Boeing announced plans to drop wireline phones in favor of Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology. With 157,000 employees and worldwide operations, Boeing is the largest company to adopt the technology. The move is expected to give other companies the confidence to make the switch to VoIP. The swap is expected to take 5-7 years. (Source: Chicago Tribune )
This is fascinating! With all the fights over how to make more money for the government and FCC, how to tax it, how to regulate it, Boeing is making a big statement. This must be at least somewhat of a threatening move to wireline providers. Business customers are such a large portion of their income. I wonder how much effect this will have.
18 July, 2004
Qualcomm Tests Wireless Call Aboard American Airlines Flight
Qualcomm announced the first wireless call aboard American Airlines was a success. Qualcomm tested their code division multiple access (CDMA) technology from 25,000 feet. Overall calls were generally good, although there was a delay of about one second in voice communications and some calls were dropped. The company hopes to eventually see the use of wireless phones legal aboard jetliners. Currently the Federal Communications Commission bans the use of wireless devices aboard commercial airlines. Qualcomm now plans to spend two years testing and studying whether signals interfered with the jet's system. (Source: Associated Press)"
Just a few weeks ago NYT ran an article on a cell-phone related incident when a woman was taken off the plane for not wanting to get off the phone. Now qualcomm is working on making this kind of incident history. Go Qualcomm...
Just a few weeks ago NYT ran an article on a cell-phone related incident when a woman was taken off the plane for not wanting to get off the phone. Now qualcomm is working on making this kind of incident history. Go Qualcomm...
Customers Drop Wirelines In Favor of Wireless
Many people have decided to toss their wireline phones and opt to use only wireless. According to a Wall Street Journal report, 5 million people dropped their wireline service in 2003. While many companies are making efforts to offer traditional services to those who have dropped wirelines, some services are still not available. DirectTV and Dish Network, the leading provider use wirelines to bill customers for services such as on-demand movies and DirectTV's premium sports package. Some credit card services such as Citigroup and American Express require a wireline to verify address information. The report also says that many home alarm companies must be tied to a wireline in order to call the customer when the alarm is set off, others generally charge an extra fee to offer back-up communications options. Although many companies still require the use of wireline, they are making efforts to offer services to customers that have chosen to toss the line and go wireless. (Source: Wall Street Journal)
This is an interesting point. With ubiquity of the phone, we have created an infrastructure that depends on its existence inside a residence, as a method of verification of existence of place. The presence of a wireless phone merely verifies existence of person which is at odds with the old infrastructure. It takes time to re-adjust. Curiously, one of my interview subjects had mentioned that she was thinking of getting a wireline because she felt totally helpless and unable to call her husband once when a satellite went down. Wireless has a bit to go to reach the reliability of wireline it seems...
This is an interesting point. With ubiquity of the phone, we have created an infrastructure that depends on its existence inside a residence, as a method of verification of existence of place. The presence of a wireless phone merely verifies existence of person which is at odds with the old infrastructure. It takes time to re-adjust. Curiously, one of my interview subjects had mentioned that she was thinking of getting a wireline because she felt totally helpless and unable to call her husband once when a satellite went down. Wireless has a bit to go to reach the reliability of wireline it seems...
08 July, 2004
Journalism = reporting facts?
The New York Times > Technology > Circuits > State of the Art: Microsoft on the Trail of Google - instead of wasting 2-pages worth of everyone's time, why didn'g David Pogue just write - I hate Microsoft, they are talantlessly trying to get at Google, I am feeling slighted, they suck. That pretty much sums up the article... And it doesn't even have a good sense of humor about things...
Work inwading the spaces between
The New York Times > Technology > Circuits > Destination Wi-Fi, by Rail, Bus or Boat is an article that hails advances in Wifi offerings on commuter transportation like buses, boats and trains. At the moment, commuters can work on their laptops through the commute (some trains offer power plugs at the seats) but not surf the web. With the rollout of wifi, commuters will be able to be connected throughout the commute.
In thinking about spaces and my current research, I've been exploring the idea of the space-between spaces, the transit, the vaccuum of getting from one place to another, where we actually spend most of our lives. Having spent a considerable time in LA, I am intimiately familiar with the frustration of "traffic time" and the feeling of wasted minutes that could be spend on doing something more pleasurable. While WiFi in the car would not help, WiFi in a public transport (if such a luxury is available in this country) would make up for that feeling of "lost time". or would it? There is something about being in the space of the car or a train, that space that is free to be occupied by reading a book unrelated to work, checking up the newspaper, doing the cross-word puzzle, listening to musc, thinking. The time that everyone agrees is spent well (getting from place to place) and, until now, could not have been coopted by demands of a gruelling work-pace. The "me" time... Maybe, being able to get those few emails off during a commute and finishing that presentation would be a nice change, making the work-day a little shorter. I doubt that would be the outcome though. Instead, there will be more of tunnelling into the echo-chamber of your own interests and opinions inside the vast space of the Internet. Living up to the expectations of connectedness, where the commute time is still not "work" time but "connected" time, which creates expectations of immediate response regardless of presence, location, breaking down of public transport... the idea of "stranded" just doesn't put us nearly as far beyond the reaches of our daily grind. Is that a good thing? can we be more efficient in styling our lives in such a way that we can get more done and enjoy more life? or is it a bad thing? feeding an addiction, strengthening the leash of connectedness, disconnecting us from paying attention to our immediate surroundings. The jury is still out... though I wonder...
In thinking about spaces and my current research, I've been exploring the idea of the space-between spaces, the transit, the vaccuum of getting from one place to another, where we actually spend most of our lives. Having spent a considerable time in LA, I am intimiately familiar with the frustration of "traffic time" and the feeling of wasted minutes that could be spend on doing something more pleasurable. While WiFi in the car would not help, WiFi in a public transport (if such a luxury is available in this country) would make up for that feeling of "lost time". or would it? There is something about being in the space of the car or a train, that space that is free to be occupied by reading a book unrelated to work, checking up the newspaper, doing the cross-word puzzle, listening to musc, thinking. The time that everyone agrees is spent well (getting from place to place) and, until now, could not have been coopted by demands of a gruelling work-pace. The "me" time... Maybe, being able to get those few emails off during a commute and finishing that presentation would be a nice change, making the work-day a little shorter. I doubt that would be the outcome though. Instead, there will be more of tunnelling into the echo-chamber of your own interests and opinions inside the vast space of the Internet. Living up to the expectations of connectedness, where the commute time is still not "work" time but "connected" time, which creates expectations of immediate response regardless of presence, location, breaking down of public transport... the idea of "stranded" just doesn't put us nearly as far beyond the reaches of our daily grind. Is that a good thing? can we be more efficient in styling our lives in such a way that we can get more done and enjoy more life? or is it a bad thing? feeding an addiction, strengthening the leash of connectedness, disconnecting us from paying attention to our immediate surroundings. The jury is still out... though I wonder...
07 July, 2004
WiFi - there does exist a business model?
"Starbucks announced it had T-Mobile Wi-Fi installed in more than 3,100 U.S. cafes. Starbucks recognizes that the Wi-Fi service has helped the company retain customers longer and at off-peak hours. Wi-Fi users visit Starbucks locations an average of eight times a month, are online for approximately an hour, and arrive after the morning rush. There are currently more than 4,700 HotSpot locations throughout the U.S. (Source: IT Web) "
Considering that T-Mobile WiFi service is a paid service (and its not cheap), the fact that Starbucks is seeing benefits from offering it, suggests that there exists some kind of a business model in offering WiFi. I haven't seen any numbers from locations that offer free WiFi though, I wonder if the effect is the same.
Living in Oregon, its nice to be able to find a zillion locations with free WiFi. I am sure there are some numbers available on the business impact of this service since all the coffeeshops that offer it are not chains, and focus on building a community of a sort. On the other hand, one has to KNOW that there is free wifi at a particular coffeeshop, while with Starbucks, you know they have T-Mobile (or are at least more likely to have it). Just how much of that use is accounted by travellers, I wonder?
Considering that T-Mobile WiFi service is a paid service (and its not cheap), the fact that Starbucks is seeing benefits from offering it, suggests that there exists some kind of a business model in offering WiFi. I haven't seen any numbers from locations that offer free WiFi though, I wonder if the effect is the same.
Living in Oregon, its nice to be able to find a zillion locations with free WiFi. I am sure there are some numbers available on the business impact of this service since all the coffeeshops that offer it are not chains, and focus on building a community of a sort. On the other hand, one has to KNOW that there is free wifi at a particular coffeeshop, while with Starbucks, you know they have T-Mobile (or are at least more likely to have it). Just how much of that use is accounted by travellers, I wonder?
OregonLive - LP headquarter relocation story
Oregonian LP-headquarters relocation story was an interesting piece to add to the interview Scott Mainwaring and I had just finished a few weeks prior with the "Hunter" family the day before they moved to Nashville as part of LP relocation. Unlike the executives though, I do not think this family will be taking part in charity balls of the same scale. They comprise some of the corporate charter plane support staff that LP moved along with everyone else to their new Headquarter location. I am curious just how different was the moving experience for the executives and for this middle class family.
06 July, 2004
The New York Times > Technology > You've Got Mail (and Court Says Others Can Read It)
The New York Times > Technology > You've Got Mail (and Court Says Others Can Read It)
This article in the New York Times only underlines the idea that persistence of digital content is something that most of us have not yet come to grips with. Yet most of our digital content is stored somewhere, most of us do not know where it is. the initial fascination with the Internet and its ability to provide individuals with anonymity has turned out to be a rosy dream, while at the same time, the Internet has killed any pretense at anonymity and privacy. As digital communications expand in size and frequency, while laws refuse to properly address privacy issues that emerge at the same time, erosion of personal liberties and privacy will continue without most individuals realizing what is happening.
This article in the New York Times only underlines the idea that persistence of digital content is something that most of us have not yet come to grips with. Yet most of our digital content is stored somewhere, most of us do not know where it is. the initial fascination with the Internet and its ability to provide individuals with anonymity has turned out to be a rosy dream, while at the same time, the Internet has killed any pretense at anonymity and privacy. As digital communications expand in size and frequency, while laws refuse to properly address privacy issues that emerge at the same time, erosion of personal liberties and privacy will continue without most individuals realizing what is happening.
RFID use & life between the seams
IBM Opens Test Center in France International Business Machine Corp - reads the tagline, explaining that IBM has opened a test center for radio frequency identification (RFID) in Nice, France. The center was opened in an effort to make sure chips, readers, and software work together. Approximately 1,000 part-time and full-time employees are currently working on RFID for IBM. RFID allows product information to be read automatically and wirelessly. Organizations that are already using or plan to use RFID include Wal-Mart, airlines, pharmaceutical companies, and the U.S. Department of Defense. IBM expects that by 2009, fifty percent of all products will be tagged. (Source: CIOL News)
Curious... despite my initial negative reaction towards RFID, as far as I understand the technology, what it WILL do is make it harder for people to steal and easier for companies to keep track of their products and merchandise. On one hand, this makes perfect business sense. Companies invest into a technology that will reduce problems with inventory tracking. On the other hand, it makes me wonder how this will affect the low income working world, which is often still built on a strange system or barter, theft, things falling between the cracks. Many of the low-income workforce are people who have fallen between the cracks, who live on the things that are uncounted, forgotten, seamlessly removed from the "real" world. As the stock of easily accessible small item-foraging reduces due to better systems for accountability, how will these populations adjust? The uncounted, forgotten, between the seams of the social system people. Those that are payed far less than what one can live on, but survive none-the-less through creating a system of favors, barter and a world that is oddly reminiscent of Gaiman's London Below...
As someone who has spent several years living partially submerged into a place where barter was a way of life and a system that worked better than the job you had, which paid next to nothing and was more of a labor of love, I wonder how would existence of a better accounting system would have affected that world? I would be wrong to say that this is the first step in that direction. As technology permeated the business world, the employee-based barter system has had to adjust, with an understanding of the "damn computers" and creation of new system of barter that made use of the new loop-holes. When ski-resorts started using scanners, matching bar-codes with people's names, printing tickets on sticky paper, making it impossible to remove from your ski jacket once attached, the dirtbags developed systems for skiing on the same ticket during different parts of the day trading off, ways of taking off sticky tickets and still make them usable, etc.
When bars started using computers that controlled what drinks were served and how much... wait-staff and bartenders developed ideas of the "spill fund" and "wrong drink order".
Much of the new technology is used to control the "little" people of the working world, where these people survive on knicking the system here and there, dropping underneath the money-economy to the level of barter economy that allows them to survive the harsh realities of an ever-more expensive life-style. The race is on with the RFID... we shall see?
Curious... despite my initial negative reaction towards RFID, as far as I understand the technology, what it WILL do is make it harder for people to steal and easier for companies to keep track of their products and merchandise. On one hand, this makes perfect business sense. Companies invest into a technology that will reduce problems with inventory tracking. On the other hand, it makes me wonder how this will affect the low income working world, which is often still built on a strange system or barter, theft, things falling between the cracks. Many of the low-income workforce are people who have fallen between the cracks, who live on the things that are uncounted, forgotten, seamlessly removed from the "real" world. As the stock of easily accessible small item-foraging reduces due to better systems for accountability, how will these populations adjust? The uncounted, forgotten, between the seams of the social system people. Those that are payed far less than what one can live on, but survive none-the-less through creating a system of favors, barter and a world that is oddly reminiscent of Gaiman's London Below...
As someone who has spent several years living partially submerged into a place where barter was a way of life and a system that worked better than the job you had, which paid next to nothing and was more of a labor of love, I wonder how would existence of a better accounting system would have affected that world? I would be wrong to say that this is the first step in that direction. As technology permeated the business world, the employee-based barter system has had to adjust, with an understanding of the "damn computers" and creation of new system of barter that made use of the new loop-holes. When ski-resorts started using scanners, matching bar-codes with people's names, printing tickets on sticky paper, making it impossible to remove from your ski jacket once attached, the dirtbags developed systems for skiing on the same ticket during different parts of the day trading off, ways of taking off sticky tickets and still make them usable, etc.
When bars started using computers that controlled what drinks were served and how much... wait-staff and bartenders developed ideas of the "spill fund" and "wrong drink order".
Much of the new technology is used to control the "little" people of the working world, where these people survive on knicking the system here and there, dropping underneath the money-economy to the level of barter economy that allows them to survive the harsh realities of an ever-more expensive life-style. The race is on with the RFID... we shall see?
29 June, 2004
The New York Times > Week in Review > Cellular Sociology: I Want to Be Alone. Please Call Me.
