers, the developers, the content creators and authentic media generators, care about this pure, capitalistic leeching or is it truely in our nature to provide a free ride, no matter the potential for being used as residual generators of capital?

For if we do care, we — the schitzophrenic creators and consumers of this new economy — are in a unique position to take a slice of the proverbial pie, whether through better positioning in a buyer’s market or as compensated content creators in a participatory, user-generated, contextualized media system. Either way, we can completely alter the model of managed capitalism and move one-step closer to to realizing Doc Searls’ intention economy.

Let the capitalists finance the infrastructure and reap their fair, residual returns, but let the people drive the costs of the market based on our desires while sharing in the residual profits that we generate via digital forms of word of mouth advertising.

In today’s parameter-passing, unique-identifier, permalink world, both notions are completely feasible. The only question is whether or not they will take this revolutionary change lying down.

John has topped himself with this shot. Check out the entire set.

I met John Ford at the Greensboro Web Design Meetup he was running last month. Over the following week, we traded emails and eventually decided to share portfolio and application ideas over a six-pack in my home office. After going through some work and chatting up each of our killer app ideas, we ended up discussing how we make software, going back and forth between Getting Real and Cooper’s Goal Directed methodology.

As John was about to go on a month long trip to Asia and Australia, I gave him my copy of The Inmates are Running the Asylum to enjoy on the trip, but under one condition: he had to take a few pictures of it at various exotic locals on his trip.

C’mon John, one more!

Building a successful UX team — the right mix of roles, responsibilities, method, etc. — isn’t an easy task. It really does depend on the DNA of the organization (size, politics, legacy issues, etc.) and the type of domain (application, information centric site, desktop software, etc.).

Here’s a visual outline that I tried to follow at Ameritrade — an extremely secure, authenticated trading platform, with unique opportunities for collaborative filtering, interface customization, sussinct client messaging and knowledge management (both on the unauthenticated and authenticated areas of the site).

If I had to do it all over again, here are the top three things I would’ve done differently:

Reduced the emphasis on methodology
Due to the placement of the team in the org, the legacy of design within the domain and the lack of designer input in modeling requirement documents, I pushed to implement a flexible, yet smart, IxD Goal-Directed methodology. I probably would’ve still sought to implement a similar methodology, but I wouldn’t have pushed so hard to get it.

Introduced blogging as a means for knowledge sharing
KM is such a terrible term. In essence, an outward facing blog with a solid search engine and a rich tag approach could’ve served as both a conversation point for speaking with clients and providing answers to non-client account related questions. Internally, we could’ve dropped our stiff, architected KM tool with central controls and replaced it with internal blogs for every employee.

Focused on research, behavior, information contextuality, design and presentation
Editorial is *such* a complience issue within the financial industry, collaboration with designers on interfaces was beyond difficult to manage. I probably would’ve traded that card for the client-side team, where the rubber of behavior and design explicitly hits the road of server-side code.

Live and learn ;-)

Just the other day I found myself on a 10 hour trip home from New Jersey. Normally, the drive kills me, but thankfully, I had hours upon hours of Echo Chamber Project podcasts sitting to my right. When I made it home at 3:00am (I missed the damn turn at 85-440), I plopped on the couch and fired off a note to Kent Bye, thanking him for the virtual company.

Well, Kent got back in touch the next day and asked if I’d like to chat over Skype. Here’s the result (part of the audio becomes scrambled for 30 seconds, twice).

I’m currently working to prep the project environment of one of my clients — a domain that relies on ad sales for survival. The stakeholders have hired me to lead the redesign of their site, which includes the information architecture. Knowing the degree of “get it” in the domain, I need to provide easily digestible “IA” education before I can move forward with my design methodology to improve the tactical findability of their most valuable content.

Yes, it’s a typical IA consulting gig, but I’d like to establish a reusable approach; not for creating explicit architectural solutions across different project types, but with a presentation of explicit, findability techniques.

I’m looking for feedback of my current progress, so if you’d like to participate, feel free to comment on this post or contact me at spcoon [at] seancoon [dot] org. Please feel free to point me to any existing work available online as well. Once I’ve pulled together my findings, I’ll iterate my work and release it into the ’sphere for anyone to use.

The Baseline

Humor me for a moment and try to forget everything you know about classification, structure and order. Instead, imagine that the only element of a web site (we care about) is the most holistic/granular information object:

• On flickr, it would be the image page
• On Amazon, it would be the product page
• On Wired, it would be the article page

Now imagine that your goal is to increase stickiness across this entire object level. Remember, the revenue model is ad sales, so the more content explored, the better for my client.

Each of the previously mentioned domains have crafted specific information architectures to accomplish this goal of “stickiness.” They also have extremely different revenue models, so the “value” of findability is relative to the nature of the product, the domain’s degree of advertising/marketing and the bottom line.

For example, flickr image pages aren’t weighed down with contextual recommendations of similar images from other users (similar to how products are displayed on an Amazon product page) but the inclusion of a simple globe icon next to an image’s tag does expose index pages of similarly tagged photos from other users. This increases discovery, which both entertains me (the user) and increases page views for potential ad clickthroughs.

Different context; similar goals. Expose avenues of findability in the interface to increase domain stickiness.

I’m currently illustrating technique similarities (that are not domain specific) for optimizing information architectures to expose valuable content. Again, consider this exercise an effort to describe a baseline standard, or best practices for findability that can be reused in one way or another across project types.

