Archive for the ‘Technology’ Category

“More usability” != “more ways to do it”

Sunday, October 24th, 2010

Look at the image below. It’s the photograph of a keyboard very similar to the one of the IBM ThinkPad T43.

A keyboard similar to the one of the IBM ThinkPad T43

IBM ThinkPad T43


See the keys I have highlighted? Those are the ones designed with usability in mind.

“Hey, let’s give the user three different ways to accidentally navigate away from the web page they’re looking at.”
“But hey, wait… if they navigate away accidentally they’ll lose what they were typing. That’s in most browsers!”
“I know, right?” Wink.

This dialog may or may not have happened at IBM, but fact is, those page navigation keys are way too close to the directional keys. And the Backspace, so close to the Enter key, also raises issues.

Somebody tried to increase the usability of this keyboard by providing more choice, more ways to do something. It turned awry instead.

Companies 2.0, cheer for them like football teams

Wednesday, May 26th, 2010

Before the last few years, I don’t recall anyone saying they were fans of some company. I could imagine people saying “I like Ford cars” and “I prefer Ben&Jerry ice cream.”

But being fans? No, I’m positive I’ve never heard or read anything like that.

Nowadays I read and hear it on a daily basis. People are fans of Google, Apple, Nokia. They literally cheer for their favorite company, watching their direct (patent lawsuits) and indirect (new products competing each other) battles, and hoping that it wins in the end.

Facebook, being extremely unpopular these days despite me thinking it’s no biggie, is indeed risking a damn lot just because of the cost of being uncool.

What does this tell? Is there a precise connection between the quality of one’s product and its perceived coolness? Or is there a link between the marketing and this coolness? Perhaps none, perhaps both. A company goes building an image, and it looks like each single tiny thing that happens plays a part into generating this public image.

Apple has seen a tremendous explosion of popularity since the iPhone, and that’s helped a lot with building an image. An image that’s really difficult to eradicate. Let’s be honest: the iPhone’s hardware is far from the competitors’ (see Nokia’s and HTC’s recent devices) and the software is barely catching up (multitasking? It was about time.) Still, they’re going to continue being cool, no matter how many times they’ll market thinks like Cut & Paste like the best invention since sliced bread. Why? You know it: because first impressions are hard to go.

So what has a company to do, today, to be cool? Where is the line between meeting the expectations for the sake of not disappointing the user base, and exceeding them with the risk of being ahead of the times?

I can identify a few things to keep in mind.

Confidence. Whether we’re talking about marketing, or pushing for a risky idea, having confidence matters a lot. Dealing with large user bases comes with two big problems: you can’t make everyone happy and you have to tell your user what they want while allowing them to feel that they’re getting what they thought they wanted. It is risky, but it’s the only way to lead. If your company lacks the confidence to do that, it’s in trouble.

Honesty. Your users are smart. Maybe not all, but enough of them are smart enough to make noise. Don’t try to fool them. Perhaps you’ll sell a little more units in the short term, but your public image will deteriorate.

Integrity. Making mistakes is OK, but it doesn’t work if nobody believes you. You need to have a clear set of values, and stick to them.

All in all, it boils down to the DBAA principle, i.e. Don’t Be An Ass. Do that, and make sure you are able to give your users what they want and what they don’t know they want, and people will cheer for you.

Verizon charge extra for Android tethering, think users are fools

Tuesday, May 25th, 2010

This is really silly. And by silly, I mean even sillier than unlimited data plans capped at 5GB. Mr and Mrs Verizon have apparently decided that tethering your Android phone should cost you money.

Let me remind you what tethering means: your phone will create an ad-hoc WiFi network, and will share its 3G connection with all the devices connected to that network. A typical use-case  might be paying for a 3G connection from your Android phone, and then connecting other phones, computers, tablets or whatever to the Internet, sharing the same connection.

Presumably, though, your connection has a maximum speed, and also a monthly data cap, so this means that whether you enjoy that connection from one or from ten devices, the cost of operation for Verizon will be exactly the same. Why are they charging for this, then? Because they think they can, obviously. To give you the impression that they are indeed giving you something more, buying tethering will actually bump your unlimited 5GB connection to some unlimited 10GB, which is double the amount of unlimited! Jokes apart, it looks to me as they’re selling you something you don’t want, masked as something you want but should be free.

This is even more foolish than unlimited data plans capped at 5GB, because I see how “unlimited” is a marketing word. Most people have no idea of how much 5GB is, and if that’ll be enough for them. But unlimited… that’s a different deal, isn’t it? It sounds so much better. Again, most people will never encounter the cap, because the same people that don’t know what 5GB are, are unlikely to use them in a month, from their mobile device.

So you see, I kind of see the point of playing with words with “unlimited”, even though it’s not really fair. But charging for tethering? I call that stealing; charging the users more, when they’re really getting the same, and it’s costing the operator the same.

Stop whining about Facebook privacy issues

Tuesday, May 18th, 2010

The Internet is now completely saturated by people whining about privacy on Facebook, or lack thereof. I honestly fail to see, for instance, how its privacy settings should be a bewildering tangle of options. Facebook has hundreds of millions of users, so yes, it is going to be complicated to handle the privacy settings. Besides the fact that it really isn’t. And so what if its privacy statement has a larger word count than the Constitution of the USA? Facebook has a hundred millions users more than USA has citizens. One glove does not fit all hands, and they need their legalese.

I agree: upgrading privacy settings so that they are less secure than they used to is not the right way to go, but everybody is free to change them the best way they can. The more I observe the debate evolve, the more it looks like it’s founded on conspiracy theorist delusions.

This isn’t simply a matter of “Facebook is the only game in town, so they can and will do whatever they want”. Facebook comes for free, and it’s not really something I would include amongst the must-have services, like fresh water. So you don’t need it, and don’t have to use it. If the sole fresh water supplier in your town started to pollute the water intentionally, say so that they could sell medicine with the other company they own, then you would have a problem.

Otherwise, there’s nothing here. What? Raising public awareness? I see. You can do that without trying to organize Facebook-quitting days. It’s OK to talk about it, and indeed I’m doing it right now myself. But I’m just doing it in a more constructive way: check the safety of your privacy settings by following the instructions at http://www.reclaimprivacy.org/, and fix them to suit your needs.

Just don’t go blogging that Facebook is evil. You think you can just found a start-up and make a non-evil Facebook replacement? How long until you’re sinking in the bills from the hosting company, and start thinking that “hey, maybe I should put ads on this thing”, and then, when the ads don’t pay enough, you start thinking that “hey, perhaps I should target the ads better: I need to share more information about the users with the ad providers”. And so on.