The New York Times > Week in Review > Cellular Sociology: I Want to Be Alone. Please Call Me. This article touches on several themes - the public vs. private spaces colliding in using cell phones in public spaces, the social desire to be included and the reaction of hurt exclusion when someone around you is on the phone, the ridiculous instances of behavior, like the one described in the article (hard to believe that one actually). The article doesn't really come out and say it, but it descirbes the growing pains of the developing social norms around new social technologies that have invaded spaces previously relegated to boredom, relative quiet and meeting strangers. It is curious whether similar events have happened or still happen in Europe or in Asia, where cellphone adoption has happened earlier and more fully.
The New York Times > Technology > Patents: Tuning In to Television, Two Ways
The New York Times > Technology > Patents: Tuning In to Television, Two Ways - a brand new way to make TV-watching and interactive activity, brought to you by AOL. What is very interesting about this article, I found, is not the new idea to let people see what their friends are watching and chat about it (great idea, not new), but a statement about why WebTV and AOLTV didn't exactly meet the gargantuan demand they were supposed to. The article argues that the new approach - integrating interactive features with existing practices of TV watching may fare better than the previous attempt that was essentially "trying to change people's television viewing habits". This statement is near revelatory - a little beacon that says - by simply introducing "cool" technology you can't change the way people do things or create new activities for them unless these activities fit into existing practies and somehow augment or empower them.
18 June, 2004
Orkut Newsletter
So I received a newsletter from Orkut today. A little report that told me who I was friends with, how many friends and acquaintenances I had, just a social check up. It then went on to let me know who I might want to meet that are my friends of friends... people, who are, presumably somehow similar to me. My own reaction to this surprised me. I was upset, almost offended at this intrusion into my little social structure. Its almost as if I can communicate it, but I do NOT want someone else telling me who I should me. Someone (or something to be exact really) who has absolutely no idea about the social dynamics of my social network. It made me reel... My gut reaction was to cancel my orkut account right now, along with my gmail account, and everything else related to google. It was one of the more intense "icky" reactions I've had in ages. Interesting.
I emailed the originator of the email - admin@orkut.com with a curt little message asking them to never ever send me anything like this ever again and letting them know that this was rather upsetting and almost offensive. I wonder if they will respond. hmmm
I emailed the originator of the email - admin@orkut.com with a curt little message asking them to never ever send me anything like this ever again and letting them know that this was rather upsetting and almost offensive. I wonder if they will respond. hmmm
17 June, 2004
The New York Times > Washington > Program Would Ease Security a Bit for Frequent Fliers
The New York Times > Washington > Program Would Ease Security a Bit for Frequent Fliers. A BIT is sort of an understatement here. In effect, the government is trying to pass CAPPs as a bonus program for trusted passengers where they will get no more out of it than an occasional saving of less than 10 minutes of their time (extended over a lots of flying episodes, this really doesn't amount to a whole lot). It is amusing that they are trying to pass it off as a benefit, when it is really a hassle and a way to get people to regard possession of these cards as a "privelege". This is really a low-brow move to avoid the panicking of the privacy groups (note all the "asking permission" language) and to slide this under the radar. Icky... but probably effective...
08 June, 2004
Friends, Friends With Benefits and the Benefits of the Local Mall
The Friends, Friends With Benefits and the Benefits of the Local Mall: "Many teenagers spend a lot of time hanging out in mixed-gender groups (at the mall, at one another's houses), and when they can't hang out in person, they hang out online, asking the questions they might not dare to in real life. "
While danah was fascinated with the part of this article that focused on teenage girls calling the shots in an interaction with the opposite sex, I was more attracted to the line quoted above.
While I won't argue whether females calling the shots is a change (I don't believe it is), the fact that teenagers are hanging out more in gender-mixed groups IS a change. Most of the teen-sociology and psych literature has talked about the prevalence of same sex relationships and how important these were. However, the advent of the Internet has changed something interesting. Not only do teens hang out more with opposite sex, they also talk more frankly about topics they used to only whisper in corners about. It could be they use the IM medium as a way to get pass the discomfort of frank topics. A similar thing is happening in Europe with SMS... now THIS is a very interesting development :).
While danah was fascinated with the part of this article that focused on teenage girls calling the shots in an interaction with the opposite sex, I was more attracted to the line quoted above.
While I won't argue whether females calling the shots is a change (I don't believe it is), the fact that teenagers are hanging out more in gender-mixed groups IS a change. Most of the teen-sociology and psych literature has talked about the prevalence of same sex relationships and how important these were. However, the advent of the Internet has changed something interesting. Not only do teens hang out more with opposite sex, they also talk more frankly about topics they used to only whisper in corners about. It could be they use the IM medium as a way to get pass the discomfort of frank topics. A similar thing is happening in Europe with SMS... now THIS is a very interesting development :).
07 May, 2004
LA Weekly: Features: Don't Get High Without It - Erowyd
LA Weekly's Feature: Don't Get High Without It: is an article largely devoted to a profile of Erowyd but some of its discussion brings up very interesting questions outside of the simple right/wrong. For example, NIDA is sponsoring research on the relationship between the Internet and illicit drug use among at-risk kids. Presumably, the research looks at Internet use for specific foraging for information on drug use and the outcomes of these searches.
Yet, "the results are ambiguous. "We've had people who are not drug users read about Salvia divinorum and thought it was cool and started using it. By the same token, we've had people who used to snort Ritalin get on the Web, find out that it was bad, and quit.""
Ok... lets get methodological here - this looks like an interaction. There is something else that moderates the choice, something that is not accounted for here. It's easy to blame availability of information and this is the reason why censorship exists. Yet HOW information is used may be moderated by various things. Maybe its education, prior exposure, personal negative or positive experience, existence of social support, personality factors, something. Something that, if found, may color this research in a completely different hue. It also may propose more useful policies and programs. The ovious is often easy to blame for problems, yet attacking the symptom rarely gets at the cause.
Yet, "the results are ambiguous. "We've had people who are not drug users read about Salvia divinorum and thought it was cool and started using it. By the same token, we've had people who used to snort Ritalin get on the Web, find out that it was bad, and quit.""
Ok... lets get methodological here - this looks like an interaction. There is something else that moderates the choice, something that is not accounted for here. It's easy to blame availability of information and this is the reason why censorship exists. Yet HOW information is used may be moderated by various things. Maybe its education, prior exposure, personal negative or positive experience, existence of social support, personality factors, something. Something that, if found, may color this research in a completely different hue. It also may propose more useful policies and programs. The ovious is often easy to blame for problems, yet attacking the symptom rarely gets at the cause.
06 April, 2004
infoSync World : NTT DoCoMo to research mobile social impacts
infoSync World : NTT DoCoMo to research mobile social impacts - hmm this is very interesting. IMHO, NTT DoCoMo has done quite a lot of revolutionary stuff in their attempts to commercialize communication :). and they have succeeded. They have also financed a large amount of research into this phenomena and this just another example of this approach. I am wondering how much of this kind of approach to business will start cropping up in the future. Seems a reasonable way to step back from a government-funded research system to a more libertarian system of research funding and process. curious...
04 March, 2004
Risks of Quantitative Studies (Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox)
Risks of Quantitative Studies (Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox) - So Jakob Nielsen gets on his soap-box and tells everyone to go do ethnography. Thank you very much, this is wonderful... so you are saying that studies that report correlations may be faulty? no really? and significance testing might actually get you to wrong conclusions? really? wow... I guess Jakob Nielsen assumes (unfortunately rightly) that most readers haven't had a basic class in statistics. Unfortunately, many qualitative researchers have skipped that same class as well and harbor many of the misconceptions that Nielsen elaborated in his soap-box statement. Quantitative studies are not just numbers!
Quantiative data collection is steeped in theory, based on theoretical predictions, where outcomes must "make sense" in order to be believed. Just like qualitative observations (which may be woefully wrong and completely misleading if observers use bad qualitative techniques and lack theoretical background, which is often the case in usability studies unfortunately) must be interpreted with care and an eye towards unobserved phenomena that may have driven observed phenomena, quantitative analyses must be approached with caution and deep considerations of causal direction and possible mediators and moderators.
Nielsen insists that its easier, cheaper and better to do qualitative studies but I am not convinced. Nowhere does he point out that badly done qualitative studies can be just as false, biased, misleading and overly narrow as quantitative studies and for similar reasons - lack of knowledge in theory, background, technique application. The argument between quantitative and qualitative researchers has been an ongoing disagreement. Taking one side over the other is a myopic acceptance of one side of an old argument. I believe that a good, proficient amalgam of the two approaches is the most efficient method of research. Unfortunately, we are far from this stance being accepted in research and academia. Statements like the latest one from Jakob Nielsen don't help, they spread more disagreement and misconception than provide understanding and caution. Its unfortunate and it keeps reducing my respect for Nielsen with such sophomoric statements.
Quantiative data collection is steeped in theory, based on theoretical predictions, where outcomes must "make sense" in order to be believed. Just like qualitative observations (which may be woefully wrong and completely misleading if observers use bad qualitative techniques and lack theoretical background, which is often the case in usability studies unfortunately) must be interpreted with care and an eye towards unobserved phenomena that may have driven observed phenomena, quantitative analyses must be approached with caution and deep considerations of causal direction and possible mediators and moderators.
Nielsen insists that its easier, cheaper and better to do qualitative studies but I am not convinced. Nowhere does he point out that badly done qualitative studies can be just as false, biased, misleading and overly narrow as quantitative studies and for similar reasons - lack of knowledge in theory, background, technique application. The argument between quantitative and qualitative researchers has been an ongoing disagreement. Taking one side over the other is a myopic acceptance of one side of an old argument. I believe that a good, proficient amalgam of the two approaches is the most efficient method of research. Unfortunately, we are far from this stance being accepted in research and academia. Statements like the latest one from Jakob Nielsen don't help, they spread more disagreement and misconception than provide understanding and caution. Its unfortunate and it keeps reducing my respect for Nielsen with such sophomoric statements.
28 February, 2004
The Atlantic | March 2004 | Word Fugitives | Wallraff
Word Fugitives this is a really neat article. via danah
27 February, 2004
Taking Spin Out of Report That Made Bad Into Good Health
Taking Spin Out of Report That Made Bad Into Good Health - a NYT article talking about misrepresentation of statistics by the administration report. This really illustrates the point that numbers can be misleading and their value is in correct interpretation that is so difficult to acheive. The concept of "massaging" the data into giving "expected" results is not new. The "Bell Curve" has illustrated misues of statistics in a thousand page opus. Unfortunately, once the first interpretation is made, it is very difficult to change the audience's mind even if the problems are explained soon after... first impressions are a hell of a force.
Japan's Wireless Internet Use Model for US
Japan's Wireless Internet Use Model for US
The cell phone is a way of life in Japan, and its not just used to make phone calls anymore. Cell phone users in Japan are using their phone for everything -- as alarm clocks, maps, for e-mail, music and more. The United States has thus far lagged behind. Around 55 percent of Japan's population use the wireless Internet, a number that tripled since 2000. Users turn to their phones before their computers to surf the net. Some, especially the younger crowd, see cell phones as an extension of their identity, choosing icons and wallpaper that fits their personality. Students are using e-mail through their phones in class to send questions to professors. Marketers are having a field day as they send ads or coupons to drive sales when business is slow. Though the United States is lagging, many hope it will adopt the wireless Internet as Japan has already done. (Source: Washington Post)
>> And they can keep hoping. While cell phone adoption is underway in the US, some of the data and extension services have lagged miserably behind. Why is that? Well, one of the answers may be the difference in physical space and modes of traversing that space. In the US, metropolitan centers with well developed public transport and good network coverage plus good cell phone data services offerings, can be counted on one hand... well two if you squint a little. A mobile device like a cell phone requires a lot of attention if it is to be used for more than just talking (even txting requires attention). However, users in the US do not have much downtime in attention as they drive their cars from one place to another. I wonder how the adoption games will be played out here... I am certain, however, this country will not mirror japan any time soon.
The cell phone is a way of life in Japan, and its not just used to make phone calls anymore. Cell phone users in Japan are using their phone for everything -- as alarm clocks, maps, for e-mail, music and more. The United States has thus far lagged behind. Around 55 percent of Japan's population use the wireless Internet, a number that tripled since 2000. Users turn to their phones before their computers to surf the net. Some, especially the younger crowd, see cell phones as an extension of their identity, choosing icons and wallpaper that fits their personality. Students are using e-mail through their phones in class to send questions to professors. Marketers are having a field day as they send ads or coupons to drive sales when business is slow. Though the United States is lagging, many hope it will adopt the wireless Internet as Japan has already done. (Source: Washington Post)
>> And they can keep hoping. While cell phone adoption is underway in the US, some of the data and extension services have lagged miserably behind. Why is that? Well, one of the answers may be the difference in physical space and modes of traversing that space. In the US, metropolitan centers with well developed public transport and good network coverage plus good cell phone data services offerings, can be counted on one hand... well two if you squint a little. A mobile device like a cell phone requires a lot of attention if it is to be used for more than just talking (even txting requires attention). However, users in the US do not have much downtime in attention as they drive their cars from one place to another. I wonder how the adoption games will be played out here... I am certain, however, this country will not mirror japan any time soon.
TRUSTe standards
Industry Enterprise Team to Develop Wireless Privacy Standards
TRUSTe unveiled a new wireless privacy standards program aimed at providing wireless telecom vendors with actionable and practical guidelines for protecting consumer privacy. TRUSTe teamed with a number of major corporations, including AT&T Wireless, MMA and Microsoft, to form the Wireless Advisory Committee responsible for implementing the new standards. Dubbed the Wireless Privacy Principles and Implementation Guidelines, the program will work with companies in the industry to ensure that specific standards regarding consumer notice and consumer consent are achieved. Some of the key areas on which the guidelines focus are privacy statements, third party sharing and the use of location-based information.
Source: PR Newswire
I am really curious to see the actual guidelines that TRUSTe will provide to the industry. Considering that some of the major players in this organization are notorious for privacy oversights (i.e. MS passport problems for example) it is an interesting alliance. I am curious to see how many loopholes they will create and whether the guidelines will take consumer privacy as a concept, seriously. It is an unfortunate turn of events, that considerations of consumer privacy in this country is so immediately associated with revenue losses. I believe that despite DoubleClick's pronouncements in the NYTimes a few days ago that consumers are "relaxing" about privacy, privacy concerns, coupled with continued corporate and government privacy violations, may create a paranoid sort of consumer. Unfortunately, human lazyness is on the side of the culprits :). If they make maintaining privacy as difficult, technically complex, and tedious, they may win :). Its the argument towards considering questions of privacy at the outset of system building, not as an add-on patch towards the end, just because privacy is a tough concept and, you, we are gonna just build first and then see if it works... Band-aids have a nasty feature of falling off eventually, even if they leave some black stains.
