online lovin’

This is part of an AP brief I found on the wire that ties into the conversation a few of us were having before class on Thursday (dating) and with some of what we’ve covered in class (online communication).

Online dating service to use voice chat

Online dating services may be convenient, but they’re not the most personable way to meet a potential mate.

What’s been lacking, Match.com Chief Executive Jim Safka believes, is a way for would-be couples to hear each other talk.

A new service from the company called matchTalk aims to do just that.

Free for basic subscribers beginning, matchTalk lets users go online and signal if they’re interested in speaking to each other anonymously over the phone.

The system protects privacy by assigning the couple a unique number that they can use to talk to each other without fear of giving away their real telephone number or other personal details. People with caller ID will see the matchTalk number instead of their actual listing.

“It’s one of those back-to-the-future features,” he said. “We’re really starting to weave in the natural way people meet.”

Safka said such features are important to the future growth of internet dating services. He said there are more than 90 million single adults in the United States actively looking for a relationship, yet only 3 million people join an internet matchmaking service.

“That voice is really critical in determining whether you have chemistry with someone,” he said. “What we hope to do is get people spending less time online and more time talking to each other and meeting each other.”

“it’s just born there”

Our friends in AC/DC saluted “those about to rock,” but nobody really salutes those about to build websites and information structures. That is, in my humble opinion, because not enough people think about information architecture. How many consumers of news–and by news I mean ALL information–spend time to think about how it reached them? The only thought some readers might have is that some “son of a bitch” who wrote the story has some bias or that they were paid off to write the story that way. (Yes, calls like that do come into newsrooms.) The average user–if there is such a being–spends about as much time thinking about information architecture as they do thinking about how the burger they ate for lunch made it onto the bun or how the electricity illuminating their bedroom lamps reaches there home. In fact, most people probably spend more time thinking about the bun question (no chuckling) and their lamp.

Since I’m a reforming newspaper guy, let’s use a newspaper operation as an example. How does news get to the reader?

Easy answer:
 News happens.
 Reporter writes story.
 The end.

If only it could be that simple. (It can be that simple, but we’ll get to that later!) Newspapers are overly complex organizations that involve reporters, photographers, editors, advertising salespeople, graphics designers, accountants, telemarketers, delivery people, pressman, electricians, maintenance personnel … and plenty of other people who I’m a neglecting. (Apologies to those folks and a “thank you” for your hard work.) The point being that it takes an infrastructure of people, technology, equipment and more to bring news and information to the newsstand or doorstep. This structure has been developed over centuries, but many readers still don’t understand the mechanisms involved in the delivery of their newspaper.

With the relative youth of multi-media content on the web, that same average user–whomever he or she is–has less of an idea of how everything works. But it’s not just the user and consumer who is ignorant when it comes to making information flow online. Members of news organizations are often just as baffled and that is why “information architects sometimes find it necessary to justify their roles to managers” (Hoffman; 2006). Well, that is assuming that some organizations are forward thinkers enough to hire people whose job it is to plan this delivery and structure. Dollars are so tight in today’s media companies that “conceptual” jobs are a luxury. (Hoffman; 2006) If a person (or line on a spreadsheet) is not delivery physical, tangible product–be that copy, photos, ads, etc.–then her or she is viewed as an expensive luxury. Instead, as Hoffman mentions, information architects are individuals who carve out that role for themselves.

The reason people don’t spend time thinking about information architecture is because it–information-is always there. Did we value sites like Google back when we only knew of Infoseek? No, because we didn’t know Google existed so we couldn’t miss it. Think about how you feel when you finally get over a cold or, if it helps you relate better, a hangover. Think about what you get back after a power outage. While it is unlikely you spend hours or minutes pondering how medicines helped your body fought off illness or what needed to be done to the power grid to give life to your espresso machine or dvd players, the fact those things were missing did impact your life.

Just as news consumers don’t need to understand how story assignments are passed through a newsroom or how circulation audits are conducted or, well, most anything else other than they want news and the newspaper has it, bosses don’t need to understand everything information architects do … just the value of doing it. Wodke’s citing of Peter Merholz’s example of Wily Coyote (sic) trying to buy an anvil online is hilarious. It’s not just because the idea of Wile E. Coyote surfing ACME.com for an anvil, but it’s because the outcome of Mr. Coyote’s blueprinted plans remind me of how news how users view information architecture. The robust nature of multi-media content doesn’t allow us to set a snare trap and catch a reader … it’s just not that easy. Mr. Coyote never thinks that the Road Runner might take a different route or that he’ll stop before eating the birdseed or, well, anything else. It’s not that information providers have to consider every possibility, we just have to think that there’s more than one option and prepare for it (Wodke; 2001).

