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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)