TRUSTe unveiled a new wireless privacy standards program aimed at providing wireless telecom vendors with actionable and practical guidelines for protecting consumer privacy. TRUSTe teamed with a number of major corporations, including AT&T Wireless, MMA and Microsoft, to form the Wireless Advisory Committee responsible for implementing the new standards. Dubbed the Wireless Privacy Principles and Implementation Guidelines, the program will work with companies in the industry to ensure that specific standards regarding consumer notice and consumer consent are achieved. Some of the key areas on which the guidelines focus are privacy statements, third party sharing and the use of location-based information.
Source: PR Newswire
I am really curious to see the actual guidelines that TRUSTe will provide to the industry. Considering that some of the major players in this organization are notorious for privacy oversights (i.e. MS passport problems for example) it is an interesting alliance. I am curious to see how many loopholes they will create and whether the guidelines will take consumer privacy as a concept, seriously. It is an unfortunate turn of events, that considerations of consumer privacy in this country is so immediately associated with revenue losses. I believe that despite DoubleClick's pronouncements in the NYTimes a few days ago that consumers are "relaxing" about privacy, privacy concerns, coupled with continued corporate and government privacy violations, may create a paranoid sort of consumer. Unfortunately, human lazyness is on the side of the culprits :). If they make maintaining privacy as difficult, technically complex, and tedious, they may win :). Its the argument towards considering questions of privacy at the outset of system building, not as an add-on patch towards the end, just because privacy is a tough concept and, you, we are gonna just build first and then see if it works... Band-aids have a nasty feature of falling off eventually, even if they leave some black stains.
19 February, 2004
apophenia: the pictures in iChat weird me out
the pictures in iChat weird me out - a little post from danah on how sometimes technology designers miss the social implications of their creations made think about my own experiences with technologists and designers. Even at a minor pre-production design level.
I work with designers and technologists from time to time on small projects and it amazes me constantly how much of a devil's advocate I get to play. This incredible desire to use sensors, pictures, feeds, what have you, to detect emotional states, to communicate them to others automatically - is an incredibly powerful drive. Sometimes at the cost of privacy concerncs, understanding of a multifaceted presentation of self, deliberatly limiting the "interesting" parts of the text-based communication.
There is this strange drive to make interaction with technology and the functions it tries to mimik more like the "physical" "real world". I can never understand, WHY? Yes there are lots of incredibly intersting interactions people have with their environments and other people in them every waking minute. A regular alarm clock could probably never mimic the way my cat wakes me up in the mornings. I just don't understand why it should. Hiroshi Ishii in his tangible interafaces paper and a lot of subsequent work, inspired by that paper, explored some exciting ideas. Yet later on, Ben Anderson, a researcher from Britain, was wondering - the physical interaction is "rich" and "interesting" but I don't want to make a series of physical movements if I just want to delete a file!
The Internet and much of our current technology provides a space that may preclude some physical richness, but it I wonder why there is a persistent focus on this limitation. Why its often seen as a limitation? There are limitations in the physical space too! The two mediums offer their own sets of affordances, their own spaces for interactions. It may be more productive to focus on the advantages of these affordances, rather than trying to "fix the differences" with crutches. But then there is ubicomp world on the fringe or intersection of the two... and then things get really screwy... sigh
I work with designers and technologists from time to time on small projects and it amazes me constantly how much of a devil's advocate I get to play. This incredible desire to use sensors, pictures, feeds, what have you, to detect emotional states, to communicate them to others automatically - is an incredibly powerful drive. Sometimes at the cost of privacy concerncs, understanding of a multifaceted presentation of self, deliberatly limiting the "interesting" parts of the text-based communication.
There is this strange drive to make interaction with technology and the functions it tries to mimik more like the "physical" "real world". I can never understand, WHY? Yes there are lots of incredibly intersting interactions people have with their environments and other people in them every waking minute. A regular alarm clock could probably never mimic the way my cat wakes me up in the mornings. I just don't understand why it should. Hiroshi Ishii in his tangible interafaces paper and a lot of subsequent work, inspired by that paper, explored some exciting ideas. Yet later on, Ben Anderson, a researcher from Britain, was wondering - the physical interaction is "rich" and "interesting" but I don't want to make a series of physical movements if I just want to delete a file!
The Internet and much of our current technology provides a space that may preclude some physical richness, but it I wonder why there is a persistent focus on this limitation. Why its often seen as a limitation? There are limitations in the physical space too! The two mediums offer their own sets of affordances, their own spaces for interactions. It may be more productive to focus on the advantages of these affordances, rather than trying to "fix the differences" with crutches. But then there is ubicomp world on the fringe or intersection of the two... and then things get really screwy... sigh
28 January, 2004
In a Mental Institute, the Call of the Outside
In a Mental Institute, the Call of the Outside is probably one of the most fascinating articles I've read in a while. The discussion centers around a specific ward in a mental institution that struggles with issues of allowing patients keep the digital tenet of connectiveness - their cell phones and computers. One interesting point in the article (of many) was that allowing cell phones freely in the ward reduced patient participation in group activities and even their focus and presence in required therapy sessions. Such behavior essentially disappeared once cell phones were once again banned on the ward. This makes an interesting argument for such communication technology allowing people to lock themselves inside the comfortable confines of their own network and not having to deal with the unpleasant unknown of strangers, even if familiar strangers.
E - Mail Virus Points to Human Flaws
In a lovely article from AP, Bob Jorgensen from Boeing was quoted saying People that are bent on doing these **writing viruses** things continue to display a high degree of intelligence. How appaling! How dare they be in any way intelligent! These pesky virus writers! I also really liked the line that indicated that the virus, although attacking exclusively computers that run Microsoft Windows wasn't exploiting any MSOS security flaw... and uhh... folks, what would you call the fact that this thing is spreading like wildfire? Ohhh right, hold on, I forgot, its because people use computers and people can be tricked to open their email and thus infect a computer with a virus that can do a number of intelligent nasty little things... hmmm.... great.
VZWireless customer service...
I had an intersting experience today. My phone rang around 5pm and a nice, pretty female voice told me that this was my wireless company calling. I was somewhat taken aback while she explained to me that the call was free of charge (I sure hope so!). Well, I'd just finished something and was in-between things so I figured I could take the call.
side note: I had been very happy with Verizon Wireless service yet this phone call made me wonder whether I should switch. If there is one thing I do not want - its unsolicited calls on my cellular phone, even if they are free of charge. Especially from my cellular phone company! On the other hand... this was an opportunity for entertainment on an otherwise long work day.
I'd been thinking of getting a new handset and we started discussing new phone models. I asked about the presence of a 911 feature in the new audiovox model. Sure enough, its there. I asked whether there were any phones without such feature and was assured there certainly weren't because of the federal mandate. While she was incorrect about the availability of such handsets currently from VZ (there are two - an entry level Nokia and Motorola V60), the sentiment comes from the following document - FCC E911 PhaseII mandate - see page 4 for VZ. The mandate states that by 2005 95% of handsets in operation must be gps capable.
I then asked whether the new phone I was interested in, would allow me to turn the feature off. She wasn't sure and directed me to the manufacturer. I suggested that inability to turn the feature off is a forceful invasion of privacy - what if I don't want to be saved? She re-assured me that really, the technology to track cell phones so precisely was too expensive and only government agencies could do it. Really? There have been a few articles in the media about the use of off-the-shelf software that provided the ability (albeit on opt-in bases) to track select cell phones and, by extension, their owners. this page gave some ideas on the directions in which location tracking could develop soon after the FCC mandate.
The service rep was rather interested in the news that the technology for actually tracking gps enabled devices is not so expensive (creation and maintenance of the gps system, however, is. But that's beside the point). She then suggested that since there is no central wireless number directory, the concern that someone at random may monitor a cell phone is not so scary. Well, not so fast.. wireless providers have been trying to establish a wireless directory - white pages and have been deterred by the house of reprsentatives. They have been deliberating amending the Communications Act of 1934 to protect cell phone user privacy. At the moment it is unclear which direction this particular decision will go, however, if the wireless carriers win, they stand to make a pretty sum of money for charging subscribers an "opt out" fee like the landline companies do.
The sales rep was somewhat speechless. She sounded a bit appalled when she told me she'd had no idea these things were happening and thanked me for providing this information. She was sure going to investigate all of this as it sounded just plain wrong! I concluded that pushing this further would be plain evil and conceded to buy the new phone (since mine had been threatening to die for the last month or so).
Conclusion: sales reps have no idea what happens in their industry and the pitch they use to sell their product to customers is often outdated and incorrect. Furthermore, these people really do not understand the workings of the medium they cell, providing little or no support for customers who are often lost and confused somewhere in the three pines of the decision making process... lessee how this new audiovoxi foxi phone will do :) Damn, forgot to ask her what she thought of the new $1.00 additional fee tha PA is going to require all wireless providers charge their customers in order to pay for e-911 implementation... oh well... next time... I am sure I will have reason to call...
side note: I had been very happy with Verizon Wireless service yet this phone call made me wonder whether I should switch. If there is one thing I do not want - its unsolicited calls on my cellular phone, even if they are free of charge. Especially from my cellular phone company! On the other hand... this was an opportunity for entertainment on an otherwise long work day.
I'd been thinking of getting a new handset and we started discussing new phone models. I asked about the presence of a 911 feature in the new audiovox model. Sure enough, its there. I asked whether there were any phones without such feature and was assured there certainly weren't because of the federal mandate. While she was incorrect about the availability of such handsets currently from VZ (there are two - an entry level Nokia and Motorola V60), the sentiment comes from the following document - FCC E911 PhaseII mandate - see page 4 for VZ. The mandate states that by 2005 95% of handsets in operation must be gps capable.
I then asked whether the new phone I was interested in, would allow me to turn the feature off. She wasn't sure and directed me to the manufacturer. I suggested that inability to turn the feature off is a forceful invasion of privacy - what if I don't want to be saved? She re-assured me that really, the technology to track cell phones so precisely was too expensive and only government agencies could do it. Really? There have been a few articles in the media about the use of off-the-shelf software that provided the ability (albeit on opt-in bases) to track select cell phones and, by extension, their owners. this page gave some ideas on the directions in which location tracking could develop soon after the FCC mandate.
The service rep was rather interested in the news that the technology for actually tracking gps enabled devices is not so expensive (creation and maintenance of the gps system, however, is. But that's beside the point). She then suggested that since there is no central wireless number directory, the concern that someone at random may monitor a cell phone is not so scary. Well, not so fast.. wireless providers have been trying to establish a wireless directory - white pages and have been deterred by the house of reprsentatives. They have been deliberating amending the Communications Act of 1934 to protect cell phone user privacy. At the moment it is unclear which direction this particular decision will go, however, if the wireless carriers win, they stand to make a pretty sum of money for charging subscribers an "opt out" fee like the landline companies do.
The sales rep was somewhat speechless. She sounded a bit appalled when she told me she'd had no idea these things were happening and thanked me for providing this information. She was sure going to investigate all of this as it sounded just plain wrong! I concluded that pushing this further would be plain evil and conceded to buy the new phone (since mine had been threatening to die for the last month or so).
Conclusion: sales reps have no idea what happens in their industry and the pitch they use to sell their product to customers is often outdated and incorrect. Furthermore, these people really do not understand the workings of the medium they cell, providing little or no support for customers who are often lost and confused somewhere in the three pines of the decision making process... lessee how this new audiovoxi foxi phone will do :) Damn, forgot to ask her what she thought of the new $1.00 additional fee tha PA is going to require all wireless providers charge their customers in order to pay for e-911 implementation... oh well... next time... I am sure I will have reason to call...
27 January, 2004
Wireless Directory Program Faces Privacy Concerns
Wireless Directory plans are under scrutiny by Capitol Hill lawmakers due to privacy concerns. Carrier efforts to create wireless white pages may face legislation aimed at protecting consumers' privacy. Introduced in the United States House of Representatives and the Senate, the Wireless 411 Consumer Privacy Act would require existing consumers to 'opt in' and new ones to 'opt out.' It also says consumers cannot be charged a fee in order to keep their number private. Landline operators charge a fee for the unlisted service, generating $50 million in revenue per year. Analysts expect the wireless directory assistance business to generate $3 billion per year. Carriers are working under the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) umbrella to nail down details of such a service and address privacy concerns. There is no need for regulation with consumer protections already in place that ban telemarketing to wireless phones and Do-Not-Call options, CTIA said. Carriers will move foward on their own schedules, but a directory is expected some time this year. (Source: New York Times)
The debate about this white pages issues is somewhat worrying and points to a misunderstanding of the social intricacies of cellular phones by wireless carriers. Again this hinges on the distinction between a place and a person and the ability to call a place vs. calling a person. A cell phone number is associated with a specific person almost the same way as their drivers license and their haircut are associated with them. Its is a really personal "feature" if you will. By making this number available to anyone who cares to access the white pages is like hanging out your laundry to dry and inviting everyone to come look at them knickers. While a landline designated a place, the cell phone number designates a person and the person may want to be in charge of who gets to obtain the other end of their electronic leash.
CTIA claims that, since there are already safeguards in place that do not allow telemarketers to call cellular phones, individual privacy is considered and nothing more needs to be done. It is as if they refuse to acknowledge just how different from a regular phone a cell phone can be. The problem here is control over dissemination of personal information, that concerns something extremely personal, sometihng that is so directly tied to an individual. Making cellular phone numbers available through a white pages system would essentially wrench that control away from the owner.
Maybe CTIA though, is just pretending that they do not understand these intricacies. They do, and what they want, is not the white pages system, but the revenue from those that desire their phone number to be private. They openly acknowledge that they expect to make 6 times the amount landline companies make by charging a fee for unlisting a number. This indicates that they realize how many more people would be willing to buy their privacy and control over the other end of the leash this way.
The debate about this white pages issues is somewhat worrying and points to a misunderstanding of the social intricacies of cellular phones by wireless carriers. Again this hinges on the distinction between a place and a person and the ability to call a place vs. calling a person. A cell phone number is associated with a specific person almost the same way as their drivers license and their haircut are associated with them. Its is a really personal "feature" if you will. By making this number available to anyone who cares to access the white pages is like hanging out your laundry to dry and inviting everyone to come look at them knickers. While a landline designated a place, the cell phone number designates a person and the person may want to be in charge of who gets to obtain the other end of their electronic leash.
CTIA claims that, since there are already safeguards in place that do not allow telemarketers to call cellular phones, individual privacy is considered and nothing more needs to be done. It is as if they refuse to acknowledge just how different from a regular phone a cell phone can be. The problem here is control over dissemination of personal information, that concerns something extremely personal, sometihng that is so directly tied to an individual. Making cellular phone numbers available through a white pages system would essentially wrench that control away from the owner.