The Twinkie tagline used as the title for this entry sums up how people view information delivery. How did the information get there? They don’t, for the most part, care so long as it’s there. Do they need to know? Not really. Do we want them to know? Of course we do because we want them to understand how hard we labored to deliver this glorious information to them … that’s sarcasm, but it’s so true. With that said, I’m going to go grab a burger, likely one with cheese, and not give a thought to where it came from … too late.

Wodke, C. (2001). Defining information architecture deliverables. Boxes and Arrows.

Hoffman, A. (2006). Information architects: Web builders with a sales bent. Monster.com.

The Wiki Wars

Think of this for an action movie pitch … Brad Pitt/Matt Damon/Ben Affleck (etc.) plays a quiet, but determined agent in the government’s Intellipedia department. What is Intellipedia?

Well, it’s the coolest way to get a gov’t paycheck while playing on Wikipedia!

Here’s a sample of a story…

Spy agencies now share the Wikipedia way

Washington — The CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies have created a computer system that uses software from a popular Internet encyclopedia site to gather content on sensitive topics from analysts across the spy community, part of an effort to fix problems that plagued prewar estimates on Iraq.

The system, dubbed Intellipedia because it is built on open-source software from Wikipedia, was launched earlier this year. It already is being used to assemble intelligence reports on Nigeria and other subjects, according to U.S. intelligence officials who on Tuesday discussed the initiative in detail for the first time.

Click for the rest from The LA Times

???

What will happen now?

trick or … (go ‘F’ yourself!)

Okay, so luckily my son isn’t allergic to anything (that we know of yet), but I just got a tongue-lashing from a mother of a trick-or-treater because all of the Halloween candy I am passing out is in the “same bowl.”

She said her son is allergic to peanut butter and they can’t take “ANYTHING” that has been near peanut butter.

Well, I know that peanut allergies are serious, but give me an effin’ break! I really didn’t expect to get yelled at by someone who is having their child pan-handle for candy … okay, I know that is rough, but SERIOUSLY!

I feel bad that this kid is allergic but I feel worse that his mother is a lunatic!

wow!

I’m not usually one for ripping or lauding other media outlets, but the story The Courant has today made me take notice.

They put out a piece noting that U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson is trailing challenger Chris Murphy in their latest poll.

I covered previous Johnson elections and she usually destroys the competition. If these numbers hold for eight days it’s going to be one of the biggest upsets of the mid-terms.

technology is beautiful

In the best use of the iPod to date, here’s a site that allows you to upload drink recipes to your iPod. I’m waiting for the beer-dispensing iPod!

Rocketboom girl lives!

During last class Professor Alex mentioned Rocketboom. This is a videoblog once hosted by Amanda Congdon. During its quick history, Rocketboom became the leading videoblog and drew attention from The New York Times, Editor & Publisher and more. After a split with her partner in the site (read about it here if you want), Amanda took some time off, posting on her own site.

Well, now the one-time model/actor is back at it as she travels across the country and blogs every step of the way. (Check out how she’s geo-tracking her reports … very cool!)

Um, what’s a venti? (Response #7)

Editor’s note: Actually, since I’m the writer, this is more of a writer’s note … this entry’s title is an homage to a friend’s reaction during our first visit to a Starbucks years ago. The mix of coffee and the reading reminded me of our confusion the first time we entered … after all, we were Dunkin’ Donuts guys from Massachusetts where you can order a “LAH-ge” and people know what you’re talking about.

