Written on August 4th, 2009 by ADMINno shouts
Timothy Karr August 3, 2009 01:53 PMCampaign Director, Free Press and SaveTheInternet.com lists seven reasons why we need net neutralization now. On Friday, Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) marched across Independence Avenue and up the steps of the Capitol Building to
introduce a bill that could stand as the First Amendment of the Internet age.The
Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 establishes the basic rules of the road for an open Internet. And its arrival couldn’t be more timely.We are amid the greatest technological transition in our media since the invention of the printing press. An open Internet is driving this change. It’s a communications tool that, while still in its infancy, is already storming the gates of media’s old guard. But they’re not letting us in without a fight.
Without Net Neutrality, this democratic Internet could fall prey to the companies that deliver Internet services. For them our new found media freedom is a threat that needs to be controlled for commercial gain.
We must act now to pass this bill. Here are seven reasons why:
1. Economic Recovery and Prosperity
2. Free Speech
3. Civic Participation
4. The Marketplace of Ideas
5. Social Justice
6. The Rise of the Gatekeepers
7. The Obama Opportunity
Read the complete article at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/seven-reasons-why-we-need_b_250175.html
Written on August 1st, 2009 by ADMINno shouts
“Human beings need to touch, feel, show, share, and new technologies tend to cut them from such fundamental needs. It finally made an impact, and this is probably one of the main reasons behind the tiredness and rejection of technology you start to get from early adopters.” – Laurent Haug, The Early Adopters Crisis
The phone’s promise as a mini portable computer is being realized and we are increasingly using phones to virtually connect, often choosing text instead of voice; Facebook or Twitter over email. But, as our virtual interactions increase, a greater value is concurrently being placed on our real, physical connections. The most compelling applications will be those which infuse the virtual realm into our physical environment, creating synergies for tangible experiences and exchanges.
In the UK, postcard sales have risen by 30%. In 2007 Billboard reported a similar growth in vinyl record sales citing listeners desired a “warmer, richer” sound. Ranging from conference presentations at TED to a national Dentyne marketing campaign to Make Face Time, more and more people are “yearning for tangibility” according to the New York Times. Throughout history we are prone to backlash against our current realities. The grass is always greener somewhere else and nostalgia causes us to long for a seemingly happier, and in this case, more physically connected past. The answer is not to move away from technology, but rather to accept the current social challenge and design experiences which, as Renny Gleeson states, “make us more human, not less.”
How do we design meaningful tangible experiences? While I champion much of the philosophy behind MIT Media Lab and other related schools of thought, the results are really to meet our current social physical needs on a large scale. The answer isn’t to embed ordinary objects with technology, but rather to design our devices to encourage us to engage with our physical environments and each other. Contrary to many tangible media projects, the mobile phone is clearly identifiable as a technical device and it’s potential as a shared object has yet to be fully realized. Simple examples like pointing the phone outward to show someone a photo immediately creates a shared context resulting in a gratifying physical exchange. How can we push our existing personal devices to reach a whole new social level?
Let’s start with 5 principles we can follow. Like Adam Greenfield said in Everyware, “these principles are necessary but not sufficient: they constitute not an end, but a beginning.”
1 . Engagement creates a new shared experience
Social context and proximity of the device to other devices and people should drive the interaction. Culture is formed through “shared narratives”, not through individual exchanges. Punchcut’s Heckl Engine takes an individual’s mobile texts and tweets and projects it onto a public display. What was once a personal interchange is now a group dialogue, allowing everyone in the physical space to enjoy the resulting commentary.
2 . Helps people physically connect
There is no substitute for actually being there. According to John Thakara’s In the Bubble, being physically present allows your senses to take in 11 million bits/second of information. In contrast remote interactions only process 16 bits/second. Design technical experiences which help people get together. While the application Loopt (see http://www.loopt.com/) has its challenges, the fundamental aim to create social interactions is becoming more and more socially relevant.
3 . Physical reality remains unchanged
The virtual aspect of our mobile lifestyle should add a new dimension to our physical reality. The work of Mac Funamizu, specifically the Future of Mobile Search series and Train Ceiling as Info Screen layers digital content onto our tangible and virtual surfaces without changing the underlying structures.
4 . Doesn’t compete for attention
Keep people grounded in the here and now. The internet has changed the way we consume information. We’re slowly losing the ability to process larger chunks of information due to too many competing information inputs. Help people stay present in their social contexts. One way to achieve this is by ensuring your technical solutions don’t add to the clutter by including non-intrusive, ambient displays.
5. Emotional, not efficient
Design for HHI: Human Human Interaction. The Motorola research deparment has found that people are given more social points from friends for exchanges which require thought and effort, not those which are efficient. People are emotional beings. Designing group solutions which trigger an emotional response such as University of Leeds’ Dancing in the Streets or the pervasive Xbox 360’s Rock Band, will provide greater human and social value. As designers, we have the unique ability and responsibility to meet this growing desire for tangibility and to design applications which will compel users to engage with their physical surroundings. Source: Shilpa at https://xd.adobe.com/#/guestblogger/article/236 Shilpa is an Associate Interaction Design Director at www.punchcut.com. Source: http://idlemode.com/2009/06/20/designing-meaningful-real-world-experiences/
Written on August 1st, 2009 by ADMINno shouts
Are you studying usability problems or looking for user preference?
When it comes to user research it’s important for everyone involved in the design process to have an understanding about the insights we can gain with a particular research approach. As interaction designers we look to user experience (UX) research to discover usability problems or barriers to the experiences we create. As stakeholders get involved in UX research, questions are sometimes introduced that are intended to uncover user preference instead of usability problems. This can profoundly affect research results.
Consider this scenario: You’re observing a UX research session for a media player interface. Your goals include determining if a user can create a playlist and manage a list of videos. The session is also set up to question which media player design the user likes most and to ask the user to rate the visual appeal of the design. Any cause for concern?
Yes!
The scenario represents an attempt to combine two very different types of user research: user experience research and market research.
User experience research studies user behavior. The goal is to understand users’ cognitive expectations and mental models. UX research is informed by what people do and tends to change little over time.
Market research studies user preference. The goal is to understand user’s opinions and likes/dislikes. Market research is informed by what people say and tends to change significantly over time.
Most interaction designers understand that we don’t usually engage in market research. We’re most concerned with uncovering demonstrable user experience problems and less concerned with user opinions on a particular design. Besides having differing goals, UX research and market research have drastically different requirements.
User experience research is highly effective with relatively few users. Since humans tend to categorize and organize in similar ways, behavior doesn’t differ much across demographics. Studies show sharply diminishing returns after only 5 users.
Market research requires a large sample of users. Since user opinions vary widely across different regions, incomes and lifestyles, large number of users are necessary for any meaningful data. It’s not fair to assume opinions of a small number of users accurately represent a larger group.
Problems can arise when we mix market research with UX research. Results focused around user experience research goals can be positioned alongside relatively meaningless market research results. These mixed results can mislead decision makers and designers and distract from the actual experience problems we’re trying to address. Decisions based on these results are not grounded in solid research.
If you’re a designer hopefully you’ve had the opportunity to validate your designs through some form of user research. When approaching user experience research it’s critical that we remind ourselves of the difference between UX research and market research and the pitfalls of mixing the two. It’s also our responsibility to articulate these differences and educate others involved in the design process — project managers, marketing professionals, product managers — so we can stay focused on the goals that we’re best suited to meet.
(Thanks to Frances James at Bolt | Peters for helping me articulate my points on user experience research!)
Source: http://idlemode.com
Recent Comments