Maybe CTIA though, is just pretending that they do not understand these intricacies. They do, and what they want, is not the white pages system, but the revenue from those that desire their phone number to be private. They openly acknowledge that they expect to make 6 times the amount landline companies make by charging a fee for unlisting a number. This indicates that they realize how many more people would be willing to buy their privacy and control over the other end of the leash this way.
26 January, 2004
Web Journals Get Noticed on the Campaign Trail
Web Journals Get Noticed on the Campaign Trail - TPM gets some publicity in NYT AP. Its an interesting article on political blogging and the biases behind it.
Politics of the Web: Meet, Greet, Segregate, Meet Again
Politics of the Web: Meet, Greet, Segregate, Meet Again While this article concerns itself with political websites and exasperation of being unable to preach to non-converted, there is an interesting idea there. For a while now, the blogging community has considered whether we are preaching to the converted and whether this breadth of offering on the internet is actually narrowing our point of view. People like hearing things that align themselves with their own opinions. With so much information on the Internet it becomes increasingly easy to seek out information that suits each individual interest and to avoid information that present an opposing point of view. AT some point though, these opposing factions will have to meet face to face anyway... so what will happen then? or will we forget how to argue in person by that time and hide behind our laptop screens to blog about the encounter and never really hear each other out?
The Tyranny of Copyright?
The Tyranny of Copyright? an interesting article in the NYT on the debate surrounding intellectual property and digital (re)production of ideas.
Survey Says Americans Hate to Love Mobiles
A recent survey by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Boston studied a list of consumer inventions that Americans love to hate. The survey found that cell phones topped the list; this despite their ever-growing popularity. The Lemelson-MIT Invention Index found that 30 percent of those surveyed love to hate cell phones but can't live without them. In response to the survey?s results, Lemelson Center Director Merton C. Flemings says, ?The interconnectedness you get from the cell phone is a very positive thing, and I think that's one of the most important things, the bringing together of people. The downside of that is that you sometimes want to be alone. (Source: AP)
In the index, the cell phone actually narrowly beat the alarm clock and the television. Ok... so the hate for the alarm clock I most certainly undestand at 7am when my brain purposefully tries to work the screeching sound into yet another dream and repeatedly fails. I must say that cell phone beating alarm clock is only close in my book because my cell phone IS my alarm clock actually... and many other things. I wonder if that is one of the reasons why its so prevalently hated and loved at the same time?
Seriously though... Merton Fleming's comment is thought fodder. Yes the cell phone is positive because it is bringin poeple together. Actually I think its even more - it creates a sense of belonging, a current indicator of other's interest in yourself. Yet there are many side-effects. The cell phone has associated a phone number with a person, when landlines used to associate a phone number with a place. So when you called a place you weren't necessarily going to find the person there and that was expected. Now when you call the person you certainly expect to hear them, and at the very least to be able to leave them a message, expecting some action in return. This level of expectation may produce quite a bit of pressure to be present and to respond, unlike the earlier landline system. So the sentiment of "sometimes you want to be alone" isn't so far reaching. The pressure to be present is a new one - the pressure to be available, to report one's location when asked (where are you, being the most commonly asked quesiton in a cell phone conversation). A cell phone has become a leash and a location beacon, and my sense of well being generally depends on it... what a frightening world :)
In the index, the cell phone actually narrowly beat the alarm clock and the television. Ok... so the hate for the alarm clock I most certainly undestand at 7am when my brain purposefully tries to work the screeching sound into yet another dream and repeatedly fails. I must say that cell phone beating alarm clock is only close in my book because my cell phone IS my alarm clock actually... and many other things. I wonder if that is one of the reasons why its so prevalently hated and loved at the same time?
Seriously though... Merton Fleming's comment is thought fodder. Yes the cell phone is positive because it is bringin poeple together. Actually I think its even more - it creates a sense of belonging, a current indicator of other's interest in yourself. Yet there are many side-effects. The cell phone has associated a phone number with a person, when landlines used to associate a phone number with a place. So when you called a place you weren't necessarily going to find the person there and that was expected. Now when you call the person you certainly expect to hear them, and at the very least to be able to leave them a message, expecting some action in return. This level of expectation may produce quite a bit of pressure to be present and to respond, unlike the earlier landline system. So the sentiment of "sometimes you want to be alone" isn't so far reaching. The pressure to be present is a new one - the pressure to be available, to report one's location when asked (where are you, being the most commonly asked quesiton in a cell phone conversation). A cell phone has become a leash and a location beacon, and my sense of well being generally depends on it... what a frightening world :)
23 January, 2004
Study used census information for terror profile - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics
Study used census information for terror profile - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics the article talks about NASA using census survey data to mine for terrorist profiles. Many census surveys collect sensitive personal information and people supply this information, I assume, with an understanding that the data will be anonymized. The fact that this data was misused so blatantly is a lot of bad press and an example of bad practices for survey research DESPITE IRB precautions. It is becoming increasingly difficult to conduct quality survey research because of the growing non-response bias. People are simply unwilling to divulge personal information because of the deluge of invasions of privacy from corporate and governmental agents. Yet results from surveys are integral for policy and business decisions. It is inexcusable for NASA to abuse census data so blatantly both from a professional survey researcher and a private individual point of view.
Wi-Fi Liberates Home Office Workers
For those home office workers who are slaves to Internet access that is tied to the wall of a spare bedroom, garage or attic, liberation is just a wireless hub away. More and more people are finding the home installation of Wi-Fi technology is the cure for what some families deem anti-social behavior. Wi-Fi enables Internet access wirelessly, which enables more interaction with family members and a more flexible work environment. There are some drawbacks, however. Wi-Fi can have transmission problems when networking in older homes, and if neighbors are also a part of the Wi-Fi revolution, there could easily be frequency interference. Microwave ovens and some mobile phones also cause service disruptions. Even with some limitations, Wi-Fi is a giant step toward phone-jack liberation. (Source: New York Times - Jan 15th)
The wording that caught my attention in this summary was that some families dem work-at-home in front of computer a type of anti-social behavior. This is in line with research that finds negative impacts of Internet use on family communication. While the Internet might open the barriers to communicating with friends and distant family, making such communication just a mouse-click away, in-home communication may suffer. Internet use is a fundamentally "alone" activity in that it is difficult to make this a social moment unless you are showing off pictures or something like that. Outside of a few activities, interactions with family get shunted to nods and grunts while all attention is on a computer screen. While Wi-Fi may enable the users to move away from a desk in the corner, I am not sure it will let them be that much more social with their family. Although being able to take your laptop in the yard and check your email while watching your kid play is certainly an improvement.
The wording that caught my attention in this summary was that some families dem work-at-home in front of computer a type of anti-social behavior. This is in line with research that finds negative impacts of Internet use on family communication. While the Internet might open the barriers to communicating with friends and distant family, making such communication just a mouse-click away, in-home communication may suffer. Internet use is a fundamentally "alone" activity in that it is difficult to make this a social moment unless you are showing off pictures or something like that. Outside of a few activities, interactions with family get shunted to nods and grunts while all attention is on a computer screen. While Wi-Fi may enable the users to move away from a desk in the corner, I am not sure it will let them be that much more social with their family. Although being able to take your laptop in the yard and check your email while watching your kid play is certainly an improvement.
British Study Indicates Cell Phones Are Not a Health Risk
An independent advisory group of scientists at the British National Radiological Protection Board reviewed research on the health effects of exposure to radio frequency waves and concluded that mobile phones appear to be safe and do not cause cancer. While the group called for more research into the long-term potential health risks of exposure to radio frequency waves, it said in the report that 'The...evidence does not suggest cancer causation, in particular from mobile phone use...' (Source: Reuters)
yesterday, in a research meeting, this point was brought up and I was reminded of a sort of urban legend again. People still believe that cell phones are dangerous and a risk - you never know what the hell those radio waves are doing to your brain! It seems our reserach group is not the only one having conerns. Time and again we see studies saying there are no health risks (or at least cancer risks). Yet experience with tobacco and some medical research forces me to wonder who financed this research project. And if the risk IS found... how would that affect cell phone adoption? probably not much. Yet who knows...
yesterday, in a research meeting, this point was brought up and I was reminded of a sort of urban legend again. People still believe that cell phones are dangerous and a risk - you never know what the hell those radio waves are doing to your brain! It seems our reserach group is not the only one having conerns. Time and again we see studies saying there are no health risks (or at least cancer risks). Yet experience with tobacco and some medical research forces me to wonder who financed this research project. And if the risk IS found... how would that affect cell phone adoption? probably not much. Yet who knows...
BT Trials Wireless to Landline SMS
Through a trial service, British Telecom customers can send text messages from cell phones to landline phones using newly implemented text-to-speech conversion technology. Through synthetic speech conversion on SMS-enabled phones, the users will be able to send messages to mobile phones using the same system and receive them as text. Users with voice mail systems will have messages delivered directly to their voice mailbox. Recipients without voice mail will receive the text through a phone call where an automated voice will deliver the message. (Source: CommsDesign.com, BWCS)
Wow this is really cool. The idea is to enable text messaging for landline phones. I am wondering what the pricing structure would be and whether that would really have an impact i.e. increase the already popular service. Imagine the fright your granny gets when she picks up the phone and an automated voice says - 'ello gran, b there soon, running a bit l8t. Grandson.
I am curious how text to voice and voice to text will deal with the 112 character limit and the sms-specific text-style that is largely alpha-numeric and uses a series of acronyms and word-crumbs.
Wow this is really cool. The idea is to enable text messaging for landline phones. I am wondering what the pricing structure would be and whether that would really have an impact i.e. increase the already popular service. Imagine the fright your granny gets when she picks up the phone and an automated voice says - 'ello gran, b there soon, running a bit l8t. Grandson.
I am curious how text to voice and voice to text will deal with the 112 character limit and the sms-specific text-style that is largely alpha-numeric and uses a series of acronyms and word-crumbs.
Pennsylvania Cell Customers to Incur New E-911 Charge
The state of Pennsylvania is requiring cell phone companies to charge their subscribers a new monthly surcharge that will be used to buy equipment to enable E-911 services. The new $1 charge will help put in place the necessary equipment and technology to allow 9-1-1 call centers to pinpoint the location of a cell phone caller within 100 feet. The new charge will go in effect in March. (Source: AP) " -
This is great news. So now consumers themselves will have to pay for putting in place technology that, under the usual guise of safety, can be used to track their position for any number of reasons. As a resident of the state of PA, I am sort of miffed. What if I really don't WANT to be saved? I am currently looking into buying a phone and I am tempted to select a phone that is older simply because it DOES NOT include this great 911-feature. The problem with phones equipped with that feature is that you can NOT TURN IT OFF! So an extension is mandated to be added to a device that is so much a part of personal life, that allows third parties to track the user's location! Yes I know this has always been possible since the cell towers have to track your location when you use your phone. The phone then checks in with cell towers constantly. Yet the location estimate from cell towers is inexact whereas the GPS chip in your phone can get it down to a few feet... One of the greatest HCI principles is - always add an off button or a clearly marked exit. Obviously cell phone manufacturers have yet to learn about that one.
This is great news. So now consumers themselves will have to pay for putting in place technology that, under the usual guise of safety, can be used to track their position for any number of reasons. As a resident of the state of PA, I am sort of miffed. What if I really don't WANT to be saved? I am currently looking into buying a phone and I am tempted to select a phone that is older simply because it DOES NOT include this great 911-feature. The problem with phones equipped with that feature is that you can NOT TURN IT OFF! So an extension is mandated to be added to a device that is so much a part of personal life, that allows third parties to track the user's location! Yes I know this has always been possible since the cell towers have to track your location when you use your phone. The phone then checks in with cell towers constantly. Yet the location estimate from cell towers is inexact whereas the GPS chip in your phone can get it down to a few feet... One of the greatest HCI principles is - always add an off button or a clearly marked exit. Obviously cell phone manufacturers have yet to learn about that one.
Arilines changing cell phone policy
"America West Modifies Cell Phone Policy
America West Airlines joined the growing list of major commercial airlines that are modifying their cell phone use policies. Tempe, Ariz., -based America West announced that, effective immediately, passengers on board its jets may use their cell phones after landing, while the aircraft is taxiing to the gate. Additionally, prior to takeoff, passengers may use their cell phones only when the cabin door is open or with permission from the captain during a departure delay. (Source: Phoenix Business Journal)" Many airlines have been modifying their cell phone policies in response to immense pressure from the public. Despite the previous ban (stil active on most airlines) people were texting or even using their cell phones as soon as the plane landed, for a while now. What I am surprised about is the lack of explanation as to why the use of cell phones was banned in the first place. I understand the reasons were pretty good yet none of the airlines ever offered explicit explanations to their passengers. Cell phone use is interesting - it becomes increasingly tempting when we are stuck in unproductive, largely boring pockets of time. Just look arond the airplane next time yours gets delayed... listen in on a few conversations... you cold read or you could talk... and talking seems so much more attractive. There is something really interesting in the presence of this personal communication device and its ubiquity... the voluntary electronic leash that creates that extra moment of a feeling of belonging...
America West Airlines joined the growing list of major commercial airlines that are modifying their cell phone use policies. Tempe, Ariz., -based America West announced that, effective immediately, passengers on board its jets may use their cell phones after landing, while the aircraft is taxiing to the gate. Additionally, prior to takeoff, passengers may use their cell phones only when the cabin door is open or with permission from the captain during a departure delay. (Source: Phoenix Business Journal)" Many airlines have been modifying their cell phone policies in response to immense pressure from the public. Despite the previous ban (stil active on most airlines) people were texting or even using their cell phones as soon as the plane landed, for a while now. What I am surprised about is the lack of explanation as to why the use of cell phones was banned in the first place. I understand the reasons were pretty good yet none of the airlines ever offered explicit explanations to their passengers. Cell phone use is interesting - it becomes increasingly tempting when we are stuck in unproductive, largely boring pockets of time. Just look arond the airplane next time yours gets delayed... listen in on a few conversations... you cold read or you could talk... and talking seems so much more attractive. There is something really interesting in the presence of this personal communication device and its ubiquity... the voluntary electronic leash that creates that extra moment of a feeling of belonging...
19 January, 2004
E-Commerce Report: Television Commercials Come to the Web
E-Commerce Report: Television Commercials Come to the Web BRACE FOR IMPACT!... So this thing will sneak onto your machine (its unclear how secure this is, I am suspecting, not very) and then take over your browser for at least several minutes! In the deluge of action you CAN skip the ad by finding a tiny button. Wonderful... I just want to see how this would go on my modem connection! (growl) Note to self: next time I see one of these (if I am unlucky enough to be tagged by them) I WILL find the 800 number of the company that infected my machine with this nastiness, call them and yell at them for at least 10 minutes... sigh... I HOPE someone will soon come up with a blocker for THESE. Pop-up ads were bad enough.