I drink my coffee black. Well, that’s a truth except when I’m up early for travel for work (3 or 4 a.m.). The choice on those early mornings is usually milk and sugar … if they put coffee in the cup, that’s okay too. I started drinking my coffee black in college, but it wasn’t because I thought it was “cool” or fashionable, but because I was tired of the people serving my coffee (Dunkin’ Donuts and a local breakfast place in Keene, N.H.) getting my order wrong. “Coffee with milk and sugar, please,” I would say. What would wind up in my cup would be any of the following: black coffee; coffee and milk, but no sugar; coffee and sugar; coffee with cream; or burnt coffee. Now, I know that last one doesn’t fit the mold—at first glance—but it belongs. I adapted because I was tired of preparing myself—after a few cigarettes—for a cup of coffee that was slightly sweet and a little light. Even with my cigarette-damaged taste bud, black coffee’s slight bitterness was too much of a shock to my usually hung-over system. (Cut me some slack, it was college!) So, instead of being jarred at the start of my days I developed a user-driven system to ensure my coffee was produced the way I wanted it to be, though it really wasn’t the way I wanted it to be. I knew I shouldn’t have had to change my order to ensure it would be properly filled, but until recently I wasn’t aware I was at fault.

I’ve been reading Krug’s “Don’t make me think” for another class and find it hilarious. It’s not that I liken Krug to Jerry Seinfeld, but rather that it’s practical. Its simplicity is its beauty. (Check out Tim Harrower’s “Newspaper Designer’s Handbook” for another text that feels as comfortable.) Krug’s statements are so obvious that they’re often forgotten. “I should be able to ‘get it’—what it is and how to use it—without expending any effort thinking about it (Krug; 2000; P. 11). Usability should be obvious. Directions should make sense. Products and services designed for the masses should be easy to use. The problem is that no matter how easy you think you make them, someone can—and will—always find a way to make things difficult. I consider myself a relatively intelligent person (stop laughing), but I am useless when it comes to assembling almost anything … including furniture purchased from Ikea. I have an entertainment center purchased from Ikea and it came with directions designed to be used by people in many countries. Rather than worrying about translating directions into multiple languages, Ikea decided to remove all text and use pictures and diagrams to illustrate assembly directions. Well, they really might as well have been in a foreign language because I still managed to put parts on backward and upside-down.

The “Ikea effect”—something the furniture giant markets as a much different feeling than how I view it—isn’t an example of sacrificing the outcome in favor of usability, but rather how anyone can mess up your best-designed plans. While I may not have the mindset to assemble furniture, children’s toys or anything else that isn’t plug-and-play, I have designed or redesigned about a half-dozen publications during my career. The idea is always to make these publications as user-friendly as possible. During the redesign process we add functional items like “if you go” boxes that detail the time, location and specifics of a meeting or event. We also ad summary graphs because, as Krug mentions, people like to scan (Krug; 2000; P. 22). While Krug’s comments were directed to websites, the same holds true for the casual newspaper reader. The look and feel of our redesign must be as user-friendly as possible because we think that readers will look at this new package—primped, pretty and dressed in new fonts and colors—like “good lighting in a store; it just makes everything seem better (Krug; 2000; P. 19). The problem is that these designs only work when we follow through on them. If we work with our readers and prepare them for a specific format, we must continue to deliver that format.

“For most of us, it doesn’t matter to us whether we understand how things work, as long as we can use them,” Krug writes (Krug; 2000; P. 28). That is one of the most truthful statements. The majority of people don’t want or care to know how things work. I’m not talking about a combustion engine or an aqueduct, but simple, everyday things. Most people who use cell phones haven’t spent the time to understand every function their mobile device has available to them. So long as they can make a call, get voicemail and possibly text, they’re satisfied, but that isn’t surprising. As Krug writes, people have a tendency to stick with what is comfortable (Krug; 2000; P. 28). The problem arises when we sacrifice functionality or quality. Today’s phones allow for one-touch dialing or voice-dialing. Some include memo functions and others allow access to audio, video and the Web. But as we add more functionality to some of this technology, users don’t always find better ways to use them, they find ways to hold onto what they have always done.

The decision to ignore advancements or improvements to hold onto a sense of comfort must be a conscious one. As technology advances it’s likely that we’re paying more for the devices that include more features, but people still manage to rationalize their decision to neglect the advances. They are actually willing to spend their money and give up its full value because they are afraid. The readings, and previous class discussions about usability, have made me aware of my tendencies. It wasn’t until recently where I began to look at my work—writing, design, production, development—from the consumers point of view. For years I have been messing up people’s coffee orders without realizing it.

Source:
Krug, S. (2000). Don’t make me think. Indianapolis: New Riders, pp. 1-39.

news and gaming

Northwestern University researchers have created a program that turns the alien-blasting character Alyx Vance from Half-Life 2 into a news anchor. In their project, Vance is guided toward a news area — foreign events, say — and computers take over from there.

Read about it here!