Along these lines, I’m clarifying techniques by using non-specific terminology (i.e. contextual and relational are generic terms, as compared to collaborative filtering). Secondly, I plan on augmenting the illustration for this particular client by labeling specific values (a 1 to 10 scale, possibly) to the various avenues of findability, distinguishing the value proposition (ROI) between focusing on, say, relational discovery compared to categorical browsing. I won’t be able to complete this second part until user research has been finalized.

Here’s my current list of best practices:

• Object level contextual discovery: Hyperlinks to contextual content, embeded within the primary object of the page (i.e. hyperlinks within an article to other articles, linked notes on a flickr image, etc.)
• Object level relational discovery: Accessible related objects, determined via appropriateness (i.e. as simple as “Related Articles” or as complex as “Other shoppers purchased…”)
• Object to index level relational discovery: Using tags to move from the object level to the index level (i.e. flickr globe icons, del.icio.us tags, etc.)
• Index level relational discovery: Related tags presented from a mass sample of tagged objects (i.e. a tag search on Technorati creates a list of related tags to the original query on the index page)
• Tag/Meta-data search: Optimizing tagging to improve the results when searching objects that have been explicitly tagged (i.e. Gmail labels, Technorati tags, flickr tags, etc.)
• Full-text search: Optimizing objects and result pages to increase precision and to manage recall into precise, secondary, relational options in the presentation layer
• Categorical navigation: Traditional top-down navigation, with a focus on keeping categories both shallow and non-cascading, while keeping the breadth of topical choices as narrow as possible

The diagram (177kb .pdf) displays another element — Third party relational discovery, which is specific to partner deals with external domains.

Ideas, feedback, critique; all appreciated.

After a ton of hard work by many people, the redesigned Media Matters for America site has launched.

OLD:

NEW:

Behavior Design knocked out the visual design, we shared the information design, I handled the tagging schema/information architecture and we all tag-teamed with the Media Matters crew.

Now that the site is live, I’ve a bunch of tagging and findability methods I’d like to discuss here, but not tonight. Tonight I digest my sushi dinner with friends in San Fran.

For the past three weeks I’ve been using Measure Map pretty religiously, trying to get a feel for its depth to see if it’ll be useful as a tool for me to use moving forward. My first review touched upon the usefulness of the features, but admittedly, it was much more of a review of the presentation. After pounding on it some more, I’ve a few more thoughts on the service (remember, this is still an alpha release):

Searching For Search
Measure Map presents the search terms that led visitors to my site from three major search engines: Google, Yahoo! and MSN. Below are the terms the were used between 11/05 and 11/20:

68
boondocks
bo peabody
bush crony appointments
bush lies
"contextual column"
"courtney bolton" new york
"David Reid" Baghdad
Dick Chaney and FBI Leak
DOTs
download ofoto
DUMB AND DUMBER
efrat yardeni
evangelic green card
"farrakhan"
farrakhan syracuse university
"Free Flow of Information Act"
Greensboro Troublemaker
Hadj guestbook 2005   
haiku George Bush
impeach Bush Now
javol
"jon stewart" + crossfire
Louis Farrakhan Rosa parks funeral
measure map
"organ failure and death" bush torture "new york times"
"navy seal"
newsbusters
revolution america
"Rosa Parks childhood"
"solo journalism"
sony apology 2005 for compromising PC
Visual map of shield law placement

While this feature is a common stat in an analytic tool, the data display isn’t complete:

• Technorati, Icerocket, A9, etc. query hits are listed elsewhere as links
• Image query hits don’t even show up

MM has a cleanly designed interface for displaying terms which originate from specific search engines, but it doesn’t include terms that originate across all search engines. If Technorati, Icerocket, A9, etc. can be presented on the link page, they can just as easily be presented on the Search Engine and Search Terms pages.

MM also differentiates text queries from image queries for no apparent reason. When I pause to see where visitors are coming from and formulate my understanding of why people are coming to my blog, images queries round out the story. Unless there are technical reasons for not presenting all search terms in one section, this should be a no-brainer enhancement.

My Blog Is More Than Just Posts
The number presented in the Posts icon on the homepage doesn’t equate with total page views (a common data point across all analytic services). I understand that Adaptive is trying to keep this simple—reducing page views to post views is one way to do it—but I’m losing visualization of a bunch of data. Here’s the problem:

• When a search result or link to my homepage is followed, MM doesn’t present it alongside my post pages (it’s buried on the most granular Link section interface)
• When a search result or link to a category/tag index page is followed, the same happens as above

Here’s a possible solution for keeping this simple and presenting the most data as possible:

1. Re-label the Posts section to become "Page Views" This basic nomenclature and data point isn’t represented anywhere in MM
2. On the first interface in the new Page View section, present the stats in one table and clearly mark each type of page view with a text or iconic descriptor. Then add a simple widget for choosing: All, Homepage, Categories or Posts.
3. Of course, make it smart to remember which view the user last used
4. Back on the homepage, bubble up the number of posts and categories viewed (out of how many exist) within the large icon, directly under the total number of page views.

Now, at a glance, I’d be able to see my total page views, while also being able to dig deeper and get a sense of which pages are being hit. Simple and powerful.

The United States Of America
I fully realize that the Country section is icing on the average analytic cake, but it is so much more than that within the context of a global perspective. So I’m thrilled to have a tool that visualizes for me where my visitors reside around the globe, while providing a fun geography refresher course. But now I want sweeter icing; I want to know where my visitors are coming from within America.

ESPN.com generates this very view when they present poll returns from around the nation. Yes, this is US-centric, and doesn’t provide a peek into granular levels elsewhere around the world, but if the data is available (which it is) expose it. The zoom feature practically begs for it to be implemented, as I’m dying to see if a rancher in Montana is connecting*the*dots.

I’m really looking forward to the beta release.