Gaming With an Opponent Who�s �Over There�
Gaming With an Opponent Who's "Over There" This article was a fascinating piece of contemporary landscape. When the soldiers overseas were asked what they wanted most, they didn't ask for more phone time with family. They wanted to play video games with family and their buddies around the world. This is something interesting and new. Just talk is boring, talk together with action, a focused activity which illustrates more personal characteristics than a conversation, is more entertaining, fulfilling. Participants report feeling closer and enjoying these sessions more. Food for thought for entertainers and those that are looking for the next killer app...
16 January, 2004
My So-Called Blog
My So-Called Blog After spending nearly two months obsessively reading LiveJournal posts for CHI short papers Mark Handel and I had submitted just last Monday, it is amusing to find this article. Really cool, in depth description of the phenomenon and I find it interesting that LJ-users are called emo's, considering that Mark's and mine project on LiveJournal centered around Moods :)
yes I am finally getting through my back-log of New York Times articles that I neglected to read over the last week while lost in the haze of paper deadlines
current mood: spunky
yes I am finally getting through my back-log of New York Times articles that I neglected to read over the last week while lost in the haze of paper deadlines
current mood: spunky
Study refutes 'Net geeks' repute | CNET News.com
Study refutes 'Net geeks' repute | CNET News.com There is something strange about finding references to data that is nearly four years old(!!) as something new and refreshing. The above-mentioned article refers to data collected by the UCLA World Internet project lead by Jeffrey Cole. I've been working with this data for nearly two years now and we have all been waiting for the long promised longitudinal analysis, which, as it turned out, wasn't possible due to some bad initial data-collection decisions. No matter though, it seems the project has no problems making causal claims despite having only cross-sectional data and explicitly comparing Internet users and non-users!
"Use of the Internet is reducing television viewing around the world while having little impact on positive aspects of social life," said Jeffrey Cole, director of the UCLA Center for Communication Policy, the California university that organized the project.
What??? While the claim itself might not be wrong, Jeffrey Cole, I dare say, has no data that would allow him to make this claim! Cross-sectional analyses produce correlations but compare essentially different populations (of users and non-users). Yes it is possible to use statistical controls to attempt to control for differences between these populations, but that is both error-prone and invariably incomplete. It is simply impossible to measure ALL differences between these populations. The very decision of whether to use the Internet or not differentiates the two populations, that also happen to differ on many other aspects. Yes there maybe a strong statistical association between TV watching and Internet use, yet that is no basis for a causal claim! Such blunders are infuriating, especially when presented in mass media, where readers lack statistical and methodological training to realize these mistakes and not to take these results on face value! This type of data does not allow us to say that Internet use in effect causes declines in TV watching. There maybe a host of other reasons for why these populations have different patterns of both TV watching (insert sociability, depression, any other variable of interest here) and Internet use and none of those are considered.
On another point - simple comparisons between users and non-users are simply insensitive. People have extremely different patterns of Internet use both in breadth of its applications and in its intensity. Simply lumping all Internet users together may lead to erroneous conclusions. For example, what if people who use the Internet a lot but only for entertainmnet, actually watch TV more, but those that use it for communication or news, watch TV less? What if people who use the Internet only a little substitute that activity for TV watching simply because they are just not big media users and they get their "fill" from Internet now. Wouldn't that change the picture? yet the project's analyses would never be able to detect these distinctions yet their conclusions certainly "sound" strong in the article!
source: Many2Many
"Use of the Internet is reducing television viewing around the world while having little impact on positive aspects of social life," said Jeffrey Cole, director of the UCLA Center for Communication Policy, the California university that organized the project.
What??? While the claim itself might not be wrong, Jeffrey Cole, I dare say, has no data that would allow him to make this claim! Cross-sectional analyses produce correlations but compare essentially different populations (of users and non-users). Yes it is possible to use statistical controls to attempt to control for differences between these populations, but that is both error-prone and invariably incomplete. It is simply impossible to measure ALL differences between these populations. The very decision of whether to use the Internet or not differentiates the two populations, that also happen to differ on many other aspects. Yes there maybe a strong statistical association between TV watching and Internet use, yet that is no basis for a causal claim! Such blunders are infuriating, especially when presented in mass media, where readers lack statistical and methodological training to realize these mistakes and not to take these results on face value! This type of data does not allow us to say that Internet use in effect causes declines in TV watching. There maybe a host of other reasons for why these populations have different patterns of both TV watching (insert sociability, depression, any other variable of interest here) and Internet use and none of those are considered.
On another point - simple comparisons between users and non-users are simply insensitive. People have extremely different patterns of Internet use both in breadth of its applications and in its intensity. Simply lumping all Internet users together may lead to erroneous conclusions. For example, what if people who use the Internet a lot but only for entertainmnet, actually watch TV more, but those that use it for communication or news, watch TV less? What if people who use the Internet only a little substitute that activity for TV watching simply because they are just not big media users and they get their "fill" from Internet now. Wouldn't that change the picture? yet the project's analyses would never be able to detect these distinctions yet their conclusions certainly "sound" strong in the article!
source: Many2Many
09 January, 2004
ACM Queue - IM, Not IP (Information Pollution) - A steady dose of realtime interruptions is toxic to anyone's health.
ACM Queue - IM, Not IP (Information Pollution) - A steady dose of realtime interruptions is toxic to anyone's health.: "Whether or not you believe in my control panel, the most important point is to change our ideology for computer-mediated communication. The old thinking was that more information was better. If a unit of information were sent, it would have to be transmitted and received at all costs. The new thinking must be that human time is our most precious resource. Stop strip-mining it." - I found this article via Rebecca's Pocket - my favorite source for all things random and fascinating. Yet this article in particular really troubles me.
Jake Nielsen seems to perceive IM as the new scourge of our time. With email bogged down by never-ending SPAM, he sees IM as a band-aid to the situation. In fact, he suggests that the main reason IM is gaining in popularitly among the adult population is because e-mail is so bogged down, its difficult to navigate through the spam-ridden inbox to answer in a timely manner. Nielsen proposes to "save" email by producing a sort of an intelligent-agent control panel that reduces IM "interruptions".
Yet I think Jakob Nielsen might be missing something here. E-mail is not dying and no one is killing it. Simply, its being relegated to perform functions that fit the needs of its users more. E-mail is great at relating timely yet not too urgent information, sending attachments, leaving messages. IM, on the other hand, is a way to get an instant answer in the event that your correspondent is available. Both forms of communication can produce more or less corse interruptions (from pop-ups to tool-bar tray icons), yet IM already allows its users a higher degree of control (indicating a busy or unavailable status in some programs, ability to make self invisible in others).
I don't think IM is an answer to overload of e-mail. In fact, the two mediums perform very different fucntions for its users. It is myopic to simply start crying wolf about those nasty interruptions that decrease our productivity by "letting your agenda be controlled by anybody who has your screen name". This statement makes the assumption that e-mail does not have this effect on our productivity and the little "new mail" icon in the tool-bar tray really doesn't attract anyone's attention.
Yes new ideas on how to control attention and access are in order. I agree it is necessary to re-evaluate how to deal with the candy-attention-grabbing qualities of the Internet when many of us have problems concentrating as it is. Yet misunderstanding a technology and thus dubbing it much less than what it is - a light-weight communication technology that provides a way to keep in contact and instantly exchange ideas - is not the answer. In fact, a colleague of mine pointed out last night that Jakob Nielsen's reaction to IM is reminiscent of a novice adult user. Many new users feel overwhelmed by this new mode of communication until they understand the social norms that have evolved with its use. Few people expect all their IM's answered immediately, just like we expect to spend a fraction of time talking to each other's voicemail even when calling a cell phone.
That human time is our most precious resource is NOT new thinking. This has been (or at least should have been) the thinking all along. Coming from CMU with all its legacy of Alan Newell and Herbert Simon, I can point to those luminaries and their concerns of the limits of human attention two decades ago! It has taken technologists about that amount of time to realize that information overload is real and problematic. Yet instant communication might not be the worst of it. In fact, it might be an elegant solution to some problems with heavier and more commiting forms of communication, such as email.
Source: Rebecca's Pocket
Jake Nielsen seems to perceive IM as the new scourge of our time. With email bogged down by never-ending SPAM, he sees IM as a band-aid to the situation. In fact, he suggests that the main reason IM is gaining in popularitly among the adult population is because e-mail is so bogged down, its difficult to navigate through the spam-ridden inbox to answer in a timely manner. Nielsen proposes to "save" email by producing a sort of an intelligent-agent control panel that reduces IM "interruptions".
Yet I think Jakob Nielsen might be missing something here. E-mail is not dying and no one is killing it. Simply, its being relegated to perform functions that fit the needs of its users more. E-mail is great at relating timely yet not too urgent information, sending attachments, leaving messages. IM, on the other hand, is a way to get an instant answer in the event that your correspondent is available. Both forms of communication can produce more or less corse interruptions (from pop-ups to tool-bar tray icons), yet IM already allows its users a higher degree of control (indicating a busy or unavailable status in some programs, ability to make self invisible in others).
I don't think IM is an answer to overload of e-mail. In fact, the two mediums perform very different fucntions for its users. It is myopic to simply start crying wolf about those nasty interruptions that decrease our productivity by "letting your agenda be controlled by anybody who has your screen name". This statement makes the assumption that e-mail does not have this effect on our productivity and the little "new mail" icon in the tool-bar tray really doesn't attract anyone's attention.
Yes new ideas on how to control attention and access are in order. I agree it is necessary to re-evaluate how to deal with the candy-attention-grabbing qualities of the Internet when many of us have problems concentrating as it is. Yet misunderstanding a technology and thus dubbing it much less than what it is - a light-weight communication technology that provides a way to keep in contact and instantly exchange ideas - is not the answer. In fact, a colleague of mine pointed out last night that Jakob Nielsen's reaction to IM is reminiscent of a novice adult user. Many new users feel overwhelmed by this new mode of communication until they understand the social norms that have evolved with its use. Few people expect all their IM's answered immediately, just like we expect to spend a fraction of time talking to each other's voicemail even when calling a cell phone.
That human time is our most precious resource is NOT new thinking. This has been (or at least should have been) the thinking all along. Coming from CMU with all its legacy of Alan Newell and Herbert Simon, I can point to those luminaries and their concerns of the limits of human attention two decades ago! It has taken technologists about that amount of time to realize that information overload is real and problematic. Yet instant communication might not be the worst of it. In fact, it might be an elegant solution to some problems with heavier and more commiting forms of communication, such as email.
Source: Rebecca's Pocket
07 January, 2004
sp!ked-IT | Article | 'Ethnography' exposed
sp!ked-IT | Article | 'Ethnography' exposed - this article in Spiked, highlights a few interesting points, although it tries to focus on some versions of "unsuccessful" ethnography and propose that maybe there should be "better" ethnography - a point that is not particularily innovative, although relevant. Recent interest in "getting to know the consumer" may reflect a sudden realization on the part of technologists - that the user is not like them (a motto of the CMU HCI program) and that they need to understand the user in order to get ahead. How does one find out what the user wants? Well, you can ask, can't you? The two competing methodologies of the "asking" process at the moment are - large scale survey research (where many people are asked to respond to present survey questions), and in depth interviews and observations (the people stories, or, something Genevieve Bell calls "deep hanging out").
What has bothered me most though, was why those methodologies are competing. Each has drawbacks and advantages which can complement each other if done in tandem. The problem being - who really has time and ability to do both (not to mention funding, of course)? That's besides the fact that ethnographers often do not have the statistical training and knowledge of survey researchers while survey researchers do not have the theoretical background to discern patterns in observations thus making them useful. At the same time, the two kinds of methodologists quite dislike each other, which is even more counterproductive.
Getting back to the lack of theoretical background point though, I believe it is precisely this lack, that precipitates bad ethnography in market research and politics. Spiked article laments that observations from such research are often mundane, limiting possibility of creative solutions provided by those able to look at the bigger picture. Yet bigger picture does not necessarily have to come from people absolutely unfamiliar with small details that can only be discerned through "deep hanging out". Theoretical background - good knowledge of Goffman's theories for example - might provide a way for a researcher to combine a close focus and the ability to see a bigger picture. In fact, theoretical training is essential for ethnographic observation to be useful for understanding how small pieces fit in that bigger picture.
Proliferation of pseudo ethnography is worrying to a certain extent. Social science has long been struggling with public misinterpreting research results because they do not have the theoretical or statistical training to turn a critical eye on the methods, and tend to take most conclusions at face value. Pseudo ethnography might have a damaging effect on real and useful ethnography, such as done by Mizuko Ito or Nina Wakeford, in the public eye, discrediting social science even further, making the drive to connect quantitative and qualitative research that much more futile.
What has bothered me most though, was why those methodologies are competing. Each has drawbacks and advantages which can complement each other if done in tandem. The problem being - who really has time and ability to do both (not to mention funding, of course)? That's besides the fact that ethnographers often do not have the statistical training and knowledge of survey researchers while survey researchers do not have the theoretical background to discern patterns in observations thus making them useful. At the same time, the two kinds of methodologists quite dislike each other, which is even more counterproductive.
Getting back to the lack of theoretical background point though, I believe it is precisely this lack, that precipitates bad ethnography in market research and politics. Spiked article laments that observations from such research are often mundane, limiting possibility of creative solutions provided by those able to look at the bigger picture. Yet bigger picture does not necessarily have to come from people absolutely unfamiliar with small details that can only be discerned through "deep hanging out". Theoretical background - good knowledge of Goffman's theories for example - might provide a way for a researcher to combine a close focus and the ability to see a bigger picture. In fact, theoretical training is essential for ethnographic observation to be useful for understanding how small pieces fit in that bigger picture.
Proliferation of pseudo ethnography is worrying to a certain extent. Social science has long been struggling with public misinterpreting research results because they do not have the theoretical or statistical training to turn a critical eye on the methods, and tend to take most conclusions at face value. Pseudo ethnography might have a damaging effect on real and useful ethnography, such as done by Mizuko Ito or Nina Wakeford, in the public eye, discrediting social science even further, making the drive to connect quantitative and qualitative research that much more futile.
Songwriters Say Piracy Eats Into Their Pay
Songwriters Say Piracy Eats Into Their Pay. The debate around music downloading and its effect on creative professional's income has been running through the same set of arguments since Metallica & Dr. Dre decided to cry wolf about Napster. It usually goes something like this - my song has been downloaded N millions of times and if everyone of those that downloaded my song had bought a CD I would have made oodles of money! I am sure that such comparisons make for uncomforatble realizations. The quesiton is, however, are these concerns realistic?
While many people download music, many download music they would have never gotten around to listening to otherwise. May people get exposure to new forms of music, new sounds and styles, through the practice of searching for music online and downloading more than you were looking for. A sort of impulse shopping but on a larger scale. This introduction to new things can be really valuable in creating larger and more diverse audiences for artists. There is certainly a subset of people that only listens to mp3's and such, but that subset is still small. Some people then are moved to buy CD's they would have never thought of buying precisely because of this introduction.
On the other hand, the music industry has long had a way to force people to buy a full CD sometimes for a single song. Music downloading offers listenders a way to hand-pick their selections without having to listen through a dozen of uninteresting creations just to get one they are interested in. There is a clear business model, yet this model requires change, which, I suppose, an established industry is not particularily keen on.
While many people download music, many download music they would have never gotten around to listening to otherwise. May people get exposure to new forms of music, new sounds and styles, through the practice of searching for music online and downloading more than you were looking for. A sort of impulse shopping but on a larger scale. This introduction to new things can be really valuable in creating larger and more diverse audiences for artists. There is certainly a subset of people that only listens to mp3's and such, but that subset is still small. Some people then are moved to buy CD's they would have never thought of buying precisely because of this introduction.
On the other hand, the music industry has long had a way to force people to buy a full CD sometimes for a single song. Music downloading offers listenders a way to hand-pick their selections without having to listen through a dozen of uninteresting creations just to get one they are interested in. There is a clear business model, yet this model requires change, which, I suppose, an established industry is not particularily keen on.
BBC NEWS | Technology | Old mobiles 'dumped' at Christmas
BBC NEWS reports that old mobiles were 'dumped' in large numbers at Christmas. The buzz around information technologies is still increasing yet the waste is not far behind. The attraction of new phones and improvements without clear and easy ways to recycle older phones is creating an ever larger recylcling problem. Phone manufacturers do not spend time creating head-sets that are less toxic but the race for gadget-feature-bloat in phones has forced phone-makers to focus on extra features and racing to sell new phones to users.
25 December, 2003
Happy 2004
Warren Ellis posted 2004 wishes and greetings and thoughts from many people. Really cool and very entertaining.
23 December, 2003
John Barlow on the Economy of Mind
This article made a big impression on me when I read it for the first time a while back. Now I see Joi Ito referencing is and it brings back a host of thoughtful memories. Our lives are changing as technology is clawing its way into acceptance for normality. Does it bring us together or push us apart? Time will tell and I don't think anyone can really predict. Technology is a tool and the users of the tool will eventually determine the overall impact of its presence.
ZDNet UK - News - Online growth plateaus
ZDNet UK - News - Online growth plateaus. It looks like the Internet growth has slowed down from its gargantuan proportions. The new Pew Internet and American Life study reports that the growth has plateaued at around 2/3 of the population. The study also focused on how people use the Internet. This is both interesting and important. Pew Internet were among the first to consider that the how of Internet use is important to understanding the impact of said use. The latest report shows that the patterns of use have not changed, but the variety of services used have steadily increased in popularity. I am curious how this landscape is going to change in the next 3-5 years, when the current "net generation" of college kids starts graduating college and joining the workforce.
The Pew organization does an amazing job of tracking Internet use. I only wonder if it would be possible to convince them to do another set of longitudinal data collections as they did with one of their studies in 2000 & 2001. Longitudinal studies done by Pew would give provide unique detailed data on changes in Internet use and other behavior over time, allowing scientists to test causal hypotheses of the impact of Internet use on outcomes of interest. So how would one convince Pew to put down the buck into such an enterprise? Longitudinal studies take a lot of time, effort and expense...
The Pew organization does an amazing job of tracking Internet use. I only wonder if it would be possible to convince them to do another set of longitudinal data collections as they did with one of their studies in 2000 & 2001. Longitudinal studies done by Pew would give provide unique detailed data on changes in Internet use and other behavior over time, allowing scientists to test causal hypotheses of the impact of Internet use on outcomes of interest. So how would one convince Pew to put down the buck into such an enterprise? Longitudinal studies take a lot of time, effort and expense...
22 December, 2003
I Spy with my little eye...
Lost? Hiding? Your Cellphone Is Keeping Tabs triumphantly announces NYT in its quite interesting if a little eery article. While parents watching their children is a function of this technology that is a little obsessive (and probably somewhat damaging for the said children's sense of independence) it is inconsequential. The potential for abuse of this information is absolutely fantastic.
The most impressive thing about this, is that it is impossible to turn it off on your phone. Mine, for example, allows me to choose between a "location On" option and a "911 Only" option. I realize the concept of "help and safety" being employed here, but what if I simply don't want to be saved in return for my ability to retain the relative anonymity of my location. This world is already too small for comfort. So under the guise of worry and care comes the discomfort of surveillance by private individuals of private individuals. The law is unclear on the topic, but business is not - surveillance is money. Of course, advocates of the technology will always point to safety benefits, which, most certainly, comes at a price of freedom and privacy in this case. Is it worth it?
Yes, Howard Rheingold (via scott) has some insightful musings about this concept, yet he seems woefully behind the times. For one, he is speaking in future tense about this! "Are we going to be walking around?". Howard, we already ARE walking around with location aware devices.
At the advent of the Internet, the academia was enamoured with the possibilities - oh the anonymity, oh the ability to play out different selves, oh the freedom, oh the convenience... wait a minute... convenience? Most academics are only now catching on - the Internet never gave freedom. If anything, it took it away. The Internet killed the concept of privacy and the users and the academics caught on only now... and now is a little too late. Have you ever been to an academic privacy panel? It nearly immediately degenerates into a spam gripe session. The issue though, isn't spam, spam is just a minor manifestation of the bigger problem - what you do on the Internet can be connected to you and the traces are retained forever... Are you ready for this kind of persistence of memory?
And all this really comes down to is choice. In this case we are not even given a choice whether to receive location specific advertising, to allow someone else (911 included!) to track our location, to consent to email to be sent to us. Most would probably say yes to those questions anyway, but having the choice is the important part. We might not exercise it but we must be given the choice in order to honestly say that we still live in some bastardized version of a "still free" society. Privacy practitioners are split on the definition of privacy - people say one thing, do another, what do they mean by privacy? That definition is simple, I think.
Privacy is the ability to control information about self, its dissemination and its use. That ability should not come at a price of convenience, at a price that forces one to give up the urban contemporary lifestyle. At the moment, if I don't want to give up my privacy, I very well could get out of an urban environment and go live in a cabin in Montana, without telephone, electricity, etc. I would probably have to buy a spool of aluminium and surround my home with it in order to prevent them pesky satellites locating me anyway (sounds a little bit paranoid doesn't it?) Nevertheless, acheiving this kind of privacy is still possible... at the price of giving up my life. That price requires me to have enough resources to finance my dip into oblivion.
This points to another interesting outcome. We are fast approaching the age where privacy is a luxury available to those rich with resources. Since the industrial revolution, a working man could not afford principles. Those were the lot of the well to do, the noble born, the bored intelligencia. Privacy is fast becoming such a principle. It is a frightening concept.
The most impressive thing about this, is that it is impossible to turn it off on your phone. Mine, for example, allows me to choose between a "location On" option and a "911 Only" option. I realize the concept of "help and safety" being employed here, but what if I simply don't want to be saved in return for my ability to retain the relative anonymity of my location. This world is already too small for comfort. So under the guise of worry and care comes the discomfort of surveillance by private individuals of private individuals. The law is unclear on the topic, but business is not - surveillance is money. Of course, advocates of the technology will always point to safety benefits, which, most certainly, comes at a price of freedom and privacy in this case. Is it worth it?
Yes, Howard Rheingold (via scott) has some insightful musings about this concept, yet he seems woefully behind the times. For one, he is speaking in future tense about this! "Are we going to be walking around?". Howard, we already ARE walking around with location aware devices.
At the advent of the Internet, the academia was enamoured with the possibilities - oh the anonymity, oh the ability to play out different selves, oh the freedom, oh the convenience... wait a minute... convenience? Most academics are only now catching on - the Internet never gave freedom. If anything, it took it away. The Internet killed the concept of privacy and the users and the academics caught on only now... and now is a little too late. Have you ever been to an academic privacy panel? It nearly immediately degenerates into a spam gripe session. The issue though, isn't spam, spam is just a minor manifestation of the bigger problem - what you do on the Internet can be connected to you and the traces are retained forever... Are you ready for this kind of persistence of memory?
And all this really comes down to is choice. In this case we are not even given a choice whether to receive location specific advertising, to allow someone else (911 included!) to track our location, to consent to email to be sent to us. Most would probably say yes to those questions anyway, but having the choice is the important part. We might not exercise it but we must be given the choice in order to honestly say that we still live in some bastardized version of a "still free" society. Privacy practitioners are split on the definition of privacy - people say one thing, do another, what do they mean by privacy? That definition is simple, I think.
Privacy is the ability to control information about self, its dissemination and its use. That ability should not come at a price of convenience, at a price that forces one to give up the urban contemporary lifestyle. At the moment, if I don't want to give up my privacy, I very well could get out of an urban environment and go live in a cabin in Montana, without telephone, electricity, etc. I would probably have to buy a spool of aluminium and surround my home with it in order to prevent them pesky satellites locating me anyway (sounds a little bit paranoid doesn't it?) Nevertheless, acheiving this kind of privacy is still possible... at the price of giving up my life. That price requires me to have enough resources to finance my dip into oblivion.
This points to another interesting outcome. We are fast approaching the age where privacy is a luxury available to those rich with resources. Since the industrial revolution, a working man could not afford principles. Those were the lot of the well to do, the noble born, the bored intelligencia. Privacy is fast becoming such a principle. It is a frightening concept.
16 December, 2003
Drop the dead-weight of that landline, Jack!
"Research Shows More Americans to Switch to Wireless
A recent nationwide consumer survey on wireless number portability (WNP) revealed that more and more Americans are planning to drop their home phone for wireless. InsightExpress conducted the research that was commissioned by Standard & Poor's Equity Research Services reports. S&P says almost 10 percent of current fixed line customers would take their business and their number to a wireless carrier based on the new rules. This figure alone is more than double the amounts of customers that have thus far cut the cord. The survey also found that when switching to wireless, customers are primarily looking for attractive pricing and quality of service. (Source: Cellular-News.com)"
Hmm... watch the baby-bells shiver at the thought of loosing 10% of their customers. I am looking forward to finding out how many of the new movers from the national mover-study I am currently running have decided to drop their landline service and kept their cell phone (without switching to a new number at least immediately) after the move. Since wireless companies do not provide forwarding services like landline companies did (or at least most do not), many movers keep their old cell phone numbers for a while, until they find it too cumbersome (or maybe until they have built a social network in their new location and ties with their old social network don't seem as desperately important anymore - people who matter will switch the number for you in their cell phone. Long-distance is mostly free these days anyway). Hmmm... another three months until reasonable data comes in.... impatient :)
A recent nationwide consumer survey on wireless number portability (WNP) revealed that more and more Americans are planning to drop their home phone for wireless. InsightExpress conducted the research that was commissioned by Standard & Poor's Equity Research Services reports. S&P says almost 10 percent of current fixed line customers would take their business and their number to a wireless carrier based on the new rules. This figure alone is more than double the amounts of customers that have thus far cut the cord. The survey also found that when switching to wireless, customers are primarily looking for attractive pricing and quality of service. (Source: Cellular-News.com)"
Hmm... watch the baby-bells shiver at the thought of loosing 10% of their customers. I am looking forward to finding out how many of the new movers from the national mover-study I am currently running have decided to drop their landline service and kept their cell phone (without switching to a new number at least immediately) after the move. Since wireless companies do not provide forwarding services like landline companies did (or at least most do not), many movers keep their old cell phone numbers for a while, until they find it too cumbersome (or maybe until they have built a social network in their new location and ties with their old social network don't seem as desperately important anymore - people who matter will switch the number for you in their cell phone. Long-distance is mostly free these days anyway). Hmmm... another three months until reasonable data comes in.... impatient :)
A sure way to kill SMS in the US - SMS spam is on its way...
Ok, here are two little blurbs via CTIA daily news wire that make me REALLY WORRIED!
mBlox Unveils New Cross-Carrier SMS Product
SMS infrastructure services provider mBlox, Inc. unveiled its Premium SMS product set for the U.S. wireless market. The new service allows customers, such as mobile marketers, advertisers, retail service providers and affinity networks to seamlessly access all premium-rate, SMS-capable U.S. wireless carriers, providing a complete package of SMS delivery, revenue settlement, and SMS micro-billing. The service is enabled by mBlox's integration with carrier SMS transport and wireless billing systems. (Source: PR NewWire)
Short Codes Could Spark Surge in Mobile Marketing
The recent launch of Common Short Codes in the wireless marketplace could open a surge in opportunities for the mobile marketing industry. As content providers, advertisers and marketers adopt the new SMS-based service, it will open the door to broader use of text messaging in sweepstakes, contests, coupons and other promotional devices. Jim Manis, vice president of M-Qube and global chairman of the Mobile Marketing Association says, "The real value of Common Short Codes is the personal nature of the mobile phone. It's being able to target and personally communicate with people." Manis predicts a rise in common short code use early next year, when many marketers initiate new budgets. (Source: DM News, NY)
While there IS an FCC ruling that says marketers can not use cell phone numbers unless customers explicitly requested to get promotions on their cell phones, I wonder what will happen with SMS. Most carriers in the US also charge for incoming text messages regardless of its sender. The new short codes and software for locating all SMS capable phone numbers seems to provide a frightening amount of power to marketers though. I HOPE this does not happen. I love using SMS and find it one of the most useful features of my phone. However, SMS is just starting to gain users in the US. If marketers start spamming before users become comfortable with SMS, it is likely that many will prefer not to use the feature. In fact, I am positive that I will be calling Verizon and asking them to completely disable SMS as soon as my phone starts getting flooded with messages.
I wonder how long it will take for a consumer class action suit against both carriers and marketers for the charges incurred from unwanted and unrequested messages too... hmmm...
mBlox Unveils New Cross-Carrier SMS Product
SMS infrastructure services provider mBlox, Inc. unveiled its Premium SMS product set for the U.S. wireless market. The new service allows customers, such as mobile marketers, advertisers, retail service providers and affinity networks to seamlessly access all premium-rate, SMS-capable U.S. wireless carriers, providing a complete package of SMS delivery, revenue settlement, and SMS micro-billing. The service is enabled by mBlox's integration with carrier SMS transport and wireless billing systems. (Source: PR NewWire)
Short Codes Could Spark Surge in Mobile Marketing
The recent launch of Common Short Codes in the wireless marketplace could open a surge in opportunities for the mobile marketing industry. As content providers, advertisers and marketers adopt the new SMS-based service, it will open the door to broader use of text messaging in sweepstakes, contests, coupons and other promotional devices. Jim Manis, vice president of M-Qube and global chairman of the Mobile Marketing Association says, "The real value of Common Short Codes is the personal nature of the mobile phone. It's being able to target and personally communicate with people." Manis predicts a rise in common short code use early next year, when many marketers initiate new budgets. (Source: DM News, NY)
While there IS an FCC ruling that says marketers can not use cell phone numbers unless customers explicitly requested to get promotions on their cell phones, I wonder what will happen with SMS. Most carriers in the US also charge for incoming text messages regardless of its sender. The new short codes and software for locating all SMS capable phone numbers seems to provide a frightening amount of power to marketers though. I HOPE this does not happen. I love using SMS and find it one of the most useful features of my phone. However, SMS is just starting to gain users in the US. If marketers start spamming before users become comfortable with SMS, it is likely that many will prefer not to use the feature. In fact, I am positive that I will be calling Verizon and asking them to completely disable SMS as soon as my phone starts getting flooded with messages.
I wonder how long it will take for a consumer class action suit against both carriers and marketers for the charges incurred from unwanted and unrequested messages too... hmmm...
Breed your cell phone with an Ipod
"AT&T Wireless to Offer New mMode Service
AT&T Wireless is getting ready to offer a new mobile music service that will allow its mMode subscribers to purchase music downloads on their wireless phones. The offering will be available sometime in 2004 and AT&T is among one of the first U.S.-based wireless service providers to offer a service of this kind. The service will allow these customers to browse songs and preview selections before purchasing. The added charge for the service would appear on each users' monthly cell phone bill. (Source: Seattle Times, WA)" Yes, this is not particularily new, and has been a sources of news in Europe for ages. But it IS interesting in the context of the United States, the DMCA laws, the struggle of the record industry to retain the tenuous hold on its monopoly.
It also points to something else:
Phones fundamentally are social tools. This is on of those technologies that is used to help us maintain our social ties (keep in touch that is). Yet cell phone manufacturers for some reason have decided that talking (and maybe SMS) were everything the user needed to use the phone for "social" things. They have, instead, focused on adding a myriad of features that have LITTLE TO DO with the social aspect of the phone. In fact, some might even argue these features make the phone ANTI-Social. Users, of course, find ways to use these features for social reasons, or ignore their presence past the buying-feature-bloat-craze. For example, when was the last time you used the calendar or task list on your phone? (mine is a motorola and the calendar is the most awkward thing I've seen, after the operating system as a whole, but that's a different issue). What puzzles me most, is the strange insistence of the phone-maker companies to NOT investigate new ideas in the social-network space. A space, where their product is, essentially, the most important. (Some of HomeNet's research repeatedly shows that phones are more important than even face-to-face meetings for keep up social ties and feelings of closeness)
I wonder what new uses phone-users will invent for the music-touting, juke-box-like new At&T phone...
AT&T Wireless is getting ready to offer a new mobile music service that will allow its mMode subscribers to purchase music downloads on their wireless phones. The offering will be available sometime in 2004 and AT&T is among one of the first U.S.-based wireless service providers to offer a service of this kind. The service will allow these customers to browse songs and preview selections before purchasing. The added charge for the service would appear on each users' monthly cell phone bill. (Source: Seattle Times, WA)" Yes, this is not particularily new, and has been a sources of news in Europe for ages. But it IS interesting in the context of the United States, the DMCA laws, the struggle of the record industry to retain the tenuous hold on its monopoly.
It also points to something else:
Phones fundamentally are social tools. This is on of those technologies that is used to help us maintain our social ties (keep in touch that is). Yet cell phone manufacturers for some reason have decided that talking (and maybe SMS) were everything the user needed to use the phone for "social" things. They have, instead, focused on adding a myriad of features that have LITTLE TO DO with the social aspect of the phone. In fact, some might even argue these features make the phone ANTI-Social. Users, of course, find ways to use these features for social reasons, or ignore their presence past the buying-feature-bloat-craze. For example, when was the last time you used the calendar or task list on your phone? (mine is a motorola and the calendar is the most awkward thing I've seen, after the operating system as a whole, but that's a different issue). What puzzles me most, is the strange insistence of the phone-maker companies to NOT investigate new ideas in the social-network space. A space, where their product is, essentially, the most important. (Some of HomeNet's research repeatedly shows that phones are more important than even face-to-face meetings for keep up social ties and feelings of closeness)
I wonder what new uses phone-users will invent for the music-touting, juke-box-like new At&T phone...
Canadian Ruling on Web Music
New York Times reported about a Canadian Ruling on Web Music in Canada last week. It goes something like this:
"Downloading copyrighted music from peer-to-peer networks is legal in Canada, although uploading files is not, Canadian copyright regulators said yesterday.
In the same decision, the Copyright Board of Canada imposed a government fee of as much as $25 on iPod-like MP3 players, putting the devices in the same category as audio tapes and blank compact discs. The money collected from levies goes into a fund to pay musicians and songwriters for revenue lost from personal copying. Manufacturers are responsible for paying the fees and often pass the cost on to consumers.
The peer-to-peer component of the decision was prompted by questions from consumer and entertainment groups about ambiguous elements of Canadian law. Previously, most analysts had said uploading was illegal but that downloading for personal use might be allowed. "
Note the last line - does that sound like the marihuana law in Canada? Well, smoking for personal use and thus buying for personal use is legal... but selling is illegal... ahem... This, however, misses some important parts of the peer-to-peer protocol. On most things, whatever you happen to download, becomes instantly available as a download to other users. So... ummm... if downloading is legal and uploading is illegal, but that action is, essentially, one and the same, how will uhhhhh the legal system deal with this quandary? Just another example of the profound detachment of legislature from reality... ouchie
"Downloading copyrighted music from peer-to-peer networks is legal in Canada, although uploading files is not, Canadian copyright regulators said yesterday.
In the same decision, the Copyright Board of Canada imposed a government fee of as much as $25 on iPod-like MP3 players, putting the devices in the same category as audio tapes and blank compact discs. The money collected from levies goes into a fund to pay musicians and songwriters for revenue lost from personal copying. Manufacturers are responsible for paying the fees and often pass the cost on to consumers.
The peer-to-peer component of the decision was prompted by questions from consumer and entertainment groups about ambiguous elements of Canadian law. Previously, most analysts had said uploading was illegal but that downloading for personal use might be allowed. "
Note the last line - does that sound like the marihuana law in Canada? Well, smoking for personal use and thus buying for personal use is legal... but selling is illegal... ahem... This, however, misses some important parts of the peer-to-peer protocol. On most things, whatever you happen to download, becomes instantly available as a download to other users. So... ummm... if downloading is legal and uploading is illegal, but that action is, essentially, one and the same, how will uhhhhh the legal system deal with this quandary? Just another example of the profound detachment of legislature from reality... ouchie
15 December, 2003
disc_sophist: WE ARE NOT AMUSED!!!!
In that afternoon of December 12th, LiveJournal members found out about the LJ Mood Project and they were NOT AMUSED!!!!. In fact, they were quixotic for a while. The effort was impressive. On LJ, there appeared the "Journal of La Mancha" project meme... and Mark Handel and I got amazing data on information dissemination, social network in action. Thank you disc_sophist LJ user for creating an incredible set of data for us in no time, for no reason, just because. heheehehe
current mood: giddy
current mood: giddy
Time Gap, The
ungrok.org: virtual citizen unkaned
via scott - virtual citizen unkaned is an article about a umich prof who seems to be flabbergasted by obvious censorship on the part of a corporation whose game environment he was researching. They decided to pull the plug on him, he is upset. I am being fascetious, but I think it might be time for researchers to pull away from the "holy grail" of research and peak out into the "real world" they actually sometimes affect with their antics (i sure hope i do too, damnit).
funny how people forget... forget that the days of the mud-community experiments are gone... forget how the mud-democracy experiments did not work and what always survived was an authoritative regime... forget that this is no longer a bunch of people with nothing better to do but maintaining a server and putting everything they got into a community that makes them feel like they belong too... this is harsh, I know, but there is a grain of truth in it. I used to be one of those geeks running a mud...
MMORPGs are the biggest money-making machines around, games with budgets larger than Hollywood movies... Do we really think they are worried about free speach? Corporations are notorious for all kinds of censorship - some silly researcher said something they did not like, they decided it disrupts the community as a whole and makes it more difficult to make money, they shut him down. Surprise? I think not.
Much of the MMORPG research even in universities is sponsored by gaming companies in one way or the other. Their purpose? Find out how to make these communities more compelling, to more people in order to enlarge a repeat customer base. They dip into social network research, online community research, others. Any time words comes around about addiction, they quickly move to shut that avenue of research down and focus on something different. Sort of similar to tobacco companies in an eery sort of way (with almost as much money at stake, if not now, then in the near future).
Amusing how these tycoons are not the only ones. Social science researchers are fascinated by online communities and recommender systems that live on participant contribution. Somehow they are unwilling to accept that a lurker used to be commonly known as simply a reader, they perceive this behavior as negative (not surprising, reading IS dangerous after all, they prevented women and poor from doing it for centuries...) Online community research seeks to understand what makes an online community both from behavioral and design points of view. The functional purpose of the research - increasing contributions to one site or another through design changes (sometimes completely cosmetic) that would convey belonging, suggest importance and uniqueness, elicitate response and contribution... playing a man like a fiddle... utterly fascinating... and then it gets bought by coroporate research... ooh boy, them social scientists might have to join computer professionals for social responsibility and start taking some responsibility for their work.... hheheh yeah right...
funny how people forget... forget that the days of the mud-community experiments are gone... forget how the mud-democracy experiments did not work and what always survived was an authoritative regime... forget that this is no longer a bunch of people with nothing better to do but maintaining a server and putting everything they got into a community that makes them feel like they belong too... this is harsh, I know, but there is a grain of truth in it. I used to be one of those geeks running a mud...
MMORPGs are the biggest money-making machines around, games with budgets larger than Hollywood movies... Do we really think they are worried about free speach? Corporations are notorious for all kinds of censorship - some silly researcher said something they did not like, they decided it disrupts the community as a whole and makes it more difficult to make money, they shut him down. Surprise? I think not.
Much of the MMORPG research even in universities is sponsored by gaming companies in one way or the other. Their purpose? Find out how to make these communities more compelling, to more people in order to enlarge a repeat customer base. They dip into social network research, online community research, others. Any time words comes around about addiction, they quickly move to shut that avenue of research down and focus on something different. Sort of similar to tobacco companies in an eery sort of way (with almost as much money at stake, if not now, then in the near future).
Amusing how these tycoons are not the only ones. Social science researchers are fascinated by online communities and recommender systems that live on participant contribution. Somehow they are unwilling to accept that a lurker used to be commonly known as simply a reader, they perceive this behavior as negative (not surprising, reading IS dangerous after all, they prevented women and poor from doing it for centuries...) Online community research seeks to understand what makes an online community both from behavioral and design points of view. The functional purpose of the research - increasing contributions to one site or another through design changes (sometimes completely cosmetic) that would convey belonging, suggest importance and uniqueness, elicitate response and contribution... playing a man like a fiddle... utterly fascinating... and then it gets bought by coroporate research... ooh boy, them social scientists might have to join computer professionals for social responsibility and start taking some responsibility for their work.... hheheh yeah right...
12 December, 2003
Online search for fun without a look for love
This article in NYT had a curious theme to it. I'd been thinking about a position paper for a CHI workshop on online-dating lately. I really think that a large part of online dating sites comes from people who have moved to new, urban locations, where they are having a hard time meeting people. Online websites provide at least some information about a person and a bit of a distance from which it is possible to find something out about a person before meeting them. Yes the Internet has its drawbacks (you never really know what people look like until you meet them). Meeting people, though, is a somewhat dangerous thing anyway - whether you base your first impressions on online conversation or looks. Stakes are there, just different.
The article in the Times had an interesting quote though - "Web sites like Craig's List and Friendster," she said, "have taken the dating stigma away from using activity partner services." A nod to social networking sites that have managed to make meeting people online interesting, without the stigma of a direct purpose of dating. Interesting people are hard to come by, harder even when outside of a crazy academic environment (of course this depends on your definition of interesting, but to each their own). The funny thing is, that I don't think the initial purpose of the social network websites had anything to do with making the step towards re-casting the Internet simply as just another social space for a larger audience, outside of chat rooms and MMORPGs. The Internet has long been more of a social space than anything else, yet the image of a nerdy pasty-white boy stuck somewhere in a dirty apartment, pretending to be a beautiful blond in a chat-room has been a potent deterrent for much of the Internet user-population.
Two things have happened though:
1. Teen-agers have grown up into adults, grown up using the Internet outside of the stigmatized images and self-consciousness of technologically inept. As more of these kids grow into adulthood, more of the Internet social aspects will become both viable and interesting.
2. The user-friendly level of current interface design has spurred on increasing saturation of users, hitting critical mass and creating a large enough population that coudl sustain the concept of a social network website.
The future holds promise... it is also interesting to watch the new space grappling with glaring privacy problems, demanding ever more vigilance and attention to nuances of personal behavior and that of others. The world only gets more interesting... Brain candy... here we go!
The article in the Times had an interesting quote though - "Web sites like Craig's List and Friendster," she said, "have taken the dating stigma away from using activity partner services." A nod to social networking sites that have managed to make meeting people online interesting, without the stigma of a direct purpose of dating. Interesting people are hard to come by, harder even when outside of a crazy academic environment (of course this depends on your definition of interesting, but to each their own). The funny thing is, that I don't think the initial purpose of the social network websites had anything to do with making the step towards re-casting the Internet simply as just another social space for a larger audience, outside of chat rooms and MMORPGs. The Internet has long been more of a social space than anything else, yet the image of a nerdy pasty-white boy stuck somewhere in a dirty apartment, pretending to be a beautiful blond in a chat-room has been a potent deterrent for much of the Internet user-population.
Two things have happened though:
1. Teen-agers have grown up into adults, grown up using the Internet outside of the stigmatized images and self-consciousness of technologically inept. As more of these kids grow into adulthood, more of the Internet social aspects will become both viable and interesting.
2. The user-friendly level of current interface design has spurred on increasing saturation of users, hitting critical mass and creating a large enough population that coudl sustain the concept of a social network website.
The future holds promise... it is also interesting to watch the new space grappling with glaring privacy problems, demanding ever more vigilance and attention to nuances of personal behavior and that of others. The world only gets more interesting... Brain candy... here we go!
Those memory problems...
A quick note from danah about Elizabeth Loftus's false memory research made me think about survey research and its reliance on self report vs. qualitative research and its relaince on ... well more detailed self-report. In this strange space of social science, of trying to figure out the why's of human behavior as it is related to the what's of our world, we often rely on human memory to provide proof or basis for our theories and models of the world and the human function within it... Yet memory is a slippery thing, unreliable, plastic, unpredictable even to the owners let alone us, the "askers"...
09 December, 2003
Addiction to Email
The Register has a fascinating article on a hard-to-track-down study of a zillion IT managers that announced that they find loosing access to email for a week more more traumatic than getting into a car accident or getting a divorce... hehe... ok, seriously though, the article points out how people get irritated if they can not get to their email for more than 30 minutes and minor down-times contribute to daily hassles and irritations.
This is interesting... One of my proposed current arguments is that IT makes us more stressed out precisely because it makes us expect immediate response, immediate feedback, quick turnaround on things. This adds to the daily stress in more than one way. First, of course, is increasing impatience - the irritation that comes with minor delays even if we are in no hurry. The second is a little more complicated and comes from expectation - the expectation that email must be answered quickly, documents must be sent immediately, and information procured in record time.
These increases in stress have been documented (although not analyzed and evaluated) in some quantitative "effects-of-the-internet" studies. Effects of Internet on depression and socializing have not been stable, yet stress remained an effect, although an elusive one. We haven't been able to find common causes of it. Simply Internet use does not work... I believe that stress is not so easy and changes for high-IT users more than for low IT users. In fact, a high-IT environment in itself can become a powerful stimuli , prompting impatience AND pricing time higher.
hmmm... more later
This is interesting... One of my proposed current arguments is that IT makes us more stressed out precisely because it makes us expect immediate response, immediate feedback, quick turnaround on things. This adds to the daily stress in more than one way. First, of course, is increasing impatience - the irritation that comes with minor delays even if we are in no hurry. The second is a little more complicated and comes from expectation - the expectation that email must be answered quickly, documents must be sent immediately, and information procured in record time.
These increases in stress have been documented (although not analyzed and evaluated) in some quantitative "effects-of-the-internet" studies. Effects of Internet on depression and socializing have not been stable, yet stress remained an effect, although an elusive one. We haven't been able to find common causes of it. Simply Internet use does not work... I believe that stress is not so easy and changes for high-IT users more than for low IT users. In fact, a high-IT environment in itself can become a powerful stimuli , prompting impatience AND pricing time higher.
hmmm... more later
08 December, 2003
Political Wire: Liberty's Kids
Taegan Goddard's political wire is touting Liberty's Kids - its an amazon game. Having just looked at a link from danah regarding the results of a blogging survey something about Taegan's post caught my eye and made me apprehensive.
Taegan's post looks like an advertisement, complete with an amazon link to the product. On one hand, I understand the fascination with the product itself (just the name is exciting for a cynic), on the other, however, seeing this as an advertisement makes me uncomfortable. So how do I know Taegan didn't just get paid or asked to blog this on his wire by Amazon? His readership is quite large, and this is about as close to word-o-mouth advertising (the strongest form of marketing there ever was) as you can get. My paranoia again I suppose...
Taegan's post looks like an advertisement, complete with an amazon link to the product. On one hand, I understand the fascination with the product itself (just the name is exciting for a cynic), on the other, however, seeing this as an advertisement makes me uncomfortable. So how do I know Taegan didn't just get paid or asked to blog this on his wire by Amazon? His readership is quite large, and this is about as close to word-o-mouth advertising (the strongest form of marketing there ever was) as you can get. My paranoia again I suppose...
05 December, 2003
We know what you eat...
MPs challenge supermarkets on obesity - Hmm so UK is considering using the supermarket data from lyalty cards to monitor customer's eating habits and then suggest healthier products based on that.
Its curious that my roommate immediately said that monitoring eating habits through the card was ok, but suggesting, that's the process that immediately felt weird. This brings me back to my conversation with Bob Kraut and John Tang at dinner last night. The collection of data is ok... its the infringment on personal choice that is not... even if the idea is to benefit the users as a whole...
Its curious that my roommate immediately said that monitoring eating habits through the card was ok, but suggesting, that's the process that immediately felt weird. This brings me back to my conversation with Bob Kraut and John Tang at dinner last night. The collection of data is ok... its the infringment on personal choice that is not... even if the idea is to benefit the users as a whole...
04 December, 2003
John C. Tang's home page
John C. Tang gave a job talk (or something that could possible turn into a job talk) at CMU today. He was talking about Awarenix, a software they used to figure out a way of telling distributed group members other's availability.
I find that I have intense problems with this type of research (the idea that you can capture sensor information and infer other's patterns through that, which would let you figure out when it is best to contact people). Great idea, and frightening as hell! Essentially it ignores the social construction of relationships and social negotiations of introductions and initations of conversation.
The idea that this is designed to use in distributed group work is a moot point. It CAN be used anywhere, which makes privacy concepts a very large liability. Researchers involved in this type of research though, markedly refuse to complicate their world with such considerations. I feel this attitude is really insensitivei to possibilities of abuse and basic human nature and can lead to disasters!
I find that I have intense problems with this type of research (the idea that you can capture sensor information and infer other's patterns through that, which would let you figure out when it is best to contact people). Great idea, and frightening as hell! Essentially it ignores the social construction of relationships and social negotiations of introductions and initations of conversation.
The idea that this is designed to use in distributed group work is a moot point. It CAN be used anywhere, which makes privacy concepts a very large liability. Researchers involved in this type of research though, markedly refuse to complicate their world with such considerations. I feel this attitude is really insensitivei to possibilities of abuse and basic human nature and can lead to disasters!
02 December, 2003
IMing at Work
Z posted this on her blog about a month ago and I meant to keep the link but I keep loosing it so here it is, lest I loose it again. IMing at Work - was a "newstrack" from CACM produced by none other than Blue-Coat systems. Their report made allegations that IMing at work was highly detrimental to productivity. One look at their site though and its now wonder their report produces the results they expound upon - the company's main product is a "business solutions" platform that offers IM control as its main feature! Duh... and if you take a closer look at the actual report there is NO information about where this sample came from, how it was collected, and what were its metrics of productivity and personal communication. No wonder the workplace is terrified of IM!
01 December, 2003
The little black book online?
Esther Dyson's article (via danah) is a brilliant little piece. She speaks to many ideas, but one that grabs me most is her concern about the emergence of a new kind of surveillance - the peer-to-peer surveillance through social network manifestations. With so much social software emerging, it is becoming easier to look at sides of people you might never be able to see otherwise, to note their comings and goings (by last login dates on Friendster or posts on LJ), to monitor expansion and changes in their social networks, to even seek out their alternate selves (Google them if you like).
We have become more sensitive to our manifestations on the web as a consequence of realizing such surveillance is possible. Yet much of that realization can come too late for many. The original idea of the Internet being a free-for-all medium of free expression, devoid of necessity to identify yourself, to monitor yourself, to watch what you say, has left a mark on many a profile. Some Internet users are terrified of their Google-profile and there is little they can do due to this strange persistence of information. Digital memory is almost perfect. It rarely forgets and offers the past for observation indiscriminantly.
Gone is the time when Sherry Turkle hailed the Internet's ability to foster anonymity and, thus, freer self-expression. Surprise, turns out the Internet never really was very anonymous unless you worked really hard to make it such. Digital traces, like footprints, stay forever and can be tracked so many years later with frightening results. Is this really too paranoid? Maybe not. Or maybe the Internet stole our privacy instead of giving us more freedom. Curious thought.
We have become more sensitive to our manifestations on the web as a consequence of realizing such surveillance is possible. Yet much of that realization can come too late for many. The original idea of the Internet being a free-for-all medium of free expression, devoid of necessity to identify yourself, to monitor yourself, to watch what you say, has left a mark on many a profile. Some Internet users are terrified of their Google-profile and there is little they can do due to this strange persistence of information. Digital memory is almost perfect. It rarely forgets and offers the past for observation indiscriminantly.
Gone is the time when Sherry Turkle hailed the Internet's ability to foster anonymity and, thus, freer self-expression. Surprise, turns out the Internet never really was very anonymous unless you worked really hard to make it such. Digital traces, like footprints, stay forever and can be tracked so many years later with frightening results. Is this really too paranoid? Maybe not. Or maybe the Internet stole our privacy instead of giving us more freedom. Curious thought.
In Ladera, It's a Beautiful Day in the Intranet Neighborhood
In Ladera, It's a Beautiful Day in the Intranet Neighborhood Yet another Intranet neighbourhood. This one, however, seems to be working even better than Blacksburg (although can one really trust an LAT reporter?). Yet another argument in favor of glocalization... I am curious what the next East York study will turn up.
Feminine Ideal Shifts in China's Cultural Evolution
Feminine Ideal Shifts in China's Cultural Evolution. This article in the LATimes has very little to do with technology... or does it? What is it that makes Lu Yan, so unattractive by chineese standards, the ultimate china-doll by western standards? Does this acceptance and fame filter back to her homeland where she is slowly churning the concepts of beauty, fitting them to her ugly duckling image, make the ugly duckling look more attractive than a swan itself... there is something here.
jill/txt: i shall sms them
jill/txt: i shall sms them
Jill posted a sort of perplexing message on her blog about going to the US and her confusion over SMS. The message itself sounded more like a crusade than confusion even - she imagined she wil arrive here and confuse everyone by incessantly SMSing them. I think not. While most American's rarely use SMS for anything, many do know what it is. her SMS's though, will cost people that receive them, will make that cost in ddition to the calling plans which they perceive as free, will probably most ly amuse them until they see the bill... I am curious how this will pan out. Posted a comment there...
Ah... sms :) I live in America but travel i Europe extensively. Ever since I found out about renting mobiles there, I've been hooked on SMS (waaaay cheaper and quicker, you don't hve to spend time on niceties unlike when you call, you can just get to the point and get what you need). Unfortunately MOST of the time I live in the US... So I got curious why SMS wasn't so popular here. Here is why:
1. Ability to send SMS between carriers (as in Verizon to AT&T to T-Mobile) has only been implemented about 1.5 years ago. Yep, until then, you couldn't send messages to anyone who wasn't with the same provider and how often do you actually ask your friends - hey, which cell phone provider do you use? - since calling doesn't pose such problems. In fact, Sprint customers still can not send SMS (well they can, but its an extremely difficult and annoying setup) or receive them, at least from Verizon customers (trust me, I've tried many times over the last few years).
2. Some of the older and/or cheaper phones that come for free with calling plans have very limited SMS capability (as in, some people can see SMS but can't tell who they are from or how to respond to them). I used to hve that problem until I got a new phone a year ago. It was really annoying, especially since I was assured I had SMS ability when I got my old phone. Well yes, I could receive them... but it was sort of useless.
3. SMS makes using a cell phone simply more expensive. Most providers do not give free SMS and they charge for incoming messages (albeit a nominal about of 2 cents, but still). You can buy a plan now, but the advertisement is only now catching up with availability of the service. To be fair, teen SMS use in the US is on the rise so I suspect adults will follow suit soon. It would take Sprint and Nextel to make SMS use simpler though (most of Manhattan uses Sprint for example).
4. Cars. When is European downtime? Transit. People send SMS in trains, subways, at bus stops, on the bus, etc. Unless you are in one of the very few metropolitan centers in the US, YOUR transit time is YOU driving. SMS while driving? please don't... Although, guilty as charged, I have sent SMS while driving... Its very difficult, takes time, the phones are not very well set up for this and it IS dangerous.
So maybe screaming out - "its culture!" - is a little too nearsighted in this case. Yes much of this is culture, but at a much deeper level than - oh they just don't know how to use it. Some of it is very much a technology barrier still, and some is rooted in fundamental structural differences both in economic and cultural make up of the two sides of the Atlantic and the two sides of the Pacific. People, whom I have introduced to text messaging though, love it. So who knows, maybe Americans will catch up.
Jill posted a sort of perplexing message on her blog about going to the US and her confusion over SMS. The message itself sounded more like a crusade than confusion even - she imagined she wil arrive here and confuse everyone by incessantly SMSing them. I think not. While most American's rarely use SMS for anything, many do know what it is. her SMS's though, will cost people that receive them, will make that cost in ddition to the calling plans which they perceive as free, will probably most ly amuse them until they see the bill... I am curious how this will pan out. Posted a comment there...
Ah... sms :) I live in America but travel i Europe extensively. Ever since I found out about renting mobiles there, I've been hooked on SMS (waaaay cheaper and quicker, you don't hve to spend time on niceties unlike when you call, you can just get to the point and get what you need). Unfortunately MOST of the time I live in the US... So I got curious why SMS wasn't so popular here. Here is why:
1. Ability to send SMS between carriers (as in Verizon to AT&T to T-Mobile) has only been implemented about 1.5 years ago. Yep, until then, you couldn't send messages to anyone who wasn't with the same provider and how often do you actually ask your friends - hey, which cell phone provider do you use? - since calling doesn't pose such problems. In fact, Sprint customers still can not send SMS (well they can, but its an extremely difficult and annoying setup) or receive them, at least from Verizon customers (trust me, I've tried many times over the last few years).
2. Some of the older and/or cheaper phones that come for free with calling plans have very limited SMS capability (as in, some people can see SMS but can't tell who they are from or how to respond to them). I used to hve that problem until I got a new phone a year ago. It was really annoying, especially since I was assured I had SMS ability when I got my old phone. Well yes, I could receive them... but it was sort of useless.
3. SMS makes using a cell phone simply more expensive. Most providers do not give free SMS and they charge for incoming messages (albeit a nominal about of 2 cents, but still). You can buy a plan now, but the advertisement is only now catching up with availability of the service. To be fair, teen SMS use in the US is on the rise so I suspect adults will follow suit soon. It would take Sprint and Nextel to make SMS use simpler though (most of Manhattan uses Sprint for example).
4. Cars. When is European downtime? Transit. People send SMS in trains, subways, at bus stops, on the bus, etc. Unless you are in one of the very few metropolitan centers in the US, YOUR transit time is YOU driving. SMS while driving? please don't... Although, guilty as charged, I have sent SMS while driving... Its very difficult, takes time, the phones are not very well set up for this and it IS dangerous.
So maybe screaming out - "its culture!" - is a little too nearsighted in this case. Yes much of this is culture, but at a much deeper level than - oh they just don't know how to use it. Some of it is very much a technology barrier still, and some is rooted in fundamental structural differences both in economic and cultural make up of the two sides of the Atlantic and the two sides of the Pacific. People, whom I have introduced to text messaging though, love it. So who knows, maybe Americans will